Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm
(June 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: It is enough that I know for myself which arguments are sound. There is no need to restrict myself to sound arguments if unsound ones would work just as well.
Nice reversal. However, it is ridiculous to state. In a small, hard to consider sense, a Creationist may know which of their arguments are sound while presenting unsound arguments that just work well.
Do you like the Gish gallop? Because it works "just as well"...
"Just as well" is a shitty reason.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Quote:it is noted that they (nobility) appropriated goods (like in every other country with an aristocracy)
Over here we call them repulibertarianeo-conazis and they are doing the same thing, right now.
In fact, one of the cocksuckers wants to be president so they can steal even more.
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm
(June 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Over here we call them repulibertarianeo-conazis and they are doing the same thing, right now.
In fact, one of the cocksuckers wants to be president so they can steal even more.
Good thing we can, in theory, throw them out for new blood.
I'd like to see that with the Royal family.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Quote:The British monarchy started like every dictatorship in human history for the same stupid credulity of human ignorance.
During the sixteen hundreds, we had a civil war. Almost the entire royal family were executed. The king, beheaded. For some reason, we brought them back but with reduced power. A constitutional monarchy (a limited monarchy), and there is a parliament for the people. Been that way for hundreds of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consitutional_monarchy
Not stating my stance on the matter, just history. 
Quote:If we are as a species to move to the future, then we must discard even symbolic Royalty.
I don't think having a monarchy will affect our progress in science and social advancement.
Also I wish to make clear that I don't consider the royals any more important than any other. They (to me) have the same importance as my elderly neighbour. The whole 'royal family' seems more of a cultural/traditional thing. Like I said, if the people vote for a republic then I won't argue.
I'm pretty much on the fence when it comes to the royals. 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I'd like to see where the fucking overhead of a Royal family somehow negates the costs of their cultural artifacts, like Buckingham Palace.
Have you ever seen the Buckingham Palace? Do you really think a dreary uninspired lump of a sodden building as the Buckingham Palace would draw any visitors or generate any revenue for its own upkeep without a living exhibit of the queen in it?
Come now, of course the queen offsets the cost of Buckingham palance.
(June 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: And metric by US war cost is fucking ridiculous -- The James Webb Space Telescope costs 8$billion and another Nimitz-class vessel costs 6$billion. Were we to argue relative costs, having another redundant cruiser is more preferable.
Well, I understand the annual public expenditure on the royals wouldn't even pay for 2 F-35 fighters, much less a cruiser.
(June 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: (June 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: It is enough that I know for myself which arguments are sound. There is no need to restrict myself to sound arguments if unsound ones would work just as well.
Nice reversal. However, it is ridiculous to state. In a small, hard to consider sense, a Creationist may know which of their arguments are sound while presenting unsound arguments that just work well.
Do you like the Gish gallop? Because it works "just as well"...
"Just as well" is a shitty reason.
Whether it is a shitty reason depends on either 1. how serious I am, or 2. how little respect I have for my opponents.
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 3:58 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm by Brian37.)
Quote:How many fortunes were not made on the backs of somebody else?
So, the key word is ETHICS. Even in evolution inequity has to exist and some will win and some will lose.
How you get to the top of the heap is just as important as getting there.
There is a huge difference between being a business owner who treats their employees well and values the community. But when you look at the sweat shops of China, that is no less a monopoly than the monopoly that started the British Monarchy thousands of years ago.
I don't mind someone making money off my labor. I do mind if they squeeze me out of being able to live. It is worse when you have one family or one political party, or one class doing that.
Otherwise the statement you made would justify slavery. White people made money off the backs of slave labor.
Posts: 6191
Threads: 124
Joined: November 13, 2009
Reputation:
70
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 4:28 pm
(June 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Chuck Wrote: Whether it is a shitty reason depends on either 1. how serious I am, or 2. how little respect I have for my opponents. "I reserve the right to be an asshole" is more pithy.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Posts: 30726
Threads: 2123
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm
The idea of "Nobility" flies in the face of the fact that there is no human that lives forever first and foremost, and not one that has not sneezed, farted or taking a shit. We have always been the same species.
Posts: 12806
Threads: 158
Joined: February 13, 2010
Reputation:
111
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm
(June 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Chuck Wrote: 2. how little respect I have for my opponents.
Ouch.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: The Queen Who Stares at Boats
June 5, 2012 at 5:04 pm
(June 5, 2012 at 4:28 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: (June 5, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Chuck Wrote: Whether it is a shitty reason depends on either 1. how serious I am, or 2. how little respect I have for my opponents. "I reserve the right to be an asshole" is more pithy.
Sometimes there is humor in pedantic verbosity. 
|
