Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2014, 08:13 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  All they have shown is that they have no idea what is happening in Canada...

I live there, bra.

Your delusions are not germane.

(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  ... they believe some people are born superior to others due to divine mandate...

Straw man, but at least it's one you refuse to be corrected on, so bonus points for obstinacy?

(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  ... they hate America...

Citation needed.

(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  ... they are afraid of democracy...

Unlike you, who whines and moans endlessly because we have democracy and you don't like the result...
(PS: citation needed)

(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  ... and are unwilling to respond reasonably to any points brought up.

You have no points. You have no semblance of points. At no point have you remotely approached having the vaguest outline of points.

(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Ya, they totally won.

It's good of you to admit that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
30-07-2014, 08:46 AM
Re: RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 06:46 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 12:28 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Muffs and Co have soundly won this one.

All they have shown is that they have no idea what is happening in Canada, they believe some people are born superior to others due to divine mandate, they hate America, they are afraid of democracy and are unwilling to respond reasonably to any points brought up.

Ya, they totally won.

You're just expounding emotionally charged vile.... You need to reread this. You're not bringing up reasonable points. And your horribly false summation of these points makes that even more obvious you're not rationally examining what's said.

You're just stating what sounded like parroted angry points about the world... nobody has claimed divinity is real nor hated America in this thread. And there is Canadians and some non-candains in here that do know what's relevant with those politics.

Seriously, take time and learn to think logically about the points you're reading. It will do you wonders as you grow and learn more.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
The divine right of kings is not a strawman, it is where monarchies get their claimed moral legitimacy. If you are going to argue that they are supported by public sovereignty, then why are you so adverse to elections? Would you be happy if a President stopped holding elections because he was ahead in opinion polls? If not, then you should at least admit that you have no problem with inherited power. In which case, you would be (in my opinion) supporting an immoral and unfree system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  The divine right of kings is not a strawman, it is where monarchies get their claimed moral legitimacy.

Okay. Prove it. Modern constitutions. Let's see where they say that.

(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  If you are going to argue that they are supported by public sovereignty, then why are you so adverse to elections?

There are elections. Just because you don't understand elections doesn't mean they don't count.

Constitutions are not automatically put to referendum every election cycle.

Vote for republicans if you want a republic. Most people don't, and therefore don't. This is called democracy, which apparently you only like when it agrees with you.

(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Would you be happy if a President stopped holding elections because he was ahead in opinion polls?

Do you understand the difference between parliamentary and presidential government structures?

Apparently not.

Of course, your high school civics class is still in your future, so perhaps that will clear up some of your glaring misconceptions.

(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  If not, then you should at least admit that you have no problem with inherited power.

"Power". Something no western constitutional monarch has any of.

You have no problem with inherited power either, by the way. You dodged my earlier question, but if you're so opposed to unequal inheritance, why don't you support a 100% estate tax?

(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  In which case, you would be (in my opinion) supporting an immoral and unfree system.

Most excellent straw man, kid. Most excellent indeed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
30-07-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 09:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Would you be happy if a President stopped holding elections because he was ahead in opinion polls?

Do you understand the difference between parliamentary and presidential government structures?

Apparently not.

Of course, your high school civics class is still in your future, so perhaps that will clear up some of your glaring misconceptions.

Irrelevant, and I am familiar with the differences. So what if a parliament stopped holding elections simply because they were ahead in the polls? Would you be fine with that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 06:06 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 05:29 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 09:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you understand the difference between parliamentary and presidential government structures?

Apparently not.

Of course, your high school civics class is still in your future, so perhaps that will clear up some of your glaring misconceptions.

Irrelevant, and I am familiar with the differences.

Then you'd know that a parliamentary republic is perfectly capable of functioning with a figurehead head of state, and thus having a powerful president is utterly irrelevant to the health of a democracy.

Consider the following:
(29-07-2014 06:18 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  I live in Canada and here our freedom is quickly disappearing because we cannot elect a President protect our interests.

This statement is a) unsubstantiated, b) deranged, and c) directly contradicts what you said above.

(30-07-2014 05:29 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  So what if a parliament stopped holding elections simply because they were ahead in the polls? Would you be fine with that?

Straw man fail. Must try harder.

Are you going to answer my question, while you're at it? Which, unlike yours, is not fallacious, and is actually relevant?
(30-07-2014 09:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 08:53 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  The divine right of kings is not a strawman, it is where monarchies get their claimed moral legitimacy.

Okay. Prove it. Modern constitutions. Let's see where they say that.

If you can substantiate your claims, they are worthless.

That's some logic and argumentation 101 for you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
30-07-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
Hey Res, I found you a ladder. You're gonna need it if you dig any deeper.

[Image: ladder.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 07:27 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 06:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 05:29 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Irrelevant, and I am familiar with the differences.

Then you'd know that a parliamentary republic is perfectly capable of functioning with a figurehead head of state, and thus having a powerful president is utterly irrelevant to the health of a democracy.

Consider the following:
(29-07-2014 06:18 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  I live in Canada and here our freedom is quickly disappearing because we cannot elect a President protect our interests.

This statement is a) unsubstantiated, b) deranged, and c) directly contradicts what you said above.

(30-07-2014 05:29 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  So what if a parliament stopped holding elections simply because they were ahead in the polls? Would you be fine with that?

Straw man fail. Must try harder.

Are you going to answer my question, while you're at it? Which, unlike yours, is not fallacious, and is actually relevant?
(30-07-2014 09:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. Prove it. Modern constitutions. Let's see where they say that.

If you can substantiate your claims, they are worthless.

That's some logic and argumentation 101 for you.

It isn't a strawman, I'm asking you if you would be okay with that. Stop abusing fallacies.

And yes, I can demonstrate that the divine right of kings is still a relevant doctrine today. By the Grace of God is still used by the Queen of Britain, which is a statement of divine right.

Also, muffs, if all you have to contribute here is ad hominem you should just leave. Everyone else acting as your echo does not mean you win.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 07:27 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 06:06 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Then you'd know that a parliamentary republic is perfectly capable of functioning with a figurehead head of state, and thus having a powerful president is utterly irrelevant to the health of a democracy.

Consider the following:

This statement is a) unsubstantiated, b) deranged, and c) directly contradicts what you said above.


Straw man fail. Must try harder.

Are you going to answer my question, while you're at it? Which, unlike yours, is not fallacious, and is actually relevant?

If you can substantiate your claims, they are worthless.

That's some logic and argumentation 101 for you.

It isn't a strawman, I'm asking you if you would be okay with that. Stop abusing fallacies.

And yes, I can demonstrate that the divine right of kings is still a relevant doctrine today. By the Grace of God is still used by the Queen of Britain, which is a statement of divine right.

Also, muffs, if all you have to contribute here is ad hominem you should just leave. Everyone else acting as your echo does not mean you win.

Establish any of your supporting arguments and then maybe you have a case but so far all you have done is run from facts and accuse everyone else of fallacies.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 07:54 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 07:27 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  It isn't a strawman, I'm asking you if you would be okay with that. Stop abusing fallacies.

You're asking a disingenuous question that has nothing to do with what anyone else said or espoused.

(30-07-2014 07:27 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  And yes, I can demonstrate that the divine right of kings is still a relevant doctrine today. By the Grace of God is still used by the Queen of Britain, which is a statement of divine right.

BZZT. Fail. Must try harder. That is not what "by grace of God" means. It does not refer, in any way, to the rights and privileges of the sovereign, but to the provenance of the person who embodies the Crown. Your feels do not take precedence over legal theory. The idea of divine right of British monarchs was abandoned in the Glorious Revolution. That was in 1688, and was made clear in the 1689 Bill of Rights. So there's that.

The monarch's role as governor of the Church of England is every bit the nominal and ceremonial as the monarch's role as head of state, and that is a role which applies only in one part of one realm.

You have provided no constitutional citations. A constitution is the legal basis for justifying a state apparatus. I really hope I don't need to explain this to you in detail. I will skip to the relevant section of our mutual constitution, that of Canada - that is, section III.9:
Quote:The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Can you read that? Continue and be vested in. Not proceed from. The Crown exists by popular affirmation - its role is declared by the constitution on behalf of the people. They are the arbiters of sovereignty.

Do you wish to revise your statement?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: