Always the same whinefest by UK republicans. All of that them being greater than us means fuck all, it's just symbolic. Fuck if the UK is going to have some boring ass faceless president as the head of state. Anyone know the head of state of Austria? Germany? No becuase no one gives a fuck. We're doing fine as a constitutional monarchy.
Prince Harry in Afghanistan Videos
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
- Status
There are many things I don't get about England, but the fact that so many people there seem to support the Windsors left me scratching my head more than most.
The international influence and monetary income they provide the nation probably have something to do with it.
Also, tradition, which is a less reasonable excuse but likely the most powerful. People enjoy the notion of Kings and Queens - look at the American phenomenon of Renaissance Faires. As an aesthetic, Royalty has a very strong appeal.
Secular thought was strong long before the American revolution.
Are you American yourself? What you just said betrays a very odd bias and thought context.
I think anyone with an iota of interest in current affairs knows who those heads of states are. Don't judge us all by your own standards. A country shouldn't be defined by its leader.
It's fairly maddening. Even as a symbol I find it hard to comprehend how people can't see the damage their status has to the national psyche. Modern thought dictates that you have to earn success, wealth and power and the Royals are the antithesis of this.
Hm, okay then, I can see your point and why you'd prefer your plebeian existence over constant media attention. Still, it's hardly the worst possible set of circumstances to be born in. I'd say its infinitely preferable to being born into the lower end of the income scale(especially if you have a certain cultural background).
A fine attitude, no?
TheContact
Member
what a badass Prince.
What international influence?
Honest question, like, what do you think England wasn't able to achieve politically if they didn't have a monarch?
And money?
Are you talking about the Crown Estate?
And this is what I don't get.
Why do people enjoy that notion of continuing rewarding people just because their ancestors were better than average at grabbing power (which almost always involved killing people)?
And I'm pretty sure if we were paying Renaissance Fair wenches salaries and giving them special legal privileges, people would be pissed, also, I think you're overplaying the popularity of those fairs by quite a bit
.I wouldn't call it long before, but it's true that philosophers like Hobbs and Locke talked about it since the mid 17th century (though Hobbs kinda pussyfooted on the issue and ended up with monarchy), the point I was trying to make is that the American revolution is the first instance where those theories were applied.
I'm not an American but I have been living here for the past decade, and while it's hard to be 100% self critical about those things, I'm pretty damn sure my strong anti-monarchy positioned were formed well before I moved here.
Also, I traveled the world quite a bit, and I don't think that anti-monarchist sentiment are an American thing, far from it.
Undoubtedly it helped, but he would have had to meet the same standard of ability as every other pilot in the forces. Likely those with authority to choose would have been even more difficult to please in terms of performance and capability.
Constitutional monarchy has proven very stable and very popular. Australia recently voted to keep the monarchy. Different countries can have different cultural traditions.
After all over the past thirty years including all of states formed after the fall of the Soviet Union NONE of them have picked an antique systems like the United States or the United Kingdom.
They all picked modern systems like Germany or Italy.
Countries like the USA or UK or Thailand can quite happily chug along with our own democratic systems. Live and let live.
I get that, the only thing I say is that I don't understand the reasoning behind it.
I think part of the reason is because I keep getting those type of non-explanations.
I don't mean to attack you or anything, but you effectively say "we like it because we like it and countries are like, different".
That's not wrong, in fact, it's almost tautologically right, but you can't really persuade people with that types of arguments.
I don't see why anyone would have to be persuaded. The popularity of the monarchy speaks for itself. Let miserable republicans be miserable.
They do not "reign" over anything. Also, it's an institution you would have a hard time doing away with, so just accept it, move on, and try to get a decent, down to earth bloke like Harry in the center seat. He would make a refreshing change, in my opinion.
Well the questioning is weird. If I was to say I dont understand why the people of the United States have the electoral college or an unelected constitutional ruling body the answer might be similar.
My answer was meant to be sincere. Most countries beyond a few centuries have a unique and unusual element of their government. Questions of "why" are usually answered with "well thats the way we are."
This says it probably more succinctly
Because just stating "I support monarchy" is kinda boring.
It's a discussion forum, we're trying to have a discussion, you don't have to involve yourself in it if you find it unproductive.
Because smaller states were afraid to get overwhelmed by the bigger states and the electoral college increase their influence, also, it's a stupid system and I wholeheartedly agree that it should be changed.
Can you give me similar answer about the monarchy and why you support it?
I don't think that approach is the best one if we think that we should strive to the best possible (even if it's for our country only) system of government.
It's also a bit weird, didn't you have quite meaningful changes to you government in the past century?
It's not like you generally accept what you have as the best possible solution, it's that for some reason, you refuse to discuss the role of the Windsors in all of it.
I don't doubt that, but as vital as it is, meeting that standard in ability is probably one of several criteria taken into serious account. I'm inclined to think his position as prince helped him greatly.
William should be decent enough, Charles I fear will want to meddle.
Agreed, also William is an Aston Villa fan. His good character and judgement is assured.
Charles and Harry have never admitted it but there are strong rumours they have Arsenal tendencies, such a national nightmare on the throne should never be
Well in that case the explanation is what rodvik said. History, national pride, because that's the way we do things. I think especially since Victorian times monarchy has been deeply ingrained into national psyche. She was the figure head of the empire, she was the face of Britian all over the world. Since then we recognise our monarchs as our reprsentatives, as our face to the world, not just constitutional necessities.
my two cents
Agreed, also William is an Aston Villa fan. His good character and judgement is assured.
Charles and Harry have never admitted it but there are strong rumours they have Arsenal tendencies, such a national nightmare on the throne should never be
Fair play, supporting Villa can't be easy!
Yeah the Queen does portray a certain image of the UK abroad, and I feel that she does a very good job of it.
Rather that than say President Blair.
I think this is the key point. There are different philosophies in the role of government. For you improving the system and making it better is important. For many people stability and "better the devil you know" is important.
These things can go in cycles, for example at a high level many people in Europe wish to evolve the European wide institutions. Yet at a country level there is little appetite for such change. I think the United States and most European countries are also very aware of how badly things can go wrong if you get things wrong (we are all familar with bloody civil war as a result of such issues).
I am not dodging the Windsors question at all. They are the current monarchy, they have done a good job by and large. In the future we may change the line again, we have done it before, but right now they (Elizabeth actually) has done a very good job of constitutional monarch, a mainly symbolic role which involves being polite and as silent as possible.
I could do without the soap opera aspect of the thing to be honest, but I blame the press for that more than the monarchy.
BertramCooper
Banned
Agreed, also William is an Aston Villa fan. His good character and judgement is assured.
Charles and Harry have never admitted it but there are strong rumours they have Arsenal tendencies, such a national nightmare on the throne should never be
Haha, Aston Villa.
Have fun with Randy Lerner as your owner. He's a horse's ass.
Sincerely,
A Cleveland Browns fan (glad to finally be rid of Randy)
I know /sob
Full interview is up on iPlayer
Confirms it's unusual (but not unheard of) for someone in his position to be the pilot in the first three minutes.
Says he would much rather be on the ground at a patrol base than in Camp Bastion doing helicopter work at the ten minute mark.
Confirms it's unusual (but not unheard of) for someone in his position to be the pilot in the first three minutes.
Says he would much rather be on the ground at a patrol base than in Camp Bastion doing helicopter work at the ten minute mark.
OttomanScribe
Member
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-22/prince-harry-killed-taliban-on-afghan-tour/4477262
Impressive signs of being a total psychopath there.
Impressive signs of selective quoting, misuse of the "...", and your lack of critical thinking ability.
Use your brain for two seconds and realise of course he didn't put it that way.
Go watch the videos in the OP and get some context.
OttomanScribe
Member
I quoted the bits that I viewed as problematic. For example the likening of real life murder make to a computer game.
Even through the padding of PR there are glimpses of a flippancy that I find problematic. Guess it might be an easy attitude to have if one is flying a helicopter rather than on the ground? Viewing it as a computer game rather than killing people.
I actually have quite a bit of time for Prince Harry. Anyone who goes and serves for their country get's my up most respect. But I don't know, maybe it's because he is royalty that I have a little more admiration for him because he seems completely down to earth and I can tell he acts how he should, just one of the lads out there doing their job. I have a feeling he wouldn't want to be treated any differently.
Except he doesn't. You're joining two separate quotations through the use of "..."
I could scour GAF and use the same tactic to make you appear to have any position I want.
You are either purposefully misrepresenting him, or you're an idiot. If the former, you're an asshole, if the latter, you obviously haven't actually seen the interview for yourself and are so easily swayed by a news media writeup that I question your ability to function in day to day life.
There are plenty of ways to be critical of the Royal Family, Prince Harry or the Royal Army, if you disapprove of any of them. Legitimate, intelligent ways. You'll find examples in this thread. What you are doing is not that.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
So's diana's brother.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
OttomanScribe
Member
Can't I be both? Like.. an idiot AND an ***hole?
Those two quotes were not meant to be implied as being one after the other. They are together because they both use the same flippant terminology to refer to... you know... killing people.
'Out of the game'? Really?
I'm not actually saying he is a psychopath, I am not qualified to make that call. However I think anyone who, even with the PR padding that they are giving him, the training and everything, can really compare being the helicopter co-pilot in a warzone to a computer game, is a bit too removed from reality for me to be cool with the whole thing. That and the 'Paki' comment.
Are you saying that is not a legitimate critique? Are you saying you are okay with the comparison?
Though what does my opinion matter, I'm just an uppity colonial.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
I saw Harry on the news this morning and I felt really sorry for him with that nose he's developing. What a conk. Def his father's son lol
A phrase that existed before videogames and is commonly used in the British colloquial lexicon. It doesn't imply what you are stretching your brain cells to make it imply. Watch the fucking interview, not a writeup.
Nor indeed do you seem to know anything about psychopathy or soldiers, for that matter. Watch the fucking interview, not a writeup.
He never once compared being a helicopter co-pilot to playing a computer game. Watch the fucking interview, not a writeup.
Selective quoting from a secondary source in order purposefully misrepresent him in order to fit an agenda or bias you have (as it's pretty clear at this point you're not willing to watch the fucking interview and give his real statements a fair shake) is indeed not a legitimate critique. You don't understand legitimate critique, clearly, or are just willfully pretending not to.
Your being a "colonial" (your words) has nothing to do with the fact your "opinion" (read: purposeful misrepresentation) is worthless, but thanks for once again trying to use language in a sinister manner to imply a position in somebody that neither exists nor was suggested. You're a goddamn asshole and I'm done with acknowledging your existence.
OttomanScribe
Member
Even IF it doesn't apply to computer games (something I am unconvinced of) it is still crazy flippant. They aren't 'taken out of the game', they are killed. You know, rigor mortis, blood leaking, defecating themselves.
Oh, really? No doubt you are quite familiar with my knowledge or lack thereof... through?
Explain to me the context that does not make that a comparison between his skill at games translating to being 'good at his thumbs' when it comes to shooting at people?
Are you Harry? Is that what this is about? I don't see any other reason you could have for responding in such an ad hominem laden manner. I manage to keep a civil tongue in my head, why can't you?
Woah. So you've gone with ***hole then? Not stupid?
I am pretty sure I can be both though. You really discounted it that quickly?
you're trying masquerade two different quotations made on two separate occasions with totally different contexts into one.
OttomanScribe
Member
Nah, sloppy formatting. Okay though. My agenda is that I dislike the monarchy and I don't support the war in Afghanistan.
1+1=2
Am I incorrect in the above assertion because I have opinions? Am I incorrect in any assertion because it supports my argument?
Any talk about agendas is a good sign that someone has an affection for the ad hominem fallacy.
I know expect everyone who posts to tell me a list of things that may indicate their leanings when it comes to agendas.
Things like:
country of origin
religion
political affiliation
job
etc. etc. just get it all out.
You and Suariyu wouldn't be British would you? Can I use this too?
Man. Agenda alert stuff is just the most lazy stuff. Okay. Not the most lazy, the most lazy is calling people you disagree with 'stupid' or 'lazy'. Still, argue the point, not the person.
Grand Funk Carwash
Banned
Maybe you should take another look at the oath.
Also Australia didn't vote to keep the monarchy - it was a vote to become a republic with the parliament selecting a president. Getting rid of them actually had a decent level of support it was just good work by the monarchists in engineering a situation where we had to vote on an outcome nobody wanted (we wouldn't be able to pick our head of state).
Watched this and huge respect to the guy.
Really made clear his commitment to the country, the army, his charities and his family all while really hating the dog and pony show he was part of in the interviews and being completely frank.
I am not a huge fan of the idea of Monarchy but the Royals themselves seem all right, Harry seems downright likeable in fact, the Queen works harder than I do so I can hardly complain. Will bothers me, word is he is very much into protocol and really buys into the idea he is our "better", Harry seems the polar opposite.
The ones I can't stand are the legions of cronies, the Earls, the Dukes and their many kids who live off various cash hand outs from the state, they are the ones you hear about hanging out with the princes making jokes about Kates "working class" background (her family are self made millionaires). Inherited wealth / titles and they mock people who make their own cash? Off with their heads I say.
The ones I can't stand are the legions of cronies, the Earls, the Dukes and their many kids who live off various cash hand outs from the state, they are the ones you hear about hanging out with the princes making jokes about Kates "working class" background (her family are self made millionaires). Inherited wealth / titles and they mock people who make their own cash? Off with their heads I say.
OttomanScribe
Member
Yeah, that vote was such a farce. I wasn't old enough for it, mores the pity. The thing they presented as the alternative was barely a republic at all.
I wonder how long this PR stunt will prop him up until he says something racist or gets photographed doing wild things again.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
A couple of points - language like 'taken out of the game' is certainly par for the course for soldiers. Do you really think that combatants on EITHER SIDE are humanising and mourning the dead on the opposing force? The only way you can be involved in the business of killing folks is by dehumanising them to an extent, it's a necessary disconnect to stop everyone crying and pissing their pants I would guess.
Also, I'm not seeing how an aptitude for games helping in being a pilot is a bad thing. It makes sense to me, flying a helicopter is skilled and hard work but not unlike using a joystick in a game. Having good hand-eye coordination from gaming and then using that in a military context makes a lot of sense.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I'm not going to lie - all of this Prince Harry in Afghanistan stuff comes across like a massive PR stunt coordinated by the Royal Family. Harry shrugs off the press and looks cool doing cool shit all while creating support for Britain's presence in the region.
OttomanScribe
Member
I have known all kinds of soldiers, and those who were actually in the thick of it (a friend of mine was in Australian special forces) have no allusions about it being a flippant thing. Things like 'Taken out of the game' was not something I heard anyone but the people who had totally lost it say. I mean I was mainly talking to people who had had a lot of frontline experience so that could have skewed it a bit? There certainly was an attempt at a disconnect for all of them... a lot of guilt and trauma and what not, but none of them viewed it as a small thing.
I don't think it wouldn't help, but the connotation, the link, is the issue here. It is like saying 'I am good at soccer so I'm good at launching a hellfire at a Taliban position'. The computer game reference I find particularly uncomfortable. Maybe it is because drones, that kill civilians by the spades, are so game-like?
OttomanScribe
Member
Hand-eye coordination?
Oh yeah, football is with the feet.
Fine, basketball then? Does that work?
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
Tbh, the few soldiers I've known (living in Aldershot there's a few about) have been upstanding and professional, but also incredibly, hair curlingly racist. I think the army creates and fosters a very 'us vs them' mentality, and encourages the kind of dehumanisation that would lead them to that mindset. But I don't think 'taken out of the game' is even particularly offensive - it speaks to a matter of fact reality of the situation these guys are in every day. I'm sure they say a shit ton worse when the BBC aren't there.
I don't think your football analogy holds up though. Maybe a darts player and thowing knives into skulls or something. But I'm betting being good at games can make you a better pilot, tactician and maybe even marksman (but guns vs controllers don't really map out properly). We shouldn't be criticising it, we should (as gamers) be praising the real world applications of our hobby.
- Status