Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes perfect sense, since a monarchy is the opposite of a democracy, and I'm encouraging a democracy to rid itself of an undemocratic institution.
So you stating that in Canada, as well as affluent as well as personally free countries such as UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Japan are countries that run in opposite of a democratic institution?
Not everyone's truth is the same, so don't try the assumptive close. Your cause isn't good, either. Condescending is looking down upon people, as you did, denigrating their institution as if yours must fundamentally be better.
I guess in YOUR TRUTH the world is flat, the sun goes around the earth, slavery is a necessary evil, and monarchy is the divine right of god.
I wasn't condescending I was strongly supporting the downfall of a barbaric and undemocratic institution, known as monarchy. Maybe you should stop defending it and join me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
Evidently I know a lot that you don't, beginning with knowing that you're wrong. Just saying those things won't make it so, no matter how often you repeat them. I've been to Canada a lot, and known a lot of Canadians and done some reading of Canadian history. None of those adjectives describe Canada, and your stance is childish and dogmatic. It deteriorates utterly when exposed to one simple fact: Canadians democratically accept the constitutional monarchy. They could democratically reject it. They do not. One could call it a national decision, but only by default; really it's a national non-decision, as in a majority do not see a problem and thus seek no solution. Democracy at work.
You claim to know o' so much, but you seem to not know that an unelected head of state with permeant executive powers is not democratic.
I never said those adjectives describe Canada, more revisionist history.
You can't say "democracy at work" when monarchy has no democratic legitimacy, since there was never a vote in Canada's history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
You did not articulate the direct comparison, but you didn't need to. Your evasive maneuvers won't work. You spoke from an American perspective putting down constitutional monarchy in a Canadian forum. Trying to pretend that no comparison is implied is disingenuous.
Apparently you like taking what I say and adding your own extra words to it, and then calling them mine. This has led to you receiving several revisionist history violations. Please stop.
I spoke from the same perspective as those immigrants, who are currently fighting to help improve their adopted country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
I suggest you visit Canada for a time. Your attitude suggests that you have not--or that perhaps you have gone there and behaved thus, and felt rejected. I can see how that could happen. You've been very insulting to an institution many Canadians respect. If you went up there and did the same, well, you probably didn't learn as much as you otherwise could have. None of the insults you generated toward the monarchy are valid descriptions of the Canadian form of democracy I've followed and studied.
Now you're just plain speculating about stuff you could never know. Are you some sorta failed mind reader?
Yes, I've been to Canada, my Dad lived in Calgary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
Want to know what's shameful, primitive, ridiculous and barbaric? Coming in here and behaving as you have, using words like that. It's shameful because it embarrasses your country and its people. It's primitive because it's dogmatic and closed to learning, the brute force approach. It's ridiculous because it has no chance to get any traction for your anti-monarchical crusade, and it's barbaric because civilized newcomers tend to show respect for differences even when they don't agree. You might want to find new words that can't more easily be applied to you than to Queen Elizabeth II of Canada.
Anyone who calls someone else undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric, when they describe monarchy as undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric, must be TRULY undemocratic, shameful, primitive, ridiculous, and barbaric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
What little authority the Queen has rests absolutely upon Canadian sufferance. In short, were it abused, it would be rejected and renounced in a democratic way. It is not abused, thus it is not rejected.
Maybe you're not aware that, under the Canadian Constitution, the Queen has lots of authority, enough to veto a bill removing her as head of state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
Own a dictionary and use it. Prejudice means the prejudgment of something. You have prejudged this institution without ever living under it, just because you happen to believe monarchy is fundamentally and essentially undemocratic. The most charitable interpretation is that you came to preach and evangelize for your position, which you begin by assuming is fundamentally superior. A simpler explanation is 'troll.'
The only one who seems to be confused about the word prejudice is yourself. I did not prejudge monarchy, it's already been judged by the world, and it's currently in its post-judge stage. Maybe you should join the modern world and stop living in the ancient world.
Expected comment, anyone who doesn't agree with the status quo is a troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
You could do a lot more good for democracy if you stayed home and spoke out against the corporate ownership and operation of so much of our own leadership. We might even agree that there's a lot of work there for both of us, getting our own national house in order so that rich interests can't just keep buying Congressional favors.
Right after I finish monarchy, I'll get right on it, we'll do it together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
You need to learn that your definition of viewpoints is valid only to you. Your pronouncements do not make something truth. There's a lot else you need to learn, but I'd start with that. You have embarrassed yourself, fellow Americans such as me, and your country with your behavior here. You have lived up to some of our most lamentable stereotypes. Articulate ignorance and dismissiveness is still ignorance and dismissiveness; it's just easier to read. You had the opportunity to come here and open a thoughtful discussion, but your denigrating language at start made it clear you had only come to lecture and insult, treating your opponents as inferiors. They have been quite restrained by my lights.
What's more embarrassing and shameful is for an American to fight for monarchy tooth and nail with all his heart and soul. You could've used that time to defend and promote freedom, democracy, and equality. You could start now, better late than never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k
I was sixteen once, as I gather you must be. I thought I knew everything useful, and that anyone who disagreed was just wrong. I held ignorant, dogmatic views and was sometimes abrasive and even unbearable toward people who saw the world differently. I thought that I could just make pronouncements as if they were fact, and that they had to be treated as if credible. That's pretty normal at that age.
Then a number of people who knew better, and knew how to question my blithe and simpleminded assumptions, rhetorically kicked my butt up around my ears until I realized the error of my ways, and learned to think critically. I stopped doing what you've done here.
Try engaging people like a respectable, advanced, sensible, civilized adult. Take my word that it works better.
What, you were sixteen once? Me too! We have something in common!
Here's my story:
When I was sixteen and young, I would constantly lie to people, just to spare their feelings, even if it caused them harm. People would get hurt, but I couldn't stop it because I didn't have it in me and I wanted friends. Until finally I was confronted by my family and friends, and they told me I was untrustworthy because I'd tell them only what they wanted to hear. I soon realized my massive mistake, I was doing more harm than good, and from then on I started telling my family, friends, acquaintances, classmates, and colleagues not what I thought they wanted to hear, but what they needed to hear, the truth.
Try being honest with people, I promise you, it'll set you free.
This one thinks the way to stimulate thoughtful discussion is to repetitively utter a point over and over and over again in a mindnumbingly grating manner until we eventually tire of playing this game, at which time he'll retire to his mom's basement and declare himself the champion of Democarcy over those barbaric, tyrannical loving Canadians .
He's not interested in either defending or lauding democarcy as has surely become apparent to everybody on here by now. Debating this point of the Monarchy as it applies within either of; Canada's cultural or political make up with a stupid mule would glean more factual information and food for thought.
We are merely providing this one with entertainment and time-wasting distraction from his favoured games on his X-Box.
I never knew that Canadian immigrants who are seeking citizenship have to swear an oath to an unelected monarch of a foreign country. Why have you Canadians allowed for your country to contradict itself with such a undemocratic, primitive, and shameful practice? Anyone who supports that ridiculous monarchy is basically saying they're against equality, justice, secularism, democracy, freedom, and plain ol' common sense.
The immigrants who are fighting this oath in court are taking a righteous stand. Are you Canadians going to support them by rising up and protesting to ultimately rid your country of this undemocratic and barbaric monarchy institution once and for all?
We are merely providing this one with entertainment and time-wasting distraction from his favoured games on his X-Box.
That's why nothing in his response offends me. I had to engage him once, answer the bell, but I don't need to keep debating with him as if taking him and his outlook seriously. If he wants more responses out of me he'll have to troll really, really hard; maybe even do it from under a bridge, wave a troll doll.
Oddly enough, I hope he'll sell me that troll doll for a very Canadian reason. One of my friends up in BC is very predictable in some of his paths of conversation, and one of his favorite themes is "we always get screwed by the U.S." (Not that it's never true, but he's just doing it to troll me in a fun-intending way.) Anyway, his wife agrees (he also loves to troll about women's inferiority) and I'm going to obtain a troll doll for next time they come visit, and when he begins, pull the doll out and smile and wave it. "It's easier than a long debate."
That's why nothing in his response offends me. I had to engage him once, answer the bell, but I don't need to keep debating with him as if taking him and his outlook seriously. If he wants more responses out of me he'll have to troll really, really hard; maybe even do it from under a bridge, wave a troll doll.
Oddly enough, I hope he'll sell me that troll doll for a very Canadian reason. One of my friends up in BC is very predictable in some of his paths of conversation, and one of his favorite themes is "we always get screwed by the U.S." (Not that it's never true, but he's just doing it to troll me in a fun-intending way.) Anyway, his wife agrees (he also loves to troll about women's inferiority) and I'm going to obtain a troll doll for next time they come visit, and when he begins, pull the doll out and smile and wave it. "It's easier than a long debate."
Yepper's I understand completely. His motivation is clearly defined and stated elsewhere: "There's a war out there". As stated before I think he spends too much time playing Resident Evil.
As regards your next visit with your Canadian friends:
Maybe a 'work-up' on the Jeff Foxworthy theme: "you might be a Canadian if your trailer still has it's wheels...You think 2nd Amendment right means you get to use white-out to correct a typing mistake on your computer screen...etc., etc..
Culminating with a "T" shirt presentation of "here's your sign"!
Maybe a 'work-up' on the Jeff Foxworthy theme: "you might be a Canadian if your trailer still has it's wheels...You think 2nd Amendment right means you get to use white-out to correct a typing mistake on your computer screen...etc., etc..
Culminating with a "T" shirt presentation of "here's your sign"!
You might be a Canadian if, every time you ask to use the washroom, Americans send you to a laundry room.
Heh. I like that one about the 2nd Amendment. I bet that's been a topic up there lately, what with the events involving gathering up firearms in Alberta, probably is spurring some debate. It's just as clueless to think that all Canadians are against all firearms as it is to think all Americans are bristling with weaponry and determined to remain so, after all. In fact, my trolly bud is a serious firearms enthusiast, hunter, etc.
Until I can obtain the doll, I could just get a stereotypically nationalistic ballcap covered in various US flag pins and such, put it on, and resort to the slowest, deepest drawl I can summon without quite nodding off. Or, for a different riff, use some Will Ferguson on the t-shirt. That guy is pretty funny. Plus, just having heard of him would get my friend (who's a smart guy) to thinking what else one might come up.
When I was sixteen and young, I would constantly lie to people, just to spare their feelings, even if it caused them harm. People would get hurt, but I couldn't stop it because I didn't have it in me and I wanted friends. Until finally I was confronted by my family and friends, and they told me I was untrustworthy because I'd tell them only what they wanted to hear. I soon realized my massive mistake, I was doing more harm than good, and from then on I started telling my family, friends, acquaintances, classmates, and colleagues not what I thought they wanted to hear, but what they needed to hear, the truth.
Try being honest with people, I promise you, it'll set you free.
I enjoy hearing people's stories and where they come from. Perhaps you would get a better response if you explained more of your thinking.
But I think perhaps your family and friends would now tell you that there is a happy medium between telling the truth all the time and lying non-stop to spare feelings. People have also tried to tell you truths in this thread - things you need to hear and haven't been met with a very receptive response or even an indication that you understand the subject.
Not everyone's truth is the same, so don't try the assumptive close. Your cause isn't good, either. Condescending is looking down upon people, as you did, denigrating their institution as if yours must fundamentally be better.
Evidently I know a lot that you don't, beginning with knowing that you're wrong. Just saying those things won't make it so, no matter how often you repeat them. I've been to Canada a lot, and known a lot of Canadians and done some reading of Canadian history. None of those adjectives describe Canada, and your stance is childish and dogmatic. It deteriorates utterly when exposed to one simple fact: Canadians democratically accept the constitutional monarchy. They could democratically reject it. They do not. One could call it a national decision, but only by default; really it's a national non-decision, as in a majority do not see a problem and thus seek no solution. Democracy at work.
You did not articulate the direct comparison, but you didn't need to. Your evasive maneuvers won't work. You spoke from an American perspective putting down constitutional monarchy in a Canadian forum. Trying to pretend that no comparison is implied is disingenuous.
I suggest you visit Canada for a time. Your attitude suggests that you have not--or that perhaps you have gone there and behaved thus, and felt rejected. I can see how that could happen. You've been very insulting to an institution many Canadians respect. If you went up there and did the same, well, you probably didn't learn as much as you otherwise could have. None of the insults you generated toward the monarchy are valid descriptions of the Canadian form of democracy I've followed and studied.
Want to know what's shameful, primitive, ridiculous and barbaric? Coming in here and behaving as you have, using words like that. It's shameful because it embarrasses your country and its people. It's primitive because it's dogmatic and closed to learning, the brute force approach. It's ridiculous because it has no chance to get any traction for your anti-monarchical crusade, and it's barbaric because civilized newcomers tend to show respect for differences even when they don't agree. You might want to find new words that can't more easily be applied to you than to Queen Elizabeth II of Canada.
What little authority the Queen has rests absolutely upon Canadian sufferance. In short, were it abused, it would be rejected and renounced in a democratic way. It is not abused, thus it is not rejected.
Own a dictionary and use it. Prejudice means the prejudgment of something. You have prejudged this institution without ever living under it, just because you happen to believe monarchy is fundamentally and essentially undemocratic. The most charitable interpretation is that you came to preach and evangelize for your position, which you begin by assuming is fundamentally superior. A simpler explanation is 'troll.'
You could do a lot more good for democracy if you stayed home and spoke out against the corporate ownership and operation of so much of our own leadership. We might even agree that there's a lot of work there for both of us, getting our own national house in order so that rich interests can't just keep buying Congressional favors.
You need to learn that your definition of viewpoints is valid only to you. Your pronouncements do not make something truth. There's a lot else you need to learn, but I'd start with that. You have embarrassed yourself, fellow Americans such as me, and your country with your behavior here. You have lived up to some of our most lamentable stereotypes. Articulate ignorance and dismissiveness is still ignorance and dismissiveness; it's just easier to read. You had the opportunity to come here and open a thoughtful discussion, but your denigrating language at start made it clear you had only come to lecture and insult, treating your opponents as inferiors. They have been quite restrained by my lights.
I was sixteen once, as I gather you must be. I thought I knew everything useful, and that anyone who disagreed was just wrong. I held ignorant, dogmatic views and was sometimes abrasive and even unbearable toward people who saw the world differently. I thought that I could just make pronouncements as if they were fact, and that they had to be treated as if credible. That's pretty normal at that age.
Then a number of people who knew better, and knew how to question my blithe and simpleminded assumptions, rhetorically kicked my butt up around my ears until I realized the error of my ways, and learned to think critically. I stopped doing what you've done here.
Try engaging people like a respectable, advanced, sensible, civilized adult. Take my word that it works better.
Wonderful response.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I enjoy hearing people's stories and where they come from. Perhaps you would get a better response if you explained more of your thinking.
