First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Monarchy, should we have a king?
Banned
31570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / The Universal Con...
Offline
Posted 2/3/13
Oh, God, Lim is so dumb.
69131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/3/13
I guess this thread is the start of the inhabitants of ED migrating to GD. Fun fun fun.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/3/13

haikinka wrote:

I guess this thread is the start of the inhabitants of ED migrating to GD. Fun fun fun.


There's a migration?
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 2/3/13

longfenglim wrote:



Reading it over, I see no mention of the Monarchy, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

I have a feeling that this will go in an idiotic, irrelevant circle, like our last 'discussion', mostly because of your stubborn inability to accept fact and reason, and because I can only take so much stupidity, I will only respond to post relevant and intelligent posts- qualifications that your exclude everything you have written.


Sorry, but you did not provide any definitive proof to back up your claim, only theories. There is no reason to believe that people are inherently stupid and should not take part in their governments. Please try again, or accept your defeat in this debate, like you have in previous threads.
69131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/3/13

longfenglim wrote:


haikinka wrote:

I guess this thread is the start of the inhabitants of ED migrating to GD. Fun fun fun.


There's a migration?


Mmmmhmmm, bloody immigrants...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/3/13 , edited 2/3/13

lordseth23 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Reading it over, I see no mention of the Monarchy, and is irrelevant to the discussion.

I have a feeling that this will go in an idiotic, irrelevant circle, like our last 'discussion', mostly because of your stubborn inability to accept fact and reason, and because I can only take so much stupidity, I will only respond to post relevant and intelligent posts- qualifications that your exclude everything you have written.


Sorry, but you did not provide any definitive proof to back up your claim, only theories. There is no reason to believe that people are inherently stupid and should not take part in their governments. Please try again, or accept your defeat in this debate, like you have in previous threads.


Not content to be wrong in every respect, you insist on continuing with your irrelevancies- so far as it strayed from the original OP that I am tempted, as with the tread, to abandon all discussion with you, as everyone has already realised that there is no point in 'debating' with you, in that you do not argue, you only ask irrelevant questions, and post non-sequiturs, and you proudly admit to being a troll. Almost everyone who has the misfortune of knowing you, and I can think of three people on the top of my head, will agree that you are stupid, and if you and Vega get along well in your mutual masturbation, then it is only because you are joined in stupidity.

You say that I have admitted defeat once before, which is dishonesty and libel, I have left off already showing that not only were you wrong, but that your accusations against me were wrong, and that any other comment would lead back into a circle because that's just how you troll, and if your trolling and your stupidity wear upon my patience, please do not mistake that as surrendering.

Having said that, let's continue with the hard science of proving that intelligence is, in fact, genetic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120415150123.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21705-best-evidence-yet-that-a-single-gene-can-affect-iq.html

I assume that you have the misfortune of, for reason of genetics, been born predisposed towards stupidity or, in the words of Arthur Rimbaud, you have inherited the 'Mauvais Sang',

Since you are intent on denying all science and all reason (not to mention a small foray to attack the Liberal Arts), I think, having aptly demonstrated that you are wrong, and intelligence is a predisposition, you may as well admit to your stupidity, and keep quiet, while the adults are talking.

And so, since I repeat my assertion:

A Monarchy is the only sensible system of government.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/3/13 , edited 2/3/13

haikinka wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


There's a migration?


Mmmmhmmm, bloody immigrants...


If only we had a King to keep 'em immigrants far thence.
Banned
31570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / The Universal Con...
Offline
Posted 2/3/13
114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 2/3/13 , edited 2/3/13
Those who think monarchy is a good idea are ignorant. They haven't seen the horrors of it. They haven't lived through it. The grass is greener on the other side. It's puzzles me why there are people who think this despite learning history. Much blood has been spilled for freedom, so it is unwise to let someone become the king. Otherwise, all that struggling would be for nothing.
Muppe 
54430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 2/3/13


To long, did not read. Now down with the KING!! For freedom and some other random crap.
20254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Maryland
Offline
Posted 2/3/13 , edited 2/3/13
Lim your the stupid one. All you've done since you've been on this thread is type paragraph after paragraph of theory. Give me a government link that shows indisputable proof that genetic make up effects brain development, social development etc, however i expect it to also prove that social learning theory has nothing to do with that development.

You'll find that there is no true evidence. so all the paragraphs you've written have been theories and idealism's. But there is evidence that a monarchy is ineffective, just look at the UK and its "constitutional Monarchy". Its definitely not a monarchy at all. Lim..there was a reason most countries dropped such a broken system. I wish we could send you back in time, so you could be experience your ideal government.

24152 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 2/3/13

Radius wrote:

Those who think monarchy is a good idea are ignorant. They haven't seen the horrors of it. They haven't lived through it. The grass is greener on the other side. It's puzzles me why there are people who think this despite learning history. Much blood has been spilled for freedom, so it is unwise to let someone become the king. Otherwise, all that struggling would be for nothing.


Ignorant, am I? Well, certainly insulted. . .
4137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / home
Offline
Posted 2/3/13
yeah..that worked wonders in the past and that's why we gave it up
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/3/13 , edited 2/3/13

infamybrian wrote:

Lim your the stupid one. All you've done since you've been on this thread is type paragraph after paragraph of theory. Give me a government link that shows indisputable proof that genetic make up effects brain development, social development etc, however i expect it to also prove that social learning theory has nothing to do with that development.


I have already done so- not government link, mind you, better, acutal science- and if you can't be arsed to look through it, then there's really no point in arguing with you.



You'll find that there is no true evidence. so all the paragraphs you've written have been theories and idealism's. But there is evidence that a monarchy is ineffective, just look at the UK and its "constitutional Monarchy". Its definitely not a monarchy at all. Lim..there was a reason most countries dropped such a broken system. I wish we could send you back in time, so you could be experience your ideal government.



Au contraire, you have would find that science is almost wholly in agreement with my perspective- just go through any book on genetics to confirm my position of Genetic Determinism.

First, there is no evidence that Monarchies are ineffective- indeed, history has shown us that monarchies are much more effective than democracies- if we look to the various nations of the world, we have seen that the monarchies usually last for several thousand years (one need only look at China), before being 'replaced' by republicanism- the Chinese Communist Party is basically a monarchy, only that it is not hereditary. On the other hand, one needs only look at democracies and see that even in its diluted form, it is highly disfunctional. A thousand years of actually functioning, of stability, and after a few centuries, we see democracy break down.

If countries have dropt Monarchies, it is not because the monarchies are bad, but because the wretches wish for more power than should be given to them, they hope that their collective greed will result in better government than that of the monarch- I cannot recall any republican leader being as effective as monarchs. It is the inability to percieve how empty and idiotic Democracy holds you back.

You say that you would wish to send me back in time so that I can experience that form of government, and that is a sentiment I sometime share, but that is not an argument. In fact, in this whole tirade, you offer no reasoned argument against the monarchy, only that my arguments are simply 'theories', and should be dismissed- I do no see any argument being made here, only an attempt to dismiss my argument rather ineffectually.

Indeed, it would seem that my theories are more founded than your own, being more thoroughly argued, where your own opinion depends almost entirely on Common Opinion and Prejudice (such as your statement that it is not wrong if people voted to ban interracial marriage simply because the mass voted for that, and so, it is right- never once arguing how common prejudice makes something right, or how opposing common prejudice makes you wrong), the tools of the Sophists whom Socrates, Plato, and the ancient fathers of Philosophy fought against.
29425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 2/4/13 , edited 2/4/13

longfenglim wrote:



Having said that, let's continue with the hard science of proving that intelligence is, in fact, genetic:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120415150123.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21705-best-evidence-yet-that-a-single-gene-can-affect-iq.html

I assume that you have the misfortune of, for reason of genetics, been born predisposed towards stupidity or, in the words of Arthur Rimbaud, you have inherited the 'Mauvais Sang',

Since you are intent on denying all science and all reason (not to mention a small foray to attack the Liberal Arts), I think, having aptly demonstrated that you are wrong, and intelligence is a predisposition, you may as well admit to your stupidity, and keep quiet, while the adults are talking.

And so, since I repeat my assertion:

A Monarchy is the only sensible system of government.


Thank you for providing relevant support to your argument, now we have established that intelligence is genetic. Since we will eventually be able to manipulate the genes of babies, I propose that we alter genetics in such a way that all children will be inherently intelligent. Once this occurs, there is no need to change governing practices, since everyone will be equally intelligent and will act in the best interests of all other people. Therefore, all forms of government would be sensible, not just a Monarchy.
69131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 2/4/13

longfenglim wrote:

If only we had a King to keep 'em immigrants far thence.


Don't need a king to have lynches.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/4/13

lordseth23 wrote:

Thank you for providing relevant support to your argument, now we have established that intelligence is genetic. Since we will eventually be able to manipulate the genes of babies, I propose that we alter genetics in such a way that all children will be inherently intelligent. Once this occurs, there is no need to change governing practices, since everyone will be equally intelligent and will act in the best interests of all other people. Therefore, all forms of government would be sensible, not just a Monarchy.


It is beyond the competence of Lordseth23 to speak about intelligence, science, or, indeed, anything at all. If, though wanting in learning, he speaks, we immediately perceive his foolishness and stupidity, and, so exasperated are we by it, that we are tempted not to speak to him at all, but the force of pride is a great impetus, and moves us, sometime, beyond that which is sane, and therefore, we shall endeavour to answer him and his neo-Eugenics.

He lacks the fundamental understanding of Genetics- that is, that not all genes are inherited, that genes do not control, singly, any one trait, or that we could hope to know if a certain trait, however unseeming it first appears, may have some benefit. He also proposes what amounts to the manipulation of genes, so as to stagnate the gene pool- genetic diversity is such a great thing, it leads to other nice things like Evolution via Darwinian Natural Selection. Since the invisible hand of nature, more effective in determining the greater good than the market's invisible hand, would guide us, as a species, to obtain traits that are more suited for our environment, and since greater wit, it seems, is our species' lot, people like Lordseth23 would be found so utterly repulsive in his stupidity that he will probably not live to pass on his stupidity to the next generation.

He also lacks any sense of ethics, morality, or even empathy, a favourite word of his, despite his complete lacking in it, what so ever, as demonstrated by the fact that he would like to force people into his mode, so they will be born in a way that is satisfactory to him. Lacking in righteousness or morality, is it not a fault of democracy that psychopath like him is allowed involvement in our government?

It is clear that, Eugenics beside, man should be organised in the rule of a Monarch and in the rule of specialists according to their expertise, rather than let the hoi polloi in to the fray.

If we do that, we may eventually get people voting in stupid ideas like Lordseth23's proposal to lock up people with psychological disorder and forcing parents to model their children after what he wants, blinded by the dark veil of ignorance as he is.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.