Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Who was worse -- Victoria or Cromwell?

Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 1:49:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For me, Victoria was worse than Cromwell by a hundred percent. Mind you Cromwell was bad, but to me he was a petty insignificant punk in history. Victoria was a royalist caste system-loving b***h, and she did more damage to Ireland and Scotland than Cromwell could have ever done. Mind you Cromwell was a piece of s--t, but Victoria was vicious, instituting a Jim Crow, KKK regime in England.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 1:50:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 1:49:46 PM, Adam2 wrote:
For me, Victoria was worse than Cromwell by a hundred percent. Mind you Cromwell was bad, but to me he was a petty insignificant punk in history. Victoria was a royalist caste system-loving b***h, and she did more damage to Ireland and Scotland than Cromwell could have ever done. Mind you Cromwell was a piece of s--t, but Victoria was vicious, instituting a Jim Crow, KKK regime in England.

The prime ministers under her time were real vicious scumbags.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 1:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 1:54:23 PM, henryajevans wrote:
But she didn't do anything herself. Cromwell on the other hand personally ordered and oversaw the committing of horrible atrocities.

Under her, a puritanical KKK caste system was established in England that made life for those who opposed life-and-death. She was the closest thing to absolute monarchy, though England supposedly had a constitutional monarchy at the time. She also increased English involvement in India, proclaiming herself as the empress of India, instituting massacres and violence that has left hard-to-repair damage in India
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 1:59:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 1:54:23 PM, henryajevans wrote:
But she didn't do anything herself. Cromwell on the other hand personally ordered and oversaw the committing of horrible atrocities.

Cromwell was bad mind you, but Victoria did more long-term damage in the end. And if you thought Cromwell was puritan, that ain't NOTHING compared to Victoria. She was a snobby girl too
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 2:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 1:54:23 PM, henryajevans wrote:
But she didn't do anything herself. Cromwell on the other hand personally ordered and oversaw the committing of horrible atrocities.

Cromwell at least made a couple of good reforms and tried to raise the standard of living in England. Victoria, on the other hand, with her puritanical attitude, reversed everything Cromwell accomplished.
henryajevans
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 2:29:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pretty much everything you say is wrong. Charles II reversed pretty much everything under Cromwell, thankfully, ending the reign of the British Taliban.

In the nineteenth century, the standard of living increased massively, as did the voting franchise, religious freedom and cultural tolerance.

Under Cromwell, biblical law was merged with secular law to create a fundamentalist dictatorship, and he personally oversaw atrocities at Drogheda and Wexford, and tortured priests to death while banning basic pleasures.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 3:02:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 2:29:18 PM, henryajevans wrote:
Pretty much everything you say is wrong. Charles II reversed pretty much everything under Cromwell, thankfully, ending the reign of the British Taliban.

In the nineteenth century, the standard of living increased massively, as did the voting franchise, religious freedom and cultural tolerance.

Under Cromwell, biblical law was merged with secular law to create a fundamentalist dictatorship, and he personally oversaw atrocities at Drogheda and Wexford, and tortured priests to death while banning basic pleasures.

No one denies what happened to Ireland under Cromwell. For instance, when the Potato famine happened she gave them that LA chick "ugh, you loser Irish" attitude and left many Irish to die, through complete and utter indifference. 0.5 billion Indians also died when she increased the power of England in India, though that was started by Pitt the Younger.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 3:02:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 2:29:18 PM, henryajevans wrote:
Pretty much everything you say is wrong. Charles II reversed pretty much everything under Cromwell, thankfully, ending the reign of the British Taliban.

In the nineteenth century, the standard of living increased massively, as did the voting franchise, religious freedom and cultural tolerance.

Under Cromwell, biblical law was merged with secular law to create a fundamentalist dictatorship, and he personally oversaw atrocities at Drogheda and Wexford, and tortured priests to death while banning basic pleasures.

*But for instance, when the Potato famine happened she gave them that LA chick "ugh, you loser Irish" attitude and left many Irish to die, through complete and utter indifference. 0.5 billion Indians also died when she increased the power of England in India, though that was started by Pitt the Younger.
Who is that on your avatar, buddy?
henryajevans
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 3:21:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those were her ministers, not Queen Victoria herself. Under her, royal power diminished to the point it is at today, where they are nothing more than a figurehead for pageantry. Cromwell directly oversaw and personally implemented the policies.

The snobbishness towards the Irish had been prevalent in English society since the Norman period.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 4:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 3:21:52 PM, henryajevans wrote:
Those were her ministers, not Queen Victoria herself. Under her, royal power diminished to the point it is at today, where they are nothing more than a figurehead for pageantry. Cromwell directly oversaw and personally implemented the policies.

The snobbishness towards the Irish had been prevalent in English society since the Norman period.

Well, OK, I see what your saying. However, the monarchy's power was pretty strong under her. It's not like today where the monarchies of Spain, England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden are purely symbolic. I mean come on, the queen called herself "empress of India." And there was a caste system in England. Google "Victorian caste system" and you'll find it. If anything she made social issues worse and rigid. As far as the Normans, it's hard to say. The atrocities of the Irish go back before the Normans. The Vikings were incredibly brutal against the Irish, and they humiliated the natives by raping the women, and looted the Irish and took everything they had. The Danes were just as horrific. From what I see, feel free to refute me with evidence, I think the Normans were actually better than the Anglo-Saxons or Vikings, but if you have evidence of the contrary, I'll gladly listen.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 4:38:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 3:22:40 PM, henryajevans wrote:
It's Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, the father of socialism.

You like socialism? Why? Personally, and I'm not calling you bad for this, but I believe the less government intervention in things regarding money, the better.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 4:40:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 3:21:52 PM, henryajevans wrote:
Those were her ministers, not Queen Victoria herself. Under her, royal power diminished to the point it is at today, where they are nothing more than a figurehead for pageantry. Cromwell directly oversaw and personally implemented the policies.

The snobbishness towards the Irish had been prevalent in English society since the Norman period.

They don't call it the Victorian Era for nothing. lol
BTW, good debate on the French-Indian War. I may not agree with you, but I liked your debate, and may the best win. :) Cheers.
henryajevans
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 4:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm a libertarian socialist. It's basically the idea that democracy should apply to all aspects of society rather than to just electing corporate representatives.