Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Monarchy . . .

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 4:49:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have noticed no one ever talks about them so what do you all think (genetically engineer the perfect ruler) . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 6:00:10 PM, Puck wrote:
[Logical post that shuts down the whole thread before it even began]

Lol. Oh, Puck.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 6:39:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 6:00:10 PM, Puck wrote:
Monarchy denotes ancestral lineage of rulership. Instating a leader can fall under any number of government types.

Well how do you see it functioning in your own political context?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:05:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 6:39:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/13/2010 6:00:10 PM, Puck wrote:
Monarchy denotes ancestral lineage of rulership. Instating a leader can fall under any number of government types.

Well how do you see it functioning in your own political context?

I don't. As hypotheticals go it's largely useless, relying on science fiction or at best, a level of technology that makes talking about it at this stage as good as being science fiction. And before you start linking pointless science articles 'perfect engineering' is no where near what we can conceive of doing given our knowledge of neuroscience and behaviour.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:09:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:05:37 PM, Puck wrote:
At 12/13/2010 6:39:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/13/2010 6:00:10 PM, Puck wrote:
Monarchy denotes ancestral lineage of rulership. Instating a leader can fall under any number of government types.

Well how do you see it functioning in your own political context?

I don't. As hypotheticals go it's largely useless, relying on science fiction or at best, a level of technology that makes talking about it at this stage as good as being science fiction. And before you start linking pointless science articles 'perfect engineering' is no where near what we can conceive of doing given our knowledge of neuroscience and behaviour.

It is not science fiction it is science fact (we did it with every domesticated specie) we find the most efficient politicians and breed them with other efficient politicians (in accordance to principle) should make the most effective politicians . . . but it is predominantly speculative behavioral genetics . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:13:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:09:34 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
It is not science fiction it is science fact
genetically engineer the perfect ruler

One of these is not like the other.

(we did it with every domesticated specie)

Not analogous. And nowhere near as simple as 'select for colour'. We are talking human behaviour, it's not purely gene X > behaviour Y.

we find the most efficient politicians and breed them with other efficient politicians (in accordance to principle) should make the most effective politicians

Does not follow. What genetically makes a good politician. What about a good politician is contained in protein coding of DNA?

but it is predominantly speculative behavioral genetics

So sci fi. :P
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:18:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:13:05 PM, Puck wrote:
At 12/13/2010 7:09:34 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
It is not science fiction it is science fact
genetically engineer the perfect ruler

One of these is not like the other.

(we did it with every domesticated specie)

Not analogous. And nowhere near as simple as 'select for colour'. We are talking human behaviour, it's not purely gene X > behaviour Y.

we find the most efficient politicians and breed them with other efficient politicians (in accordance to principle) should make the most effective politicians

Does not follow. What genetically makes a good politician. What about a good politician is contained in protein coding of DNA?

but it is predominantly speculative behavioral genetics

So sci fi. :P

Theoretical Astrophysics is speculative but do you accept it to be true?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:24:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:18:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Theoretical Astrophysics is speculative but do you accept it to be true?

Speculative by definition doesn't have a truth value to the claim. It's speculative.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:52:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:24:08 PM, Puck wrote:
At 12/13/2010 7:18:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Theoretical Astrophysics is speculative but do you accept it to be true?

Speculative by definition doesn't have a truth value to the claim. It's speculative.

Reality is speculative . . . now can we get back on topic or what?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 4:13:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 8:39:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
If you're going to assume you have the power to geneng the king, why not just geneng everyone else to be "nice".

That would cost a lot more money than simply G-modding a single family . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 11:06:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:52:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/13/2010 7:24:08 PM, Puck wrote:
At 12/13/2010 7:18:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Theoretical Astrophysics is speculative but do you accept it to be true?

Speculative by definition doesn't have a truth value to the claim. It's speculative.

Reality is speculative . . . now can we get back on topic or what?
Reality by definition is not speculative.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 1:54:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/14/2010 4:13:14 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/13/2010 8:39:52 PM, Sieben wrote:
If you're going to assume you have the power to geneng the king, why not just geneng everyone else to be "nice".

That would cost a lot more money than simply G-modding a single family . . .

Agree . . . ?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 10:31:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.

Hmmm . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2010 10:32:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/22/2010 10:31:56 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.

Hmmm . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 6:41:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.

I have heard a lot of hogwash in my time upon this sorry earth, but the above inaccurate statements take the biscuit. For a start, please get your sums right. To give £63,000 to 60 million+ British Citizens would mean the Monarchy would have be worth over 3,780,000,000,000 or 3.78 TRILLION pounds - which is absolute codswollop!!! Furthermore, to associate the term 'hereditary dictator' with the Monarchy is utterly absurd! Parliament runs this country not the Monarchy - since the civil war under Oliver Cromwell they have remained merely a ritualistic figurehead. I for one do not want to replace our colourful history, ritual and splendour with some President Blair or other. Don't forget... when you have something to look up to, you forget to look down upon others. Get some humility or be ruled by some grey-suited, middle-aged, boring accountant!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 7:20:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.

Of course forgetting that most aristocracy run business ' and are CEO's, meaning that their actual wealth gotten by being part of the royal family isn't everything they own, and furthermore, to take that would be flat-out theft.

Not that seizing what they inherited wouldn't be theft either.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 7:28:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/30/2010 7:20:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.

Of course forgetting that most aristocracy run business ' and are CEO's, meaning that their actual wealth gotten by being part of the royal family isn't everything they own, and furthermore, to take that would be flat-out theft.

Not that seizing what they inherited wouldn't be theft either.

It would not be, if the property they inherited was originally acquired illegitimately (and in the case of the British monarchy/aristocracy, I'm fairly sure much of it was).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 7:32:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/30/2010 7:28:41 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/30/2010 7:20:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/16/2010 6:50:16 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I live under the yoke of an financially-oppressive monarchy where the Queen and her aristocratic relatives own 70% of the land, although technically, all British land either directly belongs to The Crown or is on a de-facto lease from the reigning monarch.

Now, if the British people rose up and overthrew the Royal Family and divided the spoils between us, every British man, woman and child would receive a cheque for £63,000 (US$101,000)*.

That would mean a typical family of four would be over a quarter of a million pounds better off overnight – for most that would mean they could pay off their mortgage, buy a new car, have a nice vacation and still have money left over.

Nevertheless, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a revolution here – on the contrary, the Queen is considered a national treasure.

But I wonder if Britain were a republic with an elected president and some extremely posh woman came along and said:

"Now look here, you bunch of miserable proles, one has a frightfully privileged ancestry and that, one believes, entitles one to become your unelected head of state. Naturally, one expects to live in the grandeur and splendour befitting a hereditary dictator so, if you decide to install one as your all-powerful ruler, one will collect £63,000 from each and every one of you and your children to pay for one's lavish lifestyle."

Would they vote for a monarchy?

* Total marketable wealth of the Royal family and the aristocracy of £3,783 billion divided by 60 million British citizens.

Of course forgetting that most aristocracy run business ' and are CEO's, meaning that their actual wealth gotten by being part of the royal family isn't everything they own, and furthermore, to take that would be flat-out theft.

Not that seizing what they inherited wouldn't be theft either.

It would not be, if the property they inherited was originally acquired illegitimately (and in the case of the British monarchy/aristocracy, I'm fairly sure much of it was).

It was most likely acquired through the system of vassalage, which is a contract.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.