gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3338
    MEMBERS
  • 189776
    MESSAGES
  • 10
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Humour   Non-military topics

Started 5-Jun by autogun; 1989 views.
RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

6-Jun

stancrist said...

I find it somewhat humorous (and more than a bit odd) that there are modern, western countries which still have a queen or king.  After all, it's the 21st century, not medieval times.

Most countries have some behaviours that others find quaint. Personally I'm all for a bit of mild differences because it's always instructive to see what the roads you have not chosen look like.

stancrist said...

The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.

 Yet very common around the world, just in many places they no longer claim Divine right (openly at least) or Royal titles. Since the other option is confiscating wealth to ensure everyone has to work up from the same starting position sounds a little communist.

stancrist said...

The French and Russians knew how to properly treat "royal" families.  LOL.

Murdering women and children for no other crime than the family they were born into? Seems a bit regressive to me, but I have my views and others will differ, no doubt.

Interesting to note that those royal families that survive tend to be those that now present their position as one of service and duty, which is something that leaders who attain their position by other means might do well to emulate.

stancrist

From: stancrist

6-Jun

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said...  The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.  

Yet very common around the world, just in many places they no longer claim Divine right (openly at least) or Royal titles.

If they don't have "royal" titles, then they're not what I'm talking about (i.e., queens, kings, and "royal families").

RovingPedant said:

Since the other option is confiscating wealth to ensure everyone has to work up from the same starting position sounds a little communist.

Eh, wot???  That's absurd.  There is no need to be communist. 

The other option to having a "royal" family is to not have one.

RovingPedant said:

       stancrist said...  The French and Russians knew how to properly treat "royal" families.  LOL.

Murdering women and children for no other crime than the family they were born into? Seems a bit regressive to me...

Perhaps.  But, it was certainly quite effective.  wink

RovingPedant said:

Interesting to note that those royal families that survive tend to be those that now present their position as one of service and duty

It's called "public relations" -- what else can they say to justify a lavish lifestyle and being paid many tens of millions of dollars every year, for no reason other than being members of one particular family.

\

Walter00

From: Walter00

6-Jun

It isn't the Middle Ages in Europe, true, but the current monarchs are also not Medieval monarchs.  We no longer have "off with their heads", local uprisings caused by the king bedding a duke's wife and, most importantly, no more bloody dynastic wars.

(And the English had already tried a "French-style solution" over a century before the French)

stancrist

From: stancrist

6-Jun

renatohm said:

since it's very likely that the Queen will be replaced by a King, will the anthem change to reflect that?

National Anthem of the British Empire (1901-1952) - "God Save the King"

autogun

From: autogun

7-Jun

stancrist said:

I find it somewhat humorous (and more than a bit odd) that there are modern, western countries which still have a queen or king.  After all, it's the 21st century, not medieval times. The idea that a few individuals are entitled to national wealth, power, and prestige, not because they did anything to earn it, but due solely to who their parents were, is mindboggling.

It is difficult to justify the hereditary principle, although it seems to be observed to some degree even in republican countries (the Kennedys, Bushes and so on). What gives me pause is that the countries I most admire, and which score very highly in life satisfaction surveys, mostly have monarchies: Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

7-Jun

autogun said:

the countries I most admire, and which score very highly in life satisfaction surveys, mostly have monarchies: Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden

I do not think that it relates to being a monarchy, because Finland, IIRS, is also high on this list

In my opinion, it is mostly relevant to them being more concerned with their own well-being rather than playing in geopolitics. And being relatively small and more or less homogeneous nations also helps.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

7-Jun

graylion said:

The German Anthem has been shortened for very obvious reasons.

The resons are not that obvious. Since the text of even the full anthem are rather tame compared to a lot of other national anthems.

Besides the title of the threat is: humour.

Its a pretty common joke in Germany that the German anthem has been shortened because the football players and politicians are notorious bad singers and can't even properly remember the text of the one verse they are supposed to sing.
 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

7-Jun

stancrist said:

RovingPedant said: Since the other option is confiscating wealth to ensure everyone has to work up from the same starting position sounds a little communist.

Eh, wot??? That's absurd. There is no need to be communist.

Actually its not absurd. Quite the oposit.
It can be easily argued that its absurd for a society to award some person who did not paticipate in accumalating it, rights to material property of another person just because these two persons are somehow biological related. To argue for this it requires conciderable effort and has serious results for a society as a whole. For example equality immediatly goes out of the window.

Its a pretty intresting topic from a philosophical point of view.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

7-Jun

mpopenker said:

I do not think that it relates to being a monarchy,

I agree.

mpopenker said:

In my opinion, it is mostly relevant to them being more concerned with their own well-being rather than playing in geopolitics.

I don't think this is a major factor.

mpopenker said:

And being relatively small and more or less homogeneous nations also helps.

Definetly.

Its also important to define life satisfaction. And look at the details. The people in the countries mentioned all have traditionally a rather relaxed and layed back attitude. Which helps a lot with being satisfied. Where this attitude comes from most likely is the answer to the question. Since this attitude and their view on life is not new but developed over long time there propably are only a few factors that emerged in the last decades that had any major influence.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

7-Jun

stancrist said...

If they don't have "royal" titles, then they're not what I'm talking about (i.e., queens, kings, and "royal families").

I guess I don't make the distinction between a "royal" and rich to the point of being divided from most of the rest of the people.

stancrist said...

Eh, wot???  That's absurd.  There is no need to be communist. 

The other option to having a "royal" family is to not have one.

If you lump "royals" in with "rich to the point of being different"  then it's not such a leap.

stancrist said...

Perhaps.  But, it was certainly quite effective.  

To an extent. One could argue that the immediate effect in France and Russia was simply to put a different tyrant on the throne. 

stancrist said...

It's called "public relations" -- what else can they say to justify a lavish lifestyle and being paid many tens of millions of dollars every year, for no reason other than being members of one particular family.

 

Indeed, it works for them and others could consider doing the same - very few national leaders across the world were born paupers.

TOP