Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023?

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed  Also, since you asked a sincere question, I gave a sincere argument against that and your refutation of that was insincere at best, deceitful and bad faith at worst. If you cannot argue and defend your worldview with a sincere argument, why ask a sincere question you cannot honestly defend?

[gettoefl]

19 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@gettoefl

   I'm not even that far right, I'm conservative moderate, and sometimes depending on other factors I lean left or am agnostic. I might even grant the abolition of monarchy, but I'm just asking how would the OP deal with potential fallouts from abolishing monarchy?

   Hypothetically speaking, let's say that you and others get to abolish big pharma and other big companies. Okay, how are yku going to deal with the major and minor issues that follow for society at latge?

i have no dog in the fight, i am just stating my not deep take on why monarchs still have credibility

daniloover9000 for monarch i say 

[Rasheed]

@Danioover9000 Your answer again proves that you could not understand what I’ve said. I appreciate your point of view but at this point, I think we are wasting time, as you are unable to let go of your perspective in order to entertain a different one, not to mention the emotional projecting onto me, what you, yourself are engaging in. Regardless, thanks for the response 👍

[Danioover9000]

@Rasheed

8 minutes ago, Rasheed said:

@Danioover9000 Your answer again proves that you could not understand what I’ve said. I appreciate your point of view but at this point, I think we are wasting time, as you are unable to let go of your perspective in order to entertain a different one, not to mention the emotional projecting onto me, what you, yourself are engaging in. Regardless, thanks for the response 👍

   I see. Well have to agree to disagree and part ways. I took you asking a sincere question as you being ready for pushback, and able to argue for yourself. I guess this thread may just be more distraction and out of boredom, so I came here and challenged you too strongly. So maybe misunderstanding on my part of your intentions of this thread.

[Rasheed]

6 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rasheed

   I see. Well have to agree to disagree and part ways. I took you asking a sincere question as you being ready for pushback, and able to argue for yourself. I guess this thread may just be more distraction and out of boredom, so I came here and challenged you too strongly. So maybe misunderstanding on my part of your intentions of this thread.

Haha. Again, engaging in emotional projection. To use your own terms, I answered your “pushback” in a manner that you weren’t able to apprehend, due to the failure to distinguish between content and structure. From what I can see, you have trouble with prior distinction. Also, from what I can see you, you have a problem in understanding how Tier 2 deals with Stage Green. I advice you see Leo’s video about structure vs content. Concurrently, I would advice you to read Ken Wilber’s books, the most accessible one is “Brief History of Everything”—that book alone will change your perspective, showing inadequacies of your stance while helping you to apprehend what I have written.

Of course, I might be wrong as it is hard to tell what’s best way forward from just few comments. Yet, my intention is to help, not to argue or point fingers in a childish, emotional manner

If you don’t want to do any of that and instead remain in closed-mindedness, pointing fingers and engaging in emotional projecting, unable to observe yourself in action, acting unconsciously—you can do so. I wish you good luck  Again, thanks for the response.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Rasheed

[Basman]

8 hours ago, Rasheed said:

What do you mean by both being inherently fictitious? If underscoring the fictitiousness is moralizing that accomplishes nothing, following such logic, it is okay to return to slavery, as being anti-slavery is equally fictitious as being pro-slavery—come on...

Slavery isn't inherently moral. It's been normal for most of human history. That it is bad had to be invented then taught. Equality as a concept is the product of philosophers.

Whether or not something is fictitious isn't a value judgement. Money is fictitious but we all believe in it as if it is real because of how useful it is. Being able to collectively believe the same fiction is what makes us humans so successful and different from other animals.

My problem with your premise is that your arguing for the validity of ideas without taking practicalities into question. Abolishing symbolic monarchy isn't necessary if you are currently benefiting from it (and it is not equivalent to slavery).

[Danioover9000]

@Basman

11 hours ago, Basman said:

Slavery isn't inherently moral. It's been normal for most of human history. That it is bad had to be invented then taught. Equality as a concept is the product of philosophers.

Whether or not something is fictitious isn't a value judgement. Money is fictitious but we all believe in it as if it is real because of how useful it is. Being able to collectively believe the same fiction is what makes us humans so successful and different from other animals.

My problem with your premise is that your arguing for the validity of ideas without taking practicalities into question. Abolishing symbolic monarchy isn't necessary if you are currently benefiting from it (and it is not equivalent to slavery).

   That's true, to some extent.

[Danioover9000]

   Monarchies and traditional  societies and religions are neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.

[Basman]

10 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Basman

   That's true, to some extent.

What do you think?

[Danioover9000]

@Basman

12 hours ago, Basman said:

What do you think?

   I think that monarchy and traditional structures are necessary for the formation of kingdoms, civilisations, countries and nations historically. I think patriarchy is a must, as all rights made onto man is created and enforced by men, otherwise the rights are null and anyone can violate those rights. I think that feminism, egalitarianism and neoliberalism in westernized secular countries have contributed to the massive birthrates declining, look at South Korea, Japan, and the European countries and even the USA. I think that no fault divorce and separation of state and church, and too much PUA and sexual compatibility, too much individualism, dating, and immature promiscuity has lead to high divorce rates and broken homes and the decline of the nuclear family, and a rise in sintle parent and alternative homes and detached homes that are inferior to intaked households, which all will lead to higher narcissism and sociopathy in conjunction with high social media consumption which cripples future generations.

[bebotalk]

On 19/11/2023 at 10:39 AM, Rasheed said:

Sincere question: How can monarchy still exist in 2023?

It is hard to get one's mind around the fact that monarchies still exist in 2023. Yes, most of these monarchies are constitutional, i.e., monarchies don't govern countries, yet regardless of this, having a monarchy is still a deeply unconscious and blatant manifestation of underdevelopment. As having a constitutional monarchy is still not okay, it must not be tolerated.

How come people in these countries don't come out and protest against it? Is it way too hard to apprehend that, in actuality, everyone has equal spiritual and metaphysical worth—it doesn't matter their ethnicity, gender, social status, wealth, etc.?

Monarchy is the epitome of inequality, stupidity, unconsciousness, and underdevelopment because it is fundamentally based on the premise that some people have more metaphysical or spiritual base worth than others. It is literally based on the false belief that some people, i.e., royal monarchs, are special; thereby, they must live in a lap of luxury, getting paid to exist—being entitled to fame, wealth, and luxury. WHAT A HOGWASH! Everyone has equal worth. Done. This is an indubitable point.

It won't be unreasonable to conclude that all monarchs and everyone who supports monarchy are literal fools. These are people with immensely undeveloped minds. Their minds are so underdeveloped that they cannot apprehend how monarchy is a made-up bullshit, and if right now we go ahead and take a random beggar on a street and make him or her a king or queen of whatever royal country, we would be equally correct because the specialty of so-called monarchs is complete made-up bullshit.

In the end, monarchy is a violation of the fundamental point of how ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Since all humans are created equal, nobody shall be denoted as a prince or princess. Such bullshit royal schemes are based on a fundamentally wrong premise—a premise that disrespects humanity and its potential for self-actualization. Anyone who states that some people have a higher base worth, i.e., they have more value (more metaphysical or spiritual value) than others is a fool—a moron whose mind is crippled.

Shame on every country that has a monarchy and its people! Fools. 

Shame on anyone who watches these monarchs and follows their bullshit. Such people are equal idiots as these royal families. Total fools. 

What do you think? How can monarchy still exist in 2023? What's the cause? What is the reason behind monarchies still existing? How can it end? Will there be a time in human history where all types of royalties will be completely abolished and all will realize that all so-called royals are monkeys, fools, idiots, liars, and con artists who are scamming humanity?

I agree. 

One class of people shouldn't rule by virtue of birth or bloodline. 

I wouldn't call them fools, since monarchies are entrenched into the histories and cultures of many countries. 

And even in republics, there are elites. The USA definitely has elites, despite everybody in law and theory being equal. 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by bebotalk