Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to do this, as I have to admit, it is the greatest single comment I have ever read. Especially if you remember that whole thing where it could have been implied I have no morals as an argument against me. This comment makes it epic.

So I'm not allowed to consider a question from multiple view points now?

OK, Beskar, I'm going to be explicit about this, though I expect you won't like it much.

I believe you have morals, just like everyone else. I believe this because I believe morality is a manifestion of Divine Will in opperation, and whether or not you believe in God he believes in you. However, I dislike your politics because I think they allow you to, philosophically speaking, set morality aside in the name of utility or "the Greater Good", and so we are absolutely clear I mean "you" in the rhetorical sense not you personally.

I have no idea how your morals operate when you imply that the EU should ignore the will of the People in order to federalise.

[Beskar]

So I'm not allowed to consider a question from multiple view points now?

Yes you can, but you should also allow me the right to be amused that your view contradicts your own morality. Aka, your view is morally wrong in your own eyes.

I often adopted various positions in an argument, I could even do a Christian Sermon if it was required of me. I could also adopt some one of your own ideological viewpoint, then criticise your view by your own ideological standard. However, there is a clear difference between "This is the view I am adopting" and "This is my view". What you have been saying is in your own words, your own "personal" view, you then comment "my own view betrays my morality".

I have no idea how your morals operate when you imply that the EU should ignore the will of the People in order to federalise.

Actually, you could argue that they actually were not doing that. Since we live in a representive democracy, the elected officials which represent us, are making the decisions in regards to allowing us to be federalised into the EU. Therefore, they have a political representive mandate to do this. (They don't actually need a referendum, under British law). Therefore, arguably the will of the people is not being ignored as the will of the people was to have those representatives.

HOWEVER, those who are not elected, therefore cannot make the decisions in order for us to be federalised. Only elected representives can.

So ultimately, there is not a grand illegal conspiracy going on. The comment you are referring to was when you made a comment by the Daily Mail (trash newspaper) saying about this grand conspiracy and I jokingly said "I wish it was". (As some one who sees a [democratic] United Europe as a progressive stepping stone, it was aimed at your appreciating the amusings of it, since I was basically saying "There is no conspiracy". )

Then what made the situation worse, is that Furunculus took a comment out of context from over a year ago, where I basically said the population are dumbed down by the likes of Daily Mail/Foxnews/etc, and there should be active promotion of the facts and figures and we should educate the population in critical thinking and reasoning tools, in order for them to fully function as they should in a democracy. Furunculus then said I tried to imply that we should simply ignore the population and do what we want, opposed to what I was actually saying, if that they are being manipulated and we should break them from these shackles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes you can, but you should also allow me the right to be amused that your view contradicts your own morality. Aka, your view is morally wrong in your own eyes.

I often adopted various positions in an argument, I could even do a Christian Sermon if it was required of me. I could also adopt some one of your own ideological viewpoint, then criticise your view by your own ideological standard. However, there is a clear difference between "This is the view I am adopting" and "This is my view". What you have been saying is in your own words, your own "personal" view, you then comment "my own view betrays my morality".

well, political expediency is different to morality; I was taking the point to the Machiavelian extreme also. My "personal" view is the moral one, but my "professional" (for lack of a better word) one is the political-utilitarian one. If you were to ask me what I would actually do my answer would be that I would try to ballance the "absolute" moral choice against it's potential harm. So, to take poor Daivd Laws as an example, there are a number of choices you can make of which are morally "clean", so you try to pick the least dirty one.

The important distinction between me and a true Utilitarian is that I apply my moral standard in every instance, and then act against it in some cases (in practice I avoid situation where I might compromise myself morally); so I would acknowledge that I had compromised myself and it would weigh upon my concience. the pure Utilitarian should have no such moral compunctions. The traditional Utopian Atheist, which is the orientation I assigned you, is a Trotskyist and therefore a pure Utilitarian devoted to the betterment of the Proletariat.

You will recall I invited you to dissagree with me, and I was hoping you would. I wasn't actually expecting a slanging match (though in retrospect I should have, and it's my fault for not being more eloquent).

Actually, you could argue that they actually were not doing that. Since we live in a representive democracy, the elected officials which represent us, are making the decisions in regards to allowing us to be federalised into the EU. Therefore, they have a political representive mandate to do this. (They don't actually need a referendum, under British law). Therefore, arguably the will of the people is not being ignored as the will of the people was to have those representatives.

HOWEVER, those who are not elected, therefore cannot make the decisions in order for us to be federalised. Only elected representives can.

Howbeit this is wildly off topic, but I ascribe to the philosophy that a politicians does not have the right to give away the powers entrusted to him (entrusted is the key word here). Incidentally, the same is true of a monarch, so that a King or Queen should not voluntarilly bring their nation into a state of servitude, even at the expense of their own lives.

So ultimately, there is not a grand illegal conspiracy going on. The comment you are referring to was when you made a comment by the Daily Mail (trash newspaper) saying about this grand conspiracy and I jokingly said "I wish it was". (As some one who sees a [democratic] United Europe as a progressive stepping stone, it was aimed at your appreciating the amusings of it, since I was basically saying "There is no conspiracy". )

Then what made the situation worse, is that Furunculus took a comment out of context from over a year ago, where I basically said the population are dumbed down by the likes of Daily Mail/Foxnews/etc, and there should be active promotion of the facts and figures and we should educate the population in critical thinking and reasoning tools, in order for them to fully function as they should in a democracy. Furunculus then said I tried to imply that we should simply ignore the population and do what we want, opposed to what I was actually saying, if that they are being manipulated and we should break them from these shackles.

I take the point, and I do recognise that is what you meant, however it did not come across well.

Shall we talk this unpleasentness up to a series of unfortunate missunderstandings now?

I am loath to admit it Beskar, but as Left-Wing Atheists/Ignostics go (I believe I have right there) I find you rather congenial.

[Beskar]

I take the point, and I do recognise that is what you meant, however it did not come across well.

That is my error. Unfortunate one I often make, even though I don't intend it.

Shall we talk this unpleasentness up to a series of unfortunate missunderstandings now?

I am loath to admit it Beskar, but as Left-Wing Atheists/Ignostics go (I believe I have right there) I find you rather congenial.

I will agree to that. I was just amused at how your presented your point, and your reply was fully reasonable and I believe the term is "good recovery". I don't have any hard-feelings towards you, if anything, I remember you more for being another one to bring up the "french-tribe acrossing to America first" theory (I heard about that on either history or discovery channel years ago), than anything you would deem as negative.

[PanzerJaeger]

To be honest, none of that sounds particularly awful Hore. It seems one would have to be predisposed toward outrage to get upset over the royals keeping their financial dealings private and building a fence that they petitioned for and were granted. I mean, how big was the area of beach they partitioned off? You're acting as if no one can ever hike again in Norway. The entire western border of your nation is coastline. If that is the extent of their privilege and power, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm. Correct me if I am wrong:

Hore Tore is a republican, thus by definition opposed against the concept of a monarch ruling over him
Hore Tore finds examples that prove this monarch seems to be literally above the law in some ways.
Hore Tore is not amused and feels justified in his republican beliefs.

Or in other words: it's not about how much the monarch and his dealings are morally repulsive; it is about the principle.

[drone]

Instead of whining about it on a games forum, just run some longships up on the beach and sort it out the old fashioned way. Sheesh.

[HoreTore]

To be honest, none of that sounds particularly awful Hore. It seems one would have to be predisposed toward outrage to get upset over the royals keeping their financial dealings private and building a fence that they petitioned for and were granted. I mean, how big was the area of beach they partitioned off? You're acting as if no one can ever hike again in Norway. The entire western border of your nation is coastline. If that is the extent of their privilege and power, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

If one of our politicians had done something similar, he would've been booted from his office instantly.

We don't take kindly to corruption here.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It seems that the real point is being missed.

The substantive problem with European monarchies is that they are so increasingly middle class. I mean, this fellow is engaging in trade! No wonder he has lost the dignity of his office.

Trying to lay corruption at the feet of monarchy alone rather disregards the alternatives; Berlusconi's republic, for starters.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is my error. Unfortunate one I often make, even though I don't intend it.

We all have our little issues over which we are overly expressive, (certainly do) and most of us here in the Backroom should make greater allowence for each other.

I will agree to that. I was just amused at how your presented your point, and your reply was fully reasonable and I believe the term is "good recovery". I don't have any hard-feelings towards you, if anything, I remember you more for being another one to bring up the "french-tribe acrossing to America first" theory (I heard about that on either history or discovery channel years ago), than anything you would deem as negative.

I have a ruthless political streak, I'm fully aware it conflicts with my morality, theology and way of living. It is however useful for examining situations like this.

I'm sure this is where the Americans would "hug it out", but, being English, we shouldn't do that.