 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Meredith1965
Joined: 05 Jun 2022
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Hiss shoots. People take it seriously. Hiss scores. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: |
More worthy for most, though I'd have most gangsters at less. Lewis wasn't known for his logic. |
He certainly had more than his fair share of howlers (still enjoy the Narnia books though!), but this quote in particular leaves so many questions hanging:
1) Why select these variously frivolous or objectionable pursuits when he could have just as easily said that our admiration will be redirected away from royalty to, say, artists, scientists and community volunteers? (I think we know the answer; it would have completely undermined his point.)
2) Why "honour" anybody? Is it possible that we can outgrow our urge to put people on pedestals? And if not, what matter if that is sometimes directed towards people whom Lewis or we find undeserving? Admiring, say, a fictional gangster in a film doesn’t mean you’ll become one.
3) If this question of whom to honour can be said to affect our own choices or values, then is it really such a good idea for people to honour royalty, i.e. people with completely unearned wealth, power and privilege, and people who can’t be assumed (by virtue of the very nature of a hereditary position) to have any desirable character traits whatsoever? If you believe in honouring kings and queens, then you honour the bad and the good alike. Respect is automatic and unconditional. What kind of values does that instil?
4) Apart from the fact that people will choose whom to honour based on their own existing values and beliefs, how do you even go about convincing people to admire someone if they didn’t already? Do we need more monarchist brainwashing in schools, or is Lewis trying to pull the classic conservative parlour trick of getting us to support a view not because there’s a strong case for it but because things in future might be bad for some vague reason if you don’t?
The trouble is that that doesn’t work. You can go around telling people to think something, but that doesn’t mean that they (or even you) will actually feel it deep down. Respect, in the sense it’s meant here, can only be earned.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Sun Sep 11, 2022 8:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Maybe woody Allen then, or the rapist director who won’t go back to the US. |
Not sure it's a good idea to bring up sex offenders in the context of the royal family... |
I wondered yesterday whether it was OK to post in this thread that we had better all hope that the Queen only had the one one pedo son - but I decided it was unsavoury and I shouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What a crock
Prince Charles and other members gave done heaps for the environment for just one example.
Earned any of their riches? As swoop says, it’s a family business
You really have a problem with inheritance! No matter that money was earned and taxed. People work hard for what they have for the most part, to pay their way rather than rely on a pension. To enjoy what ever lifestyle they want to provide for their families, why should the government take it when they have already taxed it at least once.
Values? Everyone is flawed, I don’t look to others for my values, I do put people on pedestals if I admire something about them,
The only point I agree on is respect has to be earned. But that is also subject to other people’s expectations
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Maybe woody Allen then, or the rapist director who won’t go back to the US. |
Not sure it's a good idea to bring up sex offenders in the context of the royal family... |
I wondered yesterday whether it was OK to post in this thread that we had better all hope that the Queen only had the one one pedo son - but I decided it was unsavoury and I shouldn't. |
He is being deliberately provocative.
You have far more class than that.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Earned any of their riches? As swoop says, it’s a family business |
Well, that’s one way to put it. 
| think positive wrote: | | You really have a problem with inheritance! No matter that money was earned and taxed. People work hard for what they have for the most part, to pay their way rather than rely on a pension. To enjoy what ever lifestyle they want to provide for their families, why should the government take it when they have already taxed it at least once. |
I have to admit my jaw hit the floor when I read this. I understand you’re no longer talking about the royals, but you do realise how little of this applies to them, right? Inheritance (for instance, being able to buy a house because your parents worked hard and left you money) is one thing; dynastic wealth is quite another.
Nobody ever earned that. Nobody possibly could.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
ill leave you to it
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Earned any of their riches? As swoop says, it’s a family business |
Well, that’s one way to put it.
| think positive wrote: | | You really have a problem with inheritance! No matter that money was earned and taxed. People work hard for what they have for the most part, to pay their way rather than rely on a pension. To enjoy what ever lifestyle they want to provide for their families, why should the government take it when they have already taxed it at least once. |
I have to admit my jaw hit the floor when I read this. I understand you’re no longer talking about the royals, but you do realise how little of this applies to them, right? Inheritance (for instance, being able to buy a house because your parents worked hard and left you money) is one thing; dynastic wealth is quite another.
Nobody ever earned that. Nobody possibly could. |
Id hate to be a Royal, but hey, not a bad lifestyle, about six luxurious Palaces fully staffed to swan around in, top line Chefs, to get you any tucker you fancy, top line wine cellars, stocked with best wine money can buy, overseas jaunts, ski trips, long vacations, on the taxpayer coin, free movies passes, plays, etc etc, sure cant compare that to some poor old pensioner battling to put food on the table. Come on, lets get real, honestly, they all live the life of bloody Riley, plus they have the best medcal treatment ever, thats why the all live so long. Get real. 
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Asfor Andrew, Meh,why did she think she was being invited to a private island all expenses paid? Not like she has any other talent, she’s not JL or an interior decorator |
Not your finest moment, TP.
_________________
kill for collingwood! |
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
I have to admit my jaw hit the floor when I read this. I understand you’re no longer talking about the royals, but you do realise how little of this applies to them, right? 1. Inheritance (for instance, being able to buy a house because your parents worked hard and left you money) is one thing; 2. dynastic wealth is quite another.
Nobody ever earned that. Nobody possibly could. |
2. is what happens when 1. is carefully and properly repeated over the generations. They are largely the same thing. The major difference is that with commoner wealth, it only takes a generation or 2 to lose it all, whereupon the heirs fade into obscurity whereas you can usually get away with a few bad kings in a row before people start putting their kids' heads on pikes. |
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Piesnchess wrote: |
Id hate to be a Royal, but hey, not a bad lifestyle, about six luxurious Palaces fully staffed to swan around in, top line Chefs, to get you any tucker you fancy, top line wine cellars, stocked with best wine money can buy, overseas jaunts, ski trips, long vacations, on the taxpayer coin, free movies passes, plays, etc etc, sure cant compare that to some poor old pensioner battling to put food on the table. Come on, lets get real, honestly, they all live the life of bloody Riley, plus they have the best medcal treatment ever, thats why the all live so long. Get real. |
I'd take the food and wine for sure. But I hate big houses so could do without the palaces. I'd keep the grounds though if we could make them into golf courses. Nothing too long. Got a bad back.
Traveling would be nice. Good luck finding somewhere quiet and off the beaten track though, or even just taking a leisurely stroll through the markets or sharing coffee with your partner in a cosy cafe somewhere.
I'll admit that flying First Class Plus would take the edge off some of those concerns but let's face it... you'd only be travelling for work and having done that, it's not all it's cracked up to be. And that's without being followed everywhere by the paps, press and fans. Most of the "tax payer funded holidays" would be meetings and head of state style stuff or hanging out in the (admittedly luxurious) hotel or friendly private residences, trying to get away from the hoi polloi.
Then you have that whole "embodiment of the nation" thing. It'd be a serious cramp on your style. Always dressed an shaven, watching everything you say on account of the smallest misspoken word, sometimes in a foreign language, results in all sorts of problems for the country you are, not that you are then allowed to do anything concrete about it because you are a constitutional monarch who has to do everything via back channels. You'd essentially be a high priced diplomat: no direct power but a tonne of influence and every rich, powerful £$%$er with an angle would be working you for it. Screw that.
Then there's having all your friends and lovers vetted by the public service. I've known a few public servants over my time and they were aussies and that's bad enough. Imagining having Sir Humphrey Appleby going through my girlfriend's knickers would drive me nuts. Wondering late at night whether she and my friends loved my or my role would also get to me after a while. I mean sure... being a geek, it happens to me all the time as it is but you know... I deal</sarc>
The money would be nice though. Really nice. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Geek wrote: | | David wrote: |
I have to admit my jaw hit the floor when I read this. I understand you’re no longer talking about the royals, but you do realise how little of this applies to them, right? 1. Inheritance (for instance, being able to buy a house because your parents worked hard and left you money) is one thing; 2. dynastic wealth is quite another.
Nobody ever earned that. Nobody possibly could. |
2. is what happens when 1. is carefully and properly repeated over the generations. They are largely the same thing. The major difference is that with commoner wealth, it only takes a generation or 2 to lose it all, whereupon the heirs fade into obscurity whereas you can usually get away with a few bad kings in a row before people start putting their kids' heads on pikes. |
There is/was an old Chinese saying that wealth doesn't survive 3 generations. From memory it goes something like this
1st generation, Coolie. Works hard, saves money, buys land
2nd generation expands, builds on inheritance, becomes wealthy
3rd generation spends money,
4th generation, Coolie.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| roar wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Asfor Andrew, Meh,why did she think she was being invited to a private island all expenses paid? Not like she has any other talent, she’s not JL or an interior decorator |
Not your finest moment, TP. |
ha, thats a laugh considering some of the shit written here!
i stand by it, ive even watch the netflix story, there is a big difference between being taken advantage of, and being forced. again why did they think they were getting an all expenses paid trip?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Geek wrote: | | David wrote: |
I have to admit my jaw hit the floor when I read this. I understand you’re no longer talking about the royals, but you do realise how little of this applies to them, right? 1. Inheritance (for instance, being able to buy a house because your parents worked hard and left you money) is one thing; 2. dynastic wealth is quite another.
Nobody ever earned that. Nobody possibly could. |
2. is what happens when 1. is carefully and properly repeated over the generations. They are largely the same thing. The major difference is that with commoner wealth, it only takes a generation or 2 to lose it all, whereupon the heirs fade into obscurity whereas you can usually get away with a few bad kings in a row before people start putting their kids' heads on pikes. |
yup!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
There is/was an old Chinese saying that wealth doesn't survive 3 generations. From memory it goes something like this
1st generation, Coolie. Works hard, saves money, buys land
2nd generation expands, builds on inheritance, becomes wealthy
3rd generation spends money,
4th generation, Coolie. |
Yep. Didn't know it was a Chinese thing but I've heard similar.
Building an empire needs a different set of skills to expanding and then defending it. Look at our own emperor, Eddie the Great, 1st of his name. Brilliant resurrection job done on the club but when it came to running the big show, he started falling over his own feet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
