Friday, 21 November 2008

Useless Republican Arguments

I have a friend who had a debate with a fuckwitted tranny chaser called "hippifried" on a forum called
The arguments "hippifried" was using was so typically of the republican ilk and so very laughable.
Unfortunately so many people have been brainwashed by the idea of republicanism they've failed to see the devastation of most countries that have gone from being a monarchy to a republic.

I will post some of their pathetic arguments and "hippifried's" arguments as well.
If he want's to reply he is more than welcome (I'll simply tear his pathetic arguments apart.)

For the record I am not a "Tranny Chaser", my friend who went on that site happens to be bisexual. (Each to his own)

Argument 1: Monarchies aren't democratic.
So What? Does that mean that they shouldn't rule a country because they haven't been voted in by "the people." Lot's of rulers haven't been voted in by "the people" and yet they have had a positive impact to their countries, people and history.
If republicans read their history (it is obvious that most of them don't) they would know that the worst dictators and the most oppressive regimes have been republican (20th century.) And they also seem to not notice countries that are "Constitutional Monarchies."

Argument 2: All Monarchs are simply tyrants. Republican Leaders on the other hand are far more benign.
Anybody with even the most basic knowledge of history can see that this statement couldn't be further away from the truth. It is true that there have been tyrannical monarchs but republican leaders/rulers have always been far more brutal and oppressive.

Argument 3: Republics guarantess the rights of the people.
No!!! they do not. No regime can guarantee "rights." and even if they could, republics have a far worse track record of human rights abuses. E.g. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe etc.
I am not denying that there has been haman rights abuses in monarchies as well.
Yet why do republicans only go on about abuses in monarchies.

Argument 4: Monarchies are old fashioned and represents the ignorance and brutality of the past.
I really don't understand this logic at all. I mean I agree with the first part of this statement ("Monarchies are old fashioned.") However this is misleading. Republics are at least over 2000 years old (the Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic.) In fact the term "republic" started with Plato. It was a description of how civilisation should be ran. He advocated a mixed government which included monarchs (Philosopher Kings.) The word "republic" came from the latin word "res publica" which means "from the people/public" then it came to mean a state that is not ran by a "monarch." So the idea of a "republic" is nothing new.
What republicans seem not to get is the idea of "if it's not broke, don't fix it."
The "represents the ignorance and brutality of the past" part of the argument is just plain foolish. Ignorance and brutality can happen under any regime and at anytime. In fact the 20th Century has been by far the most brutal century of human history and yet the least ignorant (well theoretically.)

Argument 5: The only reason that the transition of a monarchy to a republic has been oppressive and bloody is because the monarch that has been ousted was bloody, corrupt, and oppressive and the republic inherits the mess left behind by the monarch.
This is nothing more than a pathetic excuse to justify the revolutions, coups etc for any type of republic. The fact that republicans use this argument ( and believe me, they use this argument a lot ) only shows that they are more interested in the theory of republics and not on the historic outcomes of this theory ( Lets face facts, history is not on the republican side.)
Even if this argument is true (unlikely!!!!!!) how can anyone in good conscience advocate this.

Argument 6: People being born to inherit power or to rule over people is morally wrong
This argument sounds logical but if you truly think this through, it holds no ground whatsoever.
First of all. Inheritance is morally neutral. Some people are born with genetic strengths and defects, some are born into a wealthy family, some with different colour skin, eyes, hair etc. By that logic these things are morally wrong as well. It's not about what you inherit, it's about how you use it.
Second of all. There have been republics that have had inherited transfers of power (North Korea and Syria to name a couple)
Third of all. What about people who have inherited lots of money.
Finally. Constitutional monarchs have very little to no power at all. All they inherit is titles.

I have gone through the main arguments used by republicans. If this is all they have to offer then God help them. I'll do "hippifried's" arguments another time.

No comments: