|
Post by Dr. Prithvi Singh Ravish on Dec 11, 2015 1:13:12 GMT -6
Good
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Dec 11, 2015 12:57:37 GMT -6
We're at 35 votes so far and seeing a pretty significant support for ending the hereditary monarchy while maintaining the monarchy in some other form. These are changes we can enact. This is a future we can create for Talossa.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 11, 2015 15:58:23 GMT -6
I understand that some folks have been urging people to come vote in this... that does explain the recent shift in the numbers!
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Prithvi Singh Ravish on Dec 14, 2015 10:24:58 GMT -6
I appeal to all the Talossans & their family members to use their vote for the betterment of their future and safeguarding of The Kingdom of Talossa...Live long The King!
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Prithvi Singh Ravish on Dec 14, 2015 10:32:27 GMT -6
My vote have already been bowed to on December 11th 2015
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Dec 14, 2015 10:38:07 GMT -6
I appeal to all the Talossans & their family members to use their vote for the betterment of their future and safeguarding of The Kingdom of Talossa...Live long The King! Are you suggesting that ANY change to the King's current powers is somehow not "safeguarding the Kingdom of Talossa?" Because if you are implying that long-time citizens of this Kingdom are trying to dismantle it by adding accountability and democracy to the mix then I think you should perhaps say it directly to the many people who believe that some form of change is warranted (and who have frankly been around a lot longer than you).
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 14, 2015 10:45:37 GMT -6
I think many of the people who want to preserve the role of the monarchy in our state believe that it's important to the safeguarding of the Kingdom of Talossa, actually, and I don't think it's any insult to say so -- even if other people think differently.
To illustrate:
If I say that it's safer to travel by the north road, I'm not saying that everyone who travels by the south road hates their passengers and wants them to die.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 14, 2015 11:59:14 GMT -6
I think many of the people who want to preserve the role of the monarchy in our state believe that it's important to the safeguarding of the Kingdom of Talossa, actually, and I don't think it's any insult to say so -- even if other people think differently. To illustrate: If I say that it's safer to travel by the north road, I'm not saying that everyone who travels by the south road hates their passengers and wants them to die. I might think that the velocity of light is 200 kilometres per second, but that does not make it so. I might think that the velocity of light is 299792458 metres per second, but that does not make it so either. There is, however, more evidence for the latter opinion than the former - scientific evidence, not personal opinion: there is even international standardisation on that latter number, but that, too, does not make it so. The best we can do with the velocity of light is to weigh the experimental evidence, and come to a belief based upon that evidence. If, later, there is new evidence then we may chose to change our opinion.
Similarly, different people have different opinions as to the role of the monarchy, its relevance to the future, and its organisation. The different views do not, in any way, reflect upon the personal morals of those who hold those views - all of us have equal right of expression, equal freedom of speech. And, also, each of us has the right to choose their belief: my belief does not have to match your belief, nor his, nor hers - it is just my belief. And whatever your belief, the only way to find out what people actually do think about the monarchy is to ask them with a question fairly put. The cumulative answer may not - will not, and cannot - match every person's own particular belief, but that's the problem - no, the power - of asking for everyone's opinion. I cannot say what other people should think, but only what I myself think. I cannot, and must not, try to force my opinions upon anyone else. I can provide such evidence as is available, and use argument from that evidence, to try and persuade others, yes. But, no, I must not declare, in any way, that those of a different opinion to mine are somehow inferior to me, or morally depraved.
Different actions, however, if they are morally unacceptable may be criticised. But that path has to be taken carefully. The Jews must be eliminated, Islam is evil, Christianity is deluded and should be denied by scientists, atheism is immoral, only those on the left/right of the political spectrum should be allowed to live... you see where this is going? The personal opinion as to the role of the monarchy is not, and cannot in any way, be taken to be a measure of personal moral worth. And I have no idea what other people think, unless I ask them. What I think about what other people think, or what they should think is irrelevant. Only they can tell me what they do think.
And, I must always remember, the group answer may not be what I personally like - and that's true for every one of us.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 14, 2015 12:35:02 GMT -6
Absolutely! And I think Dr. Ravish was talking about his own opinions, based on such evidence and logic as he saw available, and in no way said that others were inferior or morally depraved.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 14, 2015 13:41:17 GMT -6
I'm reminded of Animal Farm, in that people who are happy when the sheep bleat a particular slogan, are often confounded by how easy it is to get the sheep to bleat the opposite slogan. "GOD SAVE THE KING!" is the "FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD" of the RUMP.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 14, 2015 13:49:22 GMT -6
I'm reminded of Animal Farm, in that people who are happy when the sheep bleat a particular slogan, are often confounded by how easy it is to get the sheep to bleat the opposite slogan. "GOD SAVE THE KING!" is the "FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAD" of the RUMP. Dama Miestra, it is not very kind or very generous to compare RUMP voters, the many monarchists of the country (a huge, huge majority), or really any Talossans with the mindless sheep of Animal Farm. I know you might think that you are just speaking your mind in a forthright way, but a comment like that doesn't seem very constructive, and I think many people might find it insulting and rude. I am sure there must be a way to make your point without being so antagonistic or inflammatory, right? For example, you could have said that you thought that "God Save the King" was more of a slogan than a real principle, or something like that. Such an observation would still be direct and forthright, but wouldn't have any of the rudeness or nastiness of your comparison. Does that make sense to you, or did I misunderstand you in some way (always possible)?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 14, 2015 13:53:35 GMT -6
Holy crap, if you think THAT was antagonistic and inflammatory, you should have seen what I deleted. But more seriously: as I think I've explained elsewhere, I use rudeness and nastiness as a political tool, as it's guaranteed to get people to pay attention. Being polite, in Talossa, means you get steamrollered by those who have mastered the craft of "rudeness and nastiness disguised as politeness" - or, as the King used to call it, "oblique language".
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 14, 2015 14:03:57 GMT -6
Holy crap, if you think THAT was antagonistic and inflammatory, you should have seen what I deleted. But more seriously: as I think I've explained elsewhere, I use rudeness and nastiness as a political tool, as it's guaranteed to get people to pay attention. Being polite, in Talossa, means you get steamrollered by those who have mastered the craft of "rudeness and nastiness disguised as politeness" - or, as the King used to call it, "oblique language". All right, Dama Miestra. But I would suggest that your use of rudeness and nastiness as a tool to get attention is also causing a lot of collateral damage. Certainly, it is divisive... people find it hard to work with someone who has been personally insulting and rude to them, even on things they might agree. It doesn't always make it impossible, but it certainly makes it harder. It also can seriously hurt people's feelings or bother them, particularly when it occurs over a long period of time. And of course, it makes Talossa a much less pleasant place to be for observers who aren't even involved. All in all, it doesn't seem worth the heavy price we all pay.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Dec 15, 2015 8:21:02 GMT -6
... the many monarchists of the country (a huge, huge majority)... With respect: at the time of writing this is only a statement of opinion, not of fact. We do not, as yet, know whether or not this is factually true, and shall know that only when either (a) this particular poll has been completed (as of the 31st of January 2016), or (b) a subsequent referendum of the whole citizenship to determine this. Note that a referendum has wider coverage than this posting, as it is presented to all registered citizens, and not just those who read Witt.
None of us must ever confuse opinion with fact.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 15, 2015 9:45:49 GMT -6
I think that both statements would be based on fact -- it's only the the latter one would be predicated on even more evidence. After all, those parties explicitly devoted to republicanism have done increasingly poorly at the ballot box -- here I'm thinking of the RPT and ZRT -- when compared to the monarchist parties. The RUMP and MRPT voters together comprise a supermajority, and a large part of LDT support is also monarchist (they do not take an official position on the issue). We can reliably say that a very large majority of the country is monarchist, I think, based on past evidence... not just on baseless opinion. You are right, though, that this poll will also provide some evidence, albeit rather less (since only active Witt posters will see it).
|
|