Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 807
Reply with quote  #16 
Thank you, Wessexman. I do agree that the state does not have to treat everything and everyone equally. Perhaps I might even go a little further than you by saying that legal rights do not have to be the same for everyone. To make that more concrete, there is no need for a government to go out of its way to help someone (with social benefits and so forth) that doesn't speak the native language of a country, wears clothes that most people consider absurd and so forth. The difference then is between not treating everyone the same way and doing active harm to others.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #17 
Peter and DM say that I did a personal attack on DM, which means that, in my mind, that I claimed something unfair about him.   I do think DM has been an apologist for globalist positions many times over – and yes, I find globalist positions reprehensible and traitorous.   We're sorting out people's values – everyone is doing this.  I don't see anything wrong with that – and you are doing the same with your own value judgments against other people.

Just trying to clarify where people stand and what people are for.  I don't see a future for Europe if DM's views, for example, carry the day.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates

My simple take on DutchMonarchist from many interactions in the past is that he is an apologist for globalism.   He loves the EU.   He mostly excuses the immigration crisis of the last two years or softens its effects.   I don't sense that he cares deeply for the continuity of peoples and traditions in Europe.   This is what I mean by decadence.

Certainly looks more like an attack on the person than a disagreement with his views to me. Though the latter is pretty clearly implied. There is more than one view possible on most things, including globalism, the EU and the benefits or otherwise of immigration, and people holding a contrary view to yours may perhaps be mistaken, but to call them decadent thereby would not usually be considered a fair debating technique.

As for the last part, DM can speak for himself but that is certainly not the sense I get from his contributions, which I always enjoy and respect even if I disagree with them. It is possible to value continuity of tradition but also recognise where change is inevitable and potentially beneficial. In fact, to do so is a deeper valuing of tradition than the demand that nothing must ever change, because it acknowledges that the tradition itself came about through a process of change and evolution, and must continue to evolve and adjust if it is to remain alive.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 807
Reply with quote  #19 
Ponocrates, I think we have a different definition of a personal attack. To my mind a personal attack is not something that is necessarily true/fair or untrue/unfair; the point is the relevance for the discussion. When discussing a statement (like 'Europe is facing an existential crisis') the idea is to use arguments for or against that statement; personal characteristics like what someone is or has said in the past do not prove anything about the statement.

As for the accuracy of your words, they are partly fair but not entirely. The correct versions would be that I like the EU (love being your addition), that I think the massive migration of the last few years has been bad for the safety of Europeans but absolutely deny that it threatens the existence of Europeans as a race, and that I care for some traditions but not for others. But as said it wasn't really relevant for the question at hand.

For the rest I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about the way discussions are held (that has already happened to many threads in the past and I don't think it improved their quality), so for now I will just leave the last word on that matter to you. I guess my point is that we have indeed had many disagreements for like six or seven years now and I don't think they ever turned mean-spirited, so I would like to keep it that way. It is fine with me if you say you find my views reprehensible. Traitorous is much more dubious as it implies I am a criminal for stating my opinion. I think being active here requires some respect for freedom of speech.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 807
Reply with quote  #20 
Perhaps to start myself with making an attempt to move the discussion back to the content, I would certainly be interested in hearing why there is 'no future' for Europe if my views carry the day.

Suppose we halt further migration from Africa and the Middle East, perhaps offering local support for refugee camps in places like Turkey and Jordan as a compensation; we bring back illegals to the countries where they came from; we try to encourage repatriation on a voluntary basis with some financial incentives; we are much stricter in punishing crimes like riots and gang rapes (equally so for natives and people who migrated here, but in practice it would be more relevant for the latter group). That's what my views would mean - where exactly would they lead to no future for Europe?

The argument I have heard so far is that West-European countries have up to 20% of their population not being born as a resident. But since that 20% seems to consist of other people from western Europe for a good chunk it does not appear to make sense.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: