Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
No I don't. You yet again reply deliberately misleadingly. It may well have been Britain making Kurdistan part of Iraq that made you an Anglophobe. My point was not on why you are an Anglophobe, it was that you are an Anglophobe. As you have at last admitted. With perhaps some justification, it certainly was a mistake for people in the 1920s not to recognise and allow for the crimes of Saddam in the 1990s. I mean, where was their crystal ball? The very first thing you place on any conference table, surely.

I'm not an Anglophobe, because I don't hate the British people and British culture. I'm bearing a grudge against Britain, because Britain made Kurdistan part of Iraq, but I don't otherwise hate Britain. I support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar because I like Spain, not because I hate Britain. An Anglophobe not supporting the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands and not supporting Scottish independence is very strange. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #32 
It isn't when he makes the Falklands exception specifically so he can say 'Since I support Britain on one thing I can't be an Anglophobe'. The fact that you oppose Britain on absolutely everything else being apparently neither here nor there. As for Scotland, it isn't so long since we were desperately trying to explain to you why there shouldn't be another referendum every afternoon before tea. Doesn't sound much like a secession opponent to me.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 528
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I'm used to quote the entire post, because I once was a member of Sufficient Velocity (a leftist internet forum). Spaghetti posting was banned on Sufficient Velocity. I will cease to do it, if it annoys you. 


As Peter noted, the more annoying thing is that you didn't engage the substantive part of my post: that your interlocutor tries to engage you with multiple points, and you respond to either a subset, and typically it's the least substantive subset. It makes it incredibly difficult to have any meaningful conversation.

Here, you explain the least important part of my accusation (that you quote the whole post you respond to) without addressing the important part (that you don't address to the points brought up in argument, and thus argue in bad faith like a sleazy politician).

Even if you only quote the part you are responding to, if you are continuously asked something over and over again, and you refuse to address (with as little as "that's not relevant and I'm not responding to it"), you are the one who refuses to engage.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It isn't when he makes the Falklands exception specifically so he can say 'Since I support Britain on one thing I can't be an Anglophobe'. The fact that you oppose Britain on absolutely everything else being apparently neither here nor there. As for Scotland, it isn't so long since we were desperately trying to explain to you why there shouldn't be another referendum every afternoon before tea. Doesn't sound much like a secession opponent to me.

Why do you claim that I support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar, because I'm an Anglophobe? I'm a genuine Hispanophile. I have often visited Spain and I can speak Spanish and I'm a staunch supporter of the Spanish monarchy, which is threatened by republicanism. Spanish republicanism is far stronger than British republicanism.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #35 
Being a Hispanophile and an Anglophobe are not mutually exclusive propositions. Evidently, looking at you. How long did it take you to break your promise not to bring up the G-word again unless there were relevant new events to discuss? A couple of days, I think, which was a couple of days ago. Now you are doing it again here. What has Spanish republicanism to do with anything? Nothing that I can see. When will you get the concept that you argue not by stating your preferences but using facts and reasoning? Never would be my prediction. When will you say anything about all the Spanish exclaves? See previous answer.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Being a Hispanophile and an Anglophobe are not mutually exclusive propositions. Evidently, looking at you. How long did it take you to break your promise not to bring up the G-word again unless there were relevant new events to discuss? A couple of days, I think, which was a couple of days ago. Now you are doing it again here. What has Spanish republicanism to do with anything? Nothing that I can see. When will you get the concept that you argue not by stating your preferences but using facts and reasoning? Never would be my prediction. When will you say anything about all the Spanish exclaves? See previous answer.

Being a Hispanophile and an Anglophobe are of course not mutually exclusive propositions, but my stance on Gibraltar is caused by Hispanophilia rather than by Anglophobia. I have actually changed my mind on a unilateral Spanish annexation of Gibraltar. You falsely claim that my worldview is based on Anglophobia. My dislike of the legacy of the British Empire isn't an important part of my worldview. I dislike European colonialism in general. The British Empire was no worse than other European colonial empires, except in the Middle East. I began to condemn the legacy of the British Empire on this forum, because DavidV defending the legacy of the British Empire annoyed me. Nobody has defended the Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch colonial empires on this forum. I didn't join this forum in order to condemn the legacy of the British Empire.I joined this forum, because I wanted to defend the Spanish monarchy and support restoration of the Russian and Iranian monarchies and because I wanted to publish my alternate history story on this forum. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #37 
Thank you for confirming all of my predictions. To answer the irrelevant stuff you have posted as the usual pretended answer, which as usual ignores almost every point made in what it is supposed to be replying to, no one here attacks the Spanish monarchy. It is actually not permitted by the rules to do that, since it is an existing monarchy, and no one wants to anyway. So your defence of it is not needed here. Pretty much everyone wants to see the Russian and Iranian monarchies restored, so you are just one more voice in the chorus there. It is true that with Iran while most want the Pahlavis back there is residual Kadjar support. Personally I have noted that restoration of former dynasties is not at all part of Iranian tradition, it has happened only once and then for just one brief puppet reign. So to me a whole new dynasty would be just as good, but anyway the monarchy itself I want back. Russian succession disputes there is no need to go into, they have been sufficiently aired.

No sign yet of your story, will there ever be? Plenty of sign of knee-jerk condemnation of anything Britain ever did. Will it ever cease? About as soon as your denials of Anglophobia do, I would think. Having originally concluded despite natural suspicion in that regard that you were not a troll, I am now beginning to wonder again whether your real reason for joining was none of what you say above, but something else entirely.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 449
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

You have never offended me.
I'm not opposed to the Anglophile bias of this forum, because I dislike the British monarchy. I like the British monarchy, despite not being an Anglophile, because I like the ancient traditions and the pageantry of the British monarchy and because the Windsors are descended from the Stuarts, who are one of my favourite European royal dynasties (the Romanovs are my favourite European royal dynasty). 
I'm opposed to the Anglophile bias of this forum, because the crimes of the British Empire rarely are condemned on this forum. 
You can't find my noble family on Wikipedia, unless I give you my last name, because I'm bearing the last name of my noble family. I have promised my mother to not give my last name to strangers on the Internet, because Datenschutz is indeed very important.



Thank you for that information. It's understandable that you wish not to divulge personal information, and  it's indeed a good policy not to reveal private information to strangers on the internet.  You should heed your mother's advice. 

However, maybe you could discuss in general terms such issues as whether your family belong to the Uradel (ancient nobility of the land, who were recognized in the local area or region as nobility before having their rank confirmed by the royal or imperial government), or the Brefadel (nobility who originated as commoners, and received an award or patent on a certain date from their sovereign, which conferred nobility). The distinction between Uradel and Brefadel has nothing to do with rank or degree. Rather, it refers to when, and under what circumstances, the nobility originated. It can apply to either the Hochadel (high nobility), Niederadel (lower nobility), or Junkers (untitled nobility).  You needn't personalize it, or divulge any specific information that would identify your family.  

It would likely make an interesting topic of discussion. There's certainly no distinction in German law between Uradel and Brefadel nowadays, and may not ever have been even in olden times. But apparently it does carry some unofficial weight among German nobility themselves, with the less common Uradel families enjoying the greater prestige. 





__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere



Thank you for that information. It's understandable that you wish not to divulge personal information, and  it's indeed a good policy not to reveal private information to strangers on the internet.  You should heed your mother's advice. 

However, maybe you could discuss in general terms such issues as whether your family belong to the Uradel (ancient nobility of the land, who were recognized in the local area or region as nobility before having their rank confirmed by the royal or imperial government), or the Brefadel (nobility who originated as commoners, and received an award or patent on a certain date from their sovereign, which conferred nobility). The distinction between Uradel and Brefadel has nothing to do with rank or degree. Rather, it refers to when, and under what circumstances, the nobility originated. It can apply to either the Hochadel (high nobility), Niederadel (lower nobility), or Junkers (untitled nobility).  You needn't personalize it, or divulge any specific information that would identify your family.  

It would likely make an interesting topic of discussion. There's certainly no distinction in German law between Uradel and Brefadel nowadays, and may not ever have been even in olden times. But apparently it does carry some unofficial weight among German nobility themselves, with the less common Uradel families enjoying the greater prestige. 





My family belongs to the Uradel.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Thank you for confirming all of my predictions. To answer the irrelevant stuff you have posted as the usual pretended answer, which as usual ignores almost every point made in what it is supposed to be replying to, no one here attacks the Spanish monarchy. It is actually not permitted by the rules to do that, since it is an existing monarchy, and no one wants to anyway. So your defence of it is not needed here. Pretty much everyone wants to see the Russian and Iranian monarchies restored, so you are just one more voice in the chorus there. It is true that with Iran while most want the Pahlavis back there is residual Kadjar support. Personally I have noted that restoration of former dynasties is not at all part of Iranian tradition, it has happened only once and then for just one brief puppet reign. So to me a whole new dynasty would be just as good, but anyway the monarchy itself I want back. Russian succession disputes there is no need to go into, they have been sufficiently aired.

No sign yet of your story, will there ever be? Plenty of sign of knee-jerk condemnation of anything Britain ever did. Will it ever cease? About as soon as your denials of Anglophobia do, I would think. Having originally concluded despite natural suspicion in that regard that you were not a troll, I am now beginning to wonder again whether your real reason for joining was none of what you say above, but something else entirely.

Other reasons for me to join the forum was opposing a Hashemite restoration in Kurdistan and defending the legacy of the Ottoman Empire.
I don't condemn anything Britain ever did. The British Empire was no worse than other European colonial empires, except in the Middle East. I have previously claimed on this forum that British rule in India was benign compared to Spanish rule in Mexico and Peru, and I have admitted that Britain was reasonable compared to France during the negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles.
I began to condemn the legacy of the British empire on this forum, because DavidV defended the legacy of the British Empire. DavidV claims that British culture is superior to other cultures and he hates anti-colonialism. Claiming that British culture is superior to Kurdish and German culture is offensive to me. I began to express support for the Spanish claim to Gibraltar on this forum, because DavidV claimed that Spanish monarchists supporting the Spanish claim to Gibraltar is wrong, because Spanish monarchists ought to make common cause with Britain in order to defend Western civilization. Claiming that Spaniards are obliged to make common cause with Britain is nonsense.
You and Wessexman don't defend the legacy of the British Empire, but you rarely condemn its crimes.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #41 
I ignored the previous version of this because it was same old, same old. All points I had answered over and over before. But I suppose I had better get on with it, as you'll just keep deleting and reposting until I do, and anyway there are a couple of new points to address in the present iteration. I note that you don't condemn everything Britain ever did. Just almost everything, which isn't really that much of a difference.

I don't recall David ever saying that British culture is superior to other cultures. He regards Western culture as a whole as under threat, which in some senses it is. I am pretty sure he has never said 'British culture is superior to Kurdish and German culture', or anything else like it. You want to be wary, when you made up an accusation against Ethiomonarchist it almost got you banned, and deservedly so. Very unfortunately Ethiomonarchist, perhaps the most respected forum member, appears to have taken so much offence at your slur that, unmollified by your forced and perfunctory apology, he has abandoned the forum altogether, unable to bear your presence on it. I doubt that will happen with David, because having taken what would seem a merited dislike to you on your first appearance he confines himself mainly to his own SPLC thread, and may never even read this. You should still refrain from making accusations you cannot bear out, and I don't think you can this one.

There is no reason, justice or merit in Spain's claim to Gibraltar, though I appreciate Spanish monarchists might find it difficult to acknowledge that. I assure you however that were Britain making a similar claim I would denounce rather than support it. I do think the British Empire left a legacy worth defending, but also that there were grave errors and inarguable crimes committed by Britain. I don't go on about either, because like all history there is nothing I can do about it, it is not a kind of history that especially interests me and I would rather talk about other kinds that do. There are actually other subjects than the crimes of the British Empire that can legitimately be discussed, though from your conversation one would never guess the fact. There, you've been answered. I hope you're happy.

PS We have discussed particle physics once or twice before, though never in great depth because, you know, particle physics. It is a subject that greatly interests me and I have and have read several books, unfortunately with a comprehension factor of maybe 10%, being generous. So I shouldn't think I'll be bringing it up too often.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #42 
Edit: Not sure what happened to my post. It disappeared. Here it is again:

We also rarely discuss the particle physics either. What of it? We don't have to bring up everything we believe.

Spaniards should make common cause with Britain on Gibraltar because they have no decent arguments for their position. I notice you didn't respond to my points above.

I don't think you are an Anglophobe, personally. I just think that you allow your prejudices to entirely dominate and your arguments are more than usually transparent, as hoc rationalisations of these. It isn't that unusual, of course, for humans to be influenced by their wishes in how they view the world, but your positions on things like Gibraltar are especially strong instances. I think - and this is related - you also are sometimes strongly overemphasise some abstract or idealistic notion, like bringing back together the eternal territory of a favoured nation and righting perceived historic injustices to it, over the concrete, sensibly weighed lives and rights of those living today. This isn't that uncommon, but again it's is particularly strong in some of you writings about your favourite topics.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
We also rarely discuss the particle physics either. What of it? We don't have to bring up everything we believe.

Spaniards should make common cause with Britain on Gibraltar because they have no decent arguments for their position. I notice you didn't respond to my points above.

I don't think you are an Anglophobe, personally. I just think that you allow your prejudices to entirely dominate and your arguments are more than usually transparent, as hoc rationalisations of these. It isn't that unusual, of course, for humans to be influenced by their wishes in how they view the world, but your positions on things like Gibraltar are especially strong instances.

DavidV has often defended the legacy of the British Empire on this forum, and you have rarely refuted his claims about the virtues of the British Empire. I'm the only member of this forum, who has condemned the legacy of the British Empire. 
It's understandable that you support the British claim to Gibraltar, because you are a Briton, and it's no less understandable that Spaniards support the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. I'm neither a Briton nor a Spaniard, but my family has closer ties to Spain than to Britain, and defending Catholic monarchies is very important to me. I have actually changed my mind on a unilateral Spanish annexation of Gibraltar. Spain unilaterally annexing Gibraltar will be wrong, but I will support Spain in a hypothetical war over Gibraltar, because I will support the lesser evil (Spain invading Gibraltar) in order to avoid the greater evil (Spain becoming a republic). Spain going to war over Gibraltar is fortunately unlikely to happen, and I sincerely want Spain to refrain from invading Gibraltar.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #44 
I have always wanted to debate with DavidV. I have always considered him my main opponent on this forum. I would like to refute his nonsense about Putin, the EU, the Iraqi Hashemites and the legacy of the British Empire. DavidV has never said "British culture is superior to Kurdish and German culture", but he has said that "Britain is a nation whose greatness was rarely if ever surpassed in history, and that the decline of its power in this world was a great loss for humanity". This is an insult to Germany and the Persian empires. 
Mozart, Bach, Händel, Beethoven, the Strauß family, Einstein, Leibniz, Kant, Goethe, Schiller and Thomas Mann were Germans. The greatness of the pre-Islamic Persian empires was equal to the greatness of the Roman Empire. King Cyrus, Zarathustra, Ferdowsi and Saladin were Iranians. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #45 
That does sound like the sort of thing David would say. I don't see any insult to the German and Persian empires there, though. On a technical note, the British Empire in terms of both territorial extent and population surpassed any other empire in history, including the two of those put together, though it is true that these are not the only or even most important measures of an empire's greatness. On your second paragraph's first sentence yes, and? I don't think anyone has been arguing the point. The Parthians and Sassanids were certainly equally matched with the Romans militarily, and were really the only power of comparable stature at the time. But naturally the cultural heritage of the Romans was immensely more important in shaping today's Western culture than that of the Persians. So we do tend to think about them rather more, sorry about that.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.