In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Full Story
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46682 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.
You are not the scholar you claim to be, SuperFAG.
With limits on the powers of the monarchy; limits that have, in 21st century Britain, turned the monarchy into a crown-wearing celebrity.
Go read a history book outwith the internet - one about the Magna Carta would be a start - then come back to us when you have learned about the development of democracy in British political history.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, you are making things up I did not say.

The straw man is the most common soldier in the NotBot army.

A country is or is not a monarchy.

The UK is a monarchy.
The USA is not a monarchy.

Pregnancy works the same way.
Nope, that is literally how your argument works and why it explains nothing when applied to cases in social science. Your analogies, whether you are using coins or pregnancy, fail to apply because they are not social phenomena akin to establishing political systems; coins are physical objects that cannot be manipulated (and if they were then they would be flat-out refused as legitimate pieces of currency), and pregnancy is based on biology.

Your black-or-white logic stumps reason and encourages lazy thinking. I dare you, Barefoot, to do nothing but paste a dictionary definition in a Word document, then send it to a political science publication arguing why Britain is a non-democratic monarchy.

The next challenge would then be trying to find someone who would actually read it!
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The UK does not have a constitution.

You can wander in any direction you like. Don't make me responsible for what you infer.
Yet your own source mysteriously calls us a Constitutional monarchy - why is that?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Straw man.
Nope, your own source calls us a Constitutional monarchy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>A long list of many dictionaries often cited, diminishing returns, if you cannot google an exact quote - a lengthy exact quote- you shouldn't be here.
If you cannot cite your sources and can only cling to dictionaries, then you should not -

- oh, nevermind; you are arguing on an internet forum, not in a university political science setting.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how often you insist that I insist that I am the only one who insists that the UK is a monarchy (has? a monarchy... yeah... you done graduated with two 'politics' degrees...) and to prove this you say The whole social science world continues to insist that Britain has [sic]a monarchy.

And you spend months denying that anyone denies the UK is a monarchy while denying the UK is a monarchy and insisting it is a democracy... though it fits no definition of democracy owing its fit to the definition of monarchy, i.e., a monarchy as head of state.
Of course Britain fits a definition of democracy - you don't like it so subsequently refuse to set out parameters for what is and is not a democracy. Your silence of this issue tells us more than your waffle ever does.

Furthermore, you claim we do not count as a democracy purely because we fit a definition of another word? Amazing. That is like saying that because Einstein fits the definition of "male", then he does not fit the definition of "German" by virtue of already qualifying for another word's definition!

Truly, Barefoot, it is a wonder how you come up such wacky logic.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not the one claiming to be a "scholar" with two (cough) "politics degrees".
Asked and delivered: University of Aberdeen, 2011 and 2012.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46683 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Yet I slap the snot out of you, SuperFag. Daily.
So said the Monty Python Black Knight.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The United KING_dom is a monarchy.

I don't care what a democracy is... or is not.

It is your strawman, not mine.
Britain is a democratic Parliamentary system of government with a figurehead monarch at the top.

You hate the word democracy because it blows your argument out of the water; get over it, little boy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if they don't have a full deck of playing cards.
We are well aware that you will happily latch onto anything if it suits your purposes, no matter how irrelevant or dated it is.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
They did not elect him.
And 19th century Americans did not send man to the moon. Pretty easy to find cases to "refute" contemporary phenomena when you decide to go time-travelling.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do remember insisting all PMs were electing and rolling around demand an example of a PM that wasn't and I said Macmillan and you started to cry and urinate and then you wanted another example?
This never happened. Again, Barefoot, you brought Macmillan up on your own accord, for your own argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
which brings us back to the role of the monarch who APPOINTS the PM.

Anyone he/she wants.
Nonsense. When your "best" case is going back over 50 years to latch onto a case that at the time Britain had never experienced before, to a case when the Conservatives had no system for replacing sitting PMs, then it truly does reek of desperation.

How about joining us in the 21st century? The Conservatives have moved on from 1957.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46684 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have two degrees in "politics", you say?
So I am sure you can prove this assertion.
Just for fun, let me throw this out there:
"Although the media expected Butler would get the nod, a survey of the Cabinet done for the Queen showed Macmillan was the nearly unanimous choice, and he became Prime Minister on 10 January 1957"
Here's the thing: either something is unanimous, or... it isn't.
Right?
Or do you want to say you constantly being proved wrong is... a shade of grey?
That's funny. I pasted your quote into Google and found that it came straight out of Wikipedia - you know, that source that only a week or two ago you were screaming about being an anonymous and subsequently illegitimate source for me and other posters to use.

Is this your new rule? Barefoot gets to use Wikipedia, but nobody else can? Do explain.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care.
We know why, manchild, we know why.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Reichstag was democratically elected.
It sure was. Congratulations on being correct for once!
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Having a Parliament does not a democracy make.
Especially when the monarch selects most the members of that parliament.
Then what -does- make a democracy?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: the word "especially" means in addition to, it isn't needed prove if the UK is a monarchy, yes or no.
You do note that I continue to say the UK is a monarchy?
And religious kooks on the street keep screaming that Jesus will be coming back to purge sinners and end the world. Does not make them right, and it certainly does not make you right.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
And you say you have two degrees in "politics", eh?
" House of Lords
The House of Lords is the second chamber of Parliament and is also called the Upper House. Because it is not elected, it does not have the same powers as the Commons, but it retains the right to revise and scrutinise the Government's actions and legislation. Its independent minds and extensive expertise form a crucial check on the power of the executive in Parliament but it is much more likely to wield this power by asking Ministers to think again than to veto whole pieces of legislation."
How about looking at what the Lords - actual, physical people - do instead of simply stating what they can potentially do?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46685 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
With limits on the powers of the monarchy
Monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46686 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Go read a history book outwith the internet - one about the Magna Carta
Not a constitution, and is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46687 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Asked and delivered: University of Aberdeen, 2011 and 2012.
No proof, then?

PS: When did they start giving degrees in "politics".

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46688 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Yet your own source mysteriously calls us a Constitutional monarchy - why is that?
A constitutional monarchy is - and this is the tricky part- a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46689 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Of course Britain fits a definition of democracy -
It fits the definition of monarchy.

Funny how no one refers to it as a "constitutional democracy".

Funny how that is.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46690 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Your black-or-white logic stumps reason and encourages lazy thinking.
How would you know?

You don't even know that the United KING_dom is a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46691 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny. I pasted your quote into Google and found that it came straight out of Wikipedia - you know, that source that only a week or two ago you were screaming about being an anonymous and subsequently illegitimate source for me and other posters to use.
You don't say?

So why don't you show EVERYONE where I uttered such nonsense.

PS: if you learn how to use the scroll button on your mouse, you would find that not always do quotes originate from Wikipedia.

And if you look at the little numbers on sections of Wikipedia, you will find where they came from.

E.G.:[50]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46692 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Your black-or-white logic stumps
Applies.

You've established you lack of intellectual prowess and honesty: e.g., your inviability to say that you are wrong even after it has been crammed repeatedly up your azz so far we can see it whenever you open your flatulent mouth.

Is the United King_dom a monarchy yes or no?

Watch this:

Yes.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46693 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Britain is a democratic Parliamentary system of government with a figurehead monarch at the top.
Monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46694 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If you cannot cite your sources and can only cling to dictionaries, then you should not -
Already cited.

If you really had a degree- even one- and had ever written a paper- clearly, you haven't- you would no you are not encumbered to continue to cite the same source.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46695 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And religious kooks on the street keep screaming that Jesus
What do you charge to move goalposts?

I do believe I smell red herring...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46696 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
It sure was. Congratulations on being correct for once!
So a democratically elected parliament does not a democracy make.

Putting aside: I don't give a sh!t if a monarchy has an elected parliament or not.

Putting aside: most of the UK Parliament is appointed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46697 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
How about looking at what the Lords - actual, physical people - do instead of simply stating what they can potentially do?
The UK parliament: most members are appointed (1), yes or no?

(1) appointed by the monarchy or inherited post by appointment.

Watch this: Yes.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46698 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
We are well aware that you will happily latch onto anything if it suits your purposes, no matter how irrelevant or dated it is.
I like the way when you insist that you are correct and use absolutes, and then I get to break it off in your azz, and then you run away from it, and then scream that in social sciences that blah blah bllah de bo bob doodle and the path of the moon...

When it is truly a YES or NO response that is required.

Like when you told us Macmillan had the UNANIMOUS approval of his party...

Over here in the USA, UNANIMOUS means EVERYONE. If the Senate takes a vote, and it's 99-1 (as sometimes it is): it is NOT UNANIMOUS.

I noticed... you skipped over my question above.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46699 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
When your "best" case is going back over 50 years to latch onto a case
Funny, when you insist that something NEVER happens and I say: here you go...

And then you say... well... it doesn't count because it happened over fifty years ago...

Putting aside it is another example of me pulling down your panties in front of everyone YET again... WHAT THAT MEANS IS: IT CAN HAPPEN THAT WAY AGAIN.

And- as we all can recall, we are back to: does the UK monarchy appoint the PM, yes or no?

Watch this: YES.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46700 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You hate the word democracy because it blows your argument out of the water; get over it, little boy.
The USA is a democracy, SuperFAG.

The UK is not. The UK is a monarchy.

Post the definition as many times as you like; I only have to look at the window to see one.

While when you look out the window... you see a monarchy.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#46701 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The USA is a democracy,
republic

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 18 min Uncle Sam 2,365
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min Joe fortuna 232,927
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr Thinking 23,201
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 hr Thinking 150
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 8 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 17 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 19 hr Thinking 3
More from around the web