With limits on the powers of the monarchy; limits that have, in 21st century Britain, turned the monarchy into a crown-wearing celebrity.<quoted text>
A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.
You are not the scholar you claim to be, SuperFAG.
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.
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.<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.
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!
Yet your own source mysteriously calls us a Constitutional monarchy - why is that?<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.
Nope, your own source calls us a Constitutional monarchy.<quoted text>Straw man.
If you cannot cite your sources and can only cling to dictionaries, then you should not -<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.
- oh, nevermind; you are arguing on an internet forum, not in a university political science setting.
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.<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.
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.
Asked and delivered: University of Aberdeen, 2011 and 2012.<quoted text>I'm not the one claiming to be a "scholar" with two (cough) "politics degrees".