Who wants a Republic?

[Niximus]

What are you on about. Of course there are unacceptable people. Doesn't mean they will choose one. You've not said how it will affect us.

Set me a base line.

How would any of the unacceptable people I named affect us in your opinion. If they are unacceptable..why?

Anything I say you are going to dismiss as your tolerance for 'affect us' is set so low that unless they are coming into our homes and raping us it doesn't 'affect us'.

Give me a reason that those people ar unacceptable that measures up to your standard.

 

[TheBloods]

For the same reason they would be unacceptable as president here. But they would have even less effect on us.

You are the one claiming a problem if certain people were chosen as monarch. You have not set out properly that scenario and its ramifications. How about you provide a realistic scenario, specifying the type of person acceptable to the British parliament but unacceptable to Australians and how it would affect us?

 

[Niximus]

For the same reason they would be unacceptable as president here. But they would have even less effect on us.

You are the one claiming a problem if certain people were chosen as monarch. You have not set out properly that scenario and its ramifications. How about you provide a realistic scenario, specifying the type of person acceptable to the British parliament but unacceptable to Australians and how it would affect us?

Charles

Power over our legislature given to a complete moron.

...waits for you to dismiss and then directs you to my post above where I ask for your base line...

Do you agree that the people I named are unacceptable?

If so...WHY?

I answered you, stop dodging.

 

[TheBloods]

It's hardly likely that Charles is going to do anything to our legislature (and BTW - he might be quote goofy but he's no moron).

What will he do to it?

I'm not dodging. Your scenario is wafer thin. You've not provided a decent argument at all.

Yeah, it's a hard one to work out why Ivan Milat might be unacceptable...

 

[Niximus]

It's hardly likely that Charles is going to do anything to our legislature (and BTW - he might be quote goofy but he's no moron).

What will he do to it?

I'm not dodging. Your scenario is wafer thin. You've not provided a decent argument at all.

Yeah, it's a hard one to work out why Ivan Milat might be unacceptable...

Why do you refuse to answer a direct question?

I am trying to have a conversation with you but you want it to be one sided. You want me to answer all of your questions but dismiss mine.

I know why I think Milat is unacceptable but I want to know why you think he is. It may not be the same reasons.

How can you expect me to debate with you when I'm not even sure what your opinion is? I am asking you questions to give me a better understanding of your position but you simply refuse to participate.

So far I know that you support the monarchy and you don't think that Liz, Charles or Bill would negatively affect us. You do believe that Ivan Milat as king would negatively affect us. OK, I am asking you straight...how?

 

[TheBloods]

I didn't say Milat would negatively affect us. I said that he would be unacceptable to the British parliament as they would most likely exclude people of certain character. That's really not so hard to understand. For more than three centuries the parliament must approve the succession to the crown so that they have a say in the type of person who will be the monarch.

Regardless of who they choose I still don't see how the British monarch will practically affect Australia.

I support no change as I see nothing wrong with the current system and no one has provided any reason why there is something practically wrong with it.

 

[Niximus]

I didn't say Milat would negatively affect us. I said that he would be unacceptable to the British parliament as they would most likely exclude people of certain character. That's really not so hard to understand.

Regardless of who they choose I still don't see how the British monarch will practically affect Australia.

OK, would he be unacceptable to you?

 

[TheBloods]

He would be unacceptable to everyone in any role or any position in society as he is a psychopath. So what does that prove? What is the point of that question - it is a silly hypothetical.

 

[Niximus]

He would be unacceptable to everyone in any role or any position in society as he is a psychopath. So what does that prove? What is the point of that question - it is a silly hypothetical.

How would him being a psychopath practically affect us?

 

[TheBloods]

How would him being a psychopath practically affect us?

It wouldn't but he would be unacceptable to the British as their monarch, as much as he would be just as unacceptable as a member of the local council, parking inspector or lollypop man. That's why he is in jail. it's a silly example.

 

[Caesar]

Nick85 - the fact you have to indulge in such absurd hypotheticals in order to highlight supposed 'flaws' with the system just underlines that there is no real practical problem with the way things currently operate.

Surely you'd be better off agitating for something worthwhile rather than worrying about what will happen if Ivan Milat becomes the King of England?

 

[Can Opener]

Nick85 - the fact you have to indulge in such absurd hypotheticals in order to highlight supposed 'flaws' with the system just underlines that there is no real practical problem with the way things currently operate.

Surely you'd be better off agitating for something worthwhile rather than worrying about what will happen if Ivan Milat becomes the King of England?

This
I've had a few beers this arvo with the footy boys but buggered if i can work out what nick85 is on about

 

[Niximus]

Nick85 - the fact you have to indulge in such absurd hypotheticals in order to highlight supposed 'flaws' with the system just underlines that there is no real practical problem with the way things currently operate.

Surely you'd be better off agitating for something worthwhile rather than worrying about what will happen if Ivan Milat becomes the King of England?

OMG seriously?

I can't believe that you want me to explain AGAIN that I am trying to establish some points or reference.

Slowly now....This ...is....not...me.....trying....to....highlight.....flaws....

I am trying to establish if The Bloods would personally object to any of these people as monarch. Once that is established we can move on from there.

All I get is people refusing to give me a straight answer. Don't get too fixated on the details of the hypothetical, it is crafted to answer specific questions I have on your positions. Think of it like a personality quiz, the question doesn't really matter but your answer tells me something.

If you answer the question straight things can move on and become clear. If you keep trying to give half answers and present the hypothetical as if I am using it as a direct argument then of course you are going to get confused.

When I ask a direct question, try giving a direct answer, see how we go...

Direct question time:

Do you see any practical problem with Ivan Milat being king?

 

[Niximus]

It wouldn't but he would be unacceptable to the British as their monarch, as much as he would be just as unacceptable as a member of the local council, parking inspector or lollypop man. That's why he is in jail. it's a silly example.

It wouldn't?

And we reach my point!

You are requesting 'practical problems' with the system in order for it to be replaced.

You admit that Ivan Milat as king wouldn't be a practical problem!

Obviously we agree that Milat shouldn't be king but how could we possibly make a case for that using your standard of proof?

If you can't even make a case against Milat using your own rules when you know that he is a wrong choice, then how do you know that your reasoning for opposing a republic isn't just as wrong?

 

[Caesar]

Your point of reference is silly because it presupposes a situation that cannot occur.

If someone was not suitable then Parliament would not allow them to ascend to the throne, or at the very least they wouldn't allow him to do anything particularly harmful. You may have heard of the Regency period, it's instructive. Parliament has a long history of tossing out crappy monarchs, your worry of someone unsuitable getting absolute power has little practical foundation.

Seriously - at least up in NSW it's a nice afternoon. Go out and get some air, it'll do you good.

 

[Niximus]

Your point of reference is silly because it presupposes a situation that cannot occur.

If someone was not suitable then Parliament would not allow them to ascend to the throne, or at the very least they wouldn't allow him to do anything particularly harmful. You may have heard of the Regency period, it's instructive. Parliament has a long history of tossing out crappy monarchs, your worry of someone unsuitable getting absolute power has little practical foundation.

Seriously - at least up in NSW it's a nice afternoon. Go out and get some air, it'll do you good.

Again refusing a direct question.....

OMG. I'M NOT WORRING ABOUT SOMEONE UNSUITABLE!!!!

Seriously I have been very clear and tried really hard to have a decent conversation but this is getting rediculous!

It's as bad as if I answered all of your questions with "It doesn't matter, Australians want a republic so that's why we should change".

I explained clearly that the details of the hypothetical were irrelevant but that your answers help me understand your opinion. I asked you not to get too fixed on those details and the very next post you start on about the details being impossible.......I KNOW!!! Do you read anything I post?

 

[Niximus]

I post questions to force you to construct an argument using your own rules. Your repeated refusal to do so leaves me only the conclusion that you cannot.

If you cannot construct an argument using your own rules but expect others to do so then you are impossible to debate with.

 

[TheBloods]

OMG seriously?

I can't believe that you want me to explain AGAIN that I am trying to establish some points or reference.

Slowly now....This ...is....not...me.....trying....to....highlight.....flaws....

I am trying to establish if The Bloods would personally object to any of these people as monarch. Once that is established we can move on from there.

Why? You have an uncertain, unnamed fear of someone unknown person succeeding to the British monarchy who may perhaps have some unclear affect on Australia's legislature. And you expect others to unravel that because you can't express your scenario or concerns fully.

You were the one who originally raised the problem of the British appointing a monarch some people might not like. You are creating certain rules, but you are not clear on what they are or what your argument is.

 

[TheBloods]

What's the practical problem with our current or previous GG?

How about that we need a foreign citizen to appoint them for one?

And again, what is the actual, practical problem we face from that?

You claim we need a republic. I asked what was the problem with the current system. You responded that the head of state was a foreign citizen. Again, I asked what the problem with that was.
And then you responded with this claim followed by a non sequitur comment, demanding an answer as if it was somehow related to my original question without explaining how you think it is.

She can overrule our elected legislature!

Your turn to answer a question -

Lets say that Liz decides to appoint a different successor to the throne. Instead of Charlie or Billy, someone else will be the next King/Queen. Would you have any issue with any of the following:
John Howard
Kevin Rudd
Bob Brown
Jason Akermanis
Chk Chk Boom Girl
Ivan Milat
Nick85

Could you conceive any practical problems arising should any of them take over from Liz?

 

[Caesar]

I explained clearly that the details of the hypothetical were irrelevant but that your answers help me understand your opinion. I asked you not to get too fixed on those details and the very next post you start on about the details being impossible.......I KNOW!!! Do you read anything I post?

Nobody can understand why you ask stupid questions about situations that are patently impossible. If you explained their relevance to the discussion at hand then you might get more traction.

 

[tandino]

That may well be true, in which case I am happy with the status quo.

If the option of a republic with an elected President was put to a referendum, I would vote no.

Which goes to my original point that we won't have a republic until such time that republicans agree on a unified way forward.

Well there you go.

I'm quite happy with the status quo until we come up with something "better". The argument tied in with that (what constitutes something "better") will see the status quo stretch on for the conceivable future.

Unless, of course, you give the people the Republic that they want, as opposed to one imposed on them by self-appointed "experts". In some respects, I don't want that to happen either, but it is at least a logical move.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

To me the only reason I want a republic is because the aesthetical reason of us becoming an independent nation and having a head of state of Australia not the Britain. Other than that I honestly believe the system is fine.

 

[Power King]

I used to be heavily in favour of becoming a republic, but now I genuinely don't care.

Whilst it would be nice for Australia to 'come of age', I'm not sure if that's worth sacrficing the Queen's Birthday public holiday. Not working and still being paid sits fine with me.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Many nations in the Comm Games are republics

It's surprising (or perhaps not) that most Australians don't know most Commonweath of Nations nations are republics.

 

[Niximus]

Nobody can understand why you ask stupid questions about situations that are patently impossible. If you explained their relevance to the discussion at hand then you might get more traction.

I have already explained. The scenarios tell me specific things about your opinions.

The point of the names I listed was initially to determine if either of you could even consider anybody as unsuitable. I used a far out hypothetical to get a base point.

From that point we can move to why that person is unsuitable. That would give me a reference point on what criteria you would use to determine whether or not someone was suitable.

If your initial answer was "no, there is no problem with any of those people being monarch, anyone could do it as they don't really do anything anyway" then I would have had to question the point of a monarch in the first place.

As you refused to answer the question at all we just go round and round and round.

I have already explained all this and you have still gone back to mentioning that the situation is impossible... How many times do you want me to explain why I have asked something?