119 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Either way. In the grand scheme of things it's a pretty insignificant incident, although it does offer a glimpse into all of our possible futures. With cameras becoming more and more ubiquitous, there could well come a day when nothing we do outside our own homes is safe from public scrutiny. And the strangest part is no one seems to mind.

[King Hobbs]

Jorost I believe(and I just thought of this so it isnt well thought out) that society has associated the aspect of "nothing we do outside our own homes is safe from public scrutiny" with being a celebrity. People want to be famous, to stand out. They want other people to notice them. So now we have things like Twitter and Facebook where people can share their lives 24/7 instantly with anyone who wants to look. Society is all about attention seeking. People aren't just allowing their lives to come under the public eye/scrutiny, they want it to because deep down they want people to notice, whether for the good or bad. Like the old saying "No press, is bad press."

you get the gist of what I'm saying.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

That could very well be it. Certainly things like Facebook and Twitter have made our lives more public. I find it all kind of funny, because if used properly these things actually make it easier for someone to present a false image of themselves, or be who they always wanted to be. The internet only knows what you tell it.

Evidently the lens used to get those pictures of Kate Middleton was enormous. Heh.

[Redezra]

Either way. In the grand scheme of things it's a pretty insignificant incident, although it does offer a glimpse into all of our possible futures. With cameras becoming more and more ubiquitous, there could well come a day when nothing we do outside our own homes is safe from public scrutiny. And the strangest part is no one seems to mind.

...


Unless we stop them now!

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

But that's my point, no one seems alarmed, or even particularly interested.

[Redezra]

This gives further evidence to my postulate that humanity is mostly retarded.

[The Dark Empire]

This gives further evidence to my postulate that humanity is mostly retarded.

agreed

[Haflinger]

Duchess Katherine is not some girl to be exploited, she's royalty, she's a symbol of civilisation and honourability and refinement.

You evidently have a different idea of what the word "royalty" means from reality.

My British royal family includes Henry the Eighth.

Your problem is you aren't looking at what it's supposed to be. That's what us nice people believe, not you degenerates.

Eh, the royals are supposed to be a gang of hoodlums whose prime claim to fame is killing off the other gangs of hoodlums who wanted to rule England back in the fifteenth century or so.

Oh wait, they're just the descendants of people who made deals with other people who made deals. There's nobody left who can claim descent from Henry Tudor even really.

And this matters... how? You're missing the most important part:

It's Symbolic

They're a bunch of descendants of gangsters who are among the richest people in the world and live tax-free.

That's not symbolic of anything other than decadence, and perhaps Ross Perot's wet dreams.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

They're a bunch of descendants of gangsters who are among the richest people in the world and live tax-free.

...says the guy who doesn't have a job.

Anyway they don't live tax-free. And there are plenty of people a lot richer than them.

I like the royal family. I like the living history, I like the symbolism, and most importantly I like having a dedicated head of state who is above politics.

[Haflinger]

Anyway they don't live tax-free.

Yes, they do.

All monies paid by the Sovereign to Her Government are voluntary.

And there are plenty of people a lot richer than them.

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, 86, has a personal net worth of £310 million ($500m) as of April 2012, according to Sunday Times Rich List. The queen’s wealth comes from property holdings including Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands, stud farms, a fruit farm and marine land throughout the U.K.; extensive art and fine jewelry; and one of the world’s largest stamp collections built by her grandfather. Not included are those assets belonging to the Crown Estate, which she gets to enjoy as Queen, such as $10 billion worth of real estate, Buckingham Palace (estimated to be worth another $5 billion), the Royal Art collection, and unmarked swans on stretches of the Thames. The Crown has claimed ownership of these birds since the 12th century when swan meat was considered a delicacy; they are no longer eaten.

The Queen also receives an annual government stipend of $12.9 million.

http://www.theriches...beth-net-worth/

I'd say exclusive control of roughly $15 billion of real estate puts them pretty high on that list.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Whatever, Haf. The fact of the matter is that she pays taxes, and a hell of a lot more than most wealthy people do. All the other royals (with the exception of the Prince of Wales, who is funded by the income of the Duchy of Cornwall) are paid for by her. That stipend she receives is for official business (staff, travel, etc.). And that property "she" owns belongs to the Crown, a concept you as a Canadian should understand. It's not as if she could sell Balmoral if she wanted to.

You don't like the concept of royalty, that's fine. You don't like the British royal family in particular, that's fine too. I happen to think the monarchy serves a purpose, and I would hate to think of Britain without it. It wouldn't be Britain any more. I also feel that there are far more egregious abusers of wealth and privilege than the royals, who for all their money and celebrity live in a fishbowl. The Queen has dedicated her life to the service of her country -- who among us would truly be willing to trade places with her? Probably not many, if they really knew what they were getting into. You sure wouldn't.

[The Dark Empire]

Anyway they don't live tax-free.

Yes, they do.

All monies paid by the Sovereign to Her Government are voluntary.

And there are plenty of people a lot richer than them.

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, 86, has a personal net worth of £310 million ($500m) as of April 2012, according to Sunday Times Rich List. The queen’s wealth comes from property holdings including Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands, stud farms, a fruit farm and marine land throughout the U.K.; extensive art and fine jewelry; and one of the world’s largest stamp collections built by her grandfather. Not included are those assets belonging to the Crown Estate, which she gets to enjoy as Queen, such as $10 billion worth of real estate, Buckingham Palace (estimated to be worth another $5 billion), the Royal Art collection, and unmarked swans on stretches of the Thames. The Crown has claimed ownership of these birds since the 12th century when swan meat was considered a delicacy; they are no longer eaten.

The Queen also receives an annual government stipend of $12.9 million.

http://www.theriches...beth-net-worth/

I'd say exclusive control of roughly $15 billion of real estate puts them pretty high on that list.

Wait to copy and paste. So what is it bothering you? No one else really seems to concerned about the royal family. It is a symbol of England that has lost importance but still retains its symbolic importance.

[Redezra]

Wait wait wait.

Haf, you said all money payed to her government is voluntary, and you don't understand why we think the royals are a cut above?

Cause if that was true, that would mean that the Queen is more socially responsible than most people alive on the planet.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I DEMAND TO SEE MITT ROMNEY'S HAF'S TAX RETURNS!

[Thrash]

How is it that I'm the master of making threads that are destined to go off topic?

[The Dark Empire]

Human drive from simplicity to complexity

[Haflinger]

Whatever, Haf. The fact of the matter is that she pays taxes, and a hell of a lot more than most wealthy people do. All the other royals (with the exception of the Prince of Wales, who is funded by the income of the Duchy of Cornwall) are paid for by her. That stipend she receives is for official business (staff, travel, etc.). And that property "she" owns belongs to the Crown, a concept you as a Canadian should understand. It's not as if she could sell Balmoral if she wanted to.

Who pays taxes?

The Queen doesn't. Most of the other royals are funded by her directly, and so don't pay taxes either.

The Queen has exclusive control of Balmoral, Buckhingham Palace and so on. In other countries, the ones that call themselves democracies, when the state owns something, the democratically-elected government has control over it.

Not in Britain.

Plus, there's this: even in America, someone like Trump can legally be arrested. The Queen can't.

You don't like the concept of royalty, that's fine. You don't like the British royal family in particular, that's fine too. I happen to think the monarchy serves a purpose, and I would hate to think of Britain without it. It wouldn't be Britain any more. I also feel that there are far more egregious abusers of wealth and privilege than the royals, who for all their money and celebrity live in a fishbowl. The Queen has dedicated her life to the service of her country -- who among us would truly be willing to trade places with her? Probably not many, if they really knew what they were getting into. You sure wouldn't.

I don't have a particular dislike for the British royal family, they're pretty much the same as every other gang of hoods. I do dislike the concept of royalty, yep. Along with the concept of the Mafia, the Crips and the Bloods, which is essentially the same.

I'd happily swap places with her for $12.9 million a year, never mind all the royal properties.

And she has not chosen to dedicate her life to the service of her country. She was born into a position of extreme privilege and is managing to struggle along, poor old her...

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I see it differently. I look at her and I see a woman who views her responsibilities with the greatest seriousness. Maybe she never had a choice, but her life is not her own. In many ways she is as much a property of the British people as the palaces and pavilions you so decry. But me, I love royalty.

[Chancellor Gunn]

I dance around naked in my bedroom hoping someone will leak that to the world.

[Thrash]

I look at her and I see a woman who views her responsibilities with the greatest seriousness.

I look at her and see a woman who I'd love to plow.

Yes, Redezra. I am disgusting.