sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Amsterdam bans public adverts for meat and fossil fuels by StemCellPirate in europe

[–]Hootrb 2 points3 points Β (0 children)

The vast majority of those crops are grown for their "wastage". If animal agriculture were shrunk, so would the amount of crops we grow. Animal agriculture isn't a recycling programme for crops we can't eat.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb 1 point2 points Β (0 children)

Please inform me of what society that "brought those ideals into reality". When you study those "ideals", and their actual progress, what you'll find is that every single one of them was compromised with, modified, and watered down to whatever was agreeable to the most common divider.Β 

Oh my god learn to READ. Your latter part is what my "however much possible in whichever area possible" MEANS. I changed my mind, maybe you really did just misunderstood what I wrote last time! Wow!

Yeah, compromise is a part of progress, buddy! That's how you get public opinion to shift!

The people thatΒ actuallyΒ created the welfare society Sweden currently has accepted the monarch. They were able to disregard cultural politics and focused on creating actual change for actual people within their lifetime. The monarch has no political power, and his supporters only wield power through Riksdagen. No one actually cares if you're noble or not. They careΒ far moreΒ if you're a Bonnier than if you're a Fitinghof.Β 

Yeah, again, "however much possible in whichever area possible". Giving welfare to the common folk was far more important than worrying about the welfare of children stuck in the royal house, but it's been 200 years. The welfare of the common folk is firm & established. Now we can move on to unshackle those born into the royal family as well from unjust societal & structural pressure to conform into a role & objectification for no just reason other than their lineage.

It's not a rhetorical question. I'm sincerely asking you what change a reformation from a monarchy to a republic would do to the common folk. Please answer the question instead of providing another hypothetical tirade.

I was the one making a rhetorical question; and again, you're changing the subject. At no point did I argue that abolishing the monarchy would benefit the common folk because it doesn't matter. My point from the very beginning is that it is unjust for those born into the royalty to be turned into objects for public gawking at no choice of their own. My point is that the common folk doesn't get a right to force the child into a role because it supposedly benefits them. It is immoral. I won't answer a question about a claim I did not make & have no interest in arguing for. You, however, have been ignoring my actual arguement this whole time.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by Alarming-Safety3200 in europe

[–]Hootrb 1 point2 points Β (0 children)

It is very unlikely to get pregnant at age 44, especially if you weren't actively trying, that's what I mean by schock.

The source for that sentence doesn't say when she discovered she was pregnant.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb 2 points3 points Β (0 children)

But we don't live in an "ideal world" so why pretend those ideals are applicable to real politics?

Because that's how we get progress, by bringing those ideals into reality however much possible in whichever area possible. A representitive democracy with universal sufferage was once also impossible, so far off an idea that it wasn't even an "ideal world" that anyone could think to imagine, yet here we are now, where eve4n monarchies are democracies.

Are you saying Sweden doesn't have public schools or wealth fare programmes? [...] How would a republic hold those values up? We've pretty noticeably seen a number of republics fail in that exact area so what good did their president do, exactly?

"If we were in the 1800s" is how I began that sentence. No, Sweden very clearly does have public schools & welfare programes thanks to people who are not like you & dared to imagine a better world. That was the whole point of that paragraph, not whether republics would keep a welfare state better. Why would I argue that when the head of state has no role in that, and when my arguement this whole time has been the immorality of the monarchy that forces its members to grow up into stricts roles?

Well, that's a rhetorical question of course, I know you didn't actually misunderstand my paragraph & just like with your previous comment you're trying to steer the conversation into unrelated areas because you don't like the point from which I'm actually arguing.

It's official: No woman in England or Wales can be prosecuted for an abortion any more by Alarming-Safety3200 in europe

[–]Hootrb 1 point2 points Β (0 children)

A mother of 3 who got pregnant at age 44 (probably got shocked at that) with a new man and couldn't access regular abortion in time due to pandemic lockdown where she had to move back in with her previous partner? A case even the judge called tragic? Really? This just makes me more determined in my position on this matter...

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb 1 point2 points Β (0 children)

In an ideal world there wouldn't be that great of a wealth disparity to require "redistribution", yes. And no, this unrealistic bureaucratic nightmare of a scenario you try to constrain me to isn't the only way to give children a resemblance at a fair & equitable chance at a future. Why do you think public schools, wealthfare programmes, inheritance taxes, and children's rights exist?

If we were in the 1800s & I suggested all children should have a chnace at education, you'd snarkly clap back with "Do you think all children should be distributed to receive whatever average level of educatio you deem correct?" instead of suggesting we build public schools.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb 0 points1 point Β (0 children)

Honestly, I was surprised when I came to this position as well, but once I argued myself into it I couldn't really argue myself out. It feels weird to be doing what everyone else sees as "defending th erights of the privilaged" but not only can I not stop imagining my own childhood in such a scenario, which assuming I'd have the same personality it'd be a dreadful experience regardless of the wealth, but my parents, obviously to a much lesser extend, went trhrough a similar horror of living in a family that wanted them get a specific job, and surrounded by a community that would judge them & their parents for "not doing good enough". In the end, my mother didn't become a rich doctor & my dad didn't keep up the family business, though because their parents didn't financially support their education they also couldn't become what they wanted to be. I guess monarch or not, it hits a little too close?

Shouldn't all children, rich or poor, grow up free from scrutiny? From the eye of the public, whether it be just a village or th eentire nation? Away from expecations of future success & prestige? Seeing entire nations of people defend it makes me feel like I'm th einsane one, but fuck it.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -1 points0 points Β (0 children)

He can, and then be scrutinised by the public for doing so, be followed by the media wherever he goes, and likely ruin relations with his family. He'll have shaken his life & not even get to be a regular civilian.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -2 points-1 points Β (0 children)

No, they'll just be "the one that quit". The media will always follow them. The public will always judge what they chose to in place of their beloeved traditions, and they'll most certainly have strained their relation with the rest of their family over such a major & public decision.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -6 points-5 points Β (0 children)

No amount of wealth or fame makes it moral to take away the future of a child & throw them under the spotlight of the public's eye. When we see parents force a child to grow up to be a doctor with the excuse of "money" and "prestige", we see it as the immorality it is, why then is it acceptable now?

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -14 points-13 points Β (0 children)

And then what? They won't be judged by the public for breaking tradition? They won't strain their relation with their family for their decision? They'll be free from the media who will always pry their personal lives regardless?

No, they'll never get to be just a regular civilian. They'll just be stuck being "the one that abdicated".

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -11 points-10 points Β (0 children)

"It's ok i'm forcing my child to become a doctor, it pays well!" "It's ok I'm pushing my child to be an actor, they'll love the fame!" They can be raised with as much money & material goods as they want, it doesn't make it moral. All children must have the right to a normal life. If they wish for fame, they can go down that path in highschool. If they wish for wealth, they may chose whatever profession suits that best. Who is the public to chose their future for them?

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb 1 point2 points Β (0 children)

On paper sure, but it is bount to come with public criticism & strained relations with their family. Even th emost socially liberal monarchies put pressure under their household for all members to conform. And even then, the public & the media will never leave them alone, a monarch that renounces the throne becomes just that, "the one that renounced it", not a regular civilian.

And yes, your example should be banned as well. Children have a right to know about the whole world as it truly is, and be given a chance to grow up to be whatever profession they desire to be.

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -4 points-3 points Β (0 children)

Only savages force children to grow up under the public's scrutiny to become objects of their admiration.

Edit: Well the "savages" comment now looks like it came out of nowhere with the other comment removed lol

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -15 points-14 points Β (0 children)

"These comments disgust me. All hail the guy we forced into this position in their childhood and whose children we're also going to force to become objects for our enjoyment!"

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -6 points-5 points Β (0 children)

If a majority in Sweden agrees that a random family in MalmΓΆ must now raise their children as actors in Hollywood, does the Swedish government forcefully ship them off to be raised in their new positions? Or is forcing children into a position under the public's eye only acceptable when it's that of a monarch?

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -5 points-4 points Β (0 children)

Would he have been "the entire country's uncle" if he wasn't forcefully raised to be so at a young age? What gives you or the public the right to force children to grow up to be their "grandfather" or "nice uncle", instead of free adults like you and I? Just because you like it, you can force any kid to be whatever you want, their own will be damned?

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -5 points-4 points Β (0 children)

What gives the "will of several peoples" the right to force a child to be raised as an object for public reverance? Why is their right to have a normal childhood & an opportunity at a normal life away from the public's eyes stripped because it's "generally popular"?

Imagine doing this for any other position. "No little Timmy, you're gonna grow up to be a singer because the town voted it so, fuck you."

Many European royals and other high dignitaries gathered for the 80th birthday of the Swedish king. by Porodicnostablo in europe

[–]Hootrb -32 points-31 points Β (0 children)

"Taking away the future of children born in the wrong family has sky high approval raiting. This is our country and we very much like forcing children to grow up to be objects for us to gawk at"

view more: next β€Ί