Social Sciences are advanced enough to explain the observed behavior of masses willingly declare their inferiority to a specific human’s genitals.
But I’m still disappointed that in the 21st Century there are so many willing and willful serfs.
Sad.
This might be an interesting topic if the OP essentially wasn’t horrible in both tone and choice of words.
Emotional gratification is the enemy of rational discussion.
Seems rather odd then to start with an OP that strikes a note of self-congratulation.
Anyway, can’t speak for any other monarchy-having countries, but by and large, that our royal family over here in the UK are inherently “better” than us plebs really isn’t a feeling that exists to any significant extent. We keep them around for reasons other than the fear that a wrathful god will smite us for daring to challenge our betters, or whatever.
Correct. Therefore try again with a rational thesis for debate. I think I grasp the proposition you allude to in the OP, but it fails utterly to state a rational premise for debate.
ETA: This was in response to post #3; Renevant Threshold snuck a post in while I was typing.
People keep them around because enough of them want to worship a certain female’s genitals.
Here’s the rational premise: Is the birth outcome of a certain female’s genitals worth of special treatment?
Reason would say it isn’t. Therefore all royal worship is unreasonable… at the least.
I call it self-induced mental disorder.
To the degree I understand what the OP is trying to say, I think this is a Pitting.
Ah, I see, it’s a self-congratulatory thread rather than just an OP. Never mind.
I was, indirectly, asking the readers why they worship royal titles.
Can I change the “Discuss” to a “What do you think?” and move it back to Debates?
No, because I’m about to call you a fucking moron, and that sort of language isn’t allowed in Great Debates, you fucking moron.
Lulz
People have a natural monkey inclination to worship those who are potrayed as alpha superior. It’s the same reason people worship celebrities, socialites, athletes and movie stars. In many cases these people do have some special skill or attribute that makes them stand out. This also provides them with great wealth that allows them to live a lifestyle that most people can only fantasize about.
You know, if you were to try it out you might find that sort of thing can be a hell of a lot of fun.
“oh, baby.”
The almighty [del]Dollar[/del] Pound, as in the ones gained by tourism. That was easy, but I prefer Miller’s response.
Why? Because I called royalists serfs?
No. Well, yes, I suppose, as part of your general pattern of utter dumbfuck posting, but I was specifically referring to the idea that the British hold Queen Elizabeth II’s cooter as an object of veneration. Even assuming you meant that as a joke (and that is by no means a safe assumption as far as you’re concerned) you’re still a fucking moron.
One of the key problems with your OP (besides its lack of coherence) is that you assume an equivalence here that is probably not bourne out by fact. There are no serfs in GB at present in any real sense. There are probably some very few royal worshippers that would gladly volunteer themselves as serfs. But most are royalists only in the same way as some people might be fans of a particular musician, say. Such people would stop being royalists so fast it would make your head spin if it were ever suggested that they actually be serfs to the royals.