Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Uh, since when are absolute monarchies not dictatorships?

Oh dear christ.

Don't mix terms like this. Monarchies are just not dictatorships. This is how it's worked since Rome, which had Dictators AND Kings/Emperors, and they were mutually exclusive. If you want an exact reason, it's because monarchies and dictatorships are very different, both in terms of how they are run and how they legitimize themselves. For example, you'll never see a 10-year-old dictator, or at least not for very long, while such a thing is standard in a monarchy. Moreover dictatorships legitimize themselves in all sorts of ways, and can be wedded to a number of ideologies (right-wing, left-wing, communist, neutral, benevolent, fascist, etc), while Monarchy is wedded to a very singular vision of the world where the King is the rightful sovereign ruler of the nation, by hereditary (and usually divine) right.

[smjjames]

The Kim Jong regieme does kind of muddle the line between Monarchy and Dictatorship a little because their rule has been hereditary (so far) and they see themselves as being divine, but they don't rule by 'heavenly mandate', they rule by fear and legitimatize themselves ideologically and they don't call themselves a Monarchy. Kim Jong still has to answer to his political party, which a monarch never has to do.

However, a dictatorship could still be hereditary-like and often times, the only people dictators trust the most are family. So, just because it's hereditary doesn't make it a monarchy.

[Antioch]

Uh, since when are absolute monarchies not dictatorships?

Oh dear christ.

Don't mix terms like this. Monarchies are just not dictatorships. This is how it's worked since Rome, which had Dictators AND Kings/Emperors, and they were mutually exclusive. If you want an exact reason, it's because monarchies and dictatorships are very different, both in terms of how they are run and how they legitimize themselves. For example, you'll never see a 10-year-old dictator, or at least not for very long, while such a thing is standard in a monarchy. Moreover dictatorships legitimize themselves in all sorts of ways, and can be wedded to a number of ideologies (right-wing, left-wing, communist, neutral, benevolent, fascist, etc), while Monarchy is wedded to a very singular vision of the world where the King is the rightful sovereign ruler of the nation, by hereditary (and usually divine) right.

Yeah, ok. I think this will turn in a definition battle, which I think are boring.

[scriver]

Well, since the EU agrees that Saudi-Arabia is not a dictatorship, Turkey can clearly not be considered one by any means.

Sauce? I find it hard to believe  any country or institution in the West claims such a thing...

I mean everyone humors them, but claiming the sky is green is something else altogether

I am referring to when Saudi-Arabia threatened trade sanctions on Sweden because the Swedish state minister (or maybe foreign minister) called them what they are, and the EU, our trade union, let said threat go unopposed so it ended with the Swedish government having to apologise. So it goes to stand that it must be the EU's position that Saudi-Arabia is not a dictatorship.

Well, since the EU agrees that Saudi-Arabia is not a dictatorship, Turkey can clearly not be considered one by any means.

That's because Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy, though an absolute one.

There is nothing stopping monarchies from being dictatorships. If we're going to be technical the thing that makes a dictatorship is the absolutism of the head of state, i.e. if he is able to simply dictate laws without having to go through a parliament or similar assembly. But that is an entirely semantic discussion.

[smjjames]

Yes, one could be a dictatorial or tyrannical monarch. However, like antioch said, semantic arguments are boring and generally go nowhere.

[Strife26]

Yes, one could be a dictatorial or tyrannical monarch. However, like antioch, semantic arguments are boring.

I don't find Antioch especially boring.

[smjjames]

Yes, one could be a dictatorial or tyrannical monarch. However, like antioch, semantic arguments are boring.

I don't find Antioch especially boring.

I accidentially left out a 'said' in there, which I edited back in. heh.

[Antioch]

Turkey arrests 200 people after protests on the international day of labour.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/05/01/turkey-more-than-200-detained-in-may-day-clashes

 So glad Turkey isn't a dictatorship

[martinuzz]

They should be happy they're not a monarchy, or they'd be royally screwed

[Sheb]

Well, since the EU agrees that Saudi-Arabia is not a dictatorship, Turkey can clearly not be considered one by any means.

Sauce? I find it hard to believe  any country or institution in the West claims such a thing...

I mean everyone humors them, but claiming the sky is green is something else altogether

I am referring to when Saudi-Arabia threatened trade sanctions on Sweden because the Swedish state minister (or maybe foreign minister) called them what they are, and the EU, our trade union, let said threat go unopposed so it ended with the Swedish government having to apologise. So it goes to stand that it must be the EU's position that Saudi-Arabia is not a dictatorship.

Source? Also, you should probably have said trade block, unless you have an union called the EU involved in this for some reason. :p

[scriver]

This article seems to contain most of the developments.

[Sheb]

This article seems to contain most of the developments.

Uh, it doesn't have a single mention of the EU in the whole thing.

Edit: Looking into more details it seems the Saudi sanctions came from the cancelling of a weapon sale by Sweden,not from calling them a dictoator. Also, I can't find a mention of EU's pressure or of Sweden apologizing.

[scriver]

EU pressure? What are you talking about?

And the cancelling of the weapon deal and calling them a dictatorship is the same thing. What happened was that when Wallström was supposed to be a guest of honour at some conference of the Arab League Saudi Arabia stopped her from speaking because of her statements on human rights in SA and SA being a dictatorship. Sweden then said that SA is a dictatorship and the government does not want to prolong the trade deal with such a country, and SA threw another tantrum.

You are correct in that Sweden never apologised officially, however, and more importantly I misremembered it as the deal having been uncanceled (which, had it happened, I reasoned as having been a de facto apology), so I withdraw my comment about the EU not standing up for Sweden, as that would never have been necessary.

The only mentions of an apology is from arab media, but I'd of course they would spin it that way.

[Sergarr]

A reminder that, according to the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff, deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014, the war with Russia is to be started in this month.

Given the complete lack of any special war tensions, I think it's safe to assume that we now know why he's a former "deputy supreme allied commander Europe", but for the sake of clarity, I'll wait until the end of May on my evaluation of British military staff's quality.

[ChairmanPoo]

A reminder that, according to the former British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff, deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014, the war with Russia is to be started in this month.

Given the complete lack of any special war tensions, I think it's safe to assume that we now know why he's a former "deputy supreme allied commander Europe", but for the sake of clarity, I'll wait until the end of May on my evaluation of British military staff's quality.

STFU. We all know that you're Putin's mole. We wont let your plans to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids come to fruition.