To be Respected or to be Feared: Which is more effective ?

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

fear never last for long, respect does, even the most feared dictators have opposers, u can never scare people forever, eventually someone will rise up, eg take rascism, the kkk had black people scared in the south, not only were they a group of assholes wearing there bedsheets but they were also the police, the mayor, the landlords, etc, it took basically one man(mlk)to say no,and rearrange the whole shit, u can scare people into little dark corners but there is always someone that will say no and stand up for himself, the person that stands up for themselves get respect from the people in fear, i remember pac saying something like "if u oppress a group of people, it will eventually blow up in your face", this is exactly why fear doesnt work, not everyone will hide in there corners and stay scared, that little kid whos father got killed by the klan grew up to be malcom x.

if u treat people right, they will love u, if u back them into a corner they will hate u, its thats simple.

Ahh, but fear can be eternal - you just have to instill that fear intelligently.

What the Klan did blew up in their faces but that was their fault as they manipulated the situation wrongly. They went farther than needed, they actually overdid it & when ground the black spirit to breaking point.

Think of it as a leash: you choke the dog every now & then & it will be obedient. Choke it too much & it will react.

All you have to do is be wise with how you promote fear. Take the US for instance, the American media does this in a 'subtle' fashion every day & the people are yet to rebel. The US have been promoting paranoia for years & have only got a serious reaction once or twice.

PS. Love - on the whole - is not stronger than fear. Although, this is a different thread altogether.

And you need not back anyone into a corner to have them fear you. If someone challenges me & I beat them to a bloody pulp (literally) those who witnessed this will fear me & yet, I may not have even looked in their direction.

Anyways, Cuchicheo family.......eternally.

True, but then I was (In away correct) in saying "Fear comes with respect"

In a roundabout way, yes you were. This way being that with respect comes power, & with power comes fear (from others).

 

[Thommo]

In a roundabout way, yes you were. This way being that with respect comes power, & with power comes fear (from others).

Agreed Peace

 

[MX Red]

MX Red, have you heard of the Queen?? (Nothing to do with Freddy Mercury......you pansy)

Had a feeling thats what u meant - didnt realise thats why she was still head of state? of course thats why she is the absoulout ruler of the UK?

She doesnt rule so how can she have a devine right to rule? her power doesnt derive from that right anymore so what the fuck is your point?

History would be a good leson for u to take, dont get history and modern day mixed up.

and why call me pansy?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Had a feeling thats what u meant - didnt realise thats why she was still head of state? of course thats why she is the absoulout ruler of the UK?

She doesnt rule so how can she have a devine right to rule? her power doesnt derive from that right anymore so what the fuck is your point?

History would be a good leson for u to take, dont get history and modern day mixed up.

She doesn't rule??? That's why she sits on the throne is it?

Tell me something, who are we 'subject' to?

Who does the Armed Forces serve?

Who do they devote their lives to in their oath?

You do know that if the Army were to follow the rules faithfully, the Queen could order them to kill us & they would have to do it? This is the truth.

The divine right is in the bloodline. Monarchies have always had the opinion they were divine &, who can blame them? They are bestowed with immense power & wealth without having to lift a finger.

and why call me pansy?

Queen? Freddy Mercury?? You have a sense of humour, no??

Oh well...

 

[MX Red]

How many times has that blood line changed? Tudor, Windsor and so on.

And by the way...since when were u called 'subject'?LMFAO, we are citizens even though the queen is head of state - thats the point - look at your passport!

and no, the queen holds no political power - the only reason everything is in her name is because she is head of state...she is in Canada as well...cant really see her ordering them to do anything!

seriously the divne right of the queen does not stand anymore, she is not there because she or anyone else thinks she is a relation of jesus! like i said; History lesson!

yeah i get humor - it just wasnt funny!
peace
MX!

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

The changing of the bloodline is irrelevant, whoever has the power believes in their bloodline.

we are citizens

NO WE'RE NOT!! We are still considered 'subjects' of Her Majesty. How many times do I have to say it?

When did I mention the current queen in relation to Jesus?

History lesson?? Here's one for you: the Welsh have always rolled over for the Saxon.

 

[Ismality]

If you're respected, you don't need to be feared

 

[MX Red]

Cant argue with the last bit!

But really mate - we are citizens, according to devine right she would have absoulout power - she rules nothing and thus by default cannot believe in that since she makes no effort to rule!

She is head of the Church, but u try telling the Arch Bishop she is related to god in some way (cause by the way the devine right is the belief that you are related to god in some way!) he would have a fit of laughter!

U cant really be telling me u think she believes that? the press would have a field day, the public would ridicul her...Im sure it was the roundhead's who basically killed that idea.

And again - we are British Citizens first and foremost, we do not answer to the queen, our law comes from parliment and thus we could vote to have her removed...thus we are not subject to her in any way!

Like i said - check your passport, it states it nice and clearly!
peace
MX!

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I do not know what is wrong with you MX Red.

Not only have I not said the Queen thinks she is related to God/Jesus, but I actually went out of my way in my last post to ensure you knew that i did not say such a thing. But alas....you STILL come at me with this BS.

Your points remain, on the whole, are either false or irrelevant.

And in the eyes of the law we ARE 'subjects'.....to deny this is to be FUCKING RETARDED!!!

I have a problem with this as I would rather be free which is why I wish independence - quicker than waiting for the UK to become a republic.

If you decide you want to reply, think it through & read it before you post it. If there is a hint of bullshit, there is a good chance it is all crap.

 

[MX Red]

the whole argument came about from the devine thing right?

The 'devine right' like u keep saying she thinks she has means THAT SHE THINKS SHE IS RELATED TO JESUS OR GOD, AND THUS HAS THE RIGHT TO RULE - THAT IS WHAT THE TERM MEANS, if she believes in her bloodline being devine, she believes she is realted or a direct decendant of god, and thus should rule - im not taking the piss here, thats what it means. So dont tell me youve gone out of your way to explain to me u know she isnt related to god when u have already said she holds devine power - or is it that u dont have a clue what the term means?

And mate we are citizens, i understand what u mean, cause the queen is head of state it means we are subjects - but the monarchy was overthrown by Cromwell which gave us citizen status, she is simply a symbol mate - not a political force, she has no power in our constitution, she cannot ammend any laws, she cant reject any laws (although she has to ok every law, she cant actually say no) - she even has the right to vote (why would she have that if she was above parliment?). Stop arguing with me and check the inside of your passport - when have u ever heared yourself being discribed as a british subject on the news? never - immigrants are given citizenship, not subject status! We have Citizen status and our laws ensure we are citizens, we are not ruled by a queen thus by default we cannot be her subjects - this aint rocket science mind!

I dont know how else to explain this to u, u dont know what the devine right is.
peace
MX!

 

[MX Red]

British Nationality Act 1981



PART I BRITISH CITIZENSHIP

Acquisition after commencement

1.- Acquisition by birth or adoption.

(1) A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is

(a) a British citizen; or
(b) settled in the United Kingdom.



Thats the law mate - now go argue with Tony Blair! Fuck you have annoyed me!

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Well it was actually that whole post that you made. You disregarded the relevance of Machiavelli's works in the modern world which, while applicable to some, is not neccessarily true.

I quoted a particular section which would dismantle your argument.

Once again, I am yet to say that the Queen thinks she has a divine right. The only time I alluded to it I made sure I used the correct punctuation so as to avert any confusion.

Still, while I may call you a 'faggot', I may not mean that you enjoy penetrating men anally, yes? Good.

Just as this word can be flipped so can the word 'divine'. Although, it will always have strong connotations of the religious, it does not necessarily have to mean this.

Point is, 'divine right' is an old term always used with regards to monarchies as many DID believe they were chosen by God. Nowadays, this phrase is also used to represent the bloodline of the monarchies as, if somewhere down the line someone has proclaimed to be 'chosen' then surely they all are?

Anyways, just to settle this, quote me where I said the Queen believes she is related to God. Go on.

We are not regular citizens.

You obviously don't udnerstand what I mean.

Cromwell himself was overthrown therefore rendering that point irrelevant.

She - by law - has the power to alter laws.

She CAN reject laws & if she were to, the Government would have to seek a solution.

Being described as a British subject? Yes. I know indepence might not be newsworthy in a place where people are happy being another country's pet, but in this country there are people who want change & the topic is debated.

I would say peace, but a blind man is of no use to me.


Edit - in response to your last post.

I recognize the fact that British people have citizenship, but we are still subject to a monarchy, making us 'subjects'. How can we be fully-fledged citizens - in principle - if we are to serve an entity other than the nation? How can we be citizens where there is an entity equal to/or greater than the nation, it's peoples & laws?

 

[MX Red]

I through out this have made clear what the term devine right means - I have used the accepted use of the term, i havent changed what i thought it meant - if u were using it in a different why didnt u say? The devine right by definition of the term devine means what i say, not what u say! What do the monarchy believe there bloodline is under your version of devine right? and please get me some litreature that states this - cause mate in the dictionary this is what divine right means: -
divine right
n.
The doctrine that monarchs derive their right to rule directly from God and are accountable only to God (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=divine right)

The queen in no way believes this, otherwise why can she vote?

There are no other definitions because it doesnt mean anything else.

Earlier u said that u were a subject, and we were definitly not citizens - now u say we are not full citizens - is this after u read the little of the law i post!

U change your argument not to look foolish. I studied all this in Uni, i know im right on both accounts.
peace
MX!

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Don't credit yourself with 'changing' my opinion. I have attempted to take away any misleading personal opinion & give my opinion in different forms in roder to enhance udnerstanding here.

And just so as you know, the proof of why your last post meant jack shit other than me having to re-word my argument for you.

THE BRITISH -: "THE BRITISH - CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS?
One of the most enduring myths in the area of nationality is that British people are 'subjects' rather than 'citizens'. It is not true, and hasn't been true since 1948.
Prior to 1 January 1949, British people were 'British subjects'. As were people in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa and all across the British Empire and Commonwealth. Although the Dominions like Australia and Canada had become independent nations by the late 1940s, they shared a common nationality with the United Kingdom and British colonies.
In the late 1940s it was decided that the Dominions should be able to create their own citizenships for people connected with their territory. Canada had been the first to do so in 1947. The status of British subject would remain, but would generally be held by virtue of citizenship of a Commonwealth country.
In the UK the British Nationality Act 1948 created the status of 'Citizen of the UK and Colonies' for people connected with the UK and its colonies as they were on 1 January 1949. Citizens of the UK and Colonies were also British subjects, as were citizens of other Commonwealth nations. The British also allowed some people from former British India and Southern Ireland to hold the status of British subject independently of holding the citizenshipof any Commonwealth nation.
Under UK law, from 1949 to 1982 the terms 'British subject' and 'Commonwealth citizen' were interchangeable. People from the UK were not just British subjects, but citizens of the UK and Colonies as well.
The British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983, ended the use of the term 'British subject' to refer to Commonwealth citizens. People from the UK became British citizens, and there is no reference made to British citizens being also British subjects. Britis"

 

[MX Red]

I recognize the fact that British people have citizenship, but we are still subject to a monarchy, making us 'subjects'. How can we be fully-fledged citizens - in principle - if we are to serve an entity other than the nation? How can we be citizens where there is an entity equal to/or greater than the nation, it's peoples & laws?

I have said i understand that we are subjects, but we are citizens first. Even the queen has to call us citizens. You are either way to republican or simply havent a clue!
peace
MX!

 

[MX Red]

Well i was wrong about the Cromwell bit - but right about everything else - good job mate, really!

 

[MX Red]

And in the eyes of the law we ARE 'subjects'.....to deny this is to be FUCKING RETARDED!!!

U havent re-worded your argument - you were just wrong!

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

So we are subjects & citizens?

Fair enough if you change that to, 'subjects & (by some accounts yes but not really) citizens?

Irrespective of what the dictionary will tell you (btw, if we lived & died by a dictionary's definition, those that fall into the latter would be increased), I cannot accept dual roles, I am either a citizen & that's it, or I am not a citizen.

As the former is not apparent, I am the latter.

This would appear to be an argument now revolving around perceptions.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

U havent re-worded your argument - you were just wrong!

I never meant that I would go back & re-word everything. Pieces which won't even be looked at. Re-wording my argument is an ongoing process but does not involve me retracting statements as this is moviing the goalposts rather than painting them a different colour if you'll excuse the analogy.

Ask yourself this, are we 'subject' to the Queen? The answer, yes.
Therefore, are we Her Majesty's 'subjects'? The answer, yes.

Just to answer some I forget to in my last post, you say the Queen adresses us as citizens. And the point here is?? Diplomacy has never been respective monarchies' strongest point but they were never without it.

 

[MX Red]

The British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983, ended the use of the term 'British subject' to refer to Commonwealth citizens. People from the UK became British citizens, and there is no reference made to British citizens being also British subjects. Britis"

Good god will u now be quiet?

U can play with definitions all u want - i went on what the term meant and how the term is used, please can we leave it?
peace
MX!