Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Nationalist Teksas]

Hot cake: I prefer artificial syrup to maple syrup.

[Diopolis]

Hot cake: I prefer artificial syrup to maple syrup.

Eww.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't really see the comparison between me and Transformers, but thanks I guess.

TRANSformers because you have the pride flag as your flag's background.

Hmm. Maybe.

[North German Realm]

Hot cake: I prefer artificial syrup to maple syrup.

I hate syrup in general. What does that make me?

[Nova Cyberia]

Hot cake: I prefer artificial syrup to maple syrup.

[Nationalist Teksas]

Hot cake: I prefer artificial syrup to maple syrup.

Eww.

I like your opinions, except this one.

[Diopolis]

Eww.

I like your opinions, except this one.

Hey, even if you don't want real maple syrup, there's always bananas foster or strawberry sauce instead.

[Nationalist Teksas]

I like your opinions, except this one.

Hey, even if you don't want real maple syrup, there's always bananas foster or strawberry sauce instead.

Are they as cheap and rich as fake syrup?

[Diopolis]

Hey, even if you don't want real maple syrup, there's always bananas foster or strawberry sauce instead.

Are they as cheap and rich as fake syrup?

No, you have to make them yourself, with real strawberries or bananas.

[Bienenhalde]

True as that may be (and honestly, I'm quite amused that you think the rich and influential don't rule the society in a monarchy, or that a monarchy isn't, by its very nature, an oligarchy at best), it is -like usual- irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Your claim that a dynasty has the right to topple another on the account of the latter being corrupt, decadent, or stale necessitates that the thing that separates a monarchy from a republic (as in, the fact that the office of the head of state is, by "grace of god", private property of a single family) becomes irrelevant.
The Office of the Head of State (The throne) is the king/queen/prince/duke/whatever-the-fuck's private property ordained to them and their family by god's grace. That's literally how monarchy -at least, non-popular and non-constitutional monarchy (which I'm assuming is the type you mean)- is defined. You don't have the right to take my private property -the piece of land- away from me if I'm not treating it well (i.e. letting it rot, instead of building something in it). Why would you get the right to take away my private property -the office of the head of state- if you decide I'm not treating it well? If you can, then what's the point? Just have a republic where the head of state isn't "private property" in the first place.

I do not agree that the state is the private property of the monarch. I think that a monarch whose rule is immoral loses the Mandate of Heaven.

[Nea Byzantia]

Are they as cheap and rich as fake syrup?

No, you have to make them yourself, with real strawberries or bananas.

Are these Texan dessert condiments?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I like your opinions, except this one.

Hey, even if you don't want real maple syrup, there's always bananas foster or strawberry sauce instead.

Hot take: waffles are better than pancakes, and strawberry syrup is the best topping for said waffles.

[Nea Byzantia]

Hey, even if you don't want real maple syrup, there's always bananas foster or strawberry sauce instead.

Hot take: waffles are better than pancakes, and strawberry syrup is the best topping for said waffles.

Maple syrup is better. You know that, eh?

[Diopolis]

No, you have to make them yourself, with real strawberries or bananas.

Are these Texan dessert condiments?

Strawberry sauce seems pretty common in the south. Bananas foster is more of a rice belt thing, but you can find it in more and more places now. A real Texan doesn't distinguish his pancakes by the condiments, but by the presence of pecans in the batter.

[Nea Byzantia]

Are these Texan dessert condiments?

Strawberry sauce seems pretty common in the south. Bananas foster is more of a rice belt thing, but you can find it in more and more places now. A real Texan doesn't distinguish his pancakes by the condiments, but by the presence of pecans in the batter.

You guys put pecans in pancakes?...Interesting.

[Nationalist Teksas]

Are these Texan dessert condiments?

Strawberry sauce seems pretty common in the south. Bananas foster is more of a rice belt thing, but you can find it in more and more places now. A real Texan doesn't distinguish his pancakes by the condiments, but by the presence of pecans in the batter.

Pecans make pancakes 3000 times better.

[Nea Byzantia]

Strawberry sauce seems pretty common in the south. Bananas foster is more of a rice belt thing, but you can find it in more and more places now. A real Texan doesn't distinguish his pancakes by the condiments, but by the presence of pecans in the batter.

Pecans make pancakes 3000 times better.

You Texan, too?

[North German Realm]

True as that may be (and honestly, I'm quite amused that you think the rich and influential don't rule the society in a monarchy, or that a monarchy isn't, by its very nature, an oligarchy at best), it is -like usual- irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Your claim that a dynasty has the right to topple another on the account of the latter being corrupt, decadent, or stale necessitates that the thing that separates a monarchy from a republic (as in, the fact that the office of the head of state is, by "grace of god", private property of a single family) becomes irrelevant.
The Office of the Head of State (The throne) is the king/queen/prince/duke/whatever-the-fuck's private property ordained to them and their family by god's grace. That's literally how monarchy -at least, non-popular and non-constitutional monarchy (which I'm assuming is the type you mean)- is defined. You don't have the right to take my private property -the piece of land- away from me if I'm not treating it well (i.e. letting it rot, instead of building something in it). Why would you get the right to take away my private property -the office of the head of state- if you decide I'm not treating it well? If you can, then what's the point? Just have a republic where the head of state isn't "private property" in the first place.

I do not agree that the state is the private property of the monarch. I think that a monarch whose rule is immoral loses the Mandate of Heaven.

I don't agree with you. I myself am a popular-constitutionalist monarchist, and so I don't agree with the concept of the divine right in its entirety, but if you do (and the Mandate of Heaven is a purely Asian concept, I'm not sure if it applies to the Western monarchies, or any monarchy that doesn't adhere to it really), you suppose that the right-to-rule is given -ordained- by the divine. You are not divine. You don't get to decide if the person who's in charge by divine right is "abusing his power". If you can get to decide that, then what's the point of that right being divine? Why shouldn't the monarch be in power purely by popularity instead?

[Bienenhalde]

A. Gay "marriage" cannot properly speaking be entered into for the good of the children because two men or two women cannot reproduce.
B. Gay "marriage" cannot symbolize and demonstrate proper gender roles, for rather obvious reasons.

A: Well if you believe that sex should only be for the purpose of reproduction, then of course it makes sense to disagree with same-sex marriage. But many people nowadays, even on the Right would not agree with such an assertion.
B: I do not see the need or benefit of gender roles. Why not judge people on the basis of merit, regardless of gender? Why not hold people to the same standards of morality and propriety, regardless of gender?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hot take: waffles are better than pancakes, and strawberry syrup is the best topping for said waffles.

Maple syrup is better. You know that, eh?

In my defense, Nea Byzantia, I'm making a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (or "Kraft Dinner" as it's known in your country of residence) for today's lunch.

[Nationalist Teksas]

The Mandate of Heaven actually does make sense as a tool to explain Chinese history.

[Bienenhalde]

I do not agree that the state is the private property of the monarch. I think that a monarch whose rule is immoral loses the Mandate of Heaven.

I don't agree with you. I myself am a popular-constitutionalist monarchist, and so I don't agree with the concept of the divine right in its entirety, but if you do (and the Mandate of Heaven is a purely Asian concept, I'm not sure if it applies to the Western monarchies, or any monarchy that doesn't adhere to it really), you suppose that the right-to-rule is given -ordained- by the divine. You are not divine. You don't get to decide if the person who's in charge by divine right is "abusing his power". If you can get to decide that, then what's the point of that right being divine? Why shouldn't the monarch be in power purely by popularity instead?

I am personally suspicious of populism, but what makes you think that brute force would inherently be an expression of divine will anymore than a vote for impeachment or some other kind of peaceful constitutional mechanism?

[Nakena]

Maple syrup is better. You know that, eh?

In my defense, Nea Byzantia, I'm making a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (or "Kraft Dinner" as it's known in your country of residence) for today's lunch.

Carnivore diet is best.

[Nea Byzantia]

In my defense, Nea Byzantia, I'm making a box of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (or "Kraft Dinner" as it's known in your country of residence) for today's lunch.

Carnivore diet is best.

Yes, actually...Carbs are Cancer....The problem is that they're so delicious.

[North German Realm]

I don't agree with you. I myself am a popular-constitutionalist monarchist, and so I don't agree with the concept of the divine right in its entirety, but if you do (and the Mandate of Heaven is a purely Asian concept, I'm not sure if it applies to the Western monarchies, or any monarchy that doesn't adhere to it really), you suppose that the right-to-rule is given -ordained- by the divine. You are not divine. You don't get to decide if the person who's in charge by divine right is "abusing his power". If you can get to decide that, then what's the point of that right being divine? Why shouldn't the monarch be in power purely by popularity instead?

I am personally suspicious of populism, but what makes you think that brute force would inherently be an expression of divine will anymore than a vote for impeachment or some other kind of peaceful constitutional mechanism?

I specifically said that use of brute force is not an expression of the divine. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned the concept of the divine right is really just a way to legitimize a warlord getting into power and either bribing or beating a cleric black and blue until they'd crown him king, but if you adhere to the idea that a king rules because he has a divine right to rule, then you can't decide when or if he loses that power. You're not divine. You can't rescind a right divine gives to someone.