Re: Falling throught the cracks as an Anti-Monarchist ?

[Roy Harding]

Tick ...  Tick ... Tick ... Tick ...

Tick .. Tick ... Tick ...

Times up - is he banned yet, or does he [edit] have [/edit] an interesting explanation?

Edit:  For a forgotten word.

 

[Scott]

No worries Roy, he's gone now. He tried to lie to me by saying he was at an internet cafe - I replied that it was not likely based on the facts that I had gathered. Another more resourceful Staff member found out, without a shadow of doubt, that he was lying to me. He then sent me another PM saying I was limiting his free speech on this private website. So I told him he'd either have fun in DB or get the snot kicked out of him for being a liar and a blade.

Fair?

He had multiple accounts and was banned, that is the endgame here.

Now, I am off to watch the hockey game.

God Save the Queen and Scott Ban the Trolls.

 

[Roy Harding]

...

God Save the Queen and Scott Ban the Trolls.

Well done - I'll raise a glass to "Scott the Troll Banner" later this evening, right after I raise one to Her Majesty.

 

[Scott]

Well that was interesting. I'm surprised this site only attracts such a small number of trolls and idiots, although they do provide excellent entertainment when they start posting.

Oh boy if you only knew.

Regardless, we do have good posters here and, of our 10,000 +/- membership, we have very few idiots. Usually we are notified fairly quick of the idiots by you guys or just by picking up on them through our viewing of the board. We rely on the members to help this site as, after all, it is yours as much as it is mine. I feel that it is your responsibility as much as mine to ensure that the site, and its content, fall into line with what we all want to see. And having said that I am glad to have the support and say thanks to you for showing it. It's not often the DS have good things said about them - more often we are called fascists or are accused of infringing on someones right of free speech (On a private site no less :) but whatever.

So thanks to you who make me keep coming back here and having fun. Though I must admit that having a chew toy like our friend the troll is fun on a Saturday evening!!

God Save the Queen, bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada where it belongs and someone ring the bell, school is in session, sucka!

 

[R0B]

Why exactly does anyone here feel that having a monarch is anything but a horrible idea?

As for the oath, I hope none of you would honor it beyond your better judgement.

 

[Torlyn]

Speaking of Trolls...  :

T

 

[R0B]

Speaking of Trolls...   :

T

Being an officer and 27-years-old, you should know better than to jump to conclusions.

 

[muskrat89]

As for the oath, I hope none of you would honor it beyond your better judgement.

Clarify?

 

[R0B]

Clarify?

I mean that the oath should not be taken too literally. I would refuse what I would consider an illegal order even if it came straight from the mouth of the queen and the governor general.

I may have declared that I bare “true allegiance to her majesty,” but in fact I do not because my loyalty to Canada and the queen is by no means unlimited and exists only in good faith.

 

[redleafjumper]

Well Rob, rather than accusing Torlyn of "jumping to conclusions" you might consider studying some history and political science with a bit of philosophy to go along with your BSc, which by the way, is not an MOC.  In my opinion, your comment makes you a very real candidate as a troll. 

The comment itself is quite insulting to anyone who has ever taken the oath to enroll or enlist in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed forces, or for that matter, any oath.  If an oath was against my better judgement, I wouldn't take it.  Some of us take our oaths seriously, and that in turn means that our "word" is worth something.

As for an illegal order, that has very little to do with your oath.  As at least one respected poster once wrote, "...the Queen made you an officer, so that you know when to disobey orders."

Your comment is particularly rude to those of us who hold the queen's commission or a queen's warrant.  Have a little respect please, you will find it gets you further here.  And by the way, to the DS, I think that you are doing a very good job moderating this site and this thread in particular.

God Save the Queen!

 

[muskrat89]

I would refuse what I would consider an illegal order

As is the perogative (no, duty) of any Canadian soldier.. that's nothing compelling  :

Methinks you are just trying to sound outrageous (troll), or you really have no clue what you are talking about...

 

[RangerRay]

God save the Queen!

 

[Torlyn]

Being an officer and 27-years-old, you should know better than to jump to conclusions.

You took a jab at my Supreme Commander, and given that she's 80 years old, and a little pre-occupied at the moment, I responded on her behalf.  :

If you insult my men, anyone in my CoC, or my commision, I haven't jumped to conclusions.  You've led me there.

I'm assuming you're not in the military (given your empty profile) and have never had to take the oath.  So, what gives you the right to question my belief in the oath I took?

 

[Roy Harding]

I mean that the oath should not be taken too literally. I would refuse what I would consider an illegal order even if it came straight from the mouth of the queen and the governor general.

I may have declared that I bare “true allegiance to her majesty,” but in fact I do not because my loyalty to Canada and the queen is by no means unlimited and exists only in good faith.

Tell you what, Rob - if you reply to this I'll give you a million dollars (but don't take that too literally).  Guess I can't be trusted, huh?

Good for you that you would refuse an illegal order - the Queen rules through the rule of law - that's the way it works, glad to see that you figured that out.  If you have, indeed, taken the oath then your liability is, indeed, "unlimited".  Just ask any of the thousands who have given their all for their loyalty to Canada and the Queen.

You're missing the point, bub - if you CAN'T take the oath, then DON'T. 

I have no problem with folks who have "republican" leanings and say so, regardless I disagree with them.  I have one HELL of a problem with those who take an oath under false pretenses - they are pretenders and cannot be trusted.

I note that your profile says nothing about military experience or hope for such in the future - great - you wouldn't fit in well with that great organization known as Her Majesty's Canadian Forces - where a man means what he says.

 

[R0B]

Well Rob, rather than accusing Torlyn of "jumping to conclusions" you might consider studying some history and political science with a bit of philosophy to go along with your BSc, which by the way, is not an MOC.  In my opinion, your comment makes you a very real candidate as a troll.

I’m enrolled in a double major. One of my majors is international relations, which will yield a B.A, but my other major qualifies me for a B.Sc, so I’ve chosen to go with the science degree instead. It’s nothing more than technicality.
Thanks for jumping to conclusions and assuming that I don’t study history, political science and philosophy because I have B.Sc written under MOC. As for why I’d put it there, I was told to do so by a senior member a while back because my profile was otherwise empty.

The comment itself is quite insulting to anyone who has ever taken the oath to enroll or enlist in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed forces, or for that matter, any oath.  If an oath was against my better judgement, I wouldn't take it.  Some of us take our oaths seriously, and that in turn means that our "word" is worth something.

Captain, don’t tell me you’ve never gone back on your word. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who never gone back on their word, and if you could I’m sure it’s only because they’ve never been given ample reason to do so.

The preponderance of marriage ceremonies constitute some form of oath, but we should not fault people for seeking a divorce and in doing so, breaking the oath they’ve taken.
In 1934, the German Army was forced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler, and at the time, that might not have seemed so repulsive an idea.
Those who took the Soldier’s Oath of the Weimar Republic had also sworn their loyalty to Hitler by way of his supreme office.
The fact of the matter is that things change, and as a result, I would never swear or declare an oath of fealty to anything other than an ideal or abstract concept.

As for an illegal order, that has very little to do with your oath.  As at least one respected poster once wrote, "...the Queen made you an officer, so that you know when to disobey orders."

That’s just another way of saying what I’ve put bluntly.
If you’ve taken the oath, then disobeying an order from the queen or one of her heirs or successors constitutes breaking the oath.

As is the perogative (no, duty) of any Canadian soldier.. that's nothing compelling  :

Methinks you are just trying to sound outrageous (troll), or you really have no clue what you are talking about...

An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order. They can, however, determine the morality of an order based on their own personal values, and I would refuse to act immorally. This nation and the British monarch are not infallible entities.

You took a jab at my Supreme Commander, and given that she's 80 years old, and a little pre-occupied at the moment, I responded on her behalf.  :

If you insult my men, anyone in my CoC, or my commision, I haven't jumped to conclusions.  You've led me there.

No, you jumped to conclusions because you concluded that I was a troll. Does having a moral disagreement with the concept of a monarchy which runs perpendicular to the idea of equality among all people constitute trolling? Consult a dictionary.

Tell you what, Rob - if you reply to this I'll give you a million dollars (but don't take that too literally).  Guess I can't be trusted, huh?

Good for you that you would refuse an illegal order - the Queen rules through the rule of law - that's the way it works, glad to see that you figured that out.  If you have, indeed, taken the oath then your liability is, indeed, "unlimited".  Just ask any of the thousands who have given their all for their loyalty to Canada and the Queen.

You're missing the point, bub - if you CAN'T take the oath, then DON'T. 

I have no problem with folks who have "republican" leanings and say so, regardless I disagree with them.  I have one HELL of a problem with those who take an oath under false pretenses - they are pretenders and cannot be trusted.

I note that your profile says nothing about military experience or hope for such in the future - great - you wouldn't fit in well with that great organization known as Her Majesty's Canadian Forces - where a man means what he says.

No person of government deserves unlimited loyalty.

 

[muskrat89]

An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order. They can, however, determine the morality of an order based on their own personal values, and I would refuse to act immorally.

This is where you are lost. Individual values vary from person to person. The definition of an illegal order does not. I suggest that you stop speaking about something of which you have no clue - the oath a soldier takes on enrollment.

You're against government, monarchy, etc.... great. We get it.

 

[DJ]

An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order

Yes I can.  You're underestimating soldiers.  (Muskrat beat me to it)

No person of government deserves unlimited loyalty.

Perhaps not.  However, the Queen is head of state, not the head of the government.  Brush up on the IR. 

Edit: not meant to sound as cranky as it reads. 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

An individual soldier cannot conclusively determine the legality of an order. They can, however, determine the morality of an order based on their own personal values, and I would refuse to act immorally. This nation and the British monarch are not infallible entities.

You're wrong.  The legalese here is very clear.  A soldier has an obligation to refuse to carry out an order that is manifestly illegal.  "Manifestly" means, in this case, obvious to a reasonable person operating under similar circumstances.  If an order does not been the test of being manifestly illegal, the soldier is obligated to carry it out.

As for the rest of your rather dubious argument, since the Queen is rather unlikely to order us to commit a war crime, the point is moot, isn't it?

 

[old medic]

Captain, don’t tell me you’ve never gone back on your word. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who never gone back on their word, and if you could I’m sure it’s only because they’ve never been given ample reason to do so.

So your saying, don't bother being loyal to anything. You may wish to change your mind.

In 1934, the German Army was forced to swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler, and at the time, that might not have seemed so repulsive an idea.

Comparing Canadians to Nazi Germany, how insightful.

The fact of the matter is that things change, and as a result, I would never swear or declare an oath of fealty to anything other than an ideal or abstract concept.

Do not do it then.  Better include citizenship oaths in there, nationalism is a concept.

No, you jumped to conclusions because you concluded that I was a troll.

No, he was right. Your a complete troll.






<edit: fixed grammar>

 

[Kat Stevens]

"That’s just another way of saying what I’ve put bluntly.
If you’ve taken the oath, then disobeying an order from the queen or one of her heirs or successors constitutes breaking the oath."


I've said it elsewhere, and I see I have to say it again:  Educated and smart are not the same thing.  If an ILLEGAL order comes down from the burning bush on Mt Sinai itself, you are duty bound as a soldier to refuse it.  As long as we're tossing about NAZI reference, " I was only following orders" was not a legal defence in Nurnberg, and it isn't today.