Prince Harry is a Daddy!

originally posted by: UnconditionalGlove
a reply to: JAGStorm

I didn't care when Diana died, why would I? I didn't know her, I cared as much as when I read of any car crash in a newspaper.
People are sucked up fawning over a privileged family in an archaic institution like good little subjects, so yeah give me a break, there were 300,000 new dads all over the world the same day, why do you care about this one? Oh yeah, the media told you to.

Your posts belie your claims. You certainly do care a little, if not also envy, because you're in here bitching up a storm. People who don't care about a topic in any related manner whatsoever don't engage the topic to begin with.

So do try to be more honest with folks, would ya?

Also, the whole idea that anyone is important due to their parents I have always found disgusting. I will form an opinion on the kid when he can actually do something in this world. Until then, meh.

a reply to: Nyiah
I do not accept your argument at all.
Nowhere have I shown that I cared about the death of Diana any more or less than I do about any other car death of people who I don't know. Nor do I care about the birth of this child any more or less than any other child born in the world. What I do care about though is the disgrace that a single child gets world attention for being born into an undemocratic institution of power, and funded by taxes of common people.
Your argument is silly trying to compare how I care, against the way the fawning masses care about one privileged new born. Again, 300,000 kids born the same day in the world and thousands died.
But yeah, lets all gush over the baby your media tells you to care about. Drones is what I see, conditioned and programmed drones.

originally posted by: UnconditionalGlove
a reply to: ketsuko
I'd prefer to be a rich animal in a zoo than a starving one dying of cholera any day, no sympathy for the new prince from me.
And if not celebrate what do you call it? Emotional connection with following a blood line supported by taxes of British people?

The grass is always greener ...

For all that wealth seems to be the cure for everything, there are an awful lot of fabulously miserable rich people in this world. For people who seem to have everything, they do an awful good job of destroying their lives through the same avenues as the rest of us.

a reply to: ketsuko
The grass is always greener? What, like one of the thousands of kids who starve to death in the world every day wouldn't switch places with a royal Prince and all the later life challenges that brings? Really???
Yet everyone gushes over this single new born because the media and establishment tells them to. A child who happened to be born into an archaic institution of kings and queens which belongs in history.
It is pitiful watching people fawn over someone they only know about because the institution programmes them to.
Blind worship of riches and power through birthright.

a reply to: UnconditionalGlove

Fawning? Hardly. My comment was cynical. It had been given out that the royal baby was going to be raised gender neutral, so I was enjoying the announcement of a "boy". How dare the child's own father assume the royal gender-neutralness's gender!

The nerve of some people.

(in case you cannot tell in your moralizing, that's sarcasm)

a reply to: ketsuko
I didn't refer to you fawning or not, I referred to the masses generally. My fawning comment was not about you, clearly, so I am puzzled why you felt a need to explain your own comments about gender. An issue I haven't raised or responded to in this thread.
Maybe read my reply again and specifically the part relating to your greener grass comments?

a reply to: UnconditionalGlove

In general, you are responding to the people discussing things in this thread. We're discussing the baby, so we must be fawning like so many others because we have enough passing interest to comment on the occasion.

I wonder if you ever read the story of The Prince and the Pauper?

a reply to: ketsuko
The media and wider public most certainly are fawning over one particular infant child who happened to be born into one of the worlds most wealthy and powerful families. A family with a matriarch who is head of state of 16 nations, while completely unelected.
The only reason people have interest in this child is because the media and establishment have programmed the peasants to be interested. And yes, fawning is an appropriate word when no regular citizen even knows them personally, aside from their inherited wealth and power.

Prince and pauper? Give me a break, the 300+ thousand babies born every day are no less important than those born to the Windsor family, yet that is the news being fed to the shallow masses.
You find me a starving child, from the many thousands in the world right now, who wouldn't change places with the new Prince, then maybe we can talk, but right now your children's fairy tale reference is frankly ridiculous.

a reply to: UnconditionalGlove

We get it, we get it, no baby is more important than the next. Except the destitute ones you personally find deserving of any attention for existing.

No one cares what you think, Ranty McRanterson. It doesn't change a damn thing. Some kid born in Burundi into total poverty is likely to not make one iota of impact on the world at large at any given point in their life without some serious charity help from the pockets of the comparatively wealthier, and you know it because you keep insinuating to have any impact at all, they'd have to trade birth circumstances the new Sussex kid. Which is a roundabout way of you saying that one of the world's wealthiest babies is in actuality -- wait for it! -- at least a little more important in one form or another to begin with.

a reply to: Nyiah
You obviously care enough about what I think to take the effort replying to me and using childish insults. I have not insulted you so expect the same. Do you speak for everyone reading ATS? It seems you think you do by saying no one cares what I think.

You seem agitated somewhat, certainly very defensive because I have a different opinion on the archaic establishment of royalty.
Perhaps you shouldn't take my reasoned comments so personally, kick the ball not the player?
Everyone can have an opinion, but insults and being unfriendly is unnecessary.
I shall return your style of debate with a meme and wish you good day.

I like how the first reply was removed.
well done harry for making a baby with an American prostitute.
are we allowed to call her a prostitute?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Those royals don't wait long after getting married to start having kids!

I guess when you have nannies to raise your kids for you, it's not as important to get a solid chunk of just-the-two-of-us time in before you lose your ability to be carefree.

His excitement is adorable. 😊

a reply to: UnconditionalGlove

Oh please, you're about as transparent as they come. You dislike the idea of a monarchy and thus, anyone who might have even the slightest interest is, as you called them, a "drone". Anyone who disagrees with your points is doing it because "media" or "brainwashed". It seems you can't be disagreed with, without insulting the disagreeing folks first. Those in glass houses, and who jab first, have no room to bitch.

So kindly take your feigned indignation and stuff it. Like it or not, there are Royal fans on here (of which I'm not one) Let them have their vicarious fun, and you can go pout in the corner about it.

I just get a kick out of all this fascination with the royal family.

That, and the UK's really weird fetish with the Kartrashians.

The royal family thing I can understand, but the Kartrashians????? What's up with that?

ETA - If Kim Kartrashian farted this would steal the headlines from Prince Harry and the new Jr. Prince.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You know ... until you brought them up, I had been blissfully unaware of the Kardashian clan lately. After that big flap with Kanye and Trump, they kind of fell off the radar a bit. Maybe that's one other thing I can thank Trump for.

a reply to: Nyiah
my, you are an aggressive one aren't you.
To address your points:
Transparent is a fitting label, my posted words are exactly my position, no more no less.
I assert that the British Royal family is fawned over by the masses as a result of programming by mass media and the establishment. You wouldn't even know about them if your media hadn't told you to care, and so you do, like a good little subject.
I most certainly can be disagreed with, rationally and with reason though, you however used childish insults first, and still you persist with your angry tone.

My original comment in the thread was not even directed at you but you took offence as a small child would when one criticises their idol. I merely pointed out the fact that 300,000 babies were born the same day, and thousands died around the world.
YOU responded to that and clearly felt emotionally involved about my disdain for the royal family as an institution. So, like it or not, as long as you continue replying to me I shall share my opposing opinion as is the norm in discussion forum.

Please do calm yourself though, if you disagree with me that is absolutely fine, but your temper tantrum style of debate is not what I would expect on a platform where adults discuss issues.

I will continue mocking anyone who supports the institution of undemocratic monarchy, and continue sharing my thoughts on the brainwashing of the masses to care about a child born into that family as if they were your friends.
If you dislike that no matter, but every time you reply to me I shall respond for the sake of discussion.

The easy answer is to ignore me. Remember, you responded to me first, and you seem to have taken my opinion way too personally than is healthy. Angry emotions over words on a screen is a waste of energy, calm down dear.

originally posted by: UnconditionalGlove
I will continue mocking anyone who supports the institution of undemocratic monarchy, and continue sharing my thoughts on the brainwashing of the masses to care about a child born into that family ....

Perhaps a little less mocking and blanket assertions of brainwashing, and a little more appreciation that some people can, and do, respect an institution. In that way people won't accuse you of being blinkered and belligerent.

a reply to: paraphi
I don't mind being thought of as blinkered and belligerent, so be it.
I am passionately against the institution of the constitutional monarchy, same as the unelected house of lords.
The people who fawn over this archaic system of blood line in effect give it their power and support the cause. Of course I will criticise and mock, how on earth can you morally justify tax payer privilege by birth right?
You can't in any logical or reasoned manner.
The royal family was born of peasants blood, heck the US fought a war to be rid of them and now they gush over the new arrival.

My first comment in this thread was neither mocking or beligerent, but it upset people who are emotionally invested in the royals and that started the indignant or offended replies.
If you want an echo chamber then go to a royalist forum, but right now, after reading the T&C's, it would seem I am not breaching any rules so shall continue to condemn the royal institution and those who fawn over it so long as people continue to reply to me.
I am not here to make friends or attain a star count, but I note that my initial comment attracted more stars than the opening post in the thread, so clearly I am not alone with my thoughts.

originally posted by: UnconditionalGlove
If you want an echo chamber then ...

I don't think that's what's being asked, just that it's civil and pleasant.