Squirrels supporting a Wolf vs Hamsters with a leashed Chihuahua

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.

My thoughts on the subject are a lie?

Your thoughts on the subject are misinformed and incorrect. A statement such as "A Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule" is a deliberate falsehood, a lie.

Amazing demonstration of doublespeak.

No, thats not what doublespeak means either... If anything,calling your incorrect statements earlier lies is dysphemistic rather than euphemistic.

Before this goes too overboard though, how about you adress the rest of the post you quoted from?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

They're meaningless terms in a technical, poly-sci sense.  In that sense, "king" could mean anything.  But in terms of actually communicating, it's not empty of meaning to say that they prefer a monarch to a president, or that the proposed changes would create a president who's merely called a "king."

Look, if youre not using the PolSci definitions of these words during a discussion about systems of government, itself a PolSci subject, which ones are you using? The chess definition maybe? The playing cards definition?

A colloquial "definition," not a formal one.  That should be obvious at this point.

and let him say what he wants?  It is amply clear to everyone at this point that you consider the labels to be arbitrary and meaningless, and XPB does not.

Yes, it is clear that people who are knowledgeable about PolSci know what these labels mean (or dont mean in this case), and people who are either unwilling or incapable to perform a 5 second Google search and are instead more interested in calling their adversaries hamsters for distrusting a single person to keep up appearances for literal decades with little chance of recompense do not, you figured it out.

"Messaging" might be another political science term to draw upon, here, since we're not discussing this in terms of an abstract classroom debate.  Most people don't actually consider the terms "king" and "president" to be empty labels devoid of meaning.

Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role.  But clearly they do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.

A Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule

A Republic desires a less powerful leader (whatever you call it) who is replaced on a fixed schedule (and might even have term limits)

This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.

No, it's his opinion.  While I appreciate your fierce passion for parsing language, he is certainly entitled to present his opinion of what a kingdom needs.  He's not "lying" about what he thinks a king must be or what a kingdom must be.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

A colloquial "definition," not a formal one.  That should be obvious at this point.
[...]
Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role.  But clearly they do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.

Until you or anyone else can explain to me what this obvious colloquial meaning of "king" is that most people apparently share, statements like these mean nothing to me. I am evidently not part of that majority, you got to help me out here. If you want to of course.

Besides, I'm not even overly attached to the HC, and neither am I a Republican. The HC was my idea, yes, and I explained my reasons for that in this thread. Should it be rejected in another referendum, I won't mind.

What I do mind is when people misuse terms for potentially insincere reasons. Objections to the HC are perfectly reasonable (my ideas arent usually that great), but please spare me the theatrics and the label stuff. This thread started off as a colourful creative way of insulting and attacking supporters of the HC, instead of arguing about the HC itself. A simple "I don't like the Historic Compromise and here's why:" list wouldve been infinitely better.

No, it's his opinion.  While I appreciate your fierce passion for parsing language, he is certainly entitled to present his opinion of what a kingdom needs.  He's not "lying" about what he thinks a king must be or what a kingdom must be.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, and I didnt say he is lying about what he thinks. But in that case he shouldnt phrase his opinions as if they were facts, that could lead to misunderstandings should pedants (such as myself) get involved. Not a demand (Im not in the position to demand anything from anyone, anyway), just a suggestion.

While youre at it, if you could also explain what you mean by "fierce passion for parsing language" means as well, that would be great. Otherwise I have to assume; phrasing like these give me the shivvies.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Yes, I think lowering the temperature of this conversation would be good.  I apologize if I've been curt or circuitous.

A colloquial "definition," not a formal one.  That should be obvious at this point.
[...]
Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role.  But clearly they do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.

Until you or anyone else can explain to me what this obvious colloquial meaning of "king" is that most people apparently share, statements like these mean nothing to me. I am evidently not part of that majority, you got to help me out here. If you want to of course.

100% fair.  I believe XPB mentioned this a little bit, but it's worth unpacking since it relies a little bit on an Americentric sort of view, I think?  Not sure.  For me (and I think for XPB) a king signifies someone who wields some significant power but is not subject to partisan politics or elections for the most part, even if their powers are significantly constrained by checks or balances placed elsewhere in the system.  Obviously, we're a democracy, so even the king is ultimately going to be subject to the people in a larger way -- it only takes a single referendum to boot them and replace them.  You're completely right when you point out that this isn't the poli-sci understanding of king, since that label doesn't mean any of those things in any strict way.  But this is what I think and how I think a lot of people take it.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, and I didnt say he is lying about what he thinks. But in that case he shouldnt phrase his opinions as if they were facts, that could lead to misunderstandings should pedants (such as myself) get involved. Not a demand (Im not in the position to demand anything from anyone, anyway), just a suggestion.

While youre at it, if you could also explain what you mean by "fierce passion for parsing language" means as well, that would be great. Otherwise I have to assume; phrasing like these give me the shivvies.

Making an emphatic statement about expectations and norms seems very reasonable, although I'm sorry that it might cause confusion.  In fairness, though, I'm not sure most people approach this from the standpoint of the technical definitions.

When I say I admire your passion for parsing language, I'm saying I admire your dedication to being exact about phrasing and words.  I've noticed it before when it comes to our discussions about the referendum, when you made your points cogently and with excellent precision.

I apologize for confusions or problems caused by metaphor or localisms; we have an international community and this stuff happens, but I admit to my privileged position in our country as an American-Talossan.  I should try to imitate some of your exactness, but I don't have a scientific bent to my thoughts, usually.

[xpb]

Yes, in case it was not clear, Balançeu / Balance supports a dynastic monarchy with only occasional, exceptional, unscheduled changes. 

You can also reach the party at balanceubalance@gmail.com or +1 ‪(414) 253-3643‬ for voicemail or text. (edited to add +1)