quote:Not really. What is he responsible for? Can that responsibility be taken away? If not, then it's not real.
So the definition of responsibility is that it must be a burden that can be removed?
quote:responsibility: n 1: the social force that binds you to your obligations and the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr [syn: duty, obligation]
2: the proper sphere or extent of your activities; "it was his province to take care of himself" [syn: province]
3: a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one's conduct; "he holds a position of great responsibility" [syn: responsibleness] [ant: irresponsibility]
Prince Harry's responsibility is similar to the responsibility of someone who is expected to take over the family business. My college roommate, for example, is expected to take over the family auto part business. He is the only child and if he does not take over the business, the store will close and hundreds of people will be out of work. You can say he was born into this responsibility.
Prince Harry's family business requires him to be a symbol for his nation. It's a tough job (I'm not being sarcastic here) and I don't envy his life. But dressing up as a Nazi is not a simple teenage mistake like underage drinking or swearing in public. It is a shameful act that leaves a permanent black mark on the royal family.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tasteless is largely in the eye of the beholder, and not strong enough. Certainly not offensive; while this case was offensive and morally wrong, not all cases of someone getting offended are. Wrong (barring promotion of freedom of expression) but significantly more wrong to regulate.
"Drug abuse problems"? Unless I missed the latest bit of gossip, he smoked pot once or twice. It was a problem because of immoral (and thus largely irrelevant, especially to someone with his connections) laws. Besides, latest propaganda on this side of the ocean is that it is a disease, not a moral failing.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there some sort of government pre-approved costume list I can get so I can make sure that I never ever in any way offend anyone?
Posts: 530 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also jumped on emulate. Why would his actions be a black mark on the entire family? An adult is responsible for his own actions and to a much lesser extent those of any minor children. I could almost see blaming his father, but then it would seem to absolve him of at least some of the blame, which does not seem right.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't understand why people even care what the queen does.
Perhaps because the British taxpayers pay her salary. Much like the British taxpayers paid for the Nazi costume.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why too strong? I admit I am assigning a partial motive of shock for no reason, because I have a hard time believing he is that oblivious or concerned about the rights of every person he "represents".
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plenty of common sense, verily, but its faith in the common sense of others that I fear I lack.
Posts: 530 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
It may have been some sort of rebelliousness, but at the very least it was youthful stupidity. Should he learn he shouldn't do it? Yes, though its not our job to teach him. Does it mean much, really? Nope. I'm far more worried about what some frats have their members do during initiation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would his actions be a black mark on the entire family?
The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines. So the stupid actions of one member of the family reflects badly on the entire house of Windsor.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much like I pay part of Bush's salary, probably his inauguration party, and the salaries of local police, state police, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the ATF, and of course the DEA. All of them wanted their jobs, and they do not represent me any more than Harry does the British populace.
Edit: but that idea is silly, and while slightly better than advocating discrimination, seems pretty much the same as saying white people are naturally superior. Not that the prince deserves any credit for this, but anything that acts as an example of the idea's falsehood has done some good. Probably more good than bad, because I doubt the prince dressing up really convinced anyone that maybe that Hitler guy was right after all.
Edit the second, responding to the post below: So abolish involuntary taxation, or at least cut out needless expenses. If you want to pay someone to be offensive, support dung on the Virgin Mary which was arguably somewhat more worthwhile, because it is "art".
posted
We pay Bush's salary for him to be our president. We do not pay an allowance for his daughters.
The entire house of Windsor is probably supported by taxpayer money as well as wealth accumulated by previous family members in their capacity as monarchs.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plenty of common sense, verily, but its faith in the common sense of others that I fear I lack.
Believe me, I sympathize. And it's basically true that everything offends somebody, so we shouldn't get all stressed out worrying about our every action and who may be offended. However, some actions are so abonimable, or so rebellious, or so whatever, that it's not a question of whether a few high-strung people will be offended.
That's why our own common sense must serve. There's nothing in the employee handbook of my company that specifically says that men can't dress up as Cleopatra to come to work. There shouldn't have to be. I know that if I dress as Cleopatra to go to work, that's too shocking and unprofessional to be permitted, and I would get in trouble for it. I don't need to ask my boss if it's okay to know that it's not. My common sense tells me that it's not, and so I don't do it.
(Well, there's also the fact that I have no inclination to dress like Cleopatra for any reason. But that's beside the point.)
quote:The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines. So the stupid actions of one member of the family reflects badly on the entire house of Windsor.
In that regard, it may be too late for the Windsors already. Harry isn't exactly the first bad apple to fall out of that barrel.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe they receive stipends, and have personal, family wealth that is not insignificant as well.
However, let's assume he purchased the coustume with his stipend.
After I pay my local policeman's wage, it is none of my business what he choses to do with it. If he wants to go out and buy porn videos, I do not consider that I paid for the porn videos. I paid for his services as a police officer. He paid for the porn.
I don't have to approve of the porn, and he doesn't have to ask me to. It's his money now.
Prince Harry is in a tough spot. He has amazing opportunities, but little to no privacy. He did not ask to be there, and has no real way out.
I think him wearing a nazi coustume to a party was stupid and offensive. He certainly had a right to do it. Doesn't make it any less stupid or offensive. Eventually, he'll probably get tired of the flak when he does something stupid and offensive and simmer down to a sullen but unobtrusive side-note to the royal family. Either that or burn out spectacularly. Regardless, all this crap wouldn't be news if people didn't watch and listen to it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The whole idea of royalty is based on the superiority of royal bloodlines."
Does anybody actually believe that anymore? I don't think so.
I'm sure most people do not believe the royals are somehow better people than the rest of us. However, that fiction has to be maintained in order for royalty to continue its ceremonial function. There's a reason why I cannot become the king of England. And of course, the world is poorer for it.
quote:After I pay my local policeman's wage, it is none of my business what he choses to do with it. If he wants to go out and buy porn videos, I do not consider that I paid for the porn videos. I paid for his services as a police officer. He paid for the porn.
The policeman's job is to serve and protect. Watching porn probably doesn't hinder that. The royals are paid to be figureheads. Their job is to represent England in the best light possible. When one of them insults the memory of the holocaust and the WWII veterans who died defending England, I'd say they are not doing their jobs.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that's what it takes to be invited over to Ralphie's...
vwiggen, yes, the policeman's job is less stringent. The policeman also chose his job and has the option of quitting.
Please note, I'm not saying what he did was not wrong, and did not run counter to the best interests of the royal family. I'm saying of all the reasons to get upset over it, I don't think that the "taxpayers bought the coustume" one is particularly valid.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The policeman also chose his job and has the option of quitting.
That's a good point. Having every aspect of your life examined by the tabloids must be very taxing. This is why I would never fault the prince for doing average stupid teenage things. But to select a Nazi costume, put it on, and wear it in public? That cannot be excused as a thoughtless teenage act.
Edited to add: Harry is 20. All this time I thought he was sixteen or something.
quote:Prince Harry apologized after he wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party two weeks before Queen Elizabeth is due to lead the country's holocaust memorial events.
And I would never "excuse" it, as a thoughtless teenage act or otherwise. You'll note I said it was stupid and offensive.
The sole argument that I am making in this thread is that once he is paid the money is his to do with as he wishes, and the taxpayers have no right to say what he can or cannot do with the stipend they choose to pay him. If they don't like it, they can pass a law that says the monarchy can't hire military coustumes, or be seen in public in anything but traditional English garb, or just abolish the entire silly thing. Until they do that, he can do what he wants with his money.
Edit for clarity: By "the entire silly thing" I mean "the monarchy." But then whatever would they do for entertainment?
posted
Verily - Invalid comparison. You chose to work for a company that very likely has a dress code. If there was no dress code at all, then they have the right to add a condition of employment but not to discipline you in any way. Besides, negative social feedback from your coworkers should be enough to convince you to change. Of course, in today's society you might just be able to sue for discrimination should they take any action, depending on your state, county, and city.
Personally I would find it mildly unappetizing to look at, but cross-dressing is a far cry from dressing up as mass murderer. If a coworker cross-dressed, I would make every effort to treat him or her with the same dignity and respect as anyone else. If a coworker dressed up as Hitler, I would express my disgust.
EIJay - You might be perfectly happy to fund all of the (legal) actions of the police. I am not, and would not pay that portion had I the option. I am forced into it. Harry was just offensive, but caused no measurable, tangible harm to anyone. This is absolutely not the case with the police; they ruin people's lives... and that is making the often (though far from completely) false assumption that they are operating entirely within the bounds of the law. Sure, I am just a selfish drug addict, but keep in mind the very real civil rights abuses that were legally sanctioned well into the latter half of the past century, and if you are for gay rights continue into this one.
A while back, my CD player was stolen from my truck. I went through the motions of filing a report. I have yet to recover it, and if the thief was caught he certainly was not prosecuted for mine, or more relevantly forced to provide compensation. Are the police really going to arrive in time to stop an assault, rape, or murder, even assuming the criminal was nice enough to let their victim(s) call 911? Sure, they might catch him afterwards... revenge is sweeter if it is personal, and can never really erase acts of violence anyway.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a good point. Having every aspect of your life examined by the tabloids must be very taxing. This is why I would never fault the prince for doing average stupid teenage things. But to select a Nazi costume, put it on, and wear in public? That cannot be excused as a thoughtless teenage act.
Exactly. Smoking weed and punching out paparazzi (which he shouldn't do, but let's be honest, don't paparazzi all deserve a good whacking anyway?) is one thing. But this Nazi costume thing is a slap in the face to everyone who survived the Holocaust, a posthumous slap in the face to the millions upon millions of people who died in it, and a backward-V sign (the British equivalent of the middle finger) to his own countrymen who fought and died to stop the Nazis. I can't stress enough that he should know better than that.
quote:Verily - Invalid comparison[. . .]
I wasn't comparing dressing like Cleopatra to dressing like Hitler. I was responding to Anti-Chris's notion that we'd need some kind of list telling us exactly what we can and can't do to avoid offending people. I was asserting that common sense should be enough to help us avoid the more major blunders.
posted
I take it you haven't spent much time around college students, v.
While we're certainly not all like that, there are plenty of fairly intelligent people who have odd impulses they sometimes don't manage to control to do really stupid stuff in college.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I merely picked the police as an example of someone who's wages are paid by my taxes, not because I particularly approve of their actions. You must have missed my recent visit to the police station story. Call it the garbage man, if you prefer, if they are city-paid in your town. They are in mine.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's not the most compelling reason. However, many people are asking why people care what anyone in the royal family does. The only function the royal family serves is to be cared about. The people of Britain pay them to be cared about. It seems silly to then turn around and blame the British people for caring.
I think this is probably one more step towards the abolishment of the royal family, myself. I can't see the British people allowing Prince Charles to ascend the throne. Though of course, I'm not actually in any position to judge.
[EDIT to add] He is not paid the money to do with as he wishes, he's paid the money to keep himself in a manner that befits his position and does credit to his country. The use of the word salary was not entirely accurate, but I couldn't come up with stipend at the time and it was as close as I could get.
posted
I am afraid I did. I got the (very possibly mistaken) impression from your post that you were not particularly upset at paying their salary, though. I am. The garbage collection provides a service I actually want, so I have no problem with funding that. If I found out they were racist in their hiring practices, I would be similarly angry at paying them were I forced to. If I learned that a large majority were using their disposable income to support racist schools of though, I would seriously consider switching if possible, although I would not feel nearly as obligated as I would were the institution itself racist.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmmm. I agree with your first paragraph almost completely, blacwolve. I would expect the British people to care, and be shocked if they didn't. I would expect the uproar to possibly make him think twice next time.
I still don't agree, however, that there are conditions attached to the money.
As a side note, the second article linked to said that he rented the coustume... so while Europeans may still think it's a bigger deal than many of the people in this thread seem to, they still have nazi coustumes available for rent.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, as the police for the most part do not affect my daily life, I care very little about them, actually. I don't particularly agree with some of our laws, including our drug laws, but since I don't personally break them I don't get too worked up about it. If I was going to get upset with where my tax dollars go, there are several other places I'd get upset about first.
But whether I would chose to fund a particular tax-payer supported service or not... if I want to, I can try to get it changed. But as long as it's there, once the money is paid to the person providing the service, I believe it is theirs to do with as they wish.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He went WAY over the line this time, and I OD think it is the peoples right to know what he is doing....the royal family has no job, othre than figureheads, and it seems like this idiot isn't even suited for that.
After all the suffereing his country sffered in WWII, this was way beyond crss and rude..it is unexcusible.
posted
EIJay, while I focus on drug laws the most, I am opposed to all laws that attempt to regulate private behavior, and/or force one to pay for services they do not desire. The anti-sodomy laws did not affect me directly, nor do the amendments banning gay marriage, but I am fairly vigorous in opposing them online as well, and more so in real life.
Taxation is not voluntary, so I feel I have much more of a right to oppose paying the salaries of anyone who chose their job and takes my money by force. I care quite a bit more about a policeman or even a garbageman purchasing content I find distasteful than I do my landlord. I would have less of a problem paying Harry than I would for the British services I do not use, because he was forced into it and has received negative consequences as well. Still he and the rest of the royals are useless, and UK citizens should ask themselves why they want to pay people who have no moral obligation to the citizens in their capacity as royals.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, I disagree with Danzig on the police issue...not big suprise there. I have had both good and bad things happen with police in my life, but all I have to hear is Ed Sauron telling me how the police act in his country, and I suddenly am SO glad I live in the USA.
My uncle lived in Costa Rica for 7 years, and the only reason he was OK was he use to find jobs for the locals in the hotels, so the locals watched out for hom.
But he still needed to carry a loaded M-16 everywhere, or he would have been dead meat.
Anyone who thinks dressing up as Nazi is funny, smart, clever or simply ok should go visit Checkpoint Charlie. Spend a few hours there and then wonder why people get upset at visual reminders of the atrocities that occured, and the people that comitted them.
For the record, I think Harry's actions were ill-conceived, thoughtless and dumb. As he is in the spotlight (however much he may not wish to be) he should have thought how his costume could offend. He didn't - a mistake. He has apologised though.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be worse; I do not deny that. It is far from good enough. Morally, there is still plenty of corruption, and the fact that they get paid to enforce laws against consensual crimes. What fraction are corrupt? For "big" issues, such as accepting money from the mob or even non-aggressive dealers, probably less than most people involved in illegal activities think. 10%? 5%? Enough that it is not particularly surprising when you do not know them personally. For "little" issues, more than people who believe breaking any law is immoral would like to admit. Done it once or twice? 75%? 50%? Make a habit? 50%? 25%? Enough to make you hope to get out of a speeding ticket, or drive two blocks home if he knows you and you are only .01 over the limit, or be let off with a stern warning if she catches you smoking pot with her own child. I will not even try to weigh "big" issues against "little" ones, except to say that excusing non-consensual crimes is obviously worse.
I specifically exclude from corruption police who sincerely oppose a law, and make every reasonable effort to let any offenders they catch go free, but only from laws they sincerely oppose and without showing favoritism, and only from laws against consensual crimes. That is valid civil disobedience.
Even if the US is the best country in the world, a statement I neither agree nor disagree with, it can always get better.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But this Nazi costume thing is a slap in the face to everyone who survived the Holocaust, a posthumous slap in the face to the millions upon millions of people who died in it, and a backward-V sign (the British equivalent of the middle finger) to his own countrymen who fought and died to stop the Nazis."
Why? Again, wearing a zombie outfit is not advocating zombie-hood. If I dress as a chainsaw murderer, I'm not advocating murdering people with a chainsaw.
It is, I'll freely admit, insensitive. However, I sincerely doubt that it was a deliberate "slap" in any way; Harry's young enough and spoiled enough that I'm fairly certain that the whole Nazi movement was a distant, semi-mythical abstraction for him.
After all, I'm from a generation that's most likely to run into Nazis as generic villains in computer games or adventure movies; they're practically synonymous with "interchangeable bad guy."
Now, if he dresses like a Nazi again, he's asking for it -- but the guy gets a free pass for offending people accidentally once. Frankly, I'm rather glad he obviously chose his costume himself, without an aide's input -- as opposed to the panel his meticulously sculpted older brother would convene on that topic.
posted
Halloween before last, I was still in high school, and one of my Mexican friends came to school as an Arab terrorist -- beard, stubble, "ayayayayay"ing, robes...
And it cracked everyone up.
Dressing as a terrorist or as a Nazi for, as Tom said, a costume party, doesn't imply support for their beliefs. If anything, it serves only as a reminder of how monstrous these people are that they can be dressed up as for Halloween (for example, another of my friends came as Anna Nicole Smith) -- and does nothing but further polarize Nazi ideology from contemporary society.
That said, Harry knew he'd be in the public eye, and he probably should've -- or did? -- seen this coming. Stupid kid, but that just means we have an excuse to throw in inbreeding jokes, nothing more.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? Again, wearing a zombie outfit is not advocating zombie-hood. If I dress as a chainsaw murderer, I'm not advocating murdering people with a chainsaw.
Again I don't know of anyone who was killed by a zombie, but there a re still plenty of people who are the victims of the Nazi regime.
quote: Halloween before last, I was still in high school, and one of my Mexican friends came to school as an Arab terrorist -- beard, stubble, "ayayayayay"ing, robes...
I find it less likely that people would be laughing if they lost a family member in the attacks. Your example is also doubly stupid because it presents a racist stereotype.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My uncle lived in Costa Rica for 7 years, and the only reason he was OK was he use to find jobs for the locals in the hotels, so the locals watched out for hom.
But he still needed to carry a loaded M-16 everywhere, or he would have been dead meat.
Uh. Maybe I'm just a lot more charming than everyone says I am, but I had no problems being a gringo in Costa Rica -- if anything, they're a hot commodity. They're usually educated or well-trained, they're hot sexual prospects for Ticos, and often well-off, which means creating jobs for the locals, which means popularity.
Granted, I was deep inside Costa Rica, in a largely remote village, but...
Costa Rica, I consider safe. Other countries, not so much, especially if you're female -- I wouldn't want to drive through Mexico without reservations in hotels with guarded parking, and my white skin would make me a target for any desperate man out there. But the smaller, relatively affluent countries, especially those with intense tourism from white countries, I'd judge to be safe for honkies. I didn't have a problem in Costa Rica, and I have yet to know a gringo who did. Maybe if you live in the poorer part of San Jose, but poverty inspires crime everywhere -- including here, dude.
But that's just my experience. Your uncle's might be different, or maybe he's just paranoid, but I've walked through lit LA at midnight, and I've walked for miles during pitch-black lonely roads in Costa Rica much later than that, and I've felt completely secure only in one of those places.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
