The Restoration of The British Monarchy. Is It Possible? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14866869
In England, in 1650, if you wanted to timber-frame your own Pub and Inn in the woods outside of Canterbury, you could pretty well do it yourself and make all the food and beer in-house, and have your five year old twins wait tables, and you didn't have to worry about fucking inspectors, 400 different building codes, 15 different permits, and 40 different fees other than taxes and perhaps a right to serve via an upfront fee to the local magistrate.


You could also be burned for being a witch. :lol:

Anyway, only the "patriotic" right could look back at a time when 5 year olds were having to work rather than getting an eduction and a chance at a decent life and see something better. You people really do detest your countrymen.
#14866946
Rugoz wrote:So if some nobleman can rape and murder your wife with impunity it doesn't matter as long as you can burn your garbage in the front lawn? I'd call that postmodern decadence.


I don't think nobles should be legally permitted to rape and murder with impunity, nor would I defend such. Lets not pursue absurdity for its own sake in characterizing the arguments of others. Besides, you just childishly mimicked the already straw-man argument of PoD. Congrats, you repeated a fallacy in an even less creative and amusing way. At least you are winning a race to the bottom. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote: Since it is anecdotal and unsupported, it is therefore inadmissible hogwash, as you put it.


Glad we agree.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing sills.
I am discussing lintels. Lintels are part of framing. Sills are not. Lintels hold up loads. Sills just need to stay straight enough to ably support the flashing and other window joints elements, in order to avoid infiltration.
Lintels should be double or triple framed as regulations and local climate conditions dictate.


I was not merely speaking of sills either, I was speaking of the framing around windows, including the header and the sills, and even the king-studs. When you are on the job, and you tell a guy to go frame the window, this is known by him and you to include the construction of the sills and it is done during the framing part of the job.

Headers are typically double-framed, and I think they should be, but requiring them to be triple framed, or sandwiched with OSB, is not necessary, double framing has been generally sufficient. House collapses because of window-framing not being triple-framed is so rare, that the fluke failure of a window-frame that was done in a manner sufficient for 30+ years with next-to-no deaths, is not an adequate reason to redo the whole code to make everything more expensive and complex. Even one moron building his own poorly so that is collapse on himself is not a good enough reason to require everyone to follow unnecessary codes, this falls under the bad apple analogy. You do not let a bad apple spoil the whole batch, you set aside that instance as non-applicable in code considerations (in my opinion).

Likewise, double-framing the sills, which like I showed from the contractors forum, is usually unnecessary (and triple framing them is almost absolutely unnecessary), but some inspectors are now requiring it, that is dumb. You know it, and I know it.

Examples could be multiplied.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So it is unnecessary and intrusive because you feel that way, and because you lived in a house where it was grandfathered.

And regulations do not require you to update them, unless you are doing renovations there anyway.


Its intrusive because homes that are grandfathered are, by nature-of-the-definition, sufficiently safe under the old ways.

Plus, I never denied that you were not required to update them unless renovations were being done. I believed we discussed this already.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are vastly oversimplifying risk here.
Each regulation has a different risk assessment involving a different set of variables. You cannot simply say they must be all risky or all not.
Let us look at lintels again. Lintel structure in Canada depends on snyow load. And you do not take the average snow load. You take the load for 100 year storms. This creates a safety margin, because 99% of all storms in the areas will not have enough snow load to matter. And this safety margin is one of the reasons you can grandfather things.
It is actually more complicated than this, with forensic engineers looking at collapsed buildings, and recreating the event in lab conditions, and compiling statistics, and analysing different materials, and doing a zillion other things that requires a certain level of science.


I don't see how all of this shows that I oversimplified risk. I have acknowledged exceptional categories of direct fire concern, etc., but my point is, if an old form is safe for occupancy, then it is safe to duplicate in new construction. This varies by region, but the principle remains constant. An safe-to-occupy old home in the Tundra, is safe-to-duplicate in new construction. That is the point. Yes, home structures are regionally relative, but are universal in the general principle of what constitutes safe-to-live in.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Really? In Canada, heavy timber framing is explicitly dealt with in the National Building Code. Better fire rating that steel.

We use glue laminated timbers for atriums in low rise buildings all the time, because it is so pretty.


In some places in the U.S. you cannot build a timber-frame home without hiring, and getting the structure inspected and certified, by a licensed engineer. Though some states don't care at all, it varies. In the end though, I think building shelter on one's own property is a human right.

Also, I do not think there is a superior form of wood-framing than that of mortise-and-tenon timber-frames. They are indeed gorgeous as well. Something else we can agree on.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that the state enforces them does not magically make them more intrusive than other laws also enforced by the state.

And if the codes were only written by tradespeople, you would be ignoring many groups of industry stakeholders, including fire prevention officers, the end users, and municipal authorities in charge of infrastructure.


I never said or claimed any of this. I was merely defending the point that regulations can rightly be said to originate from the state via elected bodies even if the content of the code in the regulation originated in the private sector.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, the difference is that you do not like these, but you like the other ones.

If it is just about your feelings, fine. I hope you understand why I will simply move on.

As for your edit:

You seem to be arguing that the micromanagement of having 42” guardrails is more intrusive than serdom.


I don't see how any of my clarifying examples could be construed to imply you conclusions here. Its baffling.

Decky wrote:You could also be burned for being a witch.

Anyway, only the "patriotic" right could look back at a time when 5 year olds were having to work rather than getting an eduction and a chance at a decent life and see something better. You people really do detest your countrymen.


I do not have a problem burning witches, which if they are truly witches, are the minions of Satan himself who murder, conspire against the church and state, sow heresy, insight rebellion and socially decadent ideas like feminism, promote childlessness, and offer abortions and contraceptives, as well as become complicit in adultery and other forms of wickedness.


I think the education of one's children, beyond the very basic elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic, is the sole right and prerogative of the parents. Likewise, just because a five year old waits tables at the family pub, does not mean they are not being simultaneously educated in latin and logic when homeschooled. That does not follow at all.
#14866959
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I don't think nobles should be legally permitted to rape and murder with impunity, nor would I defend such. Lets not pursue absurdity for its own sake in characterizing the arguments of others. Besides, you just childishly mimicked the already straw-man argument of PoD. Congrats, you repeated a fallacy in an even less creative and amusing way. At least you are winning a race to the bottom. :lol:


As far as I can tell, this is pretty much what you are arguing.

I was not merely speaking of sills either, I was speaking of the framing around windows, including the header and the sills, and even the king-studs. When you are on the job, and you tell a guy to go frame the window, this is known by him and you to include the construction of the sills and it is done during the framing part of the job.


For most climates I have worked in, sills are not structural and therefore not covered by regulations.

I can see how they might be in areas with high risk of hurricanes or tornadoes, but not where I have worked.

Feel free to point out the actual regulation that is onerous.

Headers are typically double-framed, and I think they should be, but requiring them to be triple framed, or sandwiched with OSB, is not necessary, double framing has been generally sufficient. House collapses because of window-framing not being triple-framed is so rare, that the fluke failure of a window-frame that was done in a manner sufficient for 30+ years with next-to-no deaths, is not an adequate reason to redo the whole code to make everything more expensive and complex. Even one moron building his own poorly so that is collapse on himself is not a good enough reason to require everyone to follow unnecessary codes, this falls under the bad apple analogy. You do not let a bad apple spoil the whole batch, you set aside that instance as non-applicable in code considerations (in my opinion).


And since these regulations about lintel framing are done by forensic engineers, materials specialists, etc. and have their results verified and published in a manner consistent with scientific methodology, I do not have to rely on your opinion, or your belief about how many morons can die before it is significant.

Likewise, double-framing the sills, which like I showed from the contractors forum, is usually unnecessary (and triple framing them is almost absolutely unnecessary), but some inspectors are now requiring it, that is dumb. You know it, and I know it.

Examples could be multiplied.


Feel free to show an actual regulation requiring this.

Its intrusive because homes that are grandfathered are, by nature-of-the-definition, sufficiently safe under the old ways.


Actually, that shows how unintrusive the regulatory system is.

Plus, I never denied that you were not required to update them unless renovations were being done. I believed we discussed this already.


So the complaint about having to change everything when the code changes is baseless.

I don't see how all of this shows that I oversimplified risk. I have acknowledged exceptional categories of direct fire concern, etc., but my point is, if an old form is safe for occupancy, then it is safe to duplicate in new construction. This varies by region, but the principle remains constant. An safe-to-occupy old home in the Tundra, is safe-to-duplicate in new construction. That is the point. Yes, home structures are regionally relative, but are universal in the general principle of what constitutes safe-to-live in.


Actually, it was unsafe for occupancy, in that it posed a significant risk under certain conditions. But the rarity of these conditions allows for grandfathering.

If most SPF 2x6 lintels spanning 1500mm or more collapse during a 100 year storm, the few that remain are not magically safe for the next 100 year storm, even though they can remain in place in the interim.

In some places in the U.S. you cannot build a timber-frame home without hiring, and getting the structure inspected and certified, by a licensed engineer. Though some states don't care at all, it varies. In the end though, I think building shelter on one's own property is a human right.


They also need to be designed by a structural engineer here. This is because so much of the load often depends on just one member. In contrast, light wood framing depends in series of members, and so the impact is significantly less when a structural menber fails.

I never said or claimed any of this. I was merely defending the point that regulations can rightly be said to originate from the state via elected bodies even if the content of the code in the regulation originated in the private sector.


Again, they do not originate from the state. They are empowered by the state.

As long as we are clear that mob rule does not create regulations for self-enrichment and to expand power, even though the codes are implemented by local administrative bureaucracies that are a subset of the larger representative bodies of local governance that is itself a subset of the broader representative government in the nation.

Instead, regulations are created by groups of people, and these goups often have conflicting agendas, so even if they were in it for self-enrichment (it is capitalism, after all), the process is set up to minimise that.

I don't see how any of my clarifying examples could be construed to imply you conclusions here. Its baffling.


What’s the confusion?

Also, parents do not have rights. They have responsibilities.
#14867212
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to point out the actual regulation that is onerous.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to show an actual regulation requiring this.


Pants-of-dog wrote:So the complaint about having to change everything when the code changes is baseless.


Here we go again, I was wondering how long it was going to take for you to revert to your same petulant ways.

Image

You have spoken with me on these matters assuming the content of my statements as valid pertaining to our personal experiences as contractors, now that you are getting bored/irritated with your own conversation performance you want me to hunt down every instance from personal experience's correspondent code citation? Sorry bud, it doesn't work that way, if you don't trust someone's claims on the outset than you must ask for evidence at the outset. I refuse your requests for me to waste my time hunting down every municipal code for your personal satisfaction. Not playing that game with you here.....again.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, this is pretty much what you are arguing.


Image
#14867218
Cool. When I am discussing regulations for light framing, I am discussing the National Building Code of Canada, and the CMHC Handbook.

Copies of these can be found online, so if you want me to discuss these regualtions, I can actually cite them.

Amd if you are getting frustrated because everyone thinks you are arguing that we should get really upset at regulations and petty libertarian stuff and ignore actual large scale institutional oppression of the masses, maybe you should clarify your point.
#14867237
Pants-of-dog wrote:Amd if you are getting frustrated because everyone thinks you are arguing that we should get really upset at regulations and petty libertarian stuff and ignore actual large scale institutional oppression of the masses, maybe you should clarify your point.


How did I ignore "institutional oppression" (makes me ill to ever write out that phrase)? I stated, over-and-over again, that I would be opposed to nobles willy-nilly committing rapes etc., I am not supporting such. We are talking about, broadly, the restoration of the Monarchy in this thread and I am defending the point that monarchies are qualitatively different, in their level of intrusiveness, to modern democracies and dictatorships. A innocuous and uncontroversial point being made a big deal by trolls.

I am not a libertarian, I am not advocating for absolutely NO intrusiveness, nor have I ever argued that a lack of intrusiveness outweighs nobles raping their peasants at will. I never made that argument and never would make that argument and have addressed it several times. The assumption in the criticism is that by supporting monarchy and heirarchy I am implicitly supporting the abuses of such, and that does not follow logically. It is a non-sequitur and straw-man. I am opposed to the abuses of monarchal or aristocratic power while still arguing for its legitimacy and its benefits as they relate to individual liberties in the context of bureaucratic intrusiveness. Its frustrating to repeat the obvious to people who, if really believing these assertions, have very little depth and very poor etiquette regarding the absurd assumptions they are willing to both make, and project, in a debate. Its like talking to elementary children who need serious discipline.

SO, it is asinine to claim that guard-rail height liberties outweigh nobles having the liberty of raping their peasants.

Why? Because I do not think raping of peasants should be acceptable, the assumption that I would think so, as projected in all of these arguments. Is a fallacy.
#14867242
How did I ignore "institutional oppression" (makes me ill to ever write out that phrase)? I stated, over-and-over again, that I would be opposed to nobles willy-nilly committing rapes etc., I am not supporting such. We are talking about, broadly, the restoration of the Monarchy in this thread and I am defending the point that monarchies are qualitatively different, in their level of intrusiveness, to modern democracies and dictatorships. A innocuous and uncontroversial point being made a big deal by trolls.

The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that your call for a "restoration" of the British monarchy (which still exists, btw) is that it is detached from any sense of history. There is, after all, a reason why the divine right of monarchs was rejected several centuries ago - it was because the rising bourgeois class wanted to be left in peace to make money off the backs of the proletariat, who had been newly minted from the landless and property-less peasantry created by the Enclosures. They were tired of the trade monopolies handed out on a whim to the monarch's favourite courtiers, and the resulting economic inefficiencies and restricted opportunities to make money which such practices inflicted on the bourgeoisie. They wanted a more 'just' (for them, of course) and more efficient dispensation, and they got their wish. The monarchy was prevented from arbitrarily interfering in the economy and from overriding the political wishes of the capitalist class. But, and at first glance paradoxically, this led to a greater degree of regulation and state oversight, since the massive expansion of the forces of production and of trade which capitalism brought led to the need to better manage that complex system. After all, if your economy consists almost entirely of serfs tilling their feudal lord's land and a few wool merchants, then who needs 'regulations'? Lol. And you don't need a monarch to impose regulations; Parliament is perfectly capable of managing that itself, thank you very much. What this means, in effect, is that by calling for a "restoration" of the extra-constitutional 'rights' of a monarch, you are actually calling for a return to the feudal mode of production, since that is the only mode of production in which those regulations would be unnecessary. But how many people are going to sign up to that?
#14867251
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How did I ignore "institutional oppression" (makes me ill to ever write out that phrase)? I stated, over-and-over again, that I would be opposed to nobles willy-nilly committing rapes etc., I am not supporting such. We are talking about, broadly, the restoration of the Monarchy in this thread and I am defending the point that monarchies are qualitatively different, in their level of intrusiveness, to modern democracies and dictatorships. A innocuous and uncontroversial point being made a big deal by trolls.


Well, since you like to tell us all about how awesomely racist and sexist and oppressive you are, it makes sense that you want to ignore how monarchies oppress people, or even celebrate this.

This is why you should use real world examples. If you want to be clear on what you are arguing, point to an actual monarchy that actually uses regualtions in the way you would like.

I am not a libertarian, I am not advocating for absolutely NO intrusiveness, nor have I ever argued that a lack of intrusiveness outweighs nobles raping their peasants at will. I never made that argument and never would make that argument and have addressed it several times. The assumption in the criticism is that by supporting monarchy and heirarchy I am implicitly supporting the abuses of such, and that does not follow logically. It is a non-sequitur and straw-man. I am opposed to the abuses of monarchal or aristocratic power while still arguing for its legitimacy and its benefits as they relate to individual liberties in the context of bureaucratic intrusiveness. Its frustrating to repeat the obvious to people who, if really believing these assertions, have very little depth and very poor etiquette regarding the absurd assumptions they are willing to both make, and project, in a debate. Its like talking to elementary children who need serious discipline.


Yes, it has nothing to do with your wordy writing style, lack of clear examples, and inconsistencies when it comes to championing and then condemning oppression. It is just us being meanies. :roll:

SO, it is asinine to claim that guard-rail height liberties outweigh nobles having the liberty of raping their peasants.

Why? Because I do not think raping of peasants should be acceptable, the assumption that I would think so, as projected in all of these arguments. Is a fallacy.


Historically, monrachies did this.

You seem to be talking about some imaginary monarchy that has never existed but has a well thought out regulatory system.
#14867984
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, since you like to tell us all about how awesomely racist and sexist and oppressive you are, it makes sense that you want to ignore how monarchies oppress people, or even celebrate this.


Don't be Silly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is why you should use real world examples. If you want to be clear on what you are arguing, point to an actual monarchy that actually uses regulations in the way you would like.


If there were any historic-style monarchies still in existence I would do so, but there really isn't, that is why we have been discussing the nature of monarchies from the perspective of political theory and history, and not from modern examples. Where have you been?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, it has nothing to do with your wordy writing style, lack of clear examples, and inconsistencies when it comes to championing and then condemning oppression. It is just us being meanies.


Your lack of skills when it comes to conceptual depth and reading comprehension does not imply any fault in my style; likewise, I never claimed you were being a "meany," I claimed you were being "fallacious." I know that word might be a little big for you, but "fallacious" implies that your reasoning was incorrect and faulty and has no bearing on whether you were, or were not, a meany.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Historically, monrachies did this.

You seem to be talking about some imaginary monarchy that has never existed but has a well thought out regulatory system.


Well, we are talking about the restoration of monarchy as a system of governance for a future context that does not currently exist. So yes, we are talking about an "imaginary" scenario involving hypotheticals (did you even read the OP?). Besides, No one here is necessarily arguing in favor of every single historical reality associated loosely with that system of governance in its previous manifestations. I am not advocating going back to pre-electricity because such can be correlated with historic monarchies. There is nothing essential to the definition of monarchy that would require me to do so, nor is there anything essential in the definition of a monarchy that would require me to tolerate raping the public at will. That is absurd and it is fallacious.

Potemkin wrote:The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that your call for a "restoration" of the British monarchy (which still exists, btw) is that it is detached from any sense of history. There is, after all, a reason why the divine right of monarchs was rejected several centuries ago - it was because the rising bourgeois class wanted to be left in peace to make money off the backs of the proletariat, who had been newly minted from the landless and property-less peasantry created by the Enclosures.


This whole post assumes a Marxist-dialectic as the best explanation for the fall of monarchy, which would be a point of contention. We could also explain the fall of monarchy and rise in democratic systems as a sign of civilizational exhaustion (i.e. Spengler's Physiognomic Morphology); or a decline in patriarchal sexual vitality at the societal level (Unwin's argument based of Freud's theory of sexual sublimation). The historic context, if properly understood, does not necessitate the Marxist interpretation. So, of course, if you are a Marxist, you would see any case for monarchy as absurd because it is like asking a man to devolve back into an ape as if that were a positive. The Marxist views history as deterministic along material and economic lines and the progress involved as irreversible and linear; however, the argument I am making assumes an interpretation of history that is, anti-progressive. Rather than viewing history as moving along an evolutionary advance, I view modern history as revealing decay and decomposition of a civilization which had achieved its highest point some time ago. Thus, the restoring of a monarchy is not a strange return to something primitive and antiquated, but an advancement to something inherently superior as a manner of staving off continued social masochism and civilizational collapse.
#14867988
This whole post assumes a Marxist-dialectic as the best explanation for the fall of monarchy, which would be a point of contention. We could also explain the fall of monarchy and rise in democratic systems as a sign of civilizational exhaustion (i.e. Spengler's Physiognomic Morphology); or a decline in patriarchal sexual vitality at the societal level (Unwin's argument based of Freud's theory of sexual sublimation). The historic context, if properly understood, does not necessitate the Marxist interpretation. So, of course, if you are a Marxist, you would see any case for monarchy as absurd because it is like asking a man to devolve back into an ape as if that were a positive. The Marxist views history as deterministic along material and economic lines and the progress involved as irreversible and linear; however, the argument I am making assumes an interpretation of history that is, anti-progressive. Rather than viewing history as moving along an evolutionary advance, I view modern history as revealing decay and decomposition of a civilization which had achieved its highest point some time ago. Thus, the restoring of a monarchy is not a strange return to something primitive and antiquated, but an advancement to something inherently superior as a manner of staving off continued social masochism and civilizational collapse.

...which is just another way of saying that I am a progressive and you are a reactionary. Which is true, but why bother even pointing it out? :)
#14867996
Victoribus Spolia wrote:We could also explain the fall of monarchy and rise in democratic systems as a sign of civilizational exhaustion (i.e. Spengler's Physiognomic Morphology); or a decline in patriarchal sexual vitality at the societal level (Unwin's argument based of Freud's theory of sexual sublimation).


Seriously? :lol:
#14868000
Rugoz wrote:Seriously?


Nope. Just Kidding. :roll:
Potemkin wrote:...which is just another way of saying that I am a progressive and you are a reactionary. Which is true, but why bother even pointing it out?


True, but your argument assumes your dialectic pretty exclusively, I mean, were you seriously surprised that I responded in such a manner? To go along with your argument would require me to adopt your presuppositions, which I fundamentally reject.

Also, what is your opinion of Black Rum?
#14868002
True, but your argument assumes your dialectic pretty exclusively, I mean, were you seriously surprised that I responded in such a manner? To go along with your argument would require me to adopt your presuppositions, which I fundamentally reject.

Indeed. But, again, that's just another way of saying that I am a progressive and you are a reactionary. I believe in the existence and the desirability of human progress, whereas you clearly don't. We therefore adopt incommensurate presuppositions. This is, ultimately, a matter of personal taste and personal character. As Johann Fichte put it, the type of person one is determines the type of philosophy one is attracted to. Everything else is just post hoc rationalisation.

Also, what is your opinion of Black Rum?

I approve of its existence. :up:
#14868006
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Don't be Silly.

If there were any historic-style monarchies still in existence I would do so, but there really isn't, that is why we have been discussing the nature of monarchies from the perspective of political theory and history, and not from modern examples. Where have you been?

Your lack of skills when it comes to conceptual depth and reading comprehension does not imply any fault in my style; likewise, I never claimed you were being a "meany," I claimed you were being "fallacious." I know that word might be a little big for you, but "fallacious" implies that your reasoning was incorrect and faulty and has no bearing on whether you were, or were not, a meany.

Well, we are talking about the restoration of monarchy as a system of governance for a future context that does not currently exist. So yes, we are talking about an "imaginary" scenario involving hypotheticals (did you even read the OP?). Besides, No one here is necessarily arguing in favor of every single historical reality associated loosely with that system of governance in its previous manifestations. I am not advocating going back to pre-electricity because such can be correlated with historic monarchies. There is nothing essential to the definition of monarchy that would require me to do so, nor is there anything essential in the definition of a monarchy that would require me to tolerate raping the public at will. That is absurd and it is fallacious.


You spend a lot of time talking about the form of the debate instead of the actual content.

If you think that the public is going to accept an oppressive monarchy because they allow single framing in sills, you are almost certainly incorrect.

If you are not arguing for such, then please note that there are already constitutional monarchies.
#14868007
Potemkin wrote:This is, ultimately, a matter of personal taste and personal character. As Johann Fichte put it, the type of person one is determines the type of philosophy one is attracted to. Everything else is just post hoc rationalisation.


I suppose though, if the foundational metaphysical assumptions were to be dealt with, the veracity of one system over the other could be established.....I do plan on making such a thread in the future on the philosophy subforum where I will argue for the non-existence of a material/physical world (updated Berkeley-style) and the necessity for a specifically Trinitarian God for phenomenal existence to be explainable. I would argue, that my metaphysical framework does not PERMIT me to hold to a dialectical materialism and that it is therefore more than just "personality" (the reasons should now be clear).

Potemkin wrote:I approve of its existence.


I have been drinking quite a bit of it lately and have also been making some classic pirate-style mixes like Grogs and Bombos, very good. Most dark rums are excellent with any tobacco that has a lighter vanilla finish (in my opinion). I have a couple of nice aromatics that work great with it.

I have also been, quite oppositely, on a Gin and Tonic kick....Is there any good tobacco pairing you would suggest with that cocktail? I can't seem to find a match (Cigars or Pipe Tobacco).

Please teach me again 'O Master.
#14868010
I suppose though, if the foundational metaphysical assumptions were to be dealt with, the veracity of one system over the other could be established.....I do plan on making such a thread in the future on the philosophy subforum where I will argue for the non-existence of a material/physical world (updated Berkeley-style) and the necessity for a specifically Trinitarian God for phenomenal existence to be explainable. I would argue, that my metaphysical framework does not PERMIT me to hold to a dialectical materialism and that it is therefore more than just "personality" (the reasons should now be clear).

That's rather like trying to prove the existence (or, indeed, the non-existence) of God. Good luck though. Lol. :lol:

I have been drinking quite a bit of it lately and have also been making some classic pirate-style mixes like Grogs and Bombos, very good. Most dark rums are excellent with any tobacco that has a lighter vanilla finish (in my opinion). I have a couple of nice aromatics that work great with it.

You smoke aromatic tobaccos? I thought that was only a Dutch thing.... *shudder* :eh:

I have also been, quite oppositely, on a Gin and Tonic kick....Is there any good tobacco pairing you would suggest with that cocktail? I can't seem to find a match (Cigars or Pipe Tobacco).

A g&t has a strong yet subtle flavour, so I would recommend a tobacco which has a subtle flavour which would not clash with the g&t and would complement it. Perhaps a straight unstoved Virginia, maybe with some perique to add some piquancy. Basically, either a Va or a VaPer. Just a thought.

Please teach me again 'O Master.

Your willingness to learn at the feet of wisdom does you credit, Grasshopper. *smiles inscrutably* :)
#14868016
Potemkin wrote:That's rather like trying to prove the existence (or, indeed, the non-existence) of God. Good luck though. Lol.


This is actually my area of academic expertise, so no luck necessary. You are preemptively invited to the shit-fest that is sure to follow in that thread. ;)

Potemkin wrote:You smoke aromatic tobaccos? I thought that was only a Dutch thing....


I was not aware of that stereotype...I like me a good aromatic, like the "wife pleaser" Apricots & Cream Black Cavendish made with apricot liquor. mmmmmm. Would probably go well with a smokey scotch.

Potemkin wrote:A g&t has a strong yet subtle flavour, so I would recommend a tobacco which has a subtle flavour which would not clash with the g&t and would complement it. Perhaps a straight unstoved Virginia, maybe with some perique to add some piquancy. Basically, either a Va or a VaPer. Just a thought.


I'll check that out, its seems that everything i've tried to smoke so far was too full-bodied and clashed with the sour-citrus character of the drink, sometimes even creating a burning sensation on the palate and a bitter after-taste. Can't have that shit.

Potemkin wrote:Your willingness to learn at the feet of wisdom does you credit, Grasshopper.


Thank you O' Wise Master, I shall now go forth and do justice in the world.
#14868083
I was not aware of that stereotype...I like me a good aromatic, like the "wife pleaser" Apricots & Cream Black Cavendish made with apricot liquor. mmmmmm. Would probably go well with a smokey scotch.

I hope you only smoke that foul concoction in a corncob pipe rather than a briar? :eh:

I'll check that out, its seems that everything i've tried to smoke so far was too full-bodied and clashed with the sour-citrus character of the drink, sometimes even creating a burning sensation on the palate and a bitter after-taste. Can't have that shit.

Indeed not. An English mixture or a Balkan would probably ruin a good g&t (and vice versa, of course). You need a lighter, more subtle tobacco, such as a good Va or VaPer, as I said.

Thank you O' Wise Master, I shall now go forth and do justice in the world.

Just remember not to kill any nephews of the Emperor. They don't seem to like that shit. ;)
#14868091
Potemkin wrote:I hope you only smoke that foul concoction in a corncob pipe rather than a briar?


I only smoke gas station tobacco from a corncob, and I only smoke from a corncob when I'm reading mark twain or listening to baseball on the radio by a good fishing hole. Like any red-blooded American.

Potemkin wrote:Just remember not to kill any nephews of the Emperor. They don't seem to like that shit.


:)
#14868103
You need a lighter, more subtle tobacco

I smoked Capstan Full Strength ((3.39 mg nicotine/cigarette) in my younger days. Well suited to a pint of Theakston's Old Peculiar tapped straight from the barrel (wood, of course) propped on a trestle in the corner of the pub.

Unfortunately, Theakston's brewery as was is no more, and Capstan Full Strength was banned by Act of Parliament in 2004.


:(
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 16
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.you[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]