I don't know if this has been said or not, 12 pages is a lot of responses. When it comes to having a monarch, it doesn't really matter what technology, time period, or society you have. Almost every form of government in existence today was in existence 3000 years ago. For all we know democracy is older than a monarchy. Rome was a republic before it became a monarchy. Isreal had no human king for many generations before they choose a king. It is actually a lot more common than you would think for a country to go from no monarchy to a monarchy, and they don't even have to be in a time of instability. There just needs to be a person who is ambitious enough, and gain enough power to influence the people into believing having a monarch is best for the nation. Really the US is going down that path right now. Every year the presidency gains more and more power, every election people care more and more about the president, and less and less about congress. If things don't change eventually the US will mirror Rome. We will have the president who will rule over the nation, and have a token congress that really serves no true purpose. The people might not even realize that it has happened because the change happened so slowly over such a long period of time.   See 223 other replies

My argument is more of "yeah but there is still a bs% chance of it happening because it's not real and therefore it being unreal makes very little sense!" I mean, if we're on this course, why don't we comment on how Huck finn for being unrealistic. I mean, honestly, some of the stories huck makes up are so absurd you have to question how he made it that far down the river without being questioned more by the people he encounters. Why don't we go ahead and also comment on how ridiculous Harry Potter is. I mean, in modern Europe, there's very little chance that there's witches and such defying all laws of physics without any suspicion ever. I mean, it is just unrealistic.   See 223 other replies

If I was to try and guess what heaven was like after I died, I would consider all of my guesses improbable at best. I wouldn't say any is more plausible than the other because it isn't grounded in any type of reality. I had a problem with even picking at details to begin with. I sure as heck didn't question the "unrealistic" aspects of all my other movies because of the fact that they are movies. It's not that it isn't a valid (possibly) point, rather, it is a moot point to even think about. Like I said before, it's not grounded in reality, and so there is no real context for what is unrealistic and realistic.And you seem to have shifted your polarizing views in towards the center a bit more. The vibe you gave off on your first post is anything but what you seem to be telling me here. Let me quote.
"This place simply COULDN'T exist. "
"I guess what I'm saying is that to have psuedo-American culture and technology and then have a history that wouldnt support it"
"But of course you realize that, especially in America, people would never accept a monarch."I was simply commenting on the fact that your hypotheticals come off as so absolute. It did seem as if you were dealing in absolutes.In anycase, i don't admit that it is unrealistic. I was simply commenting on your absolutes. How do you know what will happen in these incredible situations? If WW3 broke out and the nuclear hysteria was high enough, I don't doubt a president could assume the powers of a monarch and not relent. See though? Reality isn't a part of these hypotheticals. Proving one more realistic than the other is a complete bull****.   See 223 other replies

And again, sure. I mean if we are dealing in absolutes, then nothing can be prooved to be true except "I think therefore I am", in which case, all of this is moot. Of course I'm dealing in "probablys" and "most likelys". The topic said "unrealistic setting". And you, by implication, admit that it is unrealistic because you need to jump to the "yeah but there is still a 10% chance of it happening!" kind of argument. So we do agree, it is unrealistic, if not impossible.   See 223 other replies

Ok then. Highly improbable. And further, if it continued on like that for generations, there would be a necessary regress of technology. But sure, not impossible for a time.   See 223 other replies

Oh boy, isn't it fun to relate history to what will* happen?History does repeat itself, but it doesn't have to repeat itself. Improbability and impossibility again, my friend.   See 223 other replies

First, I apologize for my 4 month break from hulu. No good shows to watch, but I realized house was back on the air, so I came back. That being said, you're still picking at improbability. "Freak events don't lead to cell phones and digital cameras."
Did you invent the digital camera or the modern cell phones? I think that closes that."If you think that's how things are invented, you clearly have never created anything in your life."
Ouch. (I'm assuming here that this was an insult because it has no sustenance as an argument)About the BSG comment... I've always had a bone to pick with people who write analytical pieces and base their conclusions off of fictional events like literature. On a less than obvious connection, I drew that to your BSG reference. Here's realistic for you about BSG. We can warp across worlds in an instant, deconstructing our bodies at the blink of an eye, but the soldiers all wear simple garments. It's as if we've gone backwards in fighting battles. Some of their soldiers, namely the more main characters, seem to sport tshirts and cargo pants into battle. Unrealistic scene is quite unrealistic.You say that nothing fits, so let me lay out a possible timeline. World war III breaks. The world is utterly shattered and more rudimentary forms of government emerge from the chaos. The technology hasn't gone back a step, but rather has stood still. One such nation that arose is Gilboa. Anywho, you never addressed the main argument I brought forward. You picked a strawman and stabbed at it with a spoon. So here I am reiterating my old, main, point: You're confusing improbability with impossibility. I don't have an issue if you go on your pulpit and claim that this is HIGHLY improbable, but when you go up there and state your opinion, that the setting is impossible, as an almost factual interpretation, it is incredibly arrogant, insulting and irritating.   See 223 other replies