Even if it was a poor comparison it would have nothing to do with strawmanning... it's just something LT's heard other people use as a term and is (incorrectly) parrotting. :hehe:

While they present themselves as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, (which they insisted upon) they don’t see themselves as just plain old celebrities and they have, and do, expect to be treated differently to those plain old celebs.
Otherwise they would be just plain old Harry and Meghan Windsor.

They wanted to be half in, half out; the status without the hard dreary work. They very much wanted to still be part of the Royal family. The Queen said you are either in or out and they have been trying to get their revenge ever since.
You can't abhor Royalty and support the titled, also privileged, lazy ones who rarely do darn all good for anybody.

See now this, is a strawman argument:

I didn't mention Harry and Meghan in this thread or bring them into it to support them or otherwise, I didn't say they "do good charity", and I didn't say they aren't privileged, nor did I say that The Rock or Oprah aren't also privileged and very wealthy.

I drew a direct comparison between the active Royals and the Hollywood celebs mentioned in this thread to point out that they are the same, and to counter people criticising those celebs for charity work whilst lauding The Royals for their charity work. As I've said - it's the least that any of them can do, and if one wants to criticise wealth, privilege and supposed status, charitable appeals are not really an ideal place to start.

But instead of arguing against the idea that The Royals are inherently different to Hollywood celebrities in any meaningful way, multiple people have attempted to "defend the Royals" by bringing Harry and Meghan (the strawman, here) into it :shrug:. No one was talking about Harry and Meghan! I didn't say anything about them at all, supportive or otherwise!

:joker: :joker: Did it really take you half an hour to google Strawmanning and then find another logical fallacy that might fit?

I commend your commitment to your further education LT but as I've outlined 5 or 6 times that I draw no distinction whatsoever between Hollywood Celebrities and Royal Celebrities, and the thread is on the rights and wrongs of privilege and celebrity charity... I'm afraid Whataboutism doesn't fit either. Back to the drawing board.

It isn't changing the subject though, it's odd to support one set of millionaires trying to raise money for charities while admonishing another, it's the same thing

Just to clarify: I don't think mentioning H&M is in itself a strawman OR whataboutism in this thread either. I think their charity work is exactly the same as their charity work when they were active Royals, and the same as the current active Royals, and the same as Oprah, and the same as The People's Champion.

So there you go. That's my opinion on Harry and Meghan's charitable activities. It is also exactly the same as these other examples. No better, no worse, no different.

I've strongly objected to all the charity fundraisers where people add their names to increase their own profile.

I object to all the day time adverts saying give x per month to help xxxxxx. I object to charity christmas cards where they give something like 1 penny to charity. I object to charities like oxfam that are still up and running when they have repeatedly raped and abused women overseas.

They all stink

I don’t know or care who brought Meghan and Harry into it, I was referring to what you said in that particular paragraph about seeing them as just plain old celebrities. But you diverted by changing the subject.

People who were born into the jobs of charity ambassadors handle it differently to those who weren't?

How surprising.

As above plus he’s a bladdy pretend wrestler ffs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Whats confused you little one :pat:

The part where you acted like Nicky's post wasn't about you.

I didn’t…I merely commented. You need to stop taking things out of context and looking for things that are not there..:hee:

:joker: :joker: :joker:

That's mainly about Oprah to be fair go old Dwayne. He should still be cancelled though, but mainly because of Black Adam.

it's pretty damning of Oprah though :laugh:

When someone has had that volume of cash for so long, it is going to affect them and their view of the world

It’s like comparing chalk and cheese

The royals don’t get to spend their wealth

When William became the prince of wales, he became richer than his father the king

Royals work until they are in the ground as we saw with the late queen

Money gives you freedom to do and own what you want but with all the wealth the royals have it doesn’t give them that

The Royals have substantial individual personal wealth above and beyond the royal coffers. They don't spend it openly because it's bad PR. They absolutely have it.

For all the wealth and privileges they have,there is not one person on here that would trade places with them.

They don’t even get to retire like normal people

Leaving the parasitic royals out of it for a moment, can you not see why people are fed up with the likes of Oprah and The Rock asking us regularly filth for money to help others when they're in a much, much better position to do so?