Comments by "Colonel K" (@Paladin1873) on "Today I Found Out" channel.

  1. 138
  2. 72
  3. 54
  4. 38
  5. 36
  6. 36
  7. 32
  8. 31
  9. 28
  10. 21
  11. 18
  12. 16
  13. 16
  14. 16
  15. 15
  16. 14
  17. 13
  18. 13
  19. 12
  20. 10
  21. 9
  22. 8
  23. 8
  24. 8
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65.  @erebostd  I think you are treating unrelated events as being equivalent. They are not. There was never a policy of native genocide in America. The tragedy of the American Indian was the result of two centuries of ad hoc policies, not some master plan. Though there were voices in both government and the general public who endorsed organized genocide, it was never a popular idea, nor was such a plan ever adopted. The dropping of the Atom Bombs was a strategic decision that hastened the end of WWII. In so doing, "The Bomb" saved far more lives than it cost. You can question the wisdom and effectiveness of large-scale bombing of cities, but it makes no sense to treat Hiroshima and Nagasaki separately from those earlier raids over Poland, England, China, Germany, and Japan. Sometimes mass destruction worked, sometime it did not. Any killing of noncombatants is regrettable, even tragic, but it is often unavoidable in war. It's the motives that matter. There is a clear distinction between killing people to end a war and killing them because you don't like the color of their skin, their religion, their form of government, or because you covet their land and resources, or wish to enslave them. I'm not convinced the world is an evil place, but I am convinced there are evil forms of government and some "well intentioned" people in and out of government who endorse terrible ideas. In the recorded history of the world it is governments that have ended more lives and enslaved more people than the collective acts of all individuals acting on their own. Neither is acceptable, and I agree with you that we must work every day to make the world a better place. It is an unending goal.
    3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90.  @nrsrymj  The Founders were wise enough to realize the purpose of government was to preserve out liberties. The rest was up to us. Healthcare and education are not rights under the US Constitution. They did not fall under the purview of the federal government. They were the responsibility of state and local governments, which acted on them as each state saw fit. At best they are privileges, for nobody has the right to be healthy or educated (anymore than there is a right to deny the same), but almost everyone has the desire to be healthy, and many also desire to be educated. It costs money to do both. The states found it to be in their best interest to provide basic education to children, then later on they determined it desirable to have some form of higher education. Private schools and colleges predated them, but not everyone had access to them. State and local taxes made these educational opportunities possible. Public healthcare followed a similar path and coexisted with private care. As for federal taxation, it was authorized but very limited in scope, and its purpose was to pay for the basic functions of government. That worked well until progressives (that is what men like Wilson called themselves) saw an opportunity to greatly expand the power and reach of government. Once armed with the power to tax and spend as much as it liked, our federal government has been on an ever increasing trajectory to do just that. Free education and healthcare for all are chimeras offered by a government indifferent to the reality that we cannot afford the cost.
    2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95.  Florian Held  At last we find some common ground. Yes, I've read Rand and agree with much of what she said about individualism and selfishness. She was being brutally honest, but she meant it in the context of honoring one's commitments and being ethical in all dealings with others. This applies to all parties. When one party violates an agreement, the other party is no longer obligated to honor it. I detest the word capitalism, which was derived from Karl Marx's writings. History has proven just how wrong Marx was. Free enterprise and free trade are what I believe in, not crony capitalism, mercantilism, monopolies, or cartels. They are perversions of the idea, largely because they favor one group over another. A level playing field is the last thing their supporters intend. What makes you think people today are any more selfish, greedy, and indifferent than at any other time in history, and why focus your comment only on Americans? The primary difference I see between Americans and the rest of the world is that we enjoy a greater degree of freedom and independence. For it to continue, it is necessary for people to act in a morally responsible way. John Adams warned us of this when he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". So in a sense you are correct. We risk becoming our own worst enemy. As to your last statement, you'll have to clarify it for me. I didn't quite understand what you meant to say.
    2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217.  @kevinconrad6156  No, it was not genocide. It was the forced removal of native people from Georgia, Florida, Alabama, NC, and Tennessee. That they were deprived of their lands, their possessions, and their natural rights is not in dispute, nor is the fact that many of them died along the "Trail of Tears". It was an often merciless and bungled relocation effort, not an extermination program. The Indians fought the extradition in federal court all the way up to the Supreme Court, which sided with them. But President Jackson demurred and went forward with the relocation. For those who prefer to castigate his decision, I would like to point out the ugly fact that if he had sided with the high court, in all likelihood the local White populations and state governments might well have gone to war with these tribes. If Jackson had confronted these states with Federal troops, the Civil War could have started almost 30 years earlier than it did. Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I think Jackson chose the lesser of two evils. It is not my intent to diminish the suffering of American Indians throughout colonial and early American history, but to put it in perspective. By contrast, I believe what happened to the Trojans, Carthaginians, Herero, Armenians, European Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Tutsi, and the Ukrainian Holodomor qualify as true genocides. Tragedies such as the American Indian diaspora, the Irish famine, and the Bengal famine were avoidable atrocities, but not calculated genocide. Since the legal definition of genocide did not exist until 1944, it is hard to retroactively apply this term without diluting its impact. We should do so cautiously.
    1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223.  @kevinconrad6156  The statement "in whole or in part" is easily misconstrued or abused. The UN declamation clarifies this point to a degree in the subsequent two paragraphs: The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.” What really strikes me as odd about the UN declaration is that it specifically rejects what might be otherwise called "political genocide" and "cultural genocide". Because it does not specify the size of a target group, one could argue that the purposeful elimination of a small tribe or group qualifies as genocide. The UN does agree that under case law there must be an organized plan of destruction even though the international law does not require it. This brings me back to my central point. We should not apply the word genocide broadly because it dilutes its impact. Used too often and too easily, in time it will come to mean little to anyone. It should remain the most horrific term we can apply to an event or action.
    1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1