Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "MentisWave" channel.

  1. Nope, history isn't a football game.
    2
  2. Yes, you are brigading and (presumably) unemployed @2vexy 
    2
  3.  @robertmiralles6334  Also, he has done a "stick to tanks" where he is pretending like he is a long time viewer of the channel who is devastated by this sudden nonexistent shift in content lol
    2
  4. Your mum is racist
    2
  5. Many of the laws in Eastern European countries banning denial of Nazi crimes also ban denial of communist crimes.
    2
  6.  @BaronSterling  So I suppose the question is will a drunk driver cause the death of another. I think the fact that statutes had to be introduced to punish drunk drivers rather than drunk drivers just being charged with common law manslaughter is enough evidence to show that drunk driving doesnt fit the criteria.
    2
  7.  @jukeman9291  Does not taking a vitamin supplement before driving a car, thereby impairing your focus, show you are irresponsible and threaten the lives of other people?
    2
  8.  @jukeman9291  And by what standard are we saying someone is unfit to drive?
    2
  9.  @jukeman9291  I'm not sure if my previous comment regarding the ad verecundiam inherent in this appeal to common sense made it through, YouTube probably didn't like the example I used. And at which point would I consider him drunk? Obviously there is a point where he cannot understand what he is doing at which point I would intervene to stop recklessness, but I doubt that is anywhere close to 0.08 BAC, 0.05% BAC or whatever other arbitrary limit there is.
    2
  10.  @chsims12  Indeed. Whim has no place in the law.
    2
  11.  @jukeman9291  then give me a precise definition of innate and intuition as you are using it with examples so I know whether it can be attacked or not
    2
  12.  @mountainjews  Maybe he wouldn't need to if socialists didn't spend 18 hours a day frying their brain with short form content
    2
  13. He is an anarchist, he has no reason to
    1
  14. If I make a bunch of mudpies, and fling them out into the street, and some people decide to pick them up, who owns the mudpies?
    1
  15.  @GramSmasher real
    1
  16.  @latenightorange4439  what a ridiculous proposition
    1
  17.  @latenightorange4439  a shite one
    1
  18.  @ZnamTwojaMama101  And "vrmmm, Renault Clio" to you as well.
    1
  19.  @colorpg152  false, communism favours aggressors when resolving conflicts, therefore it opposes contract and therefore exchange is not a communist activity.
    1
  20. Really? I guess Hitler never cared about Germany
    1
  21.  @Marcos-jv2me  We are dealing with which actions are permitted here, so it will necessarily involve objective physical elements and subjective psychological elements.
    1
  22.  @edisonkimmel7843  right, but the point of the turret of a tank is to be able to destroy other tanks by piercing their armour and exploding the occupants
    1
  23. 14:30 Incommensurate definition too, almost all jurisdictions consider some other kind of mens rea to constitute murder (US counts any intention to commit a felony as mens rea, England and Wales counts intent to cause grevious bodily harm, Scotland has wicked recklessness)
    1
  24. You shouldn't confuse sensualism with empiricism
    1
  25. You have a funny definition of "save"
    1
  26.  @ChaadFairservice20022  What is wrong with capitalism, and I don't think the Nazis were oblivious to the fact that cyanide is as toxic to humans as it is to lice
    1
  27.  @julymagnus493  that's for me to know and you to find out.
    1
  28. "Well, if it was a genocide against Tutsis, why were the Twa killed too? Checkmate Hutu-hater"
    1
  29. Indeed, it is not only difficult to correctly direct resources under central planning, but quite impossible. In Ukraine's case, it was done with such wicked disregard for whether the people lived or died that it can rightfully be called murder.
    1
  30.  @heinrichb  Yes, but I don't think the Rwandan Genocide was any less against Tutsis because some of the Twa were killed too
    1
  31.  @thekaying  Given such a proposition is exclusively used by 15 year old liberals on reddit or those of a similar intellectual ability, that is all that it requires.
    1
  32.  @electricspeedkiller8950  No, he confused a logical proof with a story since that's all his unlearned mind can use as an argument.
    1
  33.  @electricspeedkiller8950  Why would it be bad if we switched to a stateless society?
    1
  34. @electricspeedkiller8950  sneed
    1
  35.  @cronchulus5489  the problem is the state is a criminal gang and will inevitably use public schools to make children think it's existence is justified, the solution is total privatisation
    1
  36.  @qc6057  for mankind as such
    1
  37.  @Adonnus100  Might not be a good idea in a Keynesian economics simulator
    1
  38. 1) The reason why these areas starved was because Ukrainian immigrants lived there, not to say Stalin was any less liable for these non-Ukrainian deaths. 2) Murder does not have to be intentional; no evidence of intention was forwarded at Derek Chauvin's trial, however he was still convicted because his use of force was felonious and resulted in death
    1
  39.  @timescwere5919  1) Not saying every person in Kazakhstan or Southern Russia was Ukrainian, just that there were many Ukrainian immigrants present. Not entirely familiar with the statistics for southern Russia, however 30% of Ukrainians in Kazakhstan lost their lives. 2) Then I guess the UN doesn't think Derek Chauvin is a murderer since he merely had felonious intent. So saith the UN, arbiter of crimes.
    1
  40.  @timescwere5919  1) Again, not familiar with the Northern Caucasus region, I can only imagine it follows a similar pattern to the Russian deaths in Eastern Ukraine where they were starved along with the more densely Ukrainian-populated western region. 2) for point (2) I am just saying some mens rea has to be present whether it is general felonious intent or wicked recklessness or whatever, whether any given death in Iraq was caused by this has to be determined on a case by case basis, and for point (3) I don't see how only one kind of mens rea for murder automatically becomes the only possible mens rea for genocide.
    1
  41.  @timescwere5919  1) Well there is quite a clear motive for him to starve Ukrainians, it's quite likely he wasn't fond of other nationalities either, but that is besides the point of whether he wished to kill Ukrainians, just as whether toothbrush moustache man also wasn't fond of the Romani is besides the point of whether he wanted to kill the first people you think of that he didn't like. 2) Sort of, it is more specifically the mental element of a crime, and it has to be established because a crime cannot be purposeless behaviour but rather caused by a human choice to commit the crime. Again, there isn't a dichotomy between intent and mistake, mens rea for murder can also consist in wicked recklessness as to whether someone lives or dies. I am not familiar with 19th century Russia enough to pass judgement. Even if the Great Depression was caused by nonintervention (it wasn't), murder consists in an action rather than an omission; leaving someone to die would thus not be murder, but stealing someone's food until they die therefore would be.
    1
  42. 1) Well there is quite a clear motive for him to starve Ukrainians, indeed he wasn't fond of other nationalities either, but that is besides the point of whether he wished to kill Ukrainians. 2) Sort of, it is more specifically the mental element of a crime, and it has to be established because a crime cannot be purposeless behaviour but rather caused by a human choice to commit the crime. Again, there isn't a dichotomy between intent and mistake, mens rea for murder can also consist in wicked recklessness as to whether someone lives or dies. I am not familiar with 19th century Russia enough to pass judgement. Even if the Great Depression was caused by nonintervention (it wasn't), murder consists in an action rather than an omission; leaving someone to die would thus not be murder, but stealing someone's food until they die therefore would be.
    1
  43.  @timescwere5919  1) Well there was, he thought that Ukrainians found his policies unpopular and so sought to weaken the country to stop a potential seperatist movement. 2) I disagree, I believe Stalin was wickedly reckless (i.e. had mens rea for murder) as to whether Ukrainians lived or died by depriving the Ukrainians of food consistently, meaning he committed murder based on his victim's belonging to a group, which makes it genocide. 3) Sure, in 1924 the Federal reserve created $500 million in credit in order to stimulate the economy, leading to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. And again in 1927, which meant that total currency outside banks plus demand and time deposits in the United States increased from $44.51 billion at the end of June 1924, to $55.17 billion in 1929. The volume of farm and urban mortgages expanded from $16.8 billion in 1921 to $27.1 billion in 1929. Similar increases occurred in industrial, financial, and state and local government indebtedness. While the economy seemed to improve, in reality businessmen thought that the resources they were appropriately using towards certain ends were in fact being misdirected, hidden by artificially induced credit. When the government had to stop creating all this credit and the businessmen had realised they had been mislead, a crash happened as they tried to salvage any profitability from their investments by redirecting resources towards what they should have been used for in the first place. President Hoover tried to use deficit spending and increasing public works to save the economy, but it was no use. They introduced the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act 1930 to try to stop American businesses from going bust, however the heavy tarriffs meant countries couldn't sell thier goods to the massive American market, which caused the depression to go global. The Federal government saw a decrease in revenue, and The Revenue Act of 1932 doubled the income tax, the sharpest increase in the federal tax burden in American history. Normal tax rates were raised from a range of 11/2 to 5 percent to a range of 4 to 8 percent, surtax rates from 20 percent to a maximum of 55 percent. Corporation tax rates were boosted from 12 percent to 133/4 and 141/2 percent. Estate taxes were raised. Gift taxes were imposed with rates from 3/4 to 331/2 percent. A 10 percent gasoline tax was imposed, a 3 percent automobile tax, a telegraph and telephone tax, a 2¢ check tax, and many other excise taxes. Well, there isn't a duty to help someone in Anglo-American common law like in your country (some statutes do compel you in certain areas), and omissions can only be criminal if you choose to take on a duty, like your job being to shut level crossings, failing to shut the level crossing causing a train to collide with a carriage causing the death of the carriage occupants. Even still, this would be manslaughter, not murder.
    1
  44.  @timescwere5919  Well, if you watch the video one such evidence is given at 4:54 where Stalin forbade places with high or relatively high amounts of Ukrainians from fleeing to places where their products were being redistributed. Multiple groups were affected, not least among them the Kazakhs, however I believe that given the fact that Ukraine was locked down as well as areas with high Ukrainian immigrant populations suggests that they were a, if not the main target. I don't believe it would be a mistaken policy, Stalin was well aware of the fact that he was stealing from people, nor was it manslaughter because he could foresee that consistently stealing from starving people would cause them to die, leaving murder to be the only proper charge for this wickedly reckless causation of death.
    1
  45.  @timescwere5919  1) Well all sources ultimately have to be evaluated. In this case, given the purpose of this document was to be an internal order, then it is useful evidence of Stalin's thought processes. 2) Just think about it for a moment: If Stalin's main target was also Russians, then why didn't he implement the same wickedly reckless policies on Russia as he did on Ukrainian territories? Why instead was it specifically on territories with large numbers of Ukrainians? Say what you like, 38% is still a lot of Ukrainians when taken into account that they are outside of Ukraine. 3) Alternatively, one could not repeatedly rob people of their food such that they have to commit crime or go to places with food in order to survive, but I suppose that never crossed Stalin's mind. 4) Whatever charity Stalin had extended only towards those who he considered non-"class enemies" and non-"idlers", and clearly he considered enough Ukrainians to not fall into these categories for the famine to continue another year. For more information, read here: https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS2319/h16/pensumliste/stalin-and-the-soviet-famine-of-1932-33-revisite.pdf
    1
  46.  @timescwere5919  1) Wickedly reckless expropriation of food, and banning of internal migration, among others. Nowhere else did collectivisation "work the same way", because nowhere other than Ukrainian populated regions was there mass famine and death. 2) I suppose we are excluding the North Caucasus Krai from Russia. And including Kazakhstan in Ukraine. I wonder what all these areas have in common? Both had high numbers of Ukrainians and both were the target of immigration bans and massive expropriation of food! 3) This happened nearly half a decade before the Holodomor. Half a decade. What kind of mitigation are you trying to make?
    1
  47.  @timescwere5919  1) And I don't believe your analysis is correct; why was it just the Ukrainian populated regions which faced increased expropriation? Was nowhere else in the USSR producing any food? Why was it only the people from Ukrainian populated regions which could not internally migrate looking for food? 2) I am well aware, and even still this furthers my case given that it was these areas where the people "overlapped" which wer locked down. 3) Idk, I wouldn't have bet any industrial progress on stealing from people until they died of starvation, but I guess I don't have the gnosis of a paranoid communist.
    1
  48.  @timescwere5919  1) Perhaps the lower levels of government did tell Stalin they could produce more grain, I fail to see how this negates the fact that he had an incentive to stop the Ukrainians who he considered to be filled with "idlers" and "class enemies" from seceding. Why of all places was it the Ukrainian-populated regions which had to bear the burden of Stalin's money-making scheme? Why could it not have been more evenly spread with Russia? 2) Well, it's not a controversial fact either that those living in Kazakhstan who tried to escape collectivisation and sedentarisation were considered class enemies and shot. 3) Hmm, idk, a big motivation for Hitler to get into politics was to stop Germany from falling to communism, events like this only further radicalised him.
    1
  49.  @timescwere5919  1) I think the circumstantial evidence speaks for itself, how the "class-enemies" and "idlers" were concentrated in Ukrainian populated regions. The Soviet experience of the Ukrainian War of Independence probably didn't help their opinion either, many party members considered Ukrainian to be a counter-revolutionary language. Forgive me for doubting that the Russian heartland couldn't pick up some of the slack for a region suffering from a famine since Russia was still in early stages of industrialisation. I know socialists aren't known for forward planning, but exporting grain such that your most productive farmers starve doesn't seem like a very sustainable business practice. 2) It does, since many people who lived in Kazakhstan were Ukrainians. 3) No, I am not denying there are multiple factors which lead Hitler to national socialism, just that the Soviet Union was undoubtably a primary one. This is evident from reading his books.
    1
  50.  @timescwere5919  1) In fact there was a long-term gain: the kneecapping of the Ukrainian secessionist movement. Why did the Soviets decide to export enough grain to feed 5 million people that year? Why were people banned from "stealing" from collectivised farms? Why was immigration to places where you won't starve to death banned? The evidence points towards genocide. 2) I also said collectivisation, the Ukrainian immigrants weren't allowed to resist this either. 3) No, I just said that the communist takeover of the USSR was the main force radicalising Hitler. See these Mein Kampf pages (can't post the quotes on Youtube) from the Jaico Publishing House edition: P406, P259, P509, P290-1, P556, P410. I do think Hitler does reveal his thought processes in Mein Kampf, there isn't much of a reason to obfuscate it in the middle of his ramblings, and besides it's not like his speeches were more compassionate.
    1