Youtube comments of Seven Proxies (@sevenproxies4255).

  1. 3700
  2. 2800
  3. 2700
  4. 2600
  5. 1600
  6. 1500
  7. 1500
  8. 1500
  9. 1400
  10. 1300
  11. 1200
  12. 1200
  13. 1100
  14. 1000
  15. 997
  16. 926
  17. 912
  18. 910
  19. 845
  20. 845
  21. 842
  22. 807
  23. 781
  24. 767
  25. 744
  26. 708
  27. 708
  28. 700
  29. 690
  30. Seems the homeless back then was very different from today. Did you know that hobos in the late 1800's even had their own national convention and a list of ethics to follow? They did illegally travel by train hopping, but at the same time their list of ethics do seem rather decent to me. The list is as follows: Decide your own life; don't let another person run or rule you. When in town, always respect the local law and officials, and try to be a gentleman at all times. Don't take advantage of someone who is in a vulnerable situation, locals or other hoboes. Always try to find work, even if temporary, and always seek out jobs nobody wants. By doing so you not only help a business along, but ensure employment should you return to that town again. When no employment is available, make your own work by using your added talents at crafts. Do not allow yourself to become a stupid drunk and set a bad example for locals' treatment of other hoboes. When jungling in town, respect handouts and do not wear them out; another hobo will be coming along who will need them as badly, if not worse than you. Always respect nature; do not leave garbage where you are jungling. If in a community jungle, always pitch in and help. Try to stay clean, and boil up wherever possible. When traveling, ride your train respectfully. Take no personal chances. Cause no problems with operating crew or host railroad. Act like an extra crew member. Do not cause problems in a train yard; another hobo will be coming along who will need passage through that yard. Do not allow other hoboes to molest children; expose all molesters to authorities – they are the worst garbage to infest any society. Help all runaway children, and try to induce them to return home. Help your fellow hoboes whenever and wherever needed; you may need their help someday. If present at a hobo court and you have testimony, give it. Whether for or against the accused, your voice counts!
    685
  31. 660
  32. 644
  33. 643
  34. 629
  35. 620
  36. 616
  37. 613
  38. 582
  39. 570
  40. 528
  41. 515
  42. 497
  43. 496
  44. 487
  45. 479
  46. 475
  47. 475
  48. 464
  49. 444
  50. 443
  51. 426
  52. 415
  53. 405
  54. 401
  55. 396
  56. 389
  57. 379
  58. 377
  59. 376
  60. 360
  61. 356
  62. 354
  63. 354
  64. 350
  65. 337
  66. 330
  67. 322
  68. 316
  69. 315
  70. 310
  71. 304
  72. 302
  73. 296
  74. 296
  75. 295
  76. 293
  77. 292
  78. 291
  79. 284
  80. 282
  81. 280
  82. 280
  83. 277
  84. 271
  85. 264
  86. 263
  87. 260
  88. 254
  89. 253
  90. 241
  91. 240
  92. 239
  93. 235
  94. 234
  95. 232
  96. 231
  97. 230
  98. 225
  99. 225
  100. 224
  101. 224
  102. 218
  103. 214
  104. 208
  105. 206
  106. 203
  107. 200
  108. 198
  109. 198
  110. 196
  111. 196
  112. 194
  113. 192
  114. 192
  115. 188
  116. 187
  117. 187
  118. 186
  119. 186
  120. 184
  121. 183
  122. 181
  123. 178
  124. 176
  125. 175
  126. 169
  127. 167
  128. 167
  129. 166
  130. 166
  131. 164
  132. 163
  133. 162
  134. 162
  135. 162
  136. 160
  137. 158
  138. 154
  139. 152
  140. 151
  141. 149
  142. Theoretically there is a possible way of "uploading" your mind to a computer, that doesn't just create a digital copy of your mind while your own mind is still stuck in your body. If you could build an artificial, self-replicating cell that mimic braincells and is designed to replace your biological braincells as they die and find some sort of treatment that prevents your body from rejecting these artificial cells, then eventually your brain would grow to become a computer, and philosophically speaking it would still be your own mind that inhabits this computer since your original biological brainfunctions never actually ceased but slowly adapted to using artificial braincells instead of biological ones. Pulling this off however would be tricky to say the least. Not only do we need much more sophisticated engineering in nanotechnology to build individual cells out of non-organic compounds that are also compatible with human braincells, you would also need much more deeper knowledge of the human immune system in order to prevent the body from rejecting the foreign cells. Also, this is only based on the little theoretical knowledge we have of how the mind works. It's hard to be absolutely sure that our real mind and self would actually adapt to these braincells or if the mind would simply retreat further and further into the remaining biological cells, until eventually you'd run out of biological cells and your mind would die, but other people might not even notice since the artifical cells might be so well designed at mimicry of regular brain cells that no one else would be able to tell the difference. So before allowing the artificial cells to "overtake" the biological functions, you'd have to devise a method of testing if the artificial cells are actually working in conjunction with other braincells rather than just simulating brainfunctions artificially. However that might be the easy part since you could basically just implant these artificial cells in the parts of the brain that governs other bodily functions than the mind and see if the surrounding neurons connected to the artificial cell are "firing" or not as they would normally.
    148
  143. 146
  144. 146
  145. 143
  146. 142
  147. 142
  148. 142
  149. 136
  150. 135
  151. 135
  152. 134
  153. 131
  154. 130
  155. 130
  156. 128
  157. 127
  158. 127
  159. 127
  160. 126
  161. 126
  162. 126
  163. 126
  164. 123
  165. 120
  166. 120
  167. 120
  168. 120
  169. 118
  170. 117
  171. 116
  172. 116
  173. 114
  174. 114
  175. 113
  176. 113
  177. 111
  178. 111
  179. 110
  180. 109
  181. 109
  182. 108
  183. 108
  184. 107
  185. 105
  186. 104
  187. 104
  188. 103
  189. 103
  190. 103
  191. 103
  192. 101
  193. 100
  194. 99
  195. 99
  196. 99
  197. 98
  198. 97
  199. 97
  200. 96
  201. 96
  202. 95
  203. 95
  204. 95
  205. 95
  206. 95
  207. 94
  208. 94
  209. 93
  210. 93
  211. 92
  212. 92
  213. 91
  214. 91
  215. 91
  216. 91
  217. 90
  218. 89
  219. 89
  220. 88
  221. 88
  222. 88
  223. 87
  224. 87
  225. 86
  226. 85
  227. 85
  228. 85
  229. 85
  230. 85
  231. 85
  232. 84
  233. 84
  234. 84
  235. 83
  236. 82
  237. 82
  238. 81
  239. 80
  240. 80
  241. 80
  242. 78
  243. 78
  244. 78
  245. 77
  246. 77
  247. 77
  248. 77
  249. 76
  250. 75
  251. 75
  252. 75
  253. 74
  254. 74
  255. 73
  256. 72
  257. 72
  258. 71
  259. 71
  260. 71
  261. 70
  262. 70
  263. 69
  264. 67
  265. 67
  266. 67
  267. 67
  268. 66
  269. 66
  270. 66
  271. 66
  272. 66
  273. 66
  274. 66
  275. 65
  276. 65
  277. 65
  278. 64
  279. 64
  280. 64
  281. 63
  282. 62
  283. 61
  284. 61
  285. 61
  286. 60
  287. 60
  288. 60
  289. 59
  290. 59
  291. 57
  292. 57
  293. 57
  294. 57
  295. 57
  296. 57
  297. 56
  298. 56
  299. 56
  300. 56
  301. 56
  302. 56
  303. 56
  304. 55
  305. 55
  306. 55
  307. 54
  308. 54
  309. 53
  310. 53
  311. 53
  312. 53
  313. 52
  314. 52
  315. 52
  316. 52
  317. 52
  318. 52
  319. Sadly you can't just blame her parents. The entire education system is working as a propaganda center for children. If you think american public schools are bad with their Democrat bias, then Swedish public schools are an entirely different level. And what's worse is that public schools are your only choice in Sweden for the most part. Private enterprise can start up a school, but they are enslaved to the state mandated school curriculum from which there is no escape. I can even draw from my own years in primary and secondary school. During history and humanities classes, we had entire month long periods dedicated to the holocaust. Yet the only part of our education where communism and socialism was brought up, was basically in the modern political science classes whwre socialism and communism is only mentioned in terms as how the modern social democrats and the left wing party describe themselves as today. Not one mention of the holodomor. Not one single mention of the atrocities that happened behind the iron curtain. Not a single mention of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Not a single mention of the murders and destruction of historical artifacts in China during Mao's "Great Leap Forward". Of course the Holocaust is an event worthy of mentioning. But when so much time is given over to teaching about the holocaust, yet no time at all is dedicated to teaching about the significantly larger amounts of murders committed by the Soviet Union, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The political bias must be pretty obvious for anyone outside of this system to see. And keep in mind that this has been going on in ALL Swedish schools since the early 1900's. I'm sure you'll understand then why it's difficult for a lot of Swedes to break out of the socialist hive mind mentality and adopting a more nuanced perspective of the left and right wings of the political spectrum. Everyone's basically been subjected to political indoctrination in this country from their very first day in school. Those of us who did break free had to possess very inquisitive minds and critical thinking. Qualities that most normies, regardless of where they're from tend to lack.
    51
  320. 51
  321. 51
  322. 51
  323. The scientific reasoning is good. But some expressions you use aren't very scientific. When you say that the different genders have different "reasons" and "purpose" and "roles" it will ultimately make your argument scientifically invalid. Nature doesn't work on the principles of "reason" or "purpose". Reason and purpose are artificial concepts that humans have invented in order to categorize and relate to their surroundings. Nature works on the principles of evolution, and cause and effect. We are a sexually dimorphic species, yes. But if you would've said that the sexes exhibit different physical characteristics, which evolutionary speaking makes them better suited or better adapted for different tasks then your choice of words would've been fine. But when you use words like "purpose" and "reason", you are implying design, which is frowned upon in the discourse of natural science, since one of the most basic tenets and assumptions about the universe, evolution etc. (based on the available evidence) is that it is not "designed" but evolved through a long chain of cause and effect. We don't have a "reason" for being here, and we don't have a specific "purpose" of being here, or doing what we do, other than the ones we invent for ourselves. We're here as a consequence, of a long chain of chemical reactions and cause and effect, where we're the end product of a long lineage of survivor species that just happened to live, while other species died out. 99% of all species that ever lived on planet earth are extinct today. The ones still alive comprise a mere percent of all life that ever lived on earth. So talking about "purpose" and "reason" for well... Any of us (man, ape or fish or whatever) is somewhat inappropriate... Linquistically speaking, which I know that you have a professional interest in, which is one of the reasons why i'm being this nitpicky. :) So to summarize: your claims are clearly based on scientific facts, but some of your choice of words invalidates them since natural science does not support ideas of "reason" and "purpose" (only religion does that, usually), only ideas of evolution and cause and effect.
    50
  324. 50
  325. 50
  326. 50
  327. 50
  328. 50
  329. 50
  330. 49
  331. 49
  332. 49
  333. 48
  334. 48
  335. 48
  336. 48
  337. 48
  338. 47
  339. 47
  340. 47
  341. 47
  342. 47
  343. 46
  344. 46
  345. 46
  346. 46
  347. 46
  348. 46
  349. 46
  350. 46
  351. 46
  352. 46
  353. 45
  354. 45
  355. 45
  356. 45
  357. 45
  358. 45
  359. 45
  360. 44
  361. 44
  362. 44
  363. 44
  364. 44
  365. 43
  366. 43
  367. 43
  368. 43
  369. 43
  370. 43
  371. 43
  372. 43
  373. 43
  374. 43
  375. 43
  376. 43
  377. 43
  378. 43
  379. 42
  380. 42
  381. 42
  382. 42
  383. 42
  384. 42
  385. 42
  386. 42
  387. 41
  388. 41
  389. 41
  390. 41
  391. 41
  392. 40
  393. 40
  394. 40
  395. 40
  396. 40
  397. 40
  398. 40
  399. 40
  400. 40
  401. 40
  402. 40
  403. 40
  404. 40
  405. 39
  406. 39
  407. 39
  408. 39
  409. 39
  410. 39
  411. 39
  412. 39
  413. 39
  414. 39
  415. 38
  416. 38
  417. 38
  418. 38
  419. 38
  420. 38
  421. 38
  422. 38
  423. 38
  424. 38
  425. 38
  426. 38
  427. 38
  428. 38
  429. 37
  430. 37
  431. 37
  432. 37
  433. 37
  434. 37
  435. 37
  436. 37
  437. 37
  438. 37
  439. 37
  440. 36
  441. 36
  442. 36
  443. 36
  444. 36
  445. 36
  446. 36
  447. 36
  448. 36
  449. 36
  450. 35
  451. 35
  452. 35
  453. 35
  454. 35
  455. 35
  456. I have to disagree with Ted on the point of technology making life less fulfilling. At least on a personal level. In my case I'd argue that technology has helped me undertake many fulfilling projects because with the internet I could easily find various tutorials and guides in various different fields of arts and crafts. I have then proceeded to use the knowledge gained from them to make a lot of things by myself which all felt very fulfilling when completed. Suppose I had not have any access to the internet instead. I'd still do some arts and crafts, but every project would be intensly discouraging due to a lot of failed results and having to go in completely blind and ignorant. So in my opinion, it's not technology that makes life less fulfilling. It's how you use it. Just the other day I marinated and cooked some beef steaks to absolute perfection, for example. I could do this because the internet allowed me to study the intricacies of frying time (when you cook steaks, mere seconds can mean the difference between a medium steak and a well done steak). I could have attempted it on my own without any guidance of course. But that would've involved quite a few ruined steaks, which would've been both expensive and discouraging. Also using this guidance doesn't mean I follow it to the letter. The marinade for example is my own mix by now. I just took inspiration from one in a recipe but then added spices and alcoholic beverages of my own choosing. If more people used technology this way, instead of just being passive, scrolling consumers of social media, I think their quality of life would improve rather than diminish
    35
  457. 35
  458. 35
  459. 35
  460. 34
  461. 34
  462. 34
  463. 34
  464. 34
  465. 34
  466. 33
  467. 33
  468. 33
  469. 33
  470. 33
  471. 33
  472. 33
  473. 33
  474. 33
  475. 33
  476. 33
  477. 32
  478. 32
  479. 32
  480. 32
  481. 32
  482. 32
  483. 32
  484. 32
  485. 32
  486. 32
  487. 32
  488. 31
  489. 31
  490. 31
  491. 31
  492. 31
  493. 31
  494. 31
  495. 31
  496. 31
  497. 31
  498. 31
  499. 31
  500. 30
  501. 30
  502. 30
  503. 30
  504. 30
  505. 30
  506. 30
  507. 30
  508. 30
  509. 30
  510. 30
  511. 29
  512. Well, if an alien civilization is still a planetbound civilization, their warriors would be similar to ours. Infantry, cavalary/mechanized, airforce (if their technological levels have progressed enough to make aircraft) and marine/naval (if their technological levels permits seafaring vessels). It's not very likely that all alien cultures are as technologically sophisticated as humans. In fact several might even be less technologically sophisticated. However, if the alien civilization is a spacefaring, interstellar civilization. Their warriors are likely to be more like scientists and engineers. If they are advanced enough to visit other solar systems, then their methods of warfare would either be to employ precision bombardment from orbit, employing engineered bacterial or biological warfare or they would be "robot jockeys" directing and sending robotic infantry, airforce and naval drones to attack their enemies with precision. The technological sophistication required to achieve interstellar travel will undoubtedly already have guaranteed that such a species have mastered fields of biological warfare and robotics. And even now in the human race we're seeing the technological progression towarda automated and remote controlled weapon systems like drones and robots (machine guns mounted on tracked, remote controlled platforms using mounted cameras to make threat assesments and aiming, small, remote controlled bomber and fighter aircraft etc.) Even fighter jets "piloted" by a physical human aren't actually "piloted" by humans anymore. The speeds and rapid changes in winds would make it impossible for a normal human to pilot a modern fighter jet without crashing. Almost all modern fighter jets and attack helicopters employ "fly by wire" systems where a computer handles 90 percent of the actual piloting, while the human pilot basically only directs the aircraft to where it's supposed to go (in most aircraft this could easily be handled remotely as well). The same goes for weapons systems. "Dog fights" are a thing of the past. Nowadays, fighter pilots don't even physically see the enemy they're engaging, but rather blips on a radar to send long range, self-guided air-to-air missiles at. To make an infantry analogy, modern fighter jets are more like "sniper aircraft" rather than regular infantry as their engagement distance have only increased over the last 50 years. It stands to to reason that an alien civilization capable of interstellar travel would've long since surpassed our current levels and have their navy vessels, fighter aircraft, artillery and even infantry almost entirely robotic and automated, only requiring engineers and remote operators to function.
    29
  513. 29
  514. 29
  515. 29
  516. 29
  517. 29
  518. 29
  519. 29
  520. 29
  521. 29
  522. 29
  523. 29
  524. 29
  525. 29
  526. 29
  527. 29
  528. 29
  529. 28
  530. 28
  531. 28
  532. 28
  533. 28
  534. 28
  535. 28
  536. 28
  537. 28
  538. 28
  539. 28
  540. 28
  541. 28
  542. 28
  543. 27
  544. 27
  545. 27
  546. 27
  547. 27
  548. 27
  549. 27
  550. 27
  551. 27
  552. 27
  553. 27
  554. 27
  555. 27
  556. 27
  557. 27
  558. 27
  559.  @masterchef1174  "one question"? You completely disregarded THE MAIN QUESTION that was my entire point you imbecille! If Japan doesn't have any more problems with pedophilia than any other western country, then clearly, legislation against lolicon does NOTHING to prevent pedophilia or child molestation, since Japan has no such legislation to begin with and is also the main producer of lolicon art and has a more saturated domestic market of it than any other country in the world. If society says (through law) that child molestation is completely ok, then of course they will molest children. The thing is, refraining from passing legislation that makes lolicon illegal is not the same as saying "it is now ok to molest children". Here's the thing with pedophiles: they all agree that children are perfectly valid to have sex with. They don't see the problem with considering a child sexually desirable, nor do they see why a child can't consent to sex morally or legally. They have a warped view of children in the sense that they apply a sexuality to children, which the children do not have, as well as applying mental faculties to children which the children do not have (like the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relations). And since pedophilia is pathological, you can't get a pedo to understand why these ideas are completely wrong and unrealistic, because the ideas themselves are interconnected with the way their minds work. If you were to try and remove these ideas from a pedophiles mind, then their perception of reality would be turned upside down and they wouldn't be able to make sense of anything. So, practically speaking, it doesn't matter how much you try to "teach" pedophiles that being sexually aroused by children is wrong, or dysfunctional. You can't "deprogram" them from pedophilia. Not through education, not through punishment and not through legislation. You treat pedophiles as if they are rational people in the sense that you think you can "teach" them that pedophilia is wrong by inventing legislation against lolicon (because you personally believe that lolicon is somehow similar to actual child molestation). You think pedophiles will be able to make some sort of "connection" between your harsh views and legislation against lolicon, and the fact that it is dysfunctional and sick to pursue sexual relations with children. This shows that you are ignorant of the pathological nature in pedophilia. Your way of reasoning is kind of like the same as saying that you can "teach" people afflicted with anorexia not to starve themselves by having "society" tell them that "food is good for you" and "unless you eat, you will die", or even "you are not fat, stop starving yourself." The pathological nature of anorexia as a mental condiction and eating disorder completely prevents the ones afflicted by it to see reason. When they look in a mirror, they don't see a skeletally thin person. They see a fat, obese person. What you need to get through your skull is that pedophiles don't desire children because they're "evil" or that they desire to cause other people harm and pain. They're not the way they are to be "edgy" or to "rebel against society" or "cultural norms" or any crap like that. They are not misbehaving teenagers. They are adult people, who experience a genuine attraction towards children, and they GENUINELY can't understand why that is bad or wrong. They don't see their affection as "evil" or intended to cause children harm or pain. In their minds, they're just expressing "love" towards the children. That's how far away from reality their minds are. And no amount of legislation, harsh punishment or violence will bring their minds back to a normal perception of reality. So when dealing with actual pedophiles, no amount of opposition or legislation against lolicon will ever change or affect the severity or frequency of child molestation in any society whatsoever. Pathologies do simply not work that way. Regarding your analogy to "rape porn". Some of the societies were problems with rape is the most severe (like certain african countries and the middle east), there is hardly any porn industry to speak of (if at all, since many muslim countries have an outright legal ban on pornography). Much less a "rape porn" industry. Yet their rape stats are significantly higher than any rape stats you'll find in western, industralized nations. Porn does not create rapists, anymore than violent videogames create school shootings. These have all been scientifically proven as myths based on ignorance, and you're doing society and the victims of such crimes a disservice for propagating them.
    27
  560. 27
  561. 27
  562. 26
  563. 26
  564. 26
  565. 26
  566. 26
  567. 26
  568. 26
  569. 26
  570. 26
  571. 26
  572. 26
  573. 26
  574. 26
  575. 26
  576. 26
  577. 26
  578. 26
  579. 26
  580. 26
  581. 26
  582. 26
  583. 25
  584. 25
  585. 25
  586. 25
  587. 25
  588. 25
  589. 25
  590. 25
  591. 25
  592. 25
  593. 25
  594. 25
  595. 25
  596. 25
  597. 25
  598. 25
  599. 25
  600. 25
  601. 25
  602. 24
  603. 24
  604. 24
  605. 24
  606. 24
  607. 24
  608. 24
  609. 24
  610. 24
  611. 24
  612. 24
  613. 24
  614. 24
  615. 24
  616. 24
  617. 24
  618. 24
  619. 24
  620. 23
  621. ScienceDiscoverer: No one said that this issue only exist in Japan. But at least Japan is somewhat proactive about it, because they came up with a name and definition for the behaviour. It's hard discussing a problem and figuring out a solution to it, if you don't even have a name for it. In other countries, people afflicted would be described in vague and inaccurate terms like "wierdos", "outcasts", "loners" and so on, which doesn't really help them, or provide a comprehensive description of the problem. As to your own issues: the first thing you need to get through your head is that the world doesn't owe you anything. You are not entitled to anything and you only deserve something by claiming it and making yourself useful to society. Stop labeling people that you're jealous of as "extroverted" and yourself as "introverted". These terms don't help you understand the problem, they're only there to provide you with excuses for not leaving your comfort zone. You feel anxiety in social situations? You wonder if you will be socially accepted for who you are and what you say? Well boo-fucking-hoo, EVERYONE feels like that, unless they are psychopaths. Stop thinking that your anxiety is somehow "special" or "extra bad", because it's not. Leave your comfort zone. Expose yourself to "dangers". Hit on a woman in public and get rejected. Pick a fight with someone and get punched in the face. Spray some grafitti somewhere and get arrested for it. Go to a house party and greet and shake the hand of everyone there. Do these things and reflect on the end results. Did the rejection, getting punched in the face or getting arrested lead to the end of the world? Did it kill you? Did it hurt you physically or incapacitate you in any way? No, it won't. But right now, you don't know it from experience, because you've never left your comfort zone. So you'll never "feel" it, which is what you need to do to develop more confidence in social situations.
    23
  622. 23
  623. 23
  624. 23
  625. 23
  626. 23
  627. 23
  628. 23
  629. 23
  630. 23
  631. 23
  632. 23
  633. 23
  634. 23
  635. 23
  636. 23
  637. 23
  638. 23
  639. 22
  640. 22
  641. 22
  642. 22
  643. 22
  644. 22
  645. 22
  646. 22
  647. 22
  648. 22
  649. 22
  650. 22
  651. 22
  652. 21
  653. 21
  654. 21
  655. 21
  656. 21
  657. 21
  658. 21
  659. 21
  660. 21
  661. 21
  662. 21
  663. 21
  664. 21
  665. 21
  666. 21
  667. 21
  668. 21
  669. 21
  670. 21
  671. A small question about using drawings as evidence for how the long bow was employed: Are there any drawings made by people who actually participated in the battles they depicted with their art? I'm not sayng i'm certain of this, but a propable reason for why archers are depicted in most art as shooting straight at their enemies rather than employng the "arrow rain" tactic of firing in an arch might be because the only practical examples of archery that most medieval artists came into contact with was during archery competitions and target practice. Therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that the artists didn't really see or have any practical experience with battlefield archery, and just assumed that archers would fire straight at their foes in battle rather than in an arch. Now while it is true that the arrow might lose some power by being fired in an arch with an angle to steep, the arrow will most certainly lose powrr by being fired straight due to gravity pulling the arrow towards the ground. If fired at a certain arch however, where the direction is more in line with the direction of gravity pull, the energy released at impact might actually increase rather than decreasing because the arrow carries the energy from the gravity pull as well as the energy of the velocity exerted on it by the bow, as well as increasing your range. From what I've read of battlefield archery, one method was that the commander of the archers fired a first shot, holding the bow at a particular angle so the other archers and the battlefield commanders could determine where it lands. Then the other archers try to match that angle and fire just when the enemy pass that first test shot, which ensured a maxmum amount of kills. There's also another advantage for archers to fire in an arch rather than straight forwards: and that is that you can deploy more ranks of archers firing at the same time since they fire over eachothers heads. If your archers all fired straight forwards, you could only have two ranks firing volleys of arrows (the front rank, and the rank behind them firing between the front rank) which isn't ideal sometimes.
    20
  672. 20
  673. 20
  674. 20
  675. 20
  676. 20
  677. 20
  678. 20
  679. 20
  680. 20
  681. 20
  682. 20
  683. 20
  684. 20
  685. 20
  686. 20
  687. 20
  688. 20
  689. 20
  690. 20
  691. 20
  692. 20
  693. 20
  694. 20
  695. 20
  696. 20
  697. 20
  698. 20
  699. 19
  700. 19
  701. 19
  702. 19
  703. 19
  704. 19
  705. 19
  706. 19
  707. 19
  708. 19
  709. 19
  710. 19
  711. 19
  712. 19
  713. 19
  714. 19
  715. 19
  716. 19
  717. 19
  718. 19
  719. 19
  720. 19
  721. 19
  722. 19
  723. 19
  724. 19
  725. 19
  726. 19
  727. 19
  728. 18
  729. 18
  730. 18
  731. 18
  732. 18
  733. 18
  734. 18
  735. 18
  736. 18
  737. 18
  738. 18
  739. 18
  740. 18
  741. 18
  742. 18
  743. 18
  744. 18
  745. 18
  746. 18
  747. 18
  748. 18
  749. 17
  750. 17
  751. 17
  752. 17
  753. 17
  754. 17
  755. 17
  756. 17
  757. 17
  758. 17
  759. 17
  760. 17
  761. 17
  762. 17
  763. 17
  764. 17
  765. 17
  766. 17
  767. 17
  768. 17
  769. 17
  770. 17
  771. 17
  772. kama2135: Absolutely. And that's another issue that makes the issue further complicated: the fact that japanese students aren't taught about what happened. I'm not entirely sure of how prevalent it is, but from my impression, the japanese educational system (most likely under order from the government) really gloss over or ignore atrocities that the japanese government of the past has done. So many japanese citizens probably live in ignorance, which might make them feel unduly attacked by some koreans speaking out against it and react in a less desirable way that's not conducive to better relations, despite the fact that the criticism is quite valid. So I do agree with many people that the japanese government of today should acknowledge what happened more and start teaching the truth rather than try to gloss over the truth like they do now. I would argue that the average japanese person would agree that this would also be for the benefit of japan, because most japanese people of today seem quite pro-social and believe in virtues like cooperation and friendly relations and trade with other countries. And it's not like acknowledging the atrocities of the past and apologize for them out of respect of the victims would "cost" them anything. It's just the human, decent thing to do. Japan and South Korea are after all very similar in many ways. Both highly industrialized, free and prosperous societies in east asia. They both have everything to gain from improved relations and mutually beneficial cooperation would surely spring from an act of concession and public apology on the part of the japanese government.
    17
  773. 17
  774. 17
  775. 17
  776. 17
  777. 17
  778. 17
  779. 17
  780. 17
  781. 17
  782. 17
  783. 17
  784. 17
  785. 17
  786. 17
  787. 16
  788. 16
  789. 16
  790. 16
  791. 16
  792. 16
  793. 16
  794. 16
  795. 16
  796. 16
  797. 16
  798. 16
  799. 16
  800. 16
  801. 16
  802. 16
  803. 16
  804. 16
  805. 16
  806. 16
  807. 16
  808. 16
  809. 16
  810. 16
  811. 16
  812. 16
  813. 16
  814. 16
  815. 16
  816. 16
  817. 15
  818. 15
  819. 15
  820. 15
  821. 15
  822. 15
  823. 15
  824. 15
  825. 15
  826. 15
  827. 15
  828. 15
  829. 15
  830. 15
  831. 15
  832. 15
  833. 15
  834. 15
  835. 15
  836. 15
  837. 15
  838. 15
  839. 15
  840. 15
  841.  @masterchef1174  Thank you for the noble concession. That's very big of you. I apologize for my earlier insults and withdraw them. I'll let them stand in my earlier posts rather than deleting them so it doesn't seem like I try to cover up any bad behaviour on my part, so everyone can see that my apology is sincere. Also, just to clarify: I don't "feel sorry" for pedophiles in general by comparing their condition to anorexia. And I wouldn't excuse a child molester on the basis that he is sick (I don't care if you are a sick person, you are still responsible for your behaviour and actions). That said, there are different kinds of pedophiles in the world. Remember that a pedophile is a person who is attracted to children. Not all pedophiles take the step of actually molesting a child, but rather battle with their feelings brought on by their mental illness and try to suppress them and control them. Because "intellectually" they realize that a child is not a proper target of sexual affection. But their FEELINGS say otherwise. As much as I might think that such feelings are revolting, I do think that these pedophiles need and deserve help from society to combat these feelings and to avoid harming children. After all, what incentive do these people have to try and fight their feelings if society just shun them and treat them with scorn? Shunned and scorned people in general tend to develop very anti-social personalities and eventually end up in a state of mind where they stop caring about norms, morals and even the law, and instead become predatory and dangerous. I don't think the threat of incarceration is enough to motivate a person to obey the law. An individual needs something more than that. Like a social life and an implicit promise that they will have a decent, good life if they work hard, obey the law and engage in a pro-social behaviour in general (being helpful and considerate to others, abiding by norms and standards etc.) Granted, society can't reward a "virtous" pedophile with the kind of intimate relationship they desire. But at the very least, they should have the opportunity to be treated with common decency and respect, rather than hate and harassment. And it's not for "their" sake, but for the sake of the children that they might end up targeting if they are treated constantly as social pariahs. But then, there are pedophiles that have basically succumbed to their twisted feelings. Pedophiles actually arguing in defense of their feelings and that the law should permit them to molest children. Such individuals should be treated with suspicion (if they haven't broken any laws yet) or be completely sequestered from society (if they do break the law and molest children) But regardless of which kind of pedo we're talking about: none of them actively chose to be pedophiles. It would make no sense choosing it if it was a matter of choice considering how difficult it is to be a pedophile as opposed to be a normal, heterosexual person. And as I've argued already: the occurence of lolicon in society won't have any impact on the pathological nature of pedophilia. It's not going to "trigger" anyone to molest children, nor is it going to "prevent" someone from molesting children (at least based on the current evidence, but the matter should probably be studied more deeply) What causes child molestation is basically factors like opportunity, intellectual capacity to understand why sex with children is and should be illegal and strength of character. Lolicon is inconsequential.
    15
  842. 15
  843. 15
  844. 15
  845. 15
  846. 15
  847. 15
  848. 15
  849. 15
  850. 15
  851. I agree about the part about not judging ancient people's by our own moral standards. We tend to think that our moral standards and ideals are some sort of "ultimate human condition" to the point where some people can't understand how anyone would be capable of thinking differently. Like for example about slavery, equality, empathy and so on. But one has to understand and accept that our morals are not the norm in history. They are the exception. Our ideas have existed for such a short time as to be considered tiny in comparison to the ideas held by ancient peoples. Their civilizations lasted for thousands of years. Our modern day civilization has barely made it through it's first 150 years. And from the looks of the instability and chaos in the world right now, i'm not so sure it will last much longer without being significantly changed. One thing I have learned from personal studies of the way ancient people's thought, is that they had a more categorical mindset compared to ours. People were much more associated with their class and family and profession. There was no such thing as "equality" between classes or genders or ethnicities. This would be a very foreign concept to an ancient person. Some political activists today consider this to be evil. But how can it be evil? The reason we think the way we do about class, equality and human value is because we have the privilige of being schooled by certain prominent thinkers who were born many many centuries after ancient rome. So to dismiss romans or any other ancient people's as evil, is kind of like being religious and dismiss people not a part of your religion as evil, even though they had no way of knowing about your religion and it's teachings to begin with. We don't consider slavery to be evil today because the "yearn for freedom" is some sort of objective and intrinsic human trait that all humans share. We consider slavery to be evil because we have been taught to think that. The ancient romans weren't. They were taught differently.
    15
  852. 15
  853. 15
  854. 15
  855. 14
  856. 14
  857. 14
  858. 14
  859. 14
  860. 14
  861. 14
  862. 14
  863. 14
  864. 14
  865. 14
  866. 14
  867. 14
  868. 14
  869. 14
  870. 14
  871. 14
  872. 14
  873. 14
  874. 14
  875. 14
  876. 14
  877. 14
  878. 14
  879. 14
  880. 14
  881. 14
  882. 14
  883. 14
  884. 14
  885. 14
  886. 14
  887. 14
  888. 14
  889. 14
  890. 14
  891. 14
  892. 14
  893. 14
  894. 14
  895. As a scandinavian, i'm pleased with the accurate details mentioned about my ancestors. However, i'm a little curious about the part where you said that some historians claim that vikings attacked christian monasteries out of "revenge". As far as my knowledge of Swedish history, Christians never made any full scale invasions or conversion conquests of many Scandinavian villages at the time. The conversion mostly happened internally through the influence of scandinavian chieftains, by increased exposure to christian institutions. Like you said, the culture of ancient scandinavians valued two things above most others: force of arms, but also slyness. You'd earn respect by being a capable fighter but also a SMART person. This especially made manifest in the myth of Odin, seen as a chief of the Norse gods, and also the god to embody wisdom and slyness. And what I think ultimately consumed the pagan culture (or at least removed it from being the official religion in scandinavia) was it's own values of strength and slyness. Viking chieftans stood a lot more to gain and secure their own power and influence by converting to christianity than to oppose it at the time. Christianity wasn't just a religion at the time, but also an extensive trade cartel. Christians often avoided trade with non-christian pagans, so even if you stole silver and valuable commodities you'd find yourself cut out from most European markets regardless or how many riches you tried to sell if you couldn't present yourself as a good christian. Ancient scandinavians were a very practical people. Not very prone to sentimental preservation of things that didn't have much use for them. So these combined factors seems to have facilitated the transitioning to christianity, rather than actual conquest and violent conversions. They simply had too much to gain economically speaking to convert, than they stood to gain by sticking to their pagan ways. Although the sincerity of the vikings that did convert could most certainly be questioned (the truly pious scandinavian rulers didn't emerge until much later in history)
    13
  896. 13
  897. 13
  898. 13
  899. 13
  900. 13
  901. 13
  902. 13
  903. 13
  904. 13
  905. 13
  906. 13
  907. 13
  908. 13
  909. 13
  910. 13
  911. 13
  912. 13
  913. 13
  914. 13
  915. 13
  916. 13
  917. 13
  918. 13
  919. 13
  920. 13
  921. 13
  922. 13
  923. 13
  924. 13
  925. 13
  926. 13
  927. 13
  928. 13
  929. 13
  930. 13
  931. 13
  932. 13
  933. 13
  934. 13
  935. 13
  936. 13
  937. 13
  938. 13
  939. 13
  940. 13
  941. 13
  942. 13
  943. 13
  944. 13
  945. 13
  946. 13
  947. 13
  948. 13
  949. 13
  950. 13
  951. 13
  952. 13
  953. 13
  954. 13
  955. 13
  956. 13
  957. 13
  958. 13
  959. 13
  960. 13
  961. 13
  962. So you're suggesting that animal species that have been bred and domesticated for literally THOUSANDS or years to rely on humans for their survival and to feel safe around their human owners all really want "freedom" (meaning being let out in the woods to fend for themselves against vastly superior predators out to kill them and eat them)? Take a look at the average cow. Notice how it's built. How it's muscles and excessive fat just hangs of it's skeleton, and how swollen and impractical it's udder looks. Compare that to a close wild cousin to cows that hasn't been domesticated, like buffalo or even wildebeest. These wild variants are normally much better built in terms of body structure and more adapted to survive in the wilds and fend for themselves against predators, because they haven't been domesticated like cows. If you started letting all domesticated cows out of their pens and expected them to fend for themselves, you'd be doing the cows their greatest disservice of their lives. They aren't evolved to survive out in the wilds, they are DOMESTICATED. As in purposefully born and bred to favor certain qualities that are useful to humans (more meat, more milk, docile temperament etc.) but which would make them an inferior species in the wilds. So no, they don't walk around desiring "freedom". They desire safety, shelter, food and protection which they get from humans. And it would be downright irresponsible to deny them these things, since we humans basically made them into what they are now.
    12
  963. 12
  964. 12
  965. 12
  966. 12
  967. 12
  968. 12
  969. 12
  970. 12
  971. 12
  972. 12
  973. 12
  974. 12
  975. 12
  976. 12
  977. 12
  978. 12
  979. 12
  980. 12
  981. 12
  982. 12
  983. 12
  984. 12
  985. 12
  986. 12
  987. 12
  988. 12
  989.  @deanjay6454  Personally I have a hard time respecting people who argue from a position of complaining. It's unbecoming of an adult. People in general should be more stoic. Citing hardships of what someone had to go through in the past in order to complain about what's going on today is very dishonest. None of us argue that women and men had it better in the past. There were a wide variety of gender based injustices. For women it could be not being able to file for a divorce. But for men it could be conscription and being sent to die in a war, regardless if the man wanted to go or not. But those are problems of the past. They aren't relevant today. And women living today certainly shouldn't be given any extra benefits just because women in the past faced injustices. And the same goes for men. If you're going to tackle problems of today, they should be treated as current day problems and be scrutinized in their own context, and not by dragging up a bunch of injustices that have existed in the past but are long since gone due to new legislation. But this is what cultural marxists do all the time. They whine and complain about the past to justify their theft of today. But take it to it's logical extreme: where does it end? Human history is rife with atrocities, wars of conquest and government oppression. If we're going to run around and "give back" all that was ever taken, all of society and the world will be plunged into chaos and the majority of people who acted in good faith (for example, people who purchased land with their own money that was conquered at some point in the past) will be destitute in the process. Whatever changes we make, can only be on a "from now on"-basis. There is no valid way for anyone to "correct" the past.
    12
  990. 12
  991. 12
  992. 12
  993. 12
  994. 12
  995. 12
  996. 12
  997. 12
  998. 12
  999. 12
  1000. 12
  1001. 12
  1002. 12
  1003. 12
  1004. 12
  1005. 12
  1006. 12
  1007. 12
  1008. 12
  1009. 12
  1010. 12
  1011. 12
  1012. 12
  1013. 12
  1014. 12
  1015. 12
  1016. 12
  1017. 12
  1018.  @andarted  Uh yes there is plenty of indication that the bugs were responsible for the meteorite. For starters: they've staged similar attacks in the past and even been observed doing it. Second, the Rodger Young even encountered the meteorite and only narrowly avoided it, which took out their comms so they couldn't send a warning back to earth about the inbound meteorite being sent from the system occupied by bugs. You're not looking at the actual film, you're looking at it through some liberal arts lens with wacky and fanciful interpretations of your own. And Trump is right: immigrants do reduce the living standards of the working class in any country. It's very simple to understand: the job market is just that: a market. Like all markets, supply and demand govern the prices. The amount of supply in labour govern the level of the salaries. The more labour there is, the more the price for labour drops (that is the wages). So if you've got a working class with low incomes already: flooding the country with immigrants desperate to do the same labour more cheaply, then the living standards for ALL (both the native working class, and the immigrants) is reduced. If your government is also stupid enough to give those immigrants the same access to welfare, then it means that more people will be forced to share the meager resources that the welfare has available. But being a typical leftwing idiot, I suppose you believe that employers should just pay higher salaries to everyone "out of the goodness of their hearts" or some shit. Too bad your ideology doesn't mesh well with how the real world works...
    12
  1019. 12
  1020. 12
  1021. 12
  1022. 12
  1023. 12
  1024. 12
  1025. 12
  1026. 12
  1027. 12
  1028. 12
  1029. 12
  1030. 12
  1031. Alexander M: Actually, women hunted too during the stone age. Hunting doesn't require male gender when tools and weapons are involved. In fact, playing soccer at professional levels is a lot harder (and damn near impossible for women) than being a successful hunter using stone age tools. The soccer player has to rely on their body's physical fitness completely, and even with a handicap (since soccer doesn't permit the usage of hands), which gives men a very significant advantage. Hunting with spears, bows and arrows and traps on the other hand requires more in clever tool usage, tactics and knowledge of prey behaviour, tracking etc. Skills that can all be taught and aren't as reliant on physical fitness as soccer, even though physical fitness will certainly make hunting more pleasant since it sometimes require you to walk very long distances. And before anyone bring up these primitive tribes today that "run down gazelles" and stuff like that and use it as definitive evidence that hunting requires you to be at peak physical performance, i'll just say this: There's a reason why these tribes still live like cavemen in the modern world while we, descendants of smarter stone age tribes ride cars, airplanes and have agriculture to supply us with food. These tribes spending their time idealizing running down gazelles aren"t very smart. They're not hunting very intelligently with the tools and technological levels available to them. Remember, hunting is first and foremost about getting food. Why do we need food? Because we need to refill on nutrients as we expend energy. The best hunters don't do shit like expending vast amounts of energy trying to run down prey. The best hunters (and this is true even in other animal species) are the ones spending the LEAST amounts of energy to catch their prey.
    11
  1032. 11
  1033. 11
  1034. 11
  1035. 11
  1036. 11
  1037. 11
  1038. 11
  1039. 11
  1040. 11
  1041. 11
  1042. 11
  1043. 11
  1044. 11
  1045. 11
  1046. 11
  1047. 11
  1048. 11
  1049. 11
  1050. 11
  1051. 11
  1052. 11
  1053. 11
  1054. 11
  1055. 11
  1056. 11
  1057. 11
  1058. 11
  1059. 11
  1060. 11
  1061. 11
  1062. 11
  1063. 11
  1064. 11
  1065. 11
  1066. 11
  1067. 11
  1068. 11
  1069. 11
  1070. 11
  1071. 11
  1072. 11
  1073. 11
  1074. 11
  1075. 11
  1076. 11
  1077. 11
  1078. 11
  1079. 11
  1080. 11
  1081. 11
  1082. 11
  1083. 11
  1084. 11
  1085. 11
  1086. 11
  1087. 11
  1088. 11
  1089. 11
  1090. 11
  1091. 11
  1092. 11
  1093. 11
  1094. 11
  1095. 11
  1096. 11
  1097. 11
  1098. 11
  1099. 11
  1100. 11
  1101. 11
  1102. 11
  1103. 11
  1104. 11
  1105. 11
  1106. 11
  1107. 11
  1108. 11
  1109. 11
  1110. 11
  1111. 11
  1112. 11
  1113. 11
  1114. 11
  1115. 11
  1116. 11
  1117. 11
  1118. 11
  1119. 10
  1120. 10
  1121. 10
  1122. 10
  1123. 10
  1124. 10
  1125. 10
  1126. 10
  1127. 10
  1128. 10
  1129. 10
  1130. 10
  1131. 10
  1132. 10
  1133. 10
  1134. 10
  1135. 10
  1136. 10
  1137. 10
  1138. 10
  1139. 10
  1140. 10
  1141. 10
  1142. 10
  1143. 10
  1144. 10
  1145. 10
  1146. 10
  1147. 10
  1148. 10
  1149. 10
  1150. 10
  1151. 10
  1152. 10
  1153. 10
  1154. 10
  1155. 10
  1156. 10
  1157. 10
  1158. 10
  1159.  @budibausto  Well in my view, I don't really see the point of dragging up and condemning something that happened long into the past. The way forward is that people need to let go of past grievances when the conflict is over and both victims and perpetrators are dead. Holding on to past transgressions "on behalf" of ancestors serves no purpose. It doesn't "honour" their memory, it won't bring them back and it won't "settle the score". And I do believe with firm conviction that the victims of slavery, regardless of what race they were or during what period they were enslaved would've much prefered that different races and ethnic groups co-existed peacefully and left eachother alone rather than continually fuelling social and even military conflicts when there's no good reason to. That's why people need to let go of the past rather than reviving the conflicts of it. It goes for black people and the trans-atlantic slave trade, it goes for the jews and the holocaust, it goes for mediterranean europeans and the Barbary slave trade, it goes for China and Korea in relation to WWII and Japan, it goes for the British and their victimization from the Norse and so on. No person alive today should feel the need to- or be compelled to apologize on behalf of their ancestors. No person alive today has any moral right to be offended "on behalf" of dead ancestors. Refusing to accept this is a guarantee for further racial and ethnic divides and increse of conflicts and will keep the pendulum of Vendettas swinging forever.
    10
  1160. 10
  1161. 10
  1162. 10
  1163. 10
  1164. 10
  1165. 10
  1166. 10
  1167. 10
  1168. 10
  1169. 10
  1170. 10
  1171. 10
  1172. 10
  1173. 10
  1174. 10
  1175. 10
  1176. 10
  1177. 10
  1178. 10
  1179. 10
  1180. 10
  1181. 10
  1182. 10
  1183. 10
  1184. 10
  1185. 10
  1186. 10
  1187. 10
  1188. 10
  1189. 10
  1190. 10
  1191. 10
  1192. 10
  1193. 10
  1194. 10
  1195. Also, I disagree with the idea that war only creates death and destruction. Mainly because it's historically incorrect. War is also the single greatest spur and motive for innovation. Take a look at the swords, armour and weapons you like so much. These are inplements of war. They weren't painstakingly researched, designed and created at a whim. They were created out of a necessity of being smarter and more well equipped than your enemy. And while you might argue that these inventions are only destructive in nature and could've been completely redundant if we just didn't wage war, you'd also fail to acknowledge the many, MANY civilian applications that inventions and discoveries made for warfar eventually had. For instance the knowledge and skill in metalworking to create swords and armour which eventually got adapted to make better buildings and machines. The innvention of gunpowder, also primarily an innovation of war, but which further lead into more advanced studiesof explosives that has helped humans shape the landscape and build better and bigger cities through the use of explosive compounds. Medicine has benefitted immensly from war. Even the horrible and unethical experiments made by characters like Dr Joseph Mengele of Nazi Germany, who were only possible due to the state of war and martial law, produced results that modern doctors and physicians use today to help people. And then there's the internet. Used by you to upload videos for the world to see. The greatest communications device in history. It actually started out as a military communications software developed by the american military agency DARPA, and it was initially called "ARPANet". And there's a very simple reason why war is such a great motivator for human innovation and achievement: In peacetime, if you're not more innovative than your rivals you risk losing, what? Marketshares? Money? In times of war however, if you're not more innovative than your enemy, you risk losing your life, the lives of your family and even the very existence of your society. So to everyone who consider war to be the worst thing in human history: you might want to take a step back and ponder over these facts and realize that while war does have some awful downsides to it, it doesn't make it all bad or destructive. War is a human behaviour that accelerates human evolution and innovation. Since nature has proven too weak to test our mettle, we're forced to test our mettle against ourselves as a species.
    10
  1196. 10
  1197. 10
  1198. 10
  1199. 10
  1200. 10
  1201. 10
  1202. 10
  1203. 10
  1204. 10
  1205. 10
  1206. 10
  1207. 10
  1208. 10
  1209. 10
  1210. 9
  1211. 9
  1212. 9
  1213. 9
  1214. 9
  1215. 9
  1216. 9
  1217. 9
  1218. 9
  1219. 9
  1220. 9
  1221. 9
  1222. 9
  1223. 9
  1224. 9
  1225. 9
  1226. 9
  1227. 9
  1228. 9
  1229. 9
  1230. 9
  1231. 9
  1232. 9
  1233. 9
  1234. 9
  1235. 9
  1236. 9
  1237. 9
  1238. 9
  1239. 9
  1240. 9
  1241. 9
  1242. 9
  1243. 9
  1244. 9
  1245. 9
  1246. 9
  1247. 9
  1248. 9
  1249. 9
  1250. 9
  1251. 9
  1252. 9
  1253. 9
  1254. 9
  1255. 9
  1256. 9
  1257. 9
  1258. 9
  1259. 9
  1260. 9
  1261. 9
  1262. 9
  1263. 9
  1264. 9
  1265. 9
  1266. 9
  1267. 9
  1268. 9
  1269. 9
  1270. 9
  1271. 9
  1272. 9
  1273. 9
  1274. 9
  1275. 9
  1276. 9
  1277. 9
  1278. 9
  1279. 9
  1280. 9
  1281. 9
  1282. 9
  1283. 9
  1284. 9
  1285. 9
  1286. 9
  1287. 9
  1288. 9
  1289. 9
  1290. 9
  1291. 9
  1292. 9
  1293. 9
  1294. 9
  1295. 9
  1296. 9
  1297. 9
  1298. 9
  1299. 9
  1300. 9
  1301. 9
  1302. 9
  1303. 9
  1304. 9
  1305. 9
  1306. 9
  1307. 9
  1308. 9
  1309. 9
  1310. 9
  1311. 9
  1312. 9
  1313. 9
  1314. 9
  1315. 9
  1316.  @leothelion9124  And while you're arguing self-defense, you still support the disingenous lefty narrative that Kyle somehow brought the situation upon himself. He was not being a vigilante. He was not making any citizens arrests nor did he use his gun to stop percieved crimes from going on (like a vigilante would). He ONLY used his gun to protect himself while getting attacked. You think you're being a "smart" person when you "avoid" altercations? What you're actually doing is consenting to the left wingers being violent. You don't treat them as human beings responsible for their own actions. You treat them as some kind of innocent "animals" or something who shouldn't be held to account for their own actions, but that they must be "protected" from harming themselves on armed citizens, by having the armed citizens avoiding certain streets at night. I on the other hand do not treat leftwingers as animals. I argue that they are people responsible for their own actions and that they should justly suffer the consequences of their own actions. Kyle did not have some sort of moral duty to keep their lives safe by not being in Kenosha that night. The lefties on the other hand not only had a moral but a LEGAL duty to leave Kyle alone, but they failed in that duty and ended up dead or injured as a result. So rather than chastizing Kyle for being "stupid". Maybe you should spend more time asking the left why they think it's acceptable to just mob up and assault innocent people in the streets for no valid or legal reason?
    9
  1317. 9
  1318. 9
  1319. 8
  1320. 8
  1321. 8
  1322. 8
  1323. 8
  1324. 8
  1325. 8
  1326. 8
  1327. 8
  1328. 8
  1329. 8
  1330. 8
  1331. 8
  1332. 8
  1333. 8
  1334. 8
  1335. 8
  1336. 8
  1337. 8
  1338. 8
  1339. Chí Thiện Nguyễn: Do you deny that the Vietnamese enemies of Korea and the U.S did things like hide weapons caches in civilian villages and towns? Do you deny that Vietnamese fighers hid themselves among civilian populations and staged attacks by using civilians? There are tons of reports of vietnamese children being sent as suicide bombers by groups like the Vietcong and the like in order to kill and maim U.S and Korean troops during the conflict. It's actions like that which cause troops to consider all civilians to be potential hostiles and leads to further innocent deaths. Put yourself in their shoes. Just the day before you had soldier buddies getting blown to pieces by a civilian suicide bomber, you're in a foreign country, scared for your life and rumors circulate everywhere that there are enemy troops hiding among the civilians. Do you seriously believe that you'd be able to make sure that you or your superior officer never harms an innocent civilian under those conditions? If anything you should place your blame on the Vietnamese armed forces who were willing to resort to such underhanded tactics. The U.S troops didn't send civilian suicide bombers to deal with their enemies, and they always wore uniforms. Real soldiers wear uniforms to show which side they're on, even so the enemies know it and so their enemies DON'T go chasing after innocent civilians in pursuit of them. When you start using civilians to attack enemy troops then YOU are the one who paints a target on civilians backs, not the enemy.
    8
  1340. 8
  1341. 8
  1342. 8
  1343. 8
  1344. 8
  1345. 8
  1346. 8
  1347. 8
  1348. 8
  1349. 8
  1350. 8
  1351. 8
  1352. 8
  1353. One thing to note about the "horrors of declining birth rates". Can anyone name a single country that has been destroyed or dissolved and ceased to exist as a result of declining birth rates? Declining birth rates can cause problems for a society. Potentially quite macabre ones (like senior citizens not being able to live off pensions and social services because the working population is simply too small to support them). So worst case scenario, the elderly and infirm might perish in large numbers as a result. And that would certainly be a terrible result for sure. But will it destroy a country? Personally I don't think so. The elderly would perish, their property would be inherited by the younger generations and the country and the economy would eventually adapt and balance itself to the new population levels accordingly. It would of course be ideal to avoid such a scenario, but there are some key questions that should be asked about it too. Namely: how sustainable is it, long term to structure a society like a giant pyramid scheme that essentially requires ever increasing birth rates to financially support an ever increasing group of elderly retired citizens? Can any society really do this long term without courting disaster? Can out planet and natural resources support such a development? Despite our best intentions, we have to adress the issue at some point that we all live with a finite number of resources, yet governments do nothing to ensure that populations stay at levels adapted to this finite number. All of them just push for us to grow ever more numerous, because it leads to short term wealth gains for a select few people. It is a very irresponsible policy that has been made a norm.
    8
  1354. 8
  1355. 8
  1356. 8
  1357. 8
  1358. 8
  1359. 8
  1360. 8
  1361. 8
  1362. 8
  1363. 8
  1364. 8
  1365. 8
  1366. 8
  1367. 8
  1368. 8
  1369. 8
  1370. 8
  1371. 8
  1372. 8
  1373. 8
  1374. 8
  1375. 8
  1376. 8
  1377. 8
  1378. 8
  1379. 8
  1380. 8
  1381. 8
  1382. 8
  1383. 8
  1384. 8
  1385. 8
  1386. 8
  1387. 8
  1388. 8
  1389. 8
  1390. 8
  1391. 8
  1392. 8
  1393. 8
  1394. 8
  1395. 8
  1396. 8
  1397. 8
  1398. 8
  1399. 8
  1400. 8
  1401. 8
  1402. 8
  1403. 8
  1404. 8
  1405. 8
  1406. 8
  1407. 8
  1408. 8
  1409. 8
  1410. 8
  1411. 8
  1412. 8
  1413. 8
  1414. 8
  1415. 8
  1416. 8
  1417. 8
  1418. 8
  1419. 8
  1420. 8
  1421. 8
  1422. 8
  1423. 8
  1424. 8
  1425. 8
  1426. 8
  1427. 8
  1428. 8
  1429. 8
  1430. 8
  1431. 8
  1432. 8
  1433. 8
  1434. 8
  1435. 8
  1436. 8
  1437. 8
  1438. 8
  1439. 8
  1440. 8
  1441. 8
  1442. 8
  1443. 8
  1444. 8
  1445. 8
  1446. 8
  1447. 8
  1448. 8
  1449. 8
  1450. 8
  1451. 8
  1452. 8
  1453. 8
  1454. 7
  1455. 7
  1456. 7
  1457. I remember seeing one of Skallagrims videos where he tried cutting the shaft of a historocally accurate spear. It took a good couple of whacks on a stationary spear, planted in the ground and he didn't actually "cut" it off, but rather made the wood crack/splinter. I think the reason why a lot of people believe that you can cut the shaft of a polearm or staff is because their experience with wood is usually with thin rods of pine or spruce (usually in the form of broom handles and the like). Now while pine and spruce is perfectly fine for mundane carpentry and as building material, it doesn't come anywhere near ash or oak. It's sort of like comparing aluminium to steel if we were to use metals as an example. A good analogy would be to look at a wood baseball bat. You'd have trouble cutting it even with an axe while it's lying on the ground, let alone someone wielding it, swining it around and in arms that will flex upon impact. That said, I don't know if I would completely discourage the tactic of hitting your opponents spear. Not with the goal of breaking the spear of course, but in order to break his guard. If he has a tight grip on his spear at any one point and you strike it with sufficient force, you could force him off balance. If his grip is too loose, then you might manage to disarm him. Hitting his spear to get the spear tip out of the way while closing the distance would also be beneficial to you since he'll have trouble employing the spear if you're basically in his face and the speartip is far behind you.
    7
  1458. 7
  1459. 7
  1460. 7
  1461. 7
  1462. 7
  1463. 7
  1464. 7
  1465. 7
  1466. 7
  1467. 7
  1468. 7
  1469. 7
  1470. 7
  1471. 7
  1472. 7
  1473. 7
  1474. 7
  1475. 7
  1476. 7
  1477. 7
  1478. 7
  1479. 7
  1480. 7
  1481. 7
  1482. 7
  1483. 7
  1484.  @peterfireflylund  You make a mistake in assuming that just because a lot of exposure is taking place it equates to having accurate information. But nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, the Ukrainians and the Russians are basically using the same design of tanks, apc's, helicopters and even jets. So if you see a wrecked Soviet looking tank and somebody slaps on a text saying "Russian tank destroyed", you have no way of knowing if it's actually Russian or not. In fact, not even markings are helpful, since it's very easy for someone to just spraypaint a "Z" onto the wrecked hull of the tank and claim it belongs to the Russians, while it might just as well be a wrecked Ukrainian tank. Unless you are well versed in being able to spot the later upgrades that Russia have installed on their tanks, that the Ukrainians do not have, you won't be able to separate truth from fiction. And make no mistake, both Russia and Ukraine have a vested interest in spreading a narrative that their respective side is winning, and both employ psyops units as we speak. So you can't just run around and assume that what you see in social media and news reports as being accurate information. People believed in all of that "Ghost of Kyiv" and "Last stand at Snake Island" bullcrap too. But it all got debunked in the end. And the footage from the first was from a freaking video game. That's how fast lies and fiction spread through social media. So like I said: more exposure =/= accurate information.
    7
  1485. 7
  1486. 7
  1487. Yes, the orders came from higher up. Therefore the individual soldiers are not to blame. They did what they were told, and therefore their actions are completely justified. The responsibility lies with their commanding officers, and if these officers had their orders from the leading politicians then it is the politicians responsibility. Soldiers do not declare war. Politicians do. Soldiers are just there to supply the violence. It's not their duty nor right to determine where, why or how much violence is used. So yes, EVEN during the holocaust, the soldiers actions were completely justified. The only instance where soldiers are individually responsible is where they take actions upon themselves or disregard standing orders and act completely on their own accord. And yes the concept of warcrime is completely fucking ridiculous. Wars are not societies or "games" which you can hope to enforce "rules" or "laws". The state of war is by definition a state where two or more nations have completely abandoned rule of law with the goal of getting their enemies to surrender. Also germany and german soldiers were not sentenced for "warcrimes" during the post-war trials, they were sentenced excessively harshly for LOSING the war. The Nürnberg-trials were nothing but kangaroo-courts with the sole intent of adding insult to injury after the germans had lost. German soldiers didn't do anything more severe or terrible than their enemies did. Yet German soldiers got sentenced with harsh punishments by the victors, while the equally reprehensible and murderous soldiers of the victors got celebrated as "war heroes".
    7
  1488. 7
  1489. 7
  1490. 7
  1491. 7
  1492. 7
  1493. 7
  1494. 7
  1495. 7
  1496. 7
  1497. 7
  1498. 7
  1499. 7
  1500. 7
  1501. 7
  1502. 7
  1503. 7
  1504. 7
  1505. 7
  1506. 7
  1507. 7
  1508. 7
  1509. 7
  1510. 7
  1511. 7
  1512. 7
  1513. 7
  1514. 7
  1515. 7
  1516. 7
  1517. 7
  1518. 7
  1519. 7
  1520. 7
  1521. 7
  1522. 7
  1523. 7
  1524. 7
  1525. 7
  1526. 7
  1527. 7
  1528. 7
  1529. 7
  1530. 7
  1531. 7
  1532. 7
  1533. 7
  1534. 7
  1535. 7
  1536. 7
  1537. 7
  1538. 7
  1539. 7
  1540. 7
  1541. 7
  1542. 7
  1543. 7
  1544. 7
  1545. 7
  1546. 7
  1547. 7
  1548. 7
  1549. 7
  1550. 7
  1551. 7
  1552. 7
  1553. 7
  1554. 7
  1555. 7
  1556. 7
  1557. 7
  1558. 7
  1559. 7
  1560. 7
  1561. 7
  1562. 7
  1563. 7
  1564. 7
  1565. 7
  1566. 7
  1567. 7
  1568. 7
  1569. 7
  1570. 7
  1571. 7
  1572. 7
  1573. 7
  1574. 7
  1575. 7
  1576. 7
  1577. 7
  1578. 7
  1579. 7
  1580. 7
  1581. 7
  1582. 7
  1583. 7
  1584. 7
  1585. 7
  1586. 7
  1587. 7
  1588. 7
  1589. 7
  1590. 7
  1591. 7
  1592. 7
  1593. 7
  1594. 7
  1595. 7
  1596. 7
  1597. 7
  1598. 7
  1599. 7
  1600. 7
  1601. 7
  1602. 7
  1603. 7
  1604. 7
  1605. Bo's'n Bruce: Can't say I think the military is full or contradictions. And the irrational behaviour that you point out is hardly the norm within the armed forces. They wouldn't be able to achieve their results or function effectively if they were all clowns. The contradictions rather stem from the culture shock between what men in the armed forces were taught and brought up with in civilian society and how those values completely contrast with the necessary values needed in war for soldiers to function. In civil society, men were brought up with very "soft" values. Be nice to other people. Hurting other people is wrong. Killing is absolutely verboten. In the military they have to have those values beaten out of them and be repurposed and taught that being "nice" is not good. You need to demand that your peers perform and punish them if they are found wanting, and that killing is right when you're killing the enemy. More ancient societies didn't have the same problems because they usually contained a warrior class and warfare and skirmishes between different societies was more commonplace. Being a competent fighter and a known slayer of enemies didn't earn you scorn or social stigma, it earned you praise and celebration. I think it probably helped people of that time to maintain a more balanced view between civilian life and military life. Especially among the rank and file (like with vikings for example where many men who wnt out to raid in other countries had completely civilian jobs at home, unless they were exceptionally competent raiders who could sustain their livelyhoods on raiding alone). But in modern times, soldiers are basically forced to hold two completely opposite ideals in their heads at the same time. So it undoubtedly will have some strange and unpredictable effects on their minds.
    7
  1606. 7
  1607. 7
  1608. 7
  1609. 7
  1610. 7
  1611. 7
  1612. 7
  1613. 7
  1614. 7
  1615. 7
  1616. 7
  1617. 7
  1618. 7
  1619. 7
  1620. 7
  1621. 7
  1622. 7
  1623. 7
  1624. 7
  1625. 6
  1626. 6
  1627. Stitchowi: You are projecting human sentiments and ways of thought to cows, which doesn't work since cows don't posess the same level of higher intelligence as humans do. Cows aren't contemplating advanced concepts such as "freedom" or the meaning of freedom, simply because they don't have the capacity to do so. Your problem is that you are anthropomorphisizing animals and their behaviour, which gives you an inaccurate perception of how the animal mind works. Second, you do realize that over 5 billion species (possibly even more since not all species had bodies capable of leaving fossils for us to study) have gone extinct on this planet throughout it's history? Today roughly 14 million species are still alive. That's 4,76 billion species completely wiped out, because of their inability to adapt to surviving on earth. And most of these species were evolved towards survival, unlike cows who have been forever altered to a state where they are incapable of survival in the wilds, but these other 4,76 billion species simply didn't manage to survive anyway. That should give you some perspective and completely destroy your false notion that "all species simply adapts and survives" when they CLEARLY do not. Only the very best adapted species manage to survice in nature. The rest die out, completely. Mother nature is a very cruel bitch that way, and if you try to send cows in their current state into that situation then there's no if's or but's about it. They will go extinct in less than five to ten years.
    6
  1628. 6
  1629. 6
  1630. 6
  1631. Millennial Girl: The thing is this, "the majority" of Swedes didn't vote "for" a migrant crisis. The problem in Swedish politics was that pretty much ALL established parties in parliament had favourable views of mass immigration (or at the very least: didn't dare to present opposikg views to it, due to fear of losing support by being called racist). But the issue of immigration wasn't and has never been what parties chose as their main issues to go campaigning with. The parties were generally going to election speaking about things like jobs, tax cuts (or increased taxes), welfare, health care etc. These were the issues people primarily based their choices on when casting their vote. Then issue of immigration and a migrant crisis was sort of a slowly creeping issue. Only ONE party with hopes of getting into parliament campaigned with immigration as their primary issue, and that was the Sweden Democrats. But their PR naturally suffered immensly at the hands of extreme left wing slanderers throwing constant barrages of racist-accusations against them. The Sweden democrats also weren't helped by the fact that they were parliamentary noobs back then (they had little experience of parliament, and were seen by most as unproven and insecure for political office), and of course that in it's early days the party mostly comprised of skinheads and neo-nazis which caused a lot of trouble and controversy in Sweden during the 80's and the 90's (the party isn't a neo-nazi party anymore though, since Jimmie Åkesson and the management have done a lot to purge the party of right wing extremists and made the party more center right with a nationalistic and protectionistic policy). So, the Sweden Democrats had a rough start in mainstream politics, and they also had little in the way of a political program aside from being profiled in anti-immigration (kind or hard to earn the public trust when you have no idea of how to handle defense, healthcare, education, police, economy, jobs etc. and all the other issues that a ruling party is expected to handle). It's also a bit much to expect of average Swedes to just cast their votes at an entirely unproven and small party at such a stage, so you can't really blame all of them for it. BUT on the plus side, immigration has, over time, become one of the biggest issues in politics in Sweden. And since the other asshat, pro-immigration parties have had to change their stances on immigration (closint borders etc.) as well as acting extremely childish and disruptive in parliament when dealing with SD, and SD themselves becoming an established party in parliament, they are now seen as more experienced, and is the only political party with a growing support (whereas the others are all in decline). The Sweden Democrats are having a lot of "We told you so"-moments and puts the other parties to shame. It's just a matter of time before they'll be the dominant political faction and can begin to clean house in earnest.
    6
  1632. 6
  1633. 6
  1634. 6
  1635. 6
  1636. 6
  1637. 6
  1638. 6
  1639. 6
  1640. 6
  1641. 6
  1642. 6
  1643. 6
  1644. 6
  1645. 6
  1646. 6
  1647. 6
  1648. 6
  1649. 6
  1650. 6
  1651. 6
  1652. 6
  1653. 6
  1654. 6
  1655. 6
  1656. 6
  1657. 6
  1658. 6
  1659. 6
  1660. 6
  1661. 6
  1662. 6
  1663. 6
  1664. 6
  1665. 6
  1666. 6
  1667. 6
  1668. 6
  1669. 6
  1670. 6
  1671. 6
  1672. 6
  1673. 6
  1674. 6
  1675. 6
  1676. 6
  1677. 6
  1678. 6
  1679. 6
  1680. 6
  1681. 6
  1682. 6
  1683. 6
  1684. 6
  1685. 6
  1686. 6
  1687. 6
  1688. 6
  1689. 6
  1690. 6
  1691. 6
  1692. 6
  1693. 6
  1694. 6
  1695. 6
  1696. 6
  1697. 6
  1698. 6
  1699. 6
  1700. 6
  1701. 6
  1702. 6
  1703. 6
  1704. 6
  1705. 6
  1706. 6
  1707. 6
  1708. 6
  1709. 6
  1710. 6
  1711. 6
  1712. 6
  1713. 6
  1714. 6
  1715. 6
  1716. 6
  1717. 6
  1718. 6
  1719. 6
  1720. 6
  1721. 6
  1722. 6
  1723. 6
  1724. 6
  1725. 6
  1726. 6
  1727. 6
  1728. 6
  1729. 6
  1730. 6
  1731. 6
  1732. 6
  1733. 6
  1734. 6
  1735. 6
  1736. 6
  1737. 6
  1738. 6
  1739. 6
  1740. 6
  1741. 6
  1742. 6
  1743. 6
  1744. 6
  1745. 6
  1746. 6
  1747. 6
  1748. 6
  1749. 6
  1750. 6
  1751. 6
  1752. 6
  1753. 6
  1754. 6
  1755. 6
  1756. 6
  1757. 6
  1758. 6
  1759. 6
  1760. 6
  1761. 6
  1762. 6
  1763. 6
  1764. 6
  1765. 6
  1766. 6
  1767. 6
  1768. 6
  1769. 6
  1770. 6
  1771. 6
  1772. 6
  1773. 6
  1774. 6
  1775. 6
  1776. 6
  1777. 6
  1778. 6
  1779. 6
  1780. 6
  1781. 6
  1782. 6
  1783. 6
  1784. 6
  1785. 6
  1786. 6
  1787. 6
  1788. 6
  1789. 6
  1790. 6
  1791. ManilaJohn01: I disagree. Capturing and holding oil fields is a more simple task than capturing and holding an entire city. The germans were actually in the process of capturing them during Operation Edelweiß (so they had already arrived in the region, in opposite to your conclusion that the germans didn't have the strength to get there). But the effort had to be abandoned since the soviet Operation Little Saturn threatened to cut the german forces off from the rest of their forces. So we have here two situations of germans getting or risking getting cut off and surrounded: Stalingrad and the Caucasus. One of the objectives would've denied soviets of oil, which they desperately needed while also supplying the german war effort with much needed oil. The other objective would, at best, serve as a railway and transport hub. One was significantly easier to capture and hold (since the germans had already made an initial success in the region). The other was far too difficult to capture and hold, and also lead to the german forces getting surrounded and cut off. If the germans had instead allocated the resources and logistics that were sent to capture Stalingrad to fortify the Caucasus oil fields (both the fields themselves, and the supply routes in and out of the region) the germans would probably have been in a much more favorable position than they would have trying and failing to capture a city of much lesser strategic importance at that point in time compared to the oil fields.
    6
  1792. 6
  1793. 6
  1794. 6
  1795. 6
  1796. 6
  1797. 6
  1798. 6
  1799. 6
  1800. 6
  1801. 6
  1802. 6
  1803. 6
  1804. 6
  1805. 6
  1806. 6
  1807. 6
  1808. 6
  1809. 6
  1810. 6
  1811. 6
  1812. 6
  1813. 6
  1814. 6
  1815. 6
  1816. 6
  1817. 6
  1818. 6
  1819. 6
  1820. 6
  1821. 6
  1822. 6
  1823. 6
  1824. 6
  1825. 6
  1826. 6
  1827. 6
  1828. 6
  1829. 6
  1830. 6
  1831. 6
  1832. 6
  1833. 6
  1834. 6
  1835. 6
  1836. 6
  1837. 6
  1838. 6
  1839. 6
  1840. 6
  1841. 6
  1842. 5
  1843. 5
  1844. 5
  1845. 5
  1846. 5
  1847. 5
  1848. 5
  1849. 5
  1850. 5
  1851. 5
  1852. 5
  1853. 5
  1854. 5
  1855. 5
  1856. 5
  1857. 5
  1858. 5
  1859. 5
  1860. 5
  1861. 5
  1862. 5
  1863. 5
  1864. 5
  1865. 5
  1866. 5
  1867. 5
  1868. 5
  1869. 5
  1870. 5
  1871. 5
  1872. 5
  1873. 5
  1874. 5
  1875. 5
  1876. 5
  1877. 5
  1878. 5
  1879. 5
  1880. 5
  1881. 5
  1882. 5
  1883. 5
  1884. 5
  1885. 5
  1886. 5
  1887. 5
  1888. 5
  1889. 5
  1890. 5
  1891. 5
  1892. 5
  1893. 5
  1894. 5
  1895. 5
  1896. 5
  1897. 5
  1898. 5
  1899. 5
  1900. 5
  1901. 5
  1902. 5
  1903. 5
  1904. 5
  1905. 5
  1906. 5
  1907. 5
  1908. 5
  1909. 5
  1910. 5
  1911. 5
  1912. 5
  1913. 5
  1914. 5
  1915. 5
  1916. 5
  1917. 5
  1918. 5
  1919. 5
  1920. 5
  1921. 5
  1922. 5
  1923. 5
  1924. 5
  1925. 5
  1926. 5
  1927. 5
  1928. 5
  1929. 5
  1930. 5
  1931. 5
  1932.  @XtremeConditions  There is no "tolerance paradox" though. It's just a made up concept used to justify taking away people's freedom to express themselves in a way of their own choosing. In the truly free society, you can express yourself however you feel like while also having your property rights and employment rights protected under the law. And yes, this even extends to so called "incitement to violence". Because at the end of the day, incitement is harmless. It's mere words and nothing else. Words never harmed anyone. Actions do. And if a group of people proceed to do violence based on what the instigator merely SAY, then those people are solely responsible for their actions, and the full might of the law should come down on them like a hammer on an anvil. Nobody is entitled to excuse their actions by saying "Well this person on a soapbox told me to go out and harm minority x". You had the choice when you heard the guy on the soapbox. You chose to just believe him at face value. You chose to do what he told you, even though you knew it was in direct violation of the law and also a violation of the rights of the people you victimized. The idiot on the soapbox is just a ranting idiot. Nobody is obliged or dutybound to listen to him. Therefore it is completely ludicrous to act as if the idiot on the soapbox have committed a "crime" for merely having words come out of their mouths. It's a nothingburger. Hot air with zero capacity to harm anyone. And it's about damn time society grows up and realize this and stop bickering over "fighting words" or "intolerant speech" or "hate speech". Legalize them all, I say. But make damn sure you send in heavily armed police ready to give people a real beating with nightsticks at the very moment anyone steps over the line from merely using words and into illegal action.
    5
  1933. 5
  1934. 5
  1935. 5
  1936. 5
  1937. 5
  1938. 5
  1939. 5
  1940. 5
  1941. 5
  1942. 5
  1943. 5
  1944. 5
  1945. 5
  1946. 5
  1947. 5
  1948. 5
  1949. 5
  1950. 5
  1951. 5
  1952. 5
  1953. 5
  1954. 5
  1955. 5
  1956. 5
  1957. 5
  1958. 5
  1959. 5
  1960. 5
  1961. 5
  1962. 5
  1963. 5
  1964. 5
  1965. 5
  1966. 5
  1967. 5
  1968. 5
  1969. 5
  1970. 5
  1971. 5
  1972. 5
  1973. 5
  1974. 5
  1975. 5
  1976. 5
  1977. 5
  1978. 5
  1979. 5
  1980. 5
  1981. 5
  1982. 5
  1983. 5
  1984. 5
  1985. 5
  1986. 5
  1987. 5
  1988. 5
  1989. 5
  1990. 5
  1991. 5
  1992. 5
  1993. 5
  1994. 5
  1995. 5
  1996. 5
  1997. 5
  1998. 5
  1999. 5
  2000. 5
  2001. 5
  2002. 5
  2003. 5
  2004. 5
  2005. 5
  2006. 5
  2007. 5
  2008. 5
  2009. 5
  2010. 5
  2011. 5
  2012. 5
  2013. 5
  2014. 5
  2015. 5
  2016. 5
  2017. 5
  2018. 5
  2019. 5
  2020. 5
  2021. 5
  2022. 5
  2023. 5
  2024. 5
  2025. 5
  2026. 5
  2027. 5
  2028. 5
  2029. 5
  2030. 5
  2031. 5
  2032. 5
  2033. 5
  2034. 5
  2035. 5
  2036. 5
  2037. 5
  2038. 5
  2039. 5
  2040. 5
  2041. 5
  2042. 5
  2043. 5
  2044. 5
  2045. 5
  2046. 5
  2047. 5
  2048. 5
  2049. 5
  2050. 5
  2051. 5
  2052. 5
  2053. 5
  2054. 5
  2055. 5
  2056. 5
  2057. 5
  2058. 5
  2059. 5
  2060. 5
  2061. 5
  2062. 5
  2063. 5
  2064. 5
  2065. 5
  2066. 5
  2067. 5
  2068. 5
  2069. 5
  2070. 5
  2071. 5
  2072. 5
  2073. 5
  2074. 5
  2075. 5
  2076. 5
  2077. 5
  2078. 5
  2079. 5
  2080. 5
  2081. 5
  2082. 5
  2083. 5
  2084. 5
  2085. 5
  2086. 5
  2087. 5
  2088. 5
  2089. 5
  2090. 5
  2091. 5
  2092. 5
  2093. 5
  2094. 5
  2095. 5
  2096. 5
  2097. 5
  2098. 5
  2099. 5
  2100. 5
  2101. 5
  2102. 5
  2103. 5
  2104. 5
  2105. 5
  2106. 5
  2107. 5
  2108. 5
  2109. 5
  2110. 5
  2111. 5
  2112. 5
  2113. 5
  2114. 5
  2115. 5
  2116. 5
  2117. 5
  2118. 5
  2119. 5
  2120. 5
  2121. 5
  2122. 5
  2123. 5
  2124. 5
  2125. 5
  2126. 5
  2127. 5
  2128. 5
  2129. 5
  2130. 5
  2131. 5
  2132. 5
  2133. 5
  2134. 5
  2135. 5
  2136. 5
  2137. 5
  2138. 5
  2139. 5
  2140. 5
  2141. 5
  2142. 5
  2143. 5
  2144. 5
  2145. 5
  2146. 5
  2147. 5
  2148. 5
  2149. 5
  2150. 5
  2151. 5
  2152. 5
  2153. 5
  2154. 5
  2155. 5
  2156. 5
  2157. 5
  2158. 5
  2159. 5
  2160. 5
  2161. 5
  2162. 5
  2163. 5
  2164. 5
  2165. 5
  2166. 5
  2167. 5
  2168. 5
  2169. 5
  2170. 5
  2171. 5
  2172. 5
  2173. 5
  2174. 5
  2175. 5
  2176. 5
  2177. 5
  2178. 5
  2179. 5
  2180. 5
  2181. 5
  2182. 4
  2183. 4
  2184. 4
  2185. 4
  2186. 4
  2187. 4
  2188. 4
  2189. 4
  2190. 4
  2191. 4
  2192. 4
  2193. 4
  2194. 4
  2195. 4
  2196. 4
  2197. 4
  2198. 4
  2199. 4
  2200. 4
  2201. 4
  2202. 4
  2203. 4
  2204. 4
  2205. 4
  2206. 4
  2207. 4
  2208. 4
  2209. 4
  2210. 4
  2211. 4
  2212. 4
  2213. 4
  2214. 4
  2215. 4
  2216. 4
  2217. 4
  2218. 4
  2219. 4
  2220. 4
  2221. 4
  2222. 4
  2223. 4
  2224. 4
  2225. 4
  2226. 4
  2227. 4
  2228. 4
  2229. 4
  2230. 4
  2231. 4
  2232. 4
  2233. 4
  2234. 4
  2235. 4
  2236. 4
  2237. 4
  2238. 4
  2239. 4
  2240. 4
  2241. 4
  2242. 4
  2243. 4
  2244. 4
  2245. 4
  2246. 4
  2247. 4
  2248. 4
  2249. 4
  2250. 4
  2251. 4
  2252. 4
  2253. 4
  2254. 4
  2255. 4
  2256. 4
  2257. 4
  2258. 4
  2259. 4
  2260. 4
  2261. 4
  2262. 4
  2263. 4
  2264. 4
  2265. 4
  2266. 4
  2267. 4
  2268. 4
  2269. 4
  2270. 4
  2271. 4
  2272. 4
  2273. 4
  2274. 4
  2275. 4
  2276. 4
  2277. 4
  2278. 4
  2279. 4
  2280. 4
  2281. 4
  2282. 4
  2283. 4
  2284. 4
  2285. 4
  2286. 4
  2287. 4
  2288. 4
  2289. 4
  2290. 4
  2291. 4
  2292. 4
  2293.  @sonnykingcomposer  "Norm" or "normal" means belonging to a majority. Last time I checked, neither transexuals or homosexuals are in any kind of majority in any country in the world. (making up about 4-5 % of the global population, whereas heterosexuals make up the rest) I used to be less of whar you dub as "toxic" in the past. But your transexual and homosexual friends severely overreached and abused the courtesy I afforded them, by swallowing the cultural marxist narrative that all white, heterosexual men are "oppressors" of minorities, and that this label supposedly allow their "progressive" friends to treat white, heterosexual men with open hatred and scorn. That's about the time I realized that these minorities were never interested in getting along or being treated as equals. All they desired was to GET EVEN for some imagined transgressions in the past that never even happened to them personally. Well, if these assholes decide to treat me as a monster without even bothering to learn anything about me as an individual, citing that my "whiteness" and "cishet privilige" makes me an oppressor. Then i'm more than happy to play the part of that monster which they hate and fear. At least being a monster, I maintain some integrity and self-respect. Because the only recourse offered by these people is that you unconditionally bend the knee and just accept their accusations of being a mean, white oppressor and apologizing for the rest of your life for being born white and heterosexual. To that I say: Fuck that shit. I'd rather have my self-respect and be hated by butthurt minorities than flushing my self-respect down the toilet to placate them in apology of something I didn't even do to them. So if you wanna call me toxic, then consider my forehead fucking tattooed with a big, fat skull and crossbones. And i'm not sorry for it, and genuinely hope my ways hurt A SHITLOAD of minorities feelings..
    4
  2294. 4
  2295. 4
  2296. 4
  2297. 4
  2298. 4
  2299. 4
  2300. 4
  2301. 4
  2302. 4
  2303. 4
  2304. 4
  2305. 4
  2306. 4
  2307. 4
  2308. 4
  2309. 4
  2310. 4
  2311. 4
  2312. 4
  2313. 4
  2314. 4
  2315. 4
  2316. 4
  2317.  @XtremeConditions  The U.S has made a step in the right direction by having a contitution in place. The reason they can get away with tyranny in Scotland is because they don't have a constitution. Politicians are basically free to fiddle around with any law as they see fit. If they wanted to introduce the death penalty for rightwingets tomorrow, and they have enough representatives to support it, they could do it with impunity. Changing constitutional amendments in the U.S however, requires a supermajority (it's not merely enough to have a majority to see it through). The problem with the U.S right now is that there is a sizeable portion of the establishment and a president who simply choose to ignore the constitution to implement their tyranny. Best case scenario, gun owners will band together with money and sue the government in the supreme court for the Biden administrations anti-constitutional methods. It's a very high likelyhood they'd win so long as the supreme court justices haven't been packed or bought off. Worst case: you basically need armed revolution. Shooting at whatever cops or soldiers the government send to take your guns away. And yes, I realize this would be "illegal violence", but the context differs widely in the sense that the government itself is violating your constitution by trying to take awa your guns. The founding fathers were pretty clear about why there is a 2nd amendment to begin with, and it includes granting the means to the citizens to violently oppose tyrants. Even if the tyrant in question happens to sit in the oval office. The socialists engaging in violence however can't make any legal or constitutionla case for their actions. Now laws or constitutions are broken to violate their rights. The socialist can only try to justify their violence citing ideals about "equality" or "anti-capitalism". But even if they don't like capitalism, their constitutional rights are not being infringed upon by anyone, making their case for violent revolution objectively weaker.
    4
  2318. 4
  2319. 4
  2320. 4
  2321. 4
  2322. 4
  2323. 4
  2324. 4
  2325. 4
  2326. 4
  2327. 4
  2328. 4
  2329. 4
  2330. 4
  2331. 4
  2332. 4
  2333. 4
  2334. 4
  2335. 4
  2336. 4
  2337. 4
  2338. I think there's a distinction to be made between inciting hatred and expressing racist views. If you have racist personal views I think you should be able to talk about them without getting instantly deplatformed. Primarily for two purposes. The first being that if you agree with freedom of speech then it looks really bad when you censor someone because they have views you despise. And second: I don't think racism stops because you censor racist people It's an opinion and opinions never change due to censorship. They can only change through interacting with other people who have different opinions and who challenge racist opinions. Inciting hatred is a different act, since it's actively calling for and encouraging violence against people. And so it's more warranted to censor it because once you take the step to encourage violence, you demonstrate that you're not open to discussing views anymore. However this has to also be applied evenly to have any effect. You're not stopping incitement when you only punish white people who incite hatred towards non-whites, while giving free reign to, for example, radical socialists who advocate for violence against "the rich" or Palestinians who advocate for violence against Israeli people or the jews. The ban on incitement has to be a blanket ban on all fronts, regardless of whatever "history" may play in the issue. Furthermore I'm also convinced that the more you censor people with "pededtrian" racist views, the greater the likelyhood that you turn them towards inciting violence in the end. So tl;dr: I don't want to deplatform the racists. I want them to keep talking and having their views challenged in an open forum.
    4
  2339. 4
  2340. 4
  2341. 4
  2342. 4
  2343. 4
  2344. 4
  2345. 4
  2346. 4
  2347. 4
  2348. 4
  2349. 4
  2350. 4
  2351. 4
  2352. 4
  2353. 4
  2354. 4
  2355. 4
  2356. 4
  2357. 4
  2358. 4
  2359. 4
  2360. 4
  2361. 4
  2362. 4
  2363. 4
  2364. 4
  2365. 4
  2366. 4
  2367. 4
  2368. Lori Hopkins: Good. And with the risk of attracting nasty comments myself: I don't really oppose women working and supporting themselves. In a way I can concede to some of the feminism that a woman will end up in a tough place if she dedicates her life to act as a housekeeper for a man, and then finds herself getting divorced. Those years spent away from the job market will seriously hurt her chances at getting a good career because practically all employers are wary of people with large time gaps in their resumés. Not to mention their reduced pensions. If I was a woman, and I met a man who wanted to be the "breadwinner" and have me at home to take care of the house, then I would probably demand a financial agreement that he takes part of his salary which will go straight into a bank account under my sole control to cover for my pension and loss of income acting as his housekeeper. It's not very romantic, but regretfully kind of necessary, because no matter how good and stable a relationship might seem right now, there are no guarantees whatsoever that the relationship will continue forever. And if I then sacrifice my entire career for his sake, I would be left with nothing if the relationship ends. This would actually be a much more preferable way to solve the issue rather than resorting to the american legal custom of alimony, which is frankly abused by divorced women to quite a large extent. Voluntary agreements between spouses has to be superior to enforced legal interventions (where lawyers run off with most of the money anyway). If my potential husband wouldn't accept those terms, then I would continue to pursue a career of my own and we would have to share the household chores equally.
    4
  2369. 4
  2370. 4
  2371. 4
  2372. 4
  2373. 4
  2374. 4
  2375. 4
  2376. 4
  2377. 4
  2378. 4
  2379. 4
  2380. 4
  2381. 4
  2382. 4
  2383. 4
  2384. 4
  2385. 4
  2386. 4
  2387. 4
  2388. 4
  2389. 4
  2390. 4
  2391. 4
  2392. 4
  2393. 4
  2394. 4
  2395. 4
  2396. 4
  2397. 4
  2398. 4
  2399. 4
  2400. 4
  2401. 4
  2402. 4
  2403. 4
  2404. 4
  2405. 4
  2406. 4
  2407. 4
  2408. 4
  2409. 4
  2410. 4
  2411. 4
  2412. 4
  2413. 4
  2414. 4
  2415. 4
  2416. 4
  2417. 4
  2418. 4
  2419. 4
  2420. 4
  2421. 4
  2422. 4
  2423. 4
  2424. 4
  2425. 4
  2426. 4
  2427. 4
  2428. 4
  2429. 4
  2430. 4
  2431. 4
  2432. 4
  2433. 4
  2434. 4
  2435. 4
  2436. 4
  2437. 4
  2438. 4
  2439. 4
  2440. 4
  2441. 4
  2442. 4
  2443. 4
  2444. 4
  2445. 4
  2446. 4
  2447. 4
  2448. 4
  2449. 4
  2450. 4
  2451. 4
  2452. 4
  2453. 4
  2454. 4
  2455. 4
  2456. 4
  2457. 4
  2458. 4
  2459. 4
  2460. 4
  2461. 4
  2462. 4
  2463. 4
  2464. 4
  2465. 4
  2466. 4
  2467.  @Never4534   @Never4534  Ah, that's a shame. Nevertheless, know that you're not alone in thinking about these issues and that you want to see some change. That's why the msm and social media sites are working overtime on trying to shut the topics down. They want us to feel isolated and alone with our views, because they fear our opposition if we realize just how many people there are out there that shares our sentiments. It's a good thing you've chosen to follow the issues and not just keeping your head down to avoid rocking the boat. If there's no one IRL to talk to, then do continue keeping yourself informed about it. And if there are other people, women especially, that you can broach the subject with then that would be grand as well. As a man (not british, but faced with similar consequences of mass immigration and harmful cultural influences from abroad) I can honestly say that it's more challenging than it needs to be to raise the issue, when you see and hear a bunch of western women come out and attack you for it. It's not like i'm a likely target of muslim grooming gangs or r@pists. They are. And I don't think it's possible to ever tackle the problem if the general consensus is to stubbornly refuse to talk openly about the foreign cultural and religious aspects to the problem. I mean, or course there are white, western rapists too. We can't eliminate them all, because crime will always exist. But there are sole glaring key differences between r@pists from different countries. When you've got a western man prosecuted for r@pe, he'll deny his crimes and try to prove that he's a good man who doesn't want to harm women. He knows what he did is wrong, but did it anyway out of monstrous and selfish reasons. But then you look at some of the defendants in these grooming gang scandals, and they openly claim that they've done nothing wrong. Saying that their victims are just "white british slu..ts who deserved it" because british women do not and should not conform to islam1c standards of chastity, and they're very brazen about these opinions too. Then comes the the fact that this problem is an unecessary and imported one. If immigration was significantly more limited, and higher demands were made of immigrants to abandon their home cultures and mindsets, these r@pists would never have had the opportunity to do their vile, monstrous acts. But the more we just keep the floodgates open and basically let in anyone and allow them to stay regardless of how bad they behave living here, the problem is only going to increase. I don't think it's western countries responsibility to act as safe havens for the r@pists and the criminals of the middle east and Africa. We have a right and a duty to keep them out in the effort of reducing the sexual predation on women and girls who live here, while also continuing to charge and prosecute those monsters who are born and raised here as well...
    4
  2468. 4
  2469. 4
  2470. 4
  2471. 4
  2472. 4
  2473. 4
  2474. 4
  2475. 4
  2476. I've been thinking about a couple of ideas for future tanks. Feel free to give me some input: 1. A primary weakness of tanks have always been the limited visibility from inside the tank. Visions slits and optics have been employed, but tanks still need the eyes of infantry support to gain full situational awareness. So what if the tank crew was equipped with a VR-system that is linked to strategically placed cameras outside the tank, effectively letting the crew to "see through" the interior walls? The loader might not require one. But the gunner, commander and driver could probably benefit from this feature. The technology to pull it off is already avaliable as there are VR-cameras capable of sending a live visual feed to VR headsets. Of course, a point of criticism might be that cameras on the outside of the tank hull would be vulnerable to enemy fire. But tanks already employ external optics (protected as much as they can be) so it's not a bigger weakness than the ones tanks already have. It would just add a greater field of view for the crew instead of being locked to the very narrow field of view that current optics provide. 2. Pyramidal tank hulls. Sloped armour has been proven to be effective protection against many anti-tank weapons. The effective armour thickness is increased, and the angle of the sloped armour creates a greater chance of hits glancing off the armour rather than hitting it dead on. So suppose you shaped the exterior top half of the tank (above the tracks) into an armoured pyramid shape. This would give you sloped armor on all sides, leaving no vulnerabilities on any side. The top part of the pyramid could house the turret and be designed to rotate just as a regular turret on top of the rest of the pyramid.
    4
  2477. 4
  2478. 4
  2479. 4
  2480. 4
  2481. 4
  2482. 4
  2483. 4
  2484. 4
  2485. 4
  2486. 4
  2487. 4
  2488. 4
  2489. 4
  2490. 4
  2491. 4
  2492. 4
  2493. 4
  2494. 4
  2495. 4
  2496. 4
  2497. 4
  2498. 4
  2499. 4
  2500. 4
  2501. 4
  2502. 4
  2503. 4
  2504. 4
  2505. 4
  2506. 4
  2507. 4
  2508. 4
  2509. 4
  2510. 4
  2511. 4
  2512. 4
  2513. 4
  2514. 4
  2515. 4
  2516. 4
  2517. 4
  2518. 4
  2519. 4
  2520. 4
  2521. 4
  2522. 4
  2523. 4
  2524. 4
  2525. 4
  2526. 4
  2527. 4
  2528. 4
  2529. 4
  2530. 4
  2531. 4
  2532. 4
  2533. 4
  2534. 4
  2535. 4
  2536. 4
  2537. 4
  2538. 4
  2539. 4
  2540. 4
  2541. 4
  2542. 4
  2543. 4
  2544. 4
  2545. 4
  2546. 4
  2547. 4
  2548. 4
  2549. 4
  2550. 4
  2551. 4
  2552. 4
  2553. 4
  2554. 4
  2555. 4
  2556. 4
  2557. 4
  2558. 4
  2559. 4
  2560. 4
  2561. 4
  2562. 4
  2563. 4
  2564. 4
  2565. 4
  2566. 4
  2567. 4
  2568. 4
  2569. 4
  2570. 4
  2571. 4
  2572. 4
  2573. 4
  2574. 4
  2575. 4
  2576. 4
  2577. 4
  2578. 4
  2579. 4
  2580. 4
  2581. 4
  2582. 4
  2583. 4
  2584. 4
  2585. 4
  2586. 4
  2587. 4
  2588. 4
  2589. 4
  2590. 4
  2591. 4
  2592. 4
  2593. 4
  2594. 4
  2595. 4
  2596. 4
  2597. 4
  2598. 4
  2599. 4
  2600. 4
  2601. 4
  2602. 4
  2603. 4
  2604. 4
  2605. 4
  2606. 4
  2607. 4
  2608. 4
  2609. 4
  2610. 4
  2611. 4
  2612. 4
  2613. 4
  2614. 4
  2615. 4
  2616. 4
  2617. 4
  2618. 4
  2619. 4
  2620. 4
  2621. 4
  2622. 4
  2623. 4
  2624. 4
  2625. 4
  2626. 4
  2627. 4
  2628. 4
  2629. 4
  2630. 4
  2631. 4
  2632. 4
  2633. The scientific reasoning is good. But some expressions you use aren't very scientific. When you say that the different genders have different "reasons" and "purpose" and "roles" it will ultimately make your argument scientifically invalid. Nature doesn't work on the principles of "reason" or "purpose". Reason and purpose are artificial concepts that humans have invented in order to categorize and relate to their surroundings. Nature works on the principles of evolution, and cause and effect. We are a sexually dimorphic species, yes. But if you would've said that the sexes exhibit different physical characteristics, which evolutionary speaking makes them better suited or better adapted for different tasks then your choice of words would've been fine. But when you use words like "purpose" and "reason", you are implying design, which is frowned upon in the discourse of natural science, since one of the most basic tenets and assumptions about the universe, evolution etc. (based on the available evidence) is that it is not "designed" but evolved through a long chain of cause and effect. We don't have a "reason" for being here, and we don't have a specific "purpose" of being here, or doing what we do, other than the ones we invent for ourselves. We're here as a consequence, of a long chain of chemical reactions and cause and effect, where we're the end product of a long lineage of survivor species that just happened to live, while other species died out. 99% of all species that ever lived on planet earth are extinct today. The ones still alive comprise a mere percent of all life that ever lived on earth. So talking about "purpose" and "reason" for well... Any of us (man, ape or fish or whatever) is somewhat inappropriate... Linquistically speaking, which I know that you have a professional interest in, which is one of the reasons why i'm being this nitpicky. :) So to summarize: your claims are clearly based on scientific facts, but some of your choice of words invalidates them since natural science does not support ideas of "reason" and "purpose" (only religion does that, usually), only ideas of evolution and cause and effect.
    3
  2634. 3
  2635. 3
  2636. 3
  2637. 3
  2638. 3
  2639. 3
  2640. 3
  2641. 3
  2642. 3
  2643. 3
  2644. 3
  2645. 3
  2646. 3
  2647. 3
  2648. dreyrugr: But then again, why does FANTASY GAMES always have to contain the obligatory european styled swords like they always do? I think you're selling the inclusion of asian weaponry into fantasy gams a bit short when you accuse it of tokenism. It kind of reinforces a stereotype that "fantasy" has to imply european medieval-styled weapons and warriors, as if the fantasy genre somehow "belong" to medieval Europe. I'm not gonna call it racist, because I think the word is thrown around way too lightly in this day and age. But I will say that it's somewhat (and probably unintentionally) chauvinistic to assume that a fantasy game has to be about knights in armour, European dragons and Merlin of Camelot-styled wizards combined with elements of British and Scandinavian folklore. Any culture could form a basis of an interesting fantasy-setting. Fantasy is basically just a made-up alternate history kind of fiction, that may or may not include fictional concepts and entities like magic, dragons and leprechauns. The fact that Bethesda tries to include elements of fantasy from a variety of cultures doesn't automatically make it "tokenism". It enhances the game and bring about an illusion that there are other cultures in the world of the Elder Scrolls that aren't all about. European knights and swords like pretty much. every other fantasy game is purely focused on. In fact, Bethesda sort of breaks with traditional European fantasy norms by modelling a lot of culture, weapons and armour on ancient Roman society in the form of the Empire, rather than going with medieval European culture. I think it's a bit more refreshing than sticking to making yet another Lord of the Rings-piece of plagiarism.
    3
  2649. 3
  2650. 3
  2651. 3
  2652. 3
  2653. 3
  2654. 3
  2655. 3
  2656. 3
  2657. 3
  2658. 3
  2659. 3
  2660. 3
  2661. 3
  2662. 3
  2663. 3
  2664. 3
  2665. 3
  2666. 3
  2667. 3
  2668. 3
  2669. 3
  2670. 3
  2671. 3
  2672. 3
  2673. 3
  2674. 3
  2675. 3
  2676. 3
  2677. 3
  2678. 3
  2679. 3
  2680. 3
  2681. 3
  2682. 3
  2683. 3
  2684. 3
  2685. 3
  2686. 3
  2687. 3
  2688. 3
  2689. 3
  2690. 3
  2691. 3
  2692. 3
  2693. 3
  2694. 3
  2695. 3
  2696. 3
  2697. 3
  2698. 3
  2699. 3
  2700. 3
  2701. 3
  2702. 3
  2703. 3
  2704. 3
  2705. 3
  2706. 3
  2707. 3
  2708. 3
  2709. 3
  2710. 3
  2711. 3
  2712. 3
  2713. 3
  2714. 3
  2715. 3
  2716. 3
  2717. 3
  2718. 3
  2719. 3
  2720. 3
  2721. 3
  2722. 3
  2723. 3
  2724. 3
  2725. 3
  2726. 3
  2727. 3
  2728. 3
  2729. 3
  2730. 3
  2731. 3
  2732. 3
  2733. 3
  2734. 3
  2735. 3
  2736. 3
  2737. 3
  2738. 3
  2739. 3
  2740. 3
  2741. 3
  2742. 3
  2743. 3
  2744. 3
  2745. 3
  2746. 3
  2747. 3
  2748. 3
  2749. 3
  2750. 3
  2751. 3
  2752. 3
  2753. 3
  2754. 3
  2755. 3
  2756. 3
  2757. 3
  2758. 3
  2759. 3
  2760. 3
  2761. 3
  2762. 3
  2763. 3
  2764. 3
  2765. 3
  2766. 3
  2767. 3
  2768. 3
  2769. 3
  2770. 3
  2771. 3
  2772. 3
  2773. 3
  2774. 3
  2775. 3
  2776. 3
  2777. 3
  2778. 3
  2779. 3
  2780. 3
  2781. 3
  2782. 3
  2783. 3
  2784. 3
  2785. 3
  2786. 3
  2787. 3
  2788. 3
  2789. 3
  2790. 3
  2791. 3
  2792. 3
  2793. 3
  2794. 3
  2795. 3
  2796. 3
  2797. 3
  2798. 3
  2799. 3
  2800. 3
  2801. 3
  2802. 3
  2803. 3
  2804. 3
  2805. 3
  2806. 3
  2807. 3
  2808. 3
  2809. 3
  2810. 3
  2811. 3
  2812. 3
  2813. 3
  2814. 3
  2815. 3
  2816. 3
  2817. 3
  2818. 3
  2819. 3
  2820. 3
  2821. 3
  2822. 3
  2823. 3
  2824. 3
  2825. 3
  2826. 3
  2827. 3
  2828. 3
  2829. 3
  2830. 3
  2831. 3
  2832. 3
  2833. 3
  2834. 3
  2835. 3
  2836. 3
  2837.  @TheSanityX  There is nothing inherently violent about the concept of an ethnostate. Just because violence HAS been used in the enforcment of some ethnostates it doesn't make it a prerequisite. You're just too narrow minded or ideologically biased to see it. If I ask to pay minorities to leave my country to make the population all white, then where is the violence in thar equation? The thing about what the alt-right believes though is that the majority of minority people wouldn't refuse. Since a lot of them are form impoverished backgrounds or dislike the fact that they have to live as "descendants of slaves" among white people (the descendants of their enslavers), they rarely consider themselves happy with their current state of being. Many would prefer to live some place else, but they don't have the financial means to do it, or their living standards would be reduced even further on account of lacking start up capital. So if you offered black people to purchase some land, erect some housing and basically give them the lifestyle of an upper middle class person in Africa or Jamaica (after an agreement with the authorities in those countries), I think most of the black people raging against the "white majority" all day would seriously consider it. And the even smaller minority refusing to leave, would be so small and insignificant in number that their population would eventually decline to zero given a couple of generations. So there you go: ethnostate with no violence or force involved. Whether it would work or not is debateable, but hard to make any conclusive statements about since nobody has really tried it in practice. Another peaceful option would be to essentially split the country. Make some states in the U.S "white only", and other states "Black Only" and give none the legal ability to settle in the state of the wrong skin colour. Compensate those who need to move. Done deal, completely fair and non violent.
    3
  2838. 3
  2839. 3
  2840. 3
  2841. 3
  2842. 3
  2843. 3
  2844. 3
  2845. 3
  2846. 3
  2847. 3
  2848. 3
  2849. 3
  2850. 3
  2851. 3
  2852. 3
  2853. 3
  2854. 3
  2855. 3
  2856. 3
  2857. 3
  2858. 3
  2859. 3
  2860. 3
  2861. 3
  2862. 3
  2863. 3
  2864. 3
  2865. 3
  2866. 3
  2867. 3
  2868. 3
  2869. 3
  2870. 3
  2871. 3
  2872. 3
  2873.  @underarmbowlingincidentof1981  Anti-white racism is the biggest problem facing us today because it is the one form of racism going completely unchecked. You unironically have companies and even government branches, who in the name of "diversity" actively discriminate against white people in job applications. Even to the point where they flat out state "white people need not apply". AND EVEN THOUGH it is against the law in many countries to do so, none of them are prosecuted for it. Talk badly about any non-white race, or even suggest that white people also have problems and you'll get a violent, screaming BLM-hate mob breathing down your neck. You will also get instantly cancelled and deplatformed from public life by every silicon valley tech giant, and sometimes even get banned from credit card and banking services. You also have multiple instances of teachers abusing and mistreating white students in schools, singling them out and basically forcing them to apologize for their race in front of their class. You also have instances of college professors who openly admit that if a white student raise their hand during a discussion or seminar, they will refuse to let them have the word with their excuse being that it's more important to have "non-white voices heard" or some similar lefty bullcrap. So don't come and tell me that non-white people supposedly face the most racism today, because it is a complete lie. Also I can back up every single claim I make here with news articles and videos proving it. Racism towards non-white people in the western world is a non issue. In fact it's not even institutional as your lefty buddies like to claim. Whereas the racism towards white people is demonstrably institutional, with thousands of incidents to prove it. And no, your own race does not factor into my equation. Because unlike you race baiters, I don't argue from the position of race but from principle. So frankly I don't care if you're black or white because it doesn't matter to the facts.
    3
  2874. 3
  2875. 3
  2876. 3
  2877. 3
  2878. 3
  2879. 3
  2880. 3
  2881. 3
  2882. 3
  2883. 3
  2884. 3
  2885. 3
  2886. 3
  2887. 3
  2888. 3
  2889. 3
  2890. 3
  2891. 3
  2892. 3
  2893. 3
  2894. 3
  2895. 3
  2896. 3
  2897. 3
  2898. 3
  2899. 3
  2900. 3
  2901. 3
  2902. 3
  2903. 3
  2904. 3
  2905. 3
  2906. 3
  2907. 3
  2908. 3
  2909. 3
  2910. 3
  2911. 3
  2912. 3
  2913. 3
  2914. 3
  2915. 3
  2916. 3
  2917. 3
  2918. 3
  2919. 3
  2920. 3
  2921. 3
  2922. 3
  2923. 3
  2924. 3
  2925. 3
  2926. 3
  2927. 3
  2928. 3
  2929. 3
  2930. 3
  2931. 3
  2932. 3
  2933. 3
  2934. 3
  2935. 3
  2936. 3
  2937. 3
  2938. 3
  2939. 3
  2940. 3
  2941. 3
  2942. 3
  2943. 3
  2944. 3
  2945. 3
  2946. 3
  2947. 3
  2948. 3
  2949. 3
  2950. 3
  2951. 3
  2952. 3
  2953. 3
  2954. 3
  2955. 3
  2956. 3
  2957. 3
  2958. 3
  2959. 3
  2960. 3
  2961. 3
  2962. 3
  2963. 3
  2964. 3
  2965. 3
  2966. 3
  2967. 3
  2968. 3
  2969. 3
  2970. 3
  2971. 3
  2972. 3
  2973. 3
  2974. 3
  2975. 3
  2976. 3
  2977. 3
  2978. 3
  2979. 3
  2980. 3
  2981. 3
  2982. 3
  2983. 3
  2984. 3
  2985. 3
  2986. 3
  2987. 3
  2988. 3
  2989. 3
  2990. 3
  2991. 3
  2992. 3
  2993. 3
  2994. 3
  2995.  @ВячеславСкопюк  It's a numbers game. Whatever costs you incur on yourself, has to end up giving your side a net gain. Otherwise the costs you've incurred are wasteful by definition, and many smaller wasteful costs will add up and end up losing you the war. Patton described it quite consisely: "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." The red army during the winter war had such effective propaganda and high morale that they ended up running headlong into the finnish guns, dying for the soviet union... While failing to cause enough finns to die for Finland. And that is a problem, for the red army and for the soviet union, no matter how you try to look at it. Which teaches us that it's not very useful to teach or indoctrinate troops that dying for their country is some sort of "Noble goal" in itself, because it isn't. Getting results for your country is the noblest goal. Sometimes your own individual death might garner big results for your countrys war effort, and in such a situation, self-sacrifice might be noble. But just dying to the guns of the enemy to show "bravery" or "zeal" is useless. So what all your troops should know is that if they are about to die in battle, then they should do their very best to make their deaths useful rather than wasteful. In modern times, there's another group that has repeated this mistake: ISIS and their glorification of martyrdom. Dying in "Service of the prophet and Allah"... Might sit well with the prophet and Allah, but it's not winning ISIS any wars.
    3
  2996. 3
  2997. 3
  2998. 3
  2999. 3
  3000. 3
  3001. 3
  3002. 3
  3003. 3
  3004. 3
  3005. 3
  3006. 3
  3007. 3
  3008. 3
  3009. 3
  3010. 3
  3011. 3
  3012. 3
  3013. 3
  3014. 3
  3015. 3
  3016. 3
  3017. 3
  3018. 3
  3019. 3
  3020. 3
  3021. 3
  3022. 3
  3023. 3
  3024. 3
  3025. 3
  3026. 3
  3027. 3
  3028. 3
  3029. 3
  3030. 3
  3031. 3
  3032. 3
  3033. 3
  3034. 3
  3035. 3
  3036. 3
  3037. 3
  3038. 3
  3039. 3
  3040. 3
  3041. 3
  3042. One thing that comes to mind in a duel situation. What sort of fighting style or weaponry would a samurai have access to in order to counter a scutum? The scutum is one of the largest, man portable shields in history. As far as my knowledge, samurai didn't fight or encounter many foes using such large shields carried by infantry. Now I know that you've previously mentioned a type of shield that samurai used (although the name escapes me), but from the looks of it, it seemed to be more of a projectile protectin device, which the samurai employed primarily against archers by bracing it against the ground. But from the looks of the images it didn't look like something they would use in melee combat, whereas the scutum was designed to be used both in close quarters as well as protection against archers. Let's say the samurai use a yari. I have a hard time seeing the yari giving him an advantage, because the scutum looks pretty effective as protection against a spear. And as soon as the legionary manage to close the gap where he's well within the business end of the yari, the samurai would have increased difficulty in employing it. So the legionary would then be within sword distance, meaning the samurai would have to use a katana or weapon of similar length (a kanabo perhaps). In this situation the samurai blade would have a range advantage to the gladius. At this point I see a sort of stalemate happening. The legionary would have a blade too short to engage the samurai since he'd have to expose himself during a strike, where the samurai would be able to use the range advantage of his sword. But on the other hand, I don't know of any katana fighting styles employed by the samurai that could be used to counter the protection of the scutum. So it's quite difficult to ascertain which warrior would have the definitive advantage in such a duel situation. My personal view would say that the legionary has a slight advantage, because he could just slam into the samurai shield first and doing so still be able to protect himself from a thrust or cut from the katana relatively easily. But on the other hand: if the samurai keeps his wit about him and sidesteps in just the right moment, the bulk of the scutum would put the legionary at a disadvantage to turn quickly enough and defend against getting slashed or stabbed from behind.
    3
  3043. 3
  3044. 3
  3045. 3
  3046. 3
  3047. 3
  3048. To all the young 'uns out there having their earliest jobs: don't take a lay off personally. You have to understand that a business has to turn a profit to stay afloat. Sometimes the profits dip due to factors beyond your control as an employee. That's just the way it is. But your employer can't keep you on out of charity, or else the entire company might go belly up. If you do well at work, make sure your manager knows. And if the lay off hammer happen to hit you, ask the manager to at least write you a letter of recommendation explaining that the layoffs came as a result of factors beyond your own control. It will be very helpful to your career because even though you lost a job, you still have work experience under your belt. The more experience you accumulate to your resume, the safer you will be in future job opportunities. Another thing I'd advise doing is that when you have a steady job, keep looking for other jobs. Send out those resumes and go to job interviews. And if you find a job that offers better pay and working conditions, let your manager know that you're considering another offer. It's not "disloyal", it's merely pursuing your rational self interest. And a professional manager will be fully understanding of this. Either they will wish you godspeed with your new job, or they will sit down at the negotiating table with you in order to keep you on staff. And when that happens, make sure to bargain for stronger job security and better pay first and foremost. Most people never bother doing this. They just show up for work every day and don't think about getting another job, because they already have one.
    3
  3049. 3
  3050. 3
  3051. 3
  3052. 3
  3053. 3
  3054. 3
  3055. 3
  3056. 3
  3057. 3
  3058. 3
  3059. 3
  3060. 3
  3061. 3
  3062. 3
  3063. 3
  3064. 3
  3065. 3
  3066. 3
  3067. 3
  3068. 3
  3069. 3
  3070. 3
  3071. 3
  3072. 3
  3073. 3
  3074. 3
  3075. 3
  3076. 3
  3077. 3
  3078. 3
  3079. 3
  3080. 3
  3081. 3
  3082. 3
  3083. 3
  3084. 3
  3085. 3
  3086. 3
  3087. 3
  3088. 3
  3089. 3
  3090. 3
  3091. 3
  3092. 3
  3093. 3
  3094. 3
  3095. 3
  3096. 3
  3097. 3
  3098. 3
  3099. 3
  3100. 3
  3101. 3
  3102. 3
  3103. 3
  3104. Gibbons3457: The problem is that "moderate" left-wing politics doesn't work either because their ideology is still based on and influenced by the flawed, dysfunctional economical model that all communism is derived from. What usually happens when "moderate leftists" are voted into power is they act like spendthrifts with public money and national savings (usually funds that have been accuulated for years by right wing parties), so prosperity seems good in the beginning of a mandate period of moderate leftists. But then evidence shows that their policies are ineffective at taking economic realities i to account, and they're usually extremely bad at investing public funds into projects that actually pays society back with a surplus. By then, all public welfare institutions starts to crack since the leftist governments spends more money and take more loans than they can afford. As drastic emergency measures they make surprise raises in taxes for larger corporation, which scares them away and make them set up shop in other countries, taking the jobs with them and thus creating even more people dependant on social welfare that the government can't afford and so on. If your politics are influenced by "Das Kapital", you're never gonna be able to make a functional, stable society overtime. And before you start arguing, I should let you know that I live in a country where these exact things have happened over and over as left wingers got voted into power and I've seen it happen in practice, not just once but several times over.
    3
  3105. 3
  3106. 3
  3107. 3
  3108. 3
  3109. 3
  3110. 3
  3111. 3
  3112. 3
  3113. 3
  3114. 3
  3115. 3
  3116. 3
  3117. 3
  3118. 3
  3119. 3
  3120. 3
  3121. 3
  3122. 3
  3123. 3
  3124. 3
  3125. 3
  3126. 3
  3127. 3
  3128. 3
  3129. 3
  3130. 3
  3131. 3
  3132. 3
  3133. 3
  3134. 3
  3135. 3
  3136. 3
  3137. 3
  3138. 3
  3139. 3
  3140. 3
  3141. 3
  3142. 3
  3143. 3
  3144. 3
  3145. 3
  3146. 3
  3147. 3
  3148. 3
  3149. 3
  3150. 3
  3151. 3
  3152. 3
  3153. 3
  3154. 3
  3155. 3
  3156. 3
  3157. 3
  3158. 3
  3159. 3
  3160. 3
  3161. 3
  3162. 3
  3163. 3
  3164. 3
  3165. 3
  3166. 3
  3167. 3
  3168. 3
  3169. 3
  3170. 3
  3171. 3
  3172. 3
  3173. 3
  3174. 3
  3175. 3
  3176. 3
  3177. 3
  3178. 3
  3179. 3
  3180. 3
  3181. 3
  3182. 3
  3183. 3
  3184. 3
  3185. 3
  3186. 3
  3187. 3
  3188. 3
  3189. 3
  3190. 3
  3191. 3
  3192. 3
  3193. 3
  3194. 3
  3195. 3
  3196. 3
  3197. 3
  3198. 3
  3199. 3
  3200. 3
  3201. 3
  3202. 3
  3203. 3
  3204. 3
  3205. 3
  3206. 3
  3207. 3
  3208. 3
  3209. 3
  3210. 3
  3211. 3
  3212. 3
  3213. 3
  3214. 3
  3215. 3
  3216. 3
  3217. 3
  3218. 3
  3219. 3
  3220. 3
  3221. 3
  3222. 3
  3223. 3
  3224. 3
  3225.  @rotschadel3574  No, they were not "guilty". As a soldier your job is to follow orders, period. You do not get to decide who the shotcaller is or what orders you are given. The fact that you are german does not make you a very balanced authority on the subject since you have been indoctrinated since childbirth to hate your country and your people. It's not about whether the men serving in the wehrmacht were "good" or "bad". Soldiers are ordered to do bad shit all the time. What matters is whether they did their duty or not. If they fought for their country, they were good soldiers. Period. The guilt of soldiers actions lies further up the chain of command in times of war, so long as the soldier is only following his orders. If soldiers did what you propose that they should do, any military would break down in mere minutes. Which might have positive results when it is the Nazi military breaking down. But if you take a step back for a moment and imagine if the same thing happened to the Allies, then suddenly it's not a very prefarable scenario anymore. So you best be appreciative of soldiers who understand their duties and carrying out orders rather than constantly second guesssing their superiord, ignoring orders and waiting for the first best moment to desert their posts. We saw that happening in Afghanistan recently. The end result is that The Taliban has re-taken the country, and are now in possession of 85 billion dollars worth of american made weaponry, military vehicles and aircraft. Because the Afghani government troops who were supposed to use that equipment AGAINST The Taliban just threw their hands up and surrendered or abandoned their posts to join the enemy.
    3
  3226. 3
  3227. 3
  3228. 3
  3229. 3
  3230. 3
  3231. 3
  3232. 3
  3233. 3
  3234. 3
  3235. 3
  3236. 3
  3237. 3
  3238. 3
  3239. 3
  3240. 3
  3241. 3
  3242. 3
  3243. 3
  3244. 3
  3245. 3
  3246. 3
  3247. 3
  3248. 3
  3249. 3
  3250. 3
  3251. 3
  3252. 3
  3253. 3
  3254. 3
  3255. 3
  3256. 3
  3257. 3
  3258. 3
  3259. 3
  3260. 3
  3261. 3
  3262. 3
  3263. 3
  3264. 3
  3265. 3
  3266. 3
  3267. 3
  3268. 3
  3269. 3
  3270. 3
  3271. 3
  3272. 3
  3273. 3
  3274. 3
  3275. 3
  3276. 3
  3277. 3
  3278. 3
  3279. 3
  3280. 3
  3281. 3
  3282. 3
  3283. 3
  3284. 3
  3285. 3
  3286. 3
  3287. 3
  3288. 3
  3289. 3
  3290. 3
  3291. 3
  3292. 3
  3293. 3
  3294. 3
  3295. 3
  3296. 3
  3297. 3
  3298. 3
  3299. 3
  3300. 3
  3301. 3
  3302. 3
  3303. 3
  3304. 3
  3305. 3
  3306. 3
  3307. 3
  3308. 3
  3309. 3
  3310. 3
  3311. 3
  3312. 3
  3313. 3
  3314. 3
  3315. 3
  3316. 3
  3317. 3
  3318. I don't think social media and smartphones are the root of the problem. It's got more to do with how people use it. I can't say I was "happier" without it, because it's not really true. But I think my usage of social media and smartphones might differ from the people this video is discussing. The way I see it, a majority of people use social media as an echo chamber and a validation vending machine. Like facebook, they even have rules and regulations in place designed to be AGAINST communicating with people you don't know. But my interest in mass communications media has been the opposite. What I enjoy is coming into contact with people and perspectives previously unknown to me. I'm also somewhat confrontational and argumentative. I guess I come from the generation slightly prior to social media: the forum debaters. It's like a game to me. I use it to sharpen my wits and my debating skills. I chat strangers up about controversial topics and see if I can outsmart them in debates. And in some instances, sharpen my own arguments by coming into contact with opposing arguments that I would never have into contact before. I get distracted by using the smartphone, yes. But I don't get distracted by pictures of cats or peoples dinner. I get distracted by things like science, history and political articles on various online databases (like wikipedia). I love how I can start out reading an article about ion thrusters used in spaceflight, and by randomly following links in the article and following articles I eventually end up reading an article about Napoleon Bonaparte. I guess I'm addicted to information and knowledge. But I find it really hard to find fault with that. You might say that I should "wake up and smell the roses", but I don't really find the smelll of roses to be very interesting or useful to me, as I find scientific studies about the cellular structures of plants to be.
    3
  3319. 3
  3320. 3
  3321. 3
  3322. 3
  3323. 3
  3324. 3
  3325. 3
  3326. 3
  3327. 3
  3328. 3
  3329. 3
  3330. 3
  3331. 3
  3332. 3
  3333. 3
  3334. 3
  3335. 3
  3336. 3
  3337. 3
  3338. 3
  3339. 3
  3340. 3
  3341. 3
  3342. 3
  3343. 3
  3344. 3
  3345. 3
  3346. 3
  3347. 3
  3348. 3
  3349. 3
  3350. 3
  3351. 3
  3352. 3
  3353. 3
  3354. 3
  3355. 3
  3356. 3
  3357. 3
  3358. 3
  3359. 3
  3360. 3
  3361. 3
  3362. 3
  3363. 3
  3364. 3
  3365. 3
  3366. 3
  3367. 3
  3368. 3
  3369. 3
  3370. 3
  3371. 3
  3372. 3
  3373. 3
  3374. 3
  3375. 3
  3376. 3
  3377. 3
  3378. 3
  3379. 3
  3380. 3
  3381. 3
  3382. 3
  3383. 3
  3384. 3
  3385. 3
  3386. 3
  3387. 3
  3388. 3
  3389. 3
  3390. 3
  3391. 3
  3392. 3
  3393. 3
  3394. 3
  3395. 3
  3396. 3
  3397. 3
  3398. 3
  3399. 3
  3400. 3
  3401. 3
  3402. 3
  3403. 3
  3404. 3
  3405. 3
  3406. 3
  3407. 3
  3408. 3
  3409. 3
  3410. 3
  3411. 3
  3412. 3
  3413. 3
  3414. 3
  3415. 3
  3416. 3
  3417. 3
  3418. 3
  3419. 3
  3420. 3
  3421. 3
  3422. 3
  3423. 3
  3424. 3
  3425. 3
  3426. 3
  3427. 3
  3428. 3
  3429. 3
  3430. 3
  3431. 3
  3432. 3
  3433. 3
  3434. 3
  3435. 3
  3436. 3
  3437. 3
  3438. 3
  3439. 3
  3440. 3
  3441. 3
  3442. 3
  3443. 3
  3444. 3
  3445. 3
  3446. 3
  3447. 3
  3448. 3
  3449. 3
  3450. 3
  3451. 3
  3452. 3
  3453. 3
  3454. 3
  3455. 3
  3456. 3
  3457. 3
  3458. 3
  3459. 3
  3460. 3
  3461. 3
  3462. 3
  3463. 3
  3464. 3
  3465. 2
  3466. 2
  3467. 2
  3468. 2
  3469. 2
  3470. 2
  3471. 2
  3472. 2
  3473. 2
  3474. 2
  3475. 2
  3476. 2
  3477. 2
  3478. 2
  3479. 2
  3480. 2
  3481. 2
  3482. 2
  3483. 2
  3484. @Itchyface: bullshit. Religion has a historically higher killcount than even nazism ane communism combined. Justifying murder is infinitely more easy to do in religion than it is within secular ideals. The religious doesn't value human life at all. The religious consider this life to be nothing more than a mere test. A simulation to gague the individials morals that is to determine which eternal afterlife the individual is supposed to be sent to. It's very easy for any religious person to commit the vilest murders and atrocities if they are led to believe that it is "God's will" and that they will somehow be "rewarded" after death. Likewise they place little value on the lives of others. Killing a percieved "enemy" of the religion equates to sending them to a "just reward". Sacrificing a fellow member of the religion is also excused because the religious delude themselves into thinking that the sacrificed person will go to "paradise" after death anyway, so little harm is done. When you are of a secular mindset, death is permanent. You only get one life, as do everyone else. Taking the life of another is pretty much the ultimate "sin" you can commit because you are robbing another human being of their consciousness forever. This is also a fate you do not wish someone else to inflict on you, so you are more likely to develop a set of morals according to the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Only in the most extreme circumstance would a secular person excuse the killings of their fellow man, such as in self-defense or in defense of someone being attacked or if the death of one equates to maximum harm reduction. So you're clearly talking out of your ass. You're the one needing an excuse to act morally. You're the one needing some "divine punishment" not to kill other people. We, the seculars and atheists develop morals on our own, without a need of some fairytale for adults to intimidate us into making moral choices.
    2
  3485. 2
  3486. 2
  3487. 2
  3488. 2
  3489. 2
  3490. I agree in the sense that I generally find samurai armour more interesring to look at. But when it comes to the psychological aspect of "knight in shining armour" vs "dark samurai warlord", I have to admit that I sort of find the deceptive nature of european knights in shining armour more intimidating. Based mostly on the fact that it was just a facade hiding a terrifying nature. Sure, there were examples of virtuous knights, but let's face it: most knights and nobles were basically murderous psychopaths. So when they appear outwardly as shining, beatiful crusaders of truth but then turn into bloodsoaked monsters who only enjoy carnage and butchery on the battlefield it's more terrorizing and menacing in kind of the same way as when you watch certain horror films where the protagonist ends up in some remote village where the inhabitants all seem to be good, friendly and meek christians, but in truth they're like a cannibalistic cult who sacrifice first born children and stray travelers to Satan on Valpurgis night. The television series Game of Thrones capture this menacing feel very well I think: where you have several characters who are nobles and knights and who are very articulate, well groomed and initially appear friendly and just, but then suddenly they murder or rape someone in cold blood without batting an eye at the act (Jamie Lannister, Ramsay Snow and a couple of others come to mind). This is what the concept and imagery of knights in shining armour from medieval periods means to me, and I find the deceptiveness of it more scary than the imagery of dark, beastly looking samurai armour. The design in samurai armour is interesting looking, but the design choices create an overall image that is a bit more honest and a little too "obvious" for me. That's not to say that Samurai weren't cold blooded killers and psychopaths because plenty of them certainly were. It's just that with a samurai wearing his armour it's more "what you see is what you get". Knights on the other hand make you more uneasy because they look and dress like a force for "good", but can just as well be despicably evil.
    2
  3491. 2
  3492. 2
  3493. 2
  3494. 2
  3495. 2
  3496. 2
  3497. 2
  3498. 2
  3499. 2
  3500. 2
  3501. 2
  3502. 2
  3503. 2
  3504. 2
  3505. 2
  3506. 2
  3507. 2
  3508. 2
  3509. 2
  3510. 2
  3511. 2
  3512. 2
  3513. 2
  3514. 2
  3515. 2
  3516. 2
  3517. 2
  3518. Zandman26: We don't have "minimum wage" in Sweden. We never have. The government stays out completely of wage negotiations. Wages are determined through the negotiations between labour unions and employers, or through individual salary negotiations between employers and employees. This is is why the system in Sweden is in danger due to the left wing, muslim coddling, mass-immigration proponents and why a "Trump" would never be as detrimental to Swedens economy and welfare as the socialist regime is. If you have a system where the labour unions have managed to push the wages up to decent levels for employees, then dumping a couple of million desperate refugees in that system means that the employers can dump wages and fire employees who disagree more easily since there is a bigger competition for the jobs. It also means that the unepmployment rate increases (a sudden surge in the population doesn't mean that the avalible jobs will increase with the same speed as the population growth), which in turn creates more people dependant on social welfare grants, which in turn means that tax-funded welfare becomes more strained, which we're seeing happening already in the form of longer and longer waiting periods in healthcare (even to the point where people die of diseases and that they don't get crucial surgeries in time), school grades are dropping since classes get bigger and bigger, and the police are failing more and more to clear up crimes, even murders because they just don't have enough resources. So exactly every thing that you're "warning" us about a political leader like Trump would cause, is happening already while Trumps political opposites are in power.
    2
  3519. 2
  3520. 2
  3521. 2
  3522. 2
  3523. 2
  3524. 2
  3525. 2
  3526. 2
  3527. 2
  3528. 2
  3529. 2
  3530. 2
  3531. 2
  3532. 2
  3533. 2
  3534. 2
  3535. 2
  3536. 2
  3537. 2
  3538. 2
  3539. 2
  3540. 2
  3541. 2
  3542. 2
  3543. 2
  3544. 2
  3545. 2
  3546. 2
  3547. 2
  3548. 2
  3549. 2
  3550. 2
  3551. 2
  3552. 2
  3553. 2
  3554. 2
  3555. 2
  3556. 2
  3557. 2
  3558. 2
  3559. 2
  3560. 2
  3561. 2
  3562. 2
  3563. 2
  3564. 2
  3565. 2
  3566. 2
  3567. 2
  3568. 2
  3569. 2
  3570. 2
  3571. 2
  3572. 2
  3573. 2
  3574. 2
  3575. 2
  3576. 2
  3577. 2
  3578. 2
  3579. 2
  3580. 2
  3581. 2
  3582. 2
  3583. 2
  3584. 2
  3585. 2
  3586. 2
  3587. 2
  3588. 2
  3589. 2
  3590. 2
  3591. 2
  3592. 2
  3593. 2
  3594. 2
  3595. 2
  3596. 2
  3597. 2
  3598. I've been asked this as well, even though I don't speak a language deemed "exotic" in Europe. Basically I look at three factors when determining difficulty in learning a language: the age of the student, how closely related the students native tounge is to the language he or she is trying to learn and last but not least: if the language is written using the same or a similar alphabet to the students nativ language or not. It goes without saying that if learning the new language also requires learning a new set of letters and how to read and write, it's going to increase the difficulty. Likewise, learning a language that isn't closely related to your natice tounge will also increase difficulty (if you speak a germanic language, then trying to learn a slavic language will be more difficult than learning another germanic language. Although slavic, germanic and latin languages together will be easier to learn than an asian language since there has been much more instances of lingual influences across germanic, slavic and latin languages than there has been across these Indo-European in relation to asian languages) Age might be the most puzzling reply. But the reason I take age into account is because of neurobiological studies that I've read where scientista have discovered that an average human being has different levels of receptiveness to learn a language in their lifetime. The most receptive phase is between infancy and roughly when we're 10 years old. We'll never grow accustomed to languages as rapidly as we do when we're at this age, because the brain hasn't developed most of the neural pathways in it's anatomy governing language and speaking yet so we're actually capable of learning 4-5 or possibly more languages at the same time during this period at a much faster pace than we are as adults. I want to stress the point though that neither of these factors makes it impossible to learn a new language, and they shouldn't be considered as valid excuses to refrain from studying foreign languages at all. Patience and dedication are still the ultimate determining factors to your success. These factors only give an indication of what difficulties the student should expect when attempting to learn a language foreign to them.
    2
  3599. 2
  3600. 2
  3601. 2
  3602. 2
  3603. 2
  3604. 2
  3605. 2
  3606. 2
  3607. 2
  3608. 2
  3609. 2
  3610. 2
  3611. 2
  3612. 2
  3613. 2
  3614. 2
  3615. 2
  3616. 2
  3617. 2
  3618. 2
  3619. 2
  3620. 2
  3621. 2
  3622. 2
  3623. 2
  3624. 2
  3625. 2
  3626. 2
  3627. 2
  3628. 2
  3629. 2
  3630. 2
  3631. 2
  3632. 2
  3633. 2
  3634. 2
  3635. 2
  3636. 2
  3637. 2
  3638. 2
  3639. 2
  3640. 2
  3641. 2
  3642. 2
  3643. 2
  3644. 2
  3645. 2
  3646. 2
  3647. 2
  3648. 2
  3649. 2
  3650. 2
  3651. 2
  3652. 2
  3653. 2
  3654. 2
  3655. 2
  3656. 2
  3657. 2
  3658. 2
  3659. 2
  3660. 2
  3661. 2
  3662. 2
  3663. 2
  3664. 2
  3665. 2
  3666. 2
  3667. 2
  3668. 2
  3669. 2
  3670. 2
  3671. 2
  3672. 2
  3673. 2
  3674. 2
  3675. 2
  3676. 2
  3677. 2
  3678. 2
  3679. 2
  3680. 2
  3681. 2
  3682. 2
  3683. 2
  3684. 2
  3685. 2
  3686. 2
  3687. 2
  3688. 2
  3689. 2
  3690. Lord Flufflebuns: Your argument is flawed. First of all, regarding accuracy. Like you said yourself: short barreled shotguns have a wider spread. They require short range to be effective. But at shorter ranges it is also a lot simpler to hit your target with a handgun. Second: we haven't yet specified what kind of handguns or calibers we're talking about. Yes, I'd rather take my chances against a .22 LR slug at close range, than a 12 gauge buckshot shell fired from a short barreled shotgun (even if the individual buckshot don't all hit me due to the spread). But if we're talking about a .44 JHP magnum round from a revolver or a .50 Action Express from something like a Desert Eagle, then suddenly a buckshot shell doesn't sound "as bad". Especially not considering that the kinetic energy from each individual pellet is generally smaller than a single bullet from a pistol or revolver, and also due to the fact that even lower graded body armor on the NIJ-classification scale is likely to stop or reduce the injuries from buckshot but will have no chance at all stopping .44 magnum rounds or .50 AE rounds. Then there's rate of fire to consider. A semi-automatic pistol can be used to fire repetitive shots a lot faster than a pump-action or even many semi-automatic shotguns (since their action is slower than the pistol). Now i'm not trying to argue that one is more dangerous to be on the business end of than the other. My exact point is the fact that in terms of lethality, overall (with respect to different models and ammunition types) pistols are just as bad as short barreled shotguns. So banning one while allowing the other for concealed carry makes no sense.
    2
  3691. 2
  3692. 2
  3693. 2
  3694. 2
  3695. 2
  3696. 2
  3697. 2
  3698. 2
  3699. 2
  3700. 2
  3701. 2
  3702. 2
  3703. 2
  3704. 2
  3705. 2
  3706. 2
  3707. 2
  3708. 2
  3709. 2
  3710. 2
  3711. 2
  3712. 2
  3713. 2
  3714. 2
  3715. 2
  3716. 2
  3717. 2
  3718. 2
  3719. 2
  3720. 2
  3721. 2
  3722. 2
  3723. 2
  3724. 2
  3725. 2
  3726. 2
  3727. 2
  3728. 2
  3729. 2
  3730. 2
  3731. 2
  3732. 2
  3733. 2
  3734. 2
  3735. 2
  3736. 2
  3737. 2
  3738. 2
  3739. 2
  3740. 2
  3741. 2
  3742. 2
  3743. 2
  3744. 2
  3745. 2
  3746. 2
  3747. 2
  3748. 2
  3749. 2
  3750. 2
  3751. 2
  3752. 2
  3753. 2
  3754. 2
  3755. 2
  3756. 2
  3757. 2
  3758. 2
  3759. 2
  3760. 2
  3761. 2
  3762. 2
  3763. 2
  3764. 2
  3765. 2
  3766. 2
  3767. 2
  3768. 2
  3769. 2
  3770. 2
  3771. 2
  3772. 2
  3773. 2
  3774. 2
  3775. 2
  3776. 2
  3777. 2
  3778. 2
  3779. 2
  3780. 2
  3781. 2
  3782. 2
  3783. 2
  3784. 2
  3785. 2
  3786. 2
  3787. 2
  3788. 2
  3789. 2
  3790. 2
  3791. 2
  3792. 2
  3793. 2
  3794. 2
  3795. 2
  3796. 2
  3797. 2
  3798. 2
  3799. 2
  3800. 2
  3801. 2
  3802. 2
  3803. 2
  3804. 2
  3805. 2
  3806. 2
  3807. 2
  3808. 2
  3809. 2
  3810. 2
  3811. 2
  3812. 2
  3813. 2
  3814. 2
  3815. 2
  3816. 2
  3817. 2
  3818. 2
  3819. 2
  3820. 2
  3821. 2
  3822. 2
  3823. 2
  3824. 2
  3825. 2
  3826. 2
  3827. 2
  3828. 2
  3829. 2
  3830. 2
  3831. 2
  3832. 2
  3833. 2
  3834. 2
  3835. 2
  3836. 2
  3837. 2
  3838. 2
  3839. 2
  3840. 2
  3841. 2
  3842. 2
  3843. 2
  3844. 2
  3845. 2
  3846. 2
  3847. 2
  3848. 2
  3849. 2
  3850. 2
  3851. 2
  3852. 2
  3853. 2
  3854. 2
  3855. 2
  3856. 2
  3857. 2
  3858. 2
  3859. 2
  3860. 2
  3861. 2
  3862. 2
  3863. 2
  3864. 2
  3865. 2
  3866. 2
  3867. 2
  3868. 2
  3869. 2
  3870. 2
  3871. 2
  3872. 2
  3873. 2
  3874. 2
  3875. 2
  3876. 2
  3877. 2
  3878. 2
  3879. 2
  3880. 2
  3881. 2
  3882. 2
  3883. 2
  3884. 2
  3885. 2
  3886. 2
  3887. 2
  3888. 2
  3889. 2
  3890. 2
  3891. 2
  3892. 2
  3893. 2
  3894. 2
  3895. 2
  3896. 2
  3897. 2
  3898. 2
  3899. 2
  3900. 2
  3901. 2
  3902. 2
  3903. 2
  3904. 2
  3905. 2
  3906. 2
  3907. 2
  3908. 2
  3909. 2
  3910. 2
  3911. 2
  3912. 2
  3913. 2
  3914. 2
  3915. 2
  3916. 2
  3917. 2
  3918. 2
  3919. 2
  3920. 2
  3921. 2
  3922. 2
  3923. 2
  3924. 2
  3925. 2
  3926. 2
  3927. 2
  3928. 2
  3929. 2
  3930. 2
  3931. 2
  3932. 2
  3933. 2
  3934. 2
  3935. 2
  3936. 2
  3937. 2
  3938. 2
  3939. 2
  3940. 2
  3941. 2
  3942. 2
  3943. 2
  3944. 2
  3945. 2
  3946. 2
  3947. 2
  3948. 2
  3949. 2
  3950. 2
  3951. 2
  3952. 2
  3953. 2
  3954. 2
  3955. 2
  3956. 2
  3957. 2
  3958. 2
  3959. 2
  3960. 2
  3961. 2
  3962. 2
  3963. 2
  3964. 2
  3965. 2
  3966. 2
  3967. 2
  3968. 2
  3969. 2
  3970. 2
  3971. 2
  3972. 2
  3973. 2
  3974. 2
  3975. 2
  3976. 2
  3977. 2
  3978. 2
  3979. 2
  3980.  @CAMSLAYER13  On the genetic level, life is trying to propagate itself, that is true. Hence why I refer to life as a slow and ongoing chemical reaction. But at the same time, if you want to critically analyze lifeforms and behaviour you have to be able to make a distinction between how genes operate and how organisms and their behaviour operate. As humans who study our own biological mechanisms we know that sex is the mechanism of procreation. But on the instinctual level, we don't. Because the part of our brain anatomy that handle instincts do not contain the necessary anatomy of awareness or reasoning. Our instincts are essentially blind to the concept of cause and effect. However our instincts have evolved genetically to manifest in such a way that increase the likelyhood of procreation. For example: if sex didn't include the hormonal rewards that it currently has, then in all likelyhood, humans wouldn't have as much sex as they do and procreation would decrease, possibly leading to extinction. So sexual pleasure is one avenue of evolution that promotes procreation. So, out of the majority of times the individual engage in sex, they're not thinking "i'm going to procreate now". They're thinking "this feels good, so I want it. And i want more of it later". This can also be proven by sexual practices of humans since there's many examples of were a sexual practice couldn't possibly lead to procreation. Like fondling, oral sex, anal sex, homosexual intercourse and so on. So if sex in humans was solely devoted to procreation, then homosexuality wouldn't exist. And heterosexuality would only involve vaginal penetration and nothing else to maximize the chances of conception.
    2
  3981. 2
  3982. 2
  3983. 2
  3984. 2
  3985. 2
  3986. 2
  3987. 2
  3988. 2
  3989. 2
  3990. 2
  3991. 2
  3992. 2
  3993. 2
  3994. 2
  3995. 2
  3996. 2
  3997.  @ingridlinbohm7682  Just read about the Azov Batallion and see for yourself. It's not a russian who authored the many articles about them. And it doesn't matter if Zelensky is jewish or not, because it wouldn't be the first time where a jewish person of influence would consort with nazi groups to further their own ends, or when neo-nazis consort with jews to further their ends. The real crux of the matter is exactly how influential the neo-nazi views are in Ukraine or not. Putin's propaganda is to say that Ukraine is completely infested with neo-nazi ideology. The Ukranian propaganda either claims they do not exist, or that they do exist but that they are small and merely "tolerated". Either way, to claim that neo-nazis do not exist in Ukraine is objectively false. And what makes it worse is that even spokespeople from the Azov Batallion have themselves admitted that 10-20 % of their members hold neo-nazi views. And what makes it worse is that the Batallion has been funded by the Ukranian government since before this war took place. You'll be hard pressed to find any country in the EU or the Anglosphere where the government would ever consider to use taxpayers money to fund ANY organization with neo-nazi members in this day and age. Putin probably exaggerates the problem to serve his narrative. I'm not denying that. But at the same time, if you oppose Putin then you're really not doing yourself any favors by pretending that Neo-Nazi ideology simply doesn't exist in Ukraine or that Neo-Nazi actors aren't getting a government paycheck because they DO. And it has been going on for years.
    2
  3998. 2
  3999. 2
  4000. 2
  4001. 2
  4002. 2
  4003. 2
  4004. 2
  4005. 2
  4006. 2
  4007. 2
  4008. 2
  4009. 2
  4010. 2
  4011. 2
  4012. 2
  4013. 2
  4014. 2
  4015. 2
  4016. 2
  4017. 2
  4018. 2
  4019. 2
  4020. 2
  4021. 2
  4022. 2
  4023. 2
  4024. 2
  4025. 2
  4026. 2
  4027. 2
  4028. 2
  4029. 2
  4030. 2
  4031. 2
  4032. 2
  4033. 2
  4034. 2
  4035. Zasumbadji: Median household income doesn't mean anything. It doesn't take personal choices into account at all. It's about as retarded as the argument that feminists pose about the so called "wage gap" that falsely present a picture that women are discriminated and paid less money than men are for the same work. Despite the fact that all the evidence shows that men pursue higher paying jobs than women, work more hours than women, don't go on maternity leave like women do and so on, which all INVARIABLY will affect the average earnings of men in a positive way. The same reasoning applies to median income of black and white people. It doesn't mean or prove anything because it doesn't take the personal life choices, education and so on into account. And it damn sure does not qualify as proof of "oppression" or "privilge". The same goes for your retarded statement about prison sentences and penalties resulting for being a criminal. And the same also goes for "black sounding names". I don't care whether you like it or not, but names tend to be chosen by particular people, so if anyone is to blame it's stupid parents who wilfully choose to give their children negative connotations by naming them shit like Laqueesha" or "Tyrone". All this proves is that maybe black people in the U.S should stop smoking crack and holding up liquor stores as much as they do if the want better, more wellpaid lives. The black community in the U.S only has itself to blame for it's current state. Because they all have exactly the same rights and opportunities as everybody else, yet choose to squander it on rejecting mainstream society and living as criminal thugs idealizing "gangsta"-culture above education.
    2
  4036. 2
  4037. 2
  4038. 2
  4039. 2
  4040. Zasumbadji: I haven't used logical fallacies at all. But I realize that logical deduction comes across as "fallacies" to dishonest debaters like you, more concerne about political outcomes and implications rather than the truth. Yes, median income doesn't mean anything in the context of this subject. I've clarified exactly what I meant, even though i'm absolutely sure that you didn't misinterpret me by mistake but because you are desperate to misrepresent my statements and opinions. Because you're more afraid that someone might read what I say and agree with me, as opposed to myself who doesn't give a shit about what anyone reading this might believe. You are a disgusting, filthy activist with a vile "the ends justify the means"-attiude. Your only purpose for coming to this comment section was to spread cultural marxist propaganda. You are not a scientist. You are not neutral to the consequences of findings as I am. No, the "famous" PhD's clearly do not understand the idea of spurrious correlartions because every single joke of a paper they publish contain droves of spurrious correlations and politically motivated interpretations of statstics. We're at a point where they don't even try to hide it anymore. Which incidentally is why you see actual college professors in the "social sciences" joining up with left-wing terrorists like antifa, showinh up to political rallies with the sole goal of beating people up because they might have conservative views, and smashing store windows. Look up names like Eric Clanton and Yvette Fellarca. Both "social sciences" professors and staff, and BOTH caught and convicted for assault of political opponents with video footage evidence spread all over the internet for the entire world to see. These are the types of people you use as a "source". Their "scientific" work never held up to begin with, and you may note that actual scientists in the natural sciences and engineering collectively laugh at the methods and "research" of "social scientists". If they tried their flawed, politically motivated methodology in physics class, they would be laughed out of the classroom.
    2
  4041. 2
  4042. 2
  4043. 2
  4044. 2
  4045. 2
  4046. 2
  4047. 2
  4048. 2
  4049. 2
  4050. 2
  4051. 2
  4052. 2
  4053. 2
  4054. 2
  4055. 2
  4056. 2
  4057. 2
  4058. 2
  4059. 2
  4060. 2
  4061. 2
  4062. 2
  4063. 2
  4064. 2
  4065. 2
  4066. 2
  4067. 2
  4068. 2
  4069. 2
  4070. 2
  4071. 2
  4072. 2
  4073. 2
  4074. 2
  4075. 2
  4076. 2
  4077. 2
  4078. 2
  4079. 2
  4080. 2
  4081. 2
  4082. 2
  4083. 2
  4084. 2
  4085. 2
  4086. 2
  4087. 2
  4088. 2
  4089. 2
  4090. 2
  4091. 2
  4092. 2
  4093. 2
  4094. 2
  4095. 2
  4096. 2
  4097. 2
  4098. 2
  4099. 2
  4100. 2
  4101. 2
  4102. 2
  4103. 2
  4104. 2
  4105. 2
  4106. 2
  4107. 2
  4108. 2
  4109. 2
  4110. 2
  4111. 2
  4112. 2
  4113. 2
  4114. 2
  4115. 2
  4116. 2
  4117. 2
  4118. 2
  4119. 2
  4120. 2
  4121. 2
  4122. 2
  4123. 2
  4124. 2
  4125. 2
  4126. 2
  4127. 2
  4128. 2
  4129. 2
  4130. 2
  4131. 2
  4132. 2
  4133. 2
  4134. 2
  4135. 2
  4136. 2
  4137. 2
  4138. 2
  4139. 2
  4140. 2
  4141. Heavy Rotation: I agree. South Korea and Japan sadly seems to have been stricken with "the grass is always greener"-complex regarding the west. Many of them idealize and fetischize the west in a very undeserved way, even to the point where they don't appreciate their own, unique facial features, hair and such. Personally I blame the long standing culture of conformity in east asia that still has a bit too tight grip on the Japanese and Korean societies. To a japanese or a korean person, the west must seem very individualistic because western culture celebrates the independent thinker and personality and those who challenges social taboos. I'm convinced that in many korean and japanese citizens there are very individualistic personalities that want to express themselves, but they can't because both societies are traditionally very conformist. So people grow displeased with their own societies and culture, which manifests itself in an obsession and fetishizing of the foreign culture that seems more ideal. I don't mean to be arrogant when I say it. I don't presume to tell other societies what they should do, because as a nationalist I have respect for national sovreignty. But, I would humbly suggest that maybe Koreans and Japanese people need to take a hard look at their culture of conformity and ask themselves if it actually makes them happy in life and if there is room for any adjustments to it that allows individuals to express themselves more freely in terms of ideas, clothing, hair etc. I'm not saying it has to be so overdone like it is here in the west (because we have major societal problems in the west that stems from the pursuit of individualism), but a slight adjustment might be worth trying out.
    2
  4142. 2
  4143. 2
  4144. 2
  4145. 2
  4146. 2
  4147. 2
  4148. 2
  4149. 2
  4150. 2
  4151. 2
  4152. 2
  4153. 2
  4154. 2
  4155. 2
  4156. 2
  4157. 2
  4158. 2
  4159. 2
  4160. 2
  4161. 2
  4162. 2
  4163. 2
  4164. 2
  4165. 2
  4166. 2
  4167. 2
  4168. 2
  4169. 2
  4170. 2
  4171. 2
  4172. 2
  4173. 2
  4174. 2
  4175. 2
  4176. 2
  4177. 2
  4178. 2
  4179. 2
  4180. 2
  4181. 2
  4182. 2
  4183. 2
  4184. 2
  4185. 2
  4186. 2
  4187. 2
  4188. 2
  4189. 2
  4190. 2
  4191. 2
  4192. 2
  4193. 2
  4194. 2
  4195. 2
  4196. 2
  4197. 2
  4198. 2
  4199. 2
  4200. 2
  4201. 2
  4202. 2
  4203. 2
  4204. 2
  4205. 2
  4206. 2
  4207. 2
  4208. 2
  4209. 2
  4210. 2
  4211. 2
  4212. 2
  4213. 2
  4214. 2
  4215. 2
  4216. 2
  4217. 2
  4218. 2
  4219. 2
  4220. 2
  4221. 2
  4222. 2
  4223. 2
  4224. 2
  4225. 2
  4226. 2
  4227. 2
  4228. 2
  4229. 2
  4230. 2
  4231. 2
  4232. 2
  4233. 2
  4234. 2
  4235. 2
  4236. 2
  4237. 2
  4238. 2
  4239. 2
  4240. 2
  4241. 2
  4242. 2
  4243. 2
  4244. 2
  4245. 2
  4246. 2
  4247. 2
  4248. 2
  4249. 2
  4250. 2
  4251. 2
  4252. 2
  4253. 2
  4254. 2
  4255. 2
  4256. 2
  4257. 2
  4258. 2
  4259. 2
  4260. 2
  4261. 2
  4262. 2
  4263. 2
  4264. 2
  4265. 2
  4266. 2
  4267. 2
  4268. 2
  4269. 2
  4270. 2
  4271. 2
  4272. 2
  4273. 2
  4274. 2
  4275. 2
  4276. 2
  4277. 2
  4278. 2
  4279. 2
  4280. 2
  4281. 2
  4282. 2
  4283. 2
  4284. 2
  4285. 2
  4286. 2
  4287. 2
  4288. 2
  4289. 2
  4290. 2
  4291. 2
  4292. 2
  4293. 2
  4294. 2
  4295. 2
  4296. 2
  4297. 2
  4298. 2
  4299. 2
  4300. 2
  4301. 2
  4302. 2
  4303. 2
  4304. 2
  4305. 2
  4306. 2
  4307. 2
  4308. 안나Anna: No, animals most certainly don't. And if "balance" was the issue, then how come child births and nativity are stagnating in pro-LGBT societies to unsustainiable levels, but the same thing is not happening in anti-LGBT societies? Suppose that your assumption was correct and that homosexuality was a phenomenon generated by a lack of balance in a population (implied overpopulation), then we wouldn't see the statistical figures of child births dropping below an average of 2 children per couple. But in practically every country that has embraced the pride-idiocy we're seeing the average drop below 2. And that is a clear sign of a dangerous population decline and a society growing old in terms of average age. This will have disastrous humanitarian effects on the countries afflicted, because the older an average population in a society gets, the more the few young people will have to work in order to finance the pensions and welfare of old people who are too old, frail and diseased to work. Or, failing that, society will simply be forced to leave it's older generation out to dry (no geriatric care to the elderly, no supvervised retiremenrt homes to help them get through their daily lives with dignity etc.) Either way, this development will have massive humanitarian reprecussions. And as we've already seen abundant proof of in both Europe and the U.S, importing uneducated migrants from the third world does not create any solution to the low fertility. It only generates more costs since the majority of migrants remain unemployed for years and even decades putting extra strain on the welfare budget, and many of them even resort to criminal behaviour, creating a further financial burden for the societies that takes them in. Given the choice of having the economy completely collapse in western countries, forcing young western citizens to work even more than they already do or leaving the elderly simply to die in pain amd anguish. OR Discouraging homosexuality because homosexuals do not lead lifestyles conducive to procreation. Then i'm sorry, i'm going to go with the latter. Homosexuals "right" to live as sexual deviants is not more important than the sustainiability and survival of our economies and societies.
    2
  4309. 2
  4310. 2
  4311. 2
  4312. 2
  4313. 2
  4314. 2
  4315. 2
  4316. 2
  4317. 2
  4318. 2
  4319. 2
  4320. 2
  4321. 2
  4322. 2
  4323. 2
  4324. 2
  4325. 2
  4326. 2
  4327. 2
  4328. 2
  4329. 2
  4330. 2
  4331. 2
  4332. 2
  4333. 2
  4334. 2
  4335. 2
  4336. 2
  4337. 2
  4338. 2
  4339. 2
  4340. 2
  4341. 2
  4342. 2
  4343. 2
  4344. 2
  4345. 2
  4346. 2
  4347. 2
  4348. 2
  4349. 2
  4350. 2
  4351. 2
  4352. 2
  4353. 2
  4354. 2
  4355. 2
  4356. 2
  4357. 2
  4358. 2
  4359. 2
  4360. 2
  4361. 2
  4362. 2
  4363. 2
  4364. 2
  4365. 2
  4366. 2
  4367. 2
  4368. 2
  4369. 2
  4370. 2
  4371. 2
  4372. 2
  4373. 2
  4374. 2
  4375. 2
  4376. 2
  4377. 2
  4378. 2
  4379. 2
  4380. 2
  4381. 2
  4382. 2
  4383. 2
  4384. 2
  4385. 2
  4386. 2
  4387. 2
  4388. 2
  4389. 2
  4390. 2
  4391. 2
  4392. 2
  4393. 2
  4394. 2
  4395. 2
  4396. 2
  4397. 2
  4398. 2
  4399. 2
  4400. 2
  4401. 2
  4402. 2
  4403. 2
  4404. 2
  4405. 2
  4406. 2
  4407. 2
  4408. 2
  4409. 2
  4410. 2
  4411. 2
  4412. 2
  4413. 2
  4414. 2
  4415. 2
  4416. 2
  4417. 2
  4418. 2
  4419. 2
  4420. 2
  4421. 2
  4422. 2
  4423. 2
  4424. 2
  4425. 2
  4426. 2
  4427. 2
  4428. 2
  4429. 2
  4430. 2
  4431. 2
  4432. 2
  4433. 2
  4434. 2
  4435. 2
  4436. 2
  4437. 2
  4438. 2
  4439. 2
  4440. 2
  4441. 2
  4442. 2
  4443. 2
  4444. 2
  4445. 2
  4446.  @julietfischer5056  True. But not enough productions do. And second, being on friendly terms with a couple of historians and archeologists, I've got a bit of insight into the academic practices of these disciplines of study. The problem is that movie and tv-series producers often turn to academics as consultants. Now the academics often knows a lot about the specific fields they specialize in, but unfortunately... There's not that many academics who genuinely specialize in things like swordfighting, medieval and ancient weapons and armour. The truth is, most historians are excited by very... Well "boring" things about history. Just last week I was talking to a historian I know who had come back from a work trip to germany and she told me that she had to study german for the trip. Now if I had been a historian, I'd probably have wanted to look at exhibits of germanic armour, swords and historical reenactments of battles and such and learn as much as possible that way. But what did she do? Study old tomes from medieval times regarding trade relations and taxation between the kingdoms of germany and the baltic states... Now if you're really nerdy about the subject of medieval trade relations, it's probably very interesting. But most normal people are excited about knights in armour fighting in medieval battles. Incidentally this is also what most films and tv-series are about (I doubt anyone would be particularly excited about a film being produced that was basically a medieval version of the film Wall Street) But not many historians seem to want to study these particular subjects that interests most normal people. And even the few academics that actually DO specialize in arms and armour... Rarely care much for the practical details of fighting while using them. They have encyclopaedic knowledge about their origins, their manufacture, and sometimes even which people in history wore a certain set of armour or wielded a particular sword. But when it comes to the business of HOW they were used, many of the academics don't really care. Finding people who really care and are genuinely interested in the fighting and practical aspects of medieval warfare and culture, you're more likely to find them among the "sword and hema-nerds" (like Metatron, Skallagrim, Shadiversity, Matt Easton, Theing Trand and the others) than you are looking up various historians. But movie and tv-series producers don't understand that. They think that the universities are the proper place to find a person knowing about these things, when they really should be looking at youtube or various hema practicioner clubs.
    2
  4447. 2
  4448. 2
  4449. 2
  4450. 2
  4451. 2
  4452. 2
  4453. 2
  4454. 2
  4455. 2
  4456. 2
  4457. 2
  4458. 2
  4459. 2
  4460. 2
  4461. 2
  4462. 2
  4463. 2
  4464. 2
  4465. 2
  4466. 2
  4467. 2
  4468. 2
  4469. 2
  4470. 2
  4471. 2
  4472. 2
  4473. 2
  4474. 2
  4475. 2
  4476. 2
  4477. 2
  4478. 2
  4479. 2
  4480. 2
  4481. 2
  4482. 2
  4483. 2
  4484. 2
  4485. 2
  4486. 2
  4487. 2
  4488. 2
  4489. 2
  4490. 2
  4491. 2
  4492. 2
  4493. 2
  4494. 2
  4495. 2
  4496. 2
  4497. 2
  4498. 2
  4499. 2
  4500. Ever heard about the Vipeholm Expermients in Sweden? They were basically a series of experiments taking place at Vipeholm Hospital for the Intellectually Disabled in Lund, Sweden during the years 1945–1955. They wanted to study the effects of dental caries and tooth decay, and whether sugar would contribute to it or not. So they forcefed intellectually disabled patients a kind of specially made taffy that had several times more sugar than normal sweets and which was also extremely sticky and basically just observed how the teeth rotted out of the skulls of the poor test subjects, causing them extreme pain and discomfort. Since they were also put on this taffy diet to hasten the effects of tooth decay, test subjects were sometimes not given anything at all to eat but the taffy, causing them to get sick in other ways. The test subjects, being labelled as "uneducatable retards" by the hospital staff were also extremely dehumanized too. To the point where if they developed secondary complications for the experiments, like getting sick with pneumonia or various infections, they didn't want to "waste treatment" on them, so many succumbed and died to such diseases under the care of the scientists. What makes it all worse is that the scientists went out of their way to find new test subjects to continue the experiments, going so far as to lie to families of children with mental disabilites, telling them that they would get treatment for their ailments at Vipeholm, when in reality they were being sent there to be tortured and probably die. These experiments weren't some "black project" of the government or even the military. They were sponsored and conducted primarily by the sugar industry and the dentist association in Sweden at the time. So I guess what we can take away from this is: histories of horrifying human experiments can be found almost anywhere. Asking around the world about their views of Sweden as a country, most people believe it's a small, peaceful and progressive country with a great emphasis on human rights. It doesn't have a history of being a major combatant in recent wars (not even WWII since it stayed officially neutral) like the usual suspects: The USSR, U.S, Great Britan and Japan. Yet these things took place in Sweden, and they even continued beyond the revalations of what the Nazis did to people in their camps. And to this day, nobody has been prosecuted or seen the inside of a jail cell for these crimes. Another thing to take away from it is what private interests lead to if being left without regulation or intervention from the government. Hard to imagine people peddling sugar and sweets to engage in medically unethical human experiments on mentally challenged people, but here we are.
    2
  4501. 2
  4502. 2
  4503. 2
  4504. 2
  4505. 2
  4506. 2
  4507. 2
  4508. 2
  4509. 2
  4510. 2
  4511. 2
  4512. 2
  4513. 2
  4514. 2
  4515. 2
  4516. 2
  4517. 2
  4518. 2
  4519. 2
  4520. 2
  4521. 2
  4522. 2
  4523. 2
  4524. 2
  4525. 2
  4526. 2
  4527. 2
  4528. 2
  4529. 2
  4530. 2
  4531. 2
  4532. 2
  4533. 2
  4534. 2
  4535. 2
  4536. 2
  4537. 2
  4538. 2
  4539. 2
  4540. 2
  4541. 2
  4542. 2
  4543. 2
  4544. 2
  4545. 2
  4546. 2
  4547. 2
  4548. 2
  4549. 2
  4550. 2
  4551. 2
  4552. 2
  4553. 2
  4554. 2
  4555. 2
  4556. 2
  4557. 2
  4558. 2
  4559. 2
  4560. 2
  4561. 2
  4562. 2
  4563. 2
  4564. 2
  4565. 2
  4566. 2
  4567. 2
  4568. 2
  4569. 2
  4570. 2
  4571. 2
  4572. 2
  4573. 2
  4574. 2
  4575. 2
  4576. 2
  4577. 2
  4578. 2
  4579. 2
  4580. 2
  4581. 2
  4582. 2
  4583. 2
  4584. 2
  4585. 2
  4586. 2
  4587. 2
  4588. 2
  4589. 2
  4590. 2
  4591. 2
  4592. 2
  4593. 2
  4594. 2
  4595. 2
  4596. 2
  4597. 2
  4598. 2
  4599. 2
  4600. 2
  4601. 2
  4602. 2
  4603. 2
  4604. 2
  4605. 2
  4606. 2
  4607. 2
  4608. 2
  4609. 2
  4610. 2
  4611. 2
  4612. 2
  4613. 2
  4614. 2
  4615. 2
  4616. 2
  4617. 2
  4618. 2
  4619. 2
  4620. 2
  4621. 2
  4622. 2
  4623. 2
  4624. 2
  4625. 2
  4626. 2
  4627. 2
  4628. 2
  4629. 2
  4630. 2
  4631. 2
  4632. 2
  4633. 2
  4634. 2
  4635. 2
  4636. 2
  4637. 2
  4638. 2
  4639. 2
  4640. 2
  4641.  @SITS101  "As Dahmer entered first grade, Lionel's studies kept him away from home much of the time. When he was home, his wife—a hypochondriac who suffered from depression—demanded constant attention and spent an increasing amount of time in bed.[17] On one occasion, she attempted suicide using Equanil.[17] Consequently, neither parent devoted much time to their son, who later recollected that, from an early age, he felt "unsure of the solidity of the family",[18] recalling extreme tension and numerous arguments between his parents during his early years." Like I said, Mommy issues. In Dahmers case he grew up with a nutjob hypochondriac of a mom who demanded more attention than she gave little Jeffrey. And in regards to Ted Bundy, he was raised by his maternal grandparents who lied to him, saying that his actual mother was his older sister, due to the social stigma of children born out of wedlock at the time. Also: "In some interviews, Bundy spoke warmly of his grandparents[23] and told Rule that he "identified with," "respected," and "clung to" his grandfather.[24] In 1987, however, he and other family members told attorneys that Samuel was a tyrannical bully who beat his wife and dog, swung neighborhood cats by their tails, and expressed racist and xenophobic attitudes. In one instance, Samuel reportedly threw Julia down a flight of stairs for oversleeping.[25] He would sometimes speak aloud to unseen presences,[26] and at least once flew into a violent rage when the question of Bundy's paternity was raised."
    2
  4642. 2
  4643. 2
  4644. 2
  4645. 2
  4646. 2
  4647. 2
  4648. 2
  4649. 2
  4650. 2
  4651. 2
  4652. 2
  4653. 2
  4654. 2
  4655. 2
  4656. 2
  4657. 2
  4658. 2
  4659. 2
  4660. 2
  4661. 2
  4662. 2
  4663. 2
  4664. 2
  4665. 2
  4666. 2
  4667. 2
  4668. 2
  4669. 2
  4670. 2
  4671. 2
  4672. 2
  4673. 2
  4674. 2
  4675. 2
  4676. 2
  4677. 2
  4678. 2
  4679. 2
  4680. 2
  4681. 2
  4682. 2
  4683. 2
  4684.  @peka__  If intellectual property is recognized in a capitalist society it stops being capitslist. Like I said: the justification for capitalism hinges on the idea that prices get cheaper in free market economies, and that's why people should accept the capitalist model, even though it's unfair as hell and favor the very wealthiest practically all of the time, at the expense of the poor. The argument is that the reduced prices on goods and services "outweigh" these injustices and serve the interests of the majority population than resorting to government overreach and micromanage the economy to remove freedoms to operate from capitalist enterprise. Copyright laws completely violate this argument and negates any pretentions of capitalism entirely, since their only purpose is to artificially prop up prices on certain goods to an inventors liking by simply forbidding any competitors from coming up with ways to supply the market with the same goods cheaper than the inventor can/want. So if you support copyright laws, you are far more afflicted by marxist thoughts than anyone who oppose. If inventors or corporations want to ensure that only they can profit from a product then it is ENTIRELY their own responsibility to jealously guard their trade secrets and make it hard for any competitor to copy their blueprints. It shouldn't be up to me as a taxpayer to pay for their "exclusive rights" to their money makers. Especially not when these people are the ones complaining about paying taxes more than anyone and are always trying to skip paying taxes through various off-shore account schemes. They can pay for their own damn corporate security. That's what "freeeeeedom" is all about.
    2
  4685. 2
  4686. 2
  4687. 2
  4688. 2
  4689. I think there's actually two things that give life meaning. Love is one of them. But the second one is discovery. As the late comedian Bill Hicks said (and probably several other philosophers and scientists) "We are the universe experiencing itself subjectively". The universe on it's own is composed or mostly dumb matter and anti-matter. It can't experience anything. But because parts of it has coalesced into living organisms and eventually ourselves, the universe can now, in a small part, experience itself and reflect upon itself. As humans our experience will be limited if we don't try to explore and discover our surroundings. And ever since our neolithic ancestors, we've always been compelled to discover things for ourselves. Heck it's not even exclusive to humans. Animals also spend a fair share of their life to explore and discover. Most of the time it's centered around finding food, water and mates. But many animal species also engage in seemingly irrational activities of discovery and play, like foxes snatching doggie toys from a human dog-owners yard to toss around and play with. Or monkeys playing around with sticks, stones or smaller animals. Even if an individual doesn't have love in his or her life, they can still experience the joys of discovery and exploration. It's not just rewarding for the soul, but also directly contributes to our survival and perpetuation. In a way, Leeloo also embodied the joy of discovery throughout the film. She was created very naive and childlike, and ended up spending much of her time exploring and learning things about the world like language, Kung-fu, the taste of chicken and so on. So to me, the Fifth Element is the love of discovery and the discovery of love.
    2
  4690. 2
  4691. 2
  4692. 2
  4693. 2
  4694. 2
  4695.  @trancer4e4life  I don't believe it will. The desenstization you experience is part of growing up. A lot of bad things happen in the world all the time. It's always been happening. If we always ended up feeling as strongly about every incident we merely hear about as the first time we heard about an awful crime, it's fair to say that we'd go insane. That's why reactions to crimes that do not happen in our near vicinity get a bit dulled with age. It's a coping mechanism. Trust me though, if you ever witness horrible and violent crime first hand. You will be shocked. I too thought I was completely desensitized for a time after having read about gruesome murders and seen atrocities in pictures and videos. I thought nothing would give me pause anymore. And then I saw just a "regular" beating in real life where the victim was badly injured. It was a very shocking experience. The only thing more shocking was when I was involved in a knife fight and had to defend my very life. What these experiences have taught me is that if people live such sheltered lives that all they have to get upset by is deepfake porn, they're really some of the lucky ones. What I despise about our current culture is how we've normalized outrage over the most insignificant and tangibly harmless things (like deepfake porn). People in general really lack perspective of how much worse off they could be when they let such minor grievances get under their skin like that. Every person do exert a degree of control over how badly they let things affect them emotionally. And I will never stop encouraging people to seize that control for themselves, because I genuinely believe that you'll be a better person and have better mental health when you stop believing that every little grievance, insult or slight means the end of the world.
    2
  4696. 2
  4697. 2
  4698. 2
  4699. 2
  4700. 2
  4701. 2
  4702. 2
  4703. 2
  4704. 2
  4705. 2
  4706. 2
  4707. 2
  4708. 2
  4709. 2
  4710. 2
  4711. 2
  4712. 2
  4713. 2
  4714. 2
  4715. 2
  4716. 2
  4717. 2
  4718. 2
  4719. 2
  4720. 2
  4721. 2
  4722. 2
  4723. 2
  4724. 2
  4725. 2
  4726. 2
  4727. 2
  4728. 2
  4729. 2
  4730. 2
  4731. 2
  4732. 2
  4733. 2
  4734. 2
  4735. 2
  4736. 2
  4737. 2
  4738. 2
  4739. 2
  4740. 2
  4741. 2
  4742. 2
  4743. 2
  4744. 2
  4745. 2
  4746. 2
  4747. 2
  4748. 2
  4749. 2
  4750. 2
  4751. 2
  4752. 2
  4753. 2
  4754. 2
  4755. 2
  4756. 2
  4757. 2
  4758. 2
  4759. 2
  4760. 2
  4761. 2
  4762. 2
  4763. 2
  4764. 2
  4765. 2
  4766. 2
  4767. 2
  4768. 2
  4769. 2
  4770. 2
  4771. 2
  4772. 2
  4773. 2
  4774. 2
  4775. 2
  4776. 2
  4777. 2
  4778. 2
  4779. 2
  4780. 2
  4781. 2
  4782. 2
  4783. 2
  4784. 2
  4785. 2
  4786. 2
  4787. 2
  4788. 2
  4789. 2
  4790. 2
  4791. 2
  4792. 2
  4793. 2
  4794. 2
  4795. 2
  4796. 2
  4797. 2
  4798. 2
  4799. 2
  4800. 2
  4801. 2
  4802. 2
  4803. 2
  4804. 2
  4805. 2
  4806. 2
  4807. 2
  4808. 2
  4809. 2
  4810. 2
  4811. 2
  4812. 2
  4813. 2
  4814. 2
  4815. 2
  4816. 2
  4817. 2
  4818. 2
  4819. 2
  4820. 2
  4821. 2
  4822. 2
  4823. 2
  4824. 2
  4825. 2
  4826. 2
  4827. 2
  4828. 2
  4829. 2
  4830. 2
  4831. 2
  4832. 2
  4833. 2
  4834. 2
  4835. 2
  4836. 2
  4837. 2
  4838. 2
  4839. 2
  4840. 2
  4841. 2
  4842. 2
  4843. 2
  4844. 2
  4845. 2
  4846. 2
  4847. 2
  4848. 2
  4849. 2
  4850. 2
  4851. 2
  4852. 2
  4853. 2
  4854. 2
  4855. 2
  4856. 2
  4857. 2
  4858. 2
  4859. 2
  4860. 2
  4861. 2
  4862. 2
  4863. 2
  4864. 2
  4865. 2
  4866. 2
  4867. 2
  4868. 2
  4869. 2
  4870. 2
  4871. 2
  4872. 2
  4873. 2
  4874. 2
  4875. 2
  4876. 2
  4877. 2
  4878. 2
  4879. 2
  4880. 2
  4881. 2
  4882. 2
  4883. 2
  4884. 2
  4885. 2
  4886. 2
  4887. 2
  4888. 2
  4889. 2
  4890. 2
  4891. 2
  4892. 2
  4893. 2
  4894. 2
  4895. 2
  4896. 2
  4897. 2
  4898. 2
  4899. 2
  4900. 2
  4901. 2
  4902. 2
  4903. 2
  4904. 2
  4905.  @freesian59  Thank you for your perspective Tanaka. I guess my main points can be condensed to the following: People should not hate other people for what happened in past wars. Governments declare war and send soldiers to war. People generally do not. (people generally don't even get a say in the matter) If ones own government committed atrocities, then one should condemn it. If ones own government committed atrocities and refuse to apologize or own up to it, then one should also condemn it. I'm not saying that a government should have to pay money to make up for things (I generally dislike the principle that money could somehow weigh up for killings or rapes, because it implies that you can purchase your way out of guilt and responsibility with money), an apology doesn't cost anything so it's the least a government can do. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocious. It is a chapter that no government on earth should've opened. But with that said, The Japanese did fight in very atrocious ways. It was as if the Emperor had mobilized the entire country to fight to the death. In more "normal" warfare, soldiers fight until either side is strategically and tactically incapacitated and that side then surrenders. Yet the japanese government had basically institutionalized suicide bombings. They didn't care how many lives they threw away in their war effort. They spent lives of young men like other nations spend bullets. When an enemy crosses that line, then you can't really fight a "normal" war against them. It's not that different from the way that muslim terrorist organizations fight today to be honest. One has to think about what would've happened if the Americans didn't use the nuclear bombs. Let's assume that they instead chose to land troops on mainland japan and fight a land war over there. What would the japanese government do? How many more lives would they throw away in such a situation? How many japanese civilians would be coerced or even drawn to the calling of martyrdom and staging suicide attacks on american troops, putting the american soldiers in a situation where they basically have to treat every single japanese person they see as a potential hostile only to stay alive themselves? Even today, Japan seems to struggle with a kind of suicide culture. An alarming amount of japanese people take their own lives, and this seems to be a cultural holdover from times in the past where suicide was considered a noble act to restore lost honour. One can only imagine how such a culture would manifest itself if the U.S had pursued a land war in Japan instead. Of course it's speculation, but there's a very real possibility that even more lives would've been lost as a result on both sides. I don't wish to offend you by playing the devils advocate here, but with the nuclear bombings, they at least had the desired effect. They forced the imperial japanese government to surrender. It took the complete destruction of two cities to get them to see that no amount of "noble suicide" would be able to stop such an attack. They must have realized that the U.S could obliterate every single city in Japan if necessary so there wouldn't have been much left to fight over. At the time, it seemed like the japanese were convinced that as long as they sent more people to die, eventually they would win. Surrender was not an option... Until the nuclear bombs dropped. Thankfully they did surrender after that. And that was also probably the last time the U.S did the responsible thing after they go to war with another country. They stayed behind and helped rebuild and made an effort to improve relations with their defeated foes and work towards becoming allies. Sadly, this has not been a norm for the U.S since. They have suffered from very irresponsible leadership that starts wars with other countries, destroy their governments and infrastructure, and then simply leaves the country in shambles. (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc.) But with Japan, relations have just been getting better. And both countries have flourished financially since. I don't think any member of the armed forces in the U.S look back at the atomic bombings with any sense of "pride" either. In a serious conversation about it with americans, most seem to consider it a dark chapter of their countrys history, which it most certainly was. It's not something they "wanted", but at the time they couldn't see any other option. But one needs to look towards the future. The hatchet is buried and japanese and american citizens only stands to benefit from friendly relations with eachother. Oh and just to put it into perspective: i'm not an american myself. This is just my view of the situation from the outside. So I don't have this view because i'm biased towards a U.S perspective or anything.
    2
  4906. 2
  4907. 2
  4908. 2
  4909. 2
  4910. 2
  4911. 2
  4912. 2
  4913. 2
  4914. 2
  4915. 2
  4916. 2
  4917. 2
  4918. 2
  4919. 2
  4920. 2
  4921. 2
  4922. 2
  4923. 2
  4924. 2
  4925. 2
  4926. 2
  4927. 2
  4928. 2
  4929. 2
  4930. 2
  4931. 2
  4932. 2
  4933. 2
  4934. 2
  4935. 2
  4936. 2
  4937. 2
  4938. 2
  4939. 2
  4940. 2
  4941. 2
  4942. 2
  4943. 2
  4944. 2
  4945. 2
  4946. 2
  4947. 2
  4948. 2
  4949. 2
  4950. 2
  4951. 2
  4952. 2
  4953. 2
  4954. 2
  4955. 2
  4956. 2
  4957. 2
  4958. 2
  4959. 2
  4960. 2
  4961. 2
  4962. 2
  4963. 2
  4964. 2
  4965. 2
  4966. 2
  4967. 2
  4968. 2
  4969. 2
  4970. 2
  4971. 2
  4972.  @gibertusalbans1779 : Somehow I don't think it was Verhoevens goal to present an "idealistic world" with Starship Troopers. It just ended up looking like one in our current political context. I've given the matter some thought, and what I think Verhoevens problem is the fact that as a film director and visuals being the primary medium he works with (as all film makers), he had a very superficial concept of what a fascist society would look like. When he thinks of fascism and nazism, he clearly thinks of things like propaganda reels, men wearing grey uniforms with peak caps, glorifying the military etc. Because that's the simplified, cookie-cutter version of fascism and nazism he's probably been fed during his lifetime. He's dutch after all, so it's not very likely that their school system spends a great deal of time to convey to their students what nazis and fascists actually believed but more likely portray them as "monstrous invaders of our country with evil being their primary motivation". I don't think Verhoeven actually sat down and studied the ideologies of nazism or fascism that closely or tried to compare them to other ideologies and see how they differed in principles and world views. So in Paul Verhoevens mind, he probably believes Starship Troopers to be a parody of fascism. But to anyone who actually sat down and studied the ideologies, the film comes across as something completely different. Nazism and fascism is after all much more than mere goose stepping, grey uniforms and glorification of military pursuits.
    2
  4973. 2
  4974. 2
  4975. 2
  4976. 2
  4977. 2
  4978. 2
  4979. 2
  4980. 2
  4981. 2
  4982. 2
  4983. 2
  4984. 2
  4985. 2
  4986. 2
  4987. 2
  4988. 2
  4989. 2
  4990. 2
  4991. 2
  4992. 2
  4993. 2
  4994. 2
  4995. 2
  4996. 2
  4997. 2
  4998. 2
  4999. 2
  5000. 2
  5001. 2
  5002. 2
  5003. 2
  5004. 2
  5005. 2
  5006. 2
  5007. 2
  5008. 2
  5009. 2
  5010. 2
  5011. 2
  5012. 2
  5013. 2
  5014. 2
  5015. 2
  5016. 2
  5017. 2
  5018. 2
  5019. 2
  5020. 2
  5021. 2
  5022. 2
  5023. 2
  5024. 2
  5025. 2
  5026. 2
  5027. 2
  5028. 2
  5029. 2
  5030. 2
  5031. 2
  5032. 2
  5033. 2
  5034. 2
  5035. 2
  5036. 2
  5037. 2
  5038. 2
  5039. 2
  5040. 2
  5041. 2
  5042. 2
  5043. 2
  5044. 2
  5045. 2
  5046. 2
  5047. 2
  5048. 2
  5049. 2
  5050. 2
  5051. 2
  5052. 2
  5053. 2
  5054. 2
  5055. 2
  5056. 2
  5057. 2
  5058. 2
  5059. 2
  5060. 2
  5061. 2
  5062. 2
  5063. 2
  5064. 2
  5065. 2
  5066. 2
  5067. 2
  5068. 2
  5069. 2
  5070. 2
  5071. 2
  5072. 2
  5073. 2
  5074. 2
  5075. 2
  5076. 2
  5077. 2
  5078. 2
  5079. 2
  5080. 2
  5081. 2
  5082. 2
  5083. 2
  5084. 2
  5085. 2
  5086. 2
  5087. 2
  5088. 2
  5089. 2
  5090. 2
  5091. 2
  5092. 2
  5093. 2
  5094. 2
  5095. 2
  5096. 2
  5097. 2
  5098. 2
  5099. 2
  5100. 2
  5101. 2
  5102. 2
  5103. 2
  5104. 2
  5105. 2
  5106. 2
  5107. 2
  5108. 2
  5109. 2
  5110. 2
  5111. 2
  5112. 2
  5113. 2
  5114. 2
  5115. 2
  5116. 2
  5117. 2
  5118. 2
  5119. 2
  5120. 2
  5121. 2
  5122. 2
  5123. 2
  5124. 2
  5125. 2
  5126. 2
  5127. 2
  5128. 2
  5129. 2
  5130. 2
  5131. 2
  5132. 2
  5133. 2
  5134. 2
  5135. 2
  5136. 2
  5137. 2
  5138. 2
  5139. 2
  5140. 2
  5141. 2
  5142. 2
  5143. 2
  5144. 2
  5145. 2
  5146. 2
  5147. 2
  5148. 2
  5149. 2
  5150. 2
  5151. 2
  5152. 2
  5153. 2
  5154. 2
  5155. 2
  5156. 2
  5157. 2
  5158. 2
  5159. 2
  5160. 2
  5161. 2
  5162. 2
  5163. 2
  5164. 2
  5165. 2
  5166. 2
  5167. 2
  5168. 2
  5169. 2
  5170. 2
  5171. 2
  5172. 2
  5173. 2
  5174. 2
  5175. 2
  5176. 2
  5177. 2
  5178. 2
  5179. 2
  5180. 2
  5181. 2
  5182. 2
  5183. 2
  5184. mPky1: All lands conquered needs to be occupied for quite a long time afterwards. There's no real way around it, since you turn the population of a conquered land your enemy as soon as you declare and wage war on them in the first place. It's not like you can conquer a nation by not killing anyone or destroying someones property, so it's next to impossible to do it while maintaining popular support among the population of the enemy country. So there's always a period of "cracking heads and restoring order" after the enemy government and armed forces have been forced to surrender. Which is why I point out the problem with Hitler being overly ambitious and not respecting the necessary timeframe needed to pacify a newly conquered population. He believed that since they achieved a swift military victory in Poland, he should just keep going, dedicating most resources and manpower towards invading the next country on his hitlist. Not only did it leave newly conquered territories vulnerable to local insurgency, but the speed of his conquests also instilled a greater sense of alarm and urgency in other foreign enemies like France, Britain and Russia. The trick is to slowly conquering your neighbours while projecting a complete lack of ambition towards conquest to the people watching you. Basically: drop the frog in boiling water and it will jump out immediately. But drop the frog in cold water and then slowly increase the heat, and the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive without any intervention. Classic deception, all according to the principles of Sun Tzu.
    2
  5185. 2
  5186. 2
  5187. 2
  5188. 2
  5189. 2
  5190. 2
  5191. 2
  5192. 2
  5193. 2
  5194. 2
  5195. 2
  5196. 2
  5197. 2
  5198. 2
  5199. 2
  5200. 2
  5201. 2
  5202. 2
  5203. 2
  5204. 2
  5205. 2
  5206. 2
  5207. 2
  5208. 2
  5209. 2
  5210. 2
  5211. 2
  5212. 2
  5213. 2
  5214. 2
  5215. 2
  5216. 2
  5217. 2
  5218. 2
  5219. 2
  5220. 2
  5221. 2
  5222. 2
  5223. 2
  5224. 2
  5225. 2
  5226. 2
  5227. 2
  5228. 2
  5229. 2
  5230. 2
  5231. 2
  5232. 2
  5233. 2
  5234. 2
  5235. 2
  5236. 2
  5237. 2
  5238. 2
  5239. 2
  5240. 2
  5241. 2
  5242. 2
  5243. 2
  5244. 2
  5245. 2
  5246. 2
  5247. 2
  5248. 2
  5249. 2
  5250. 2
  5251. 2
  5252. 2
  5253. 2
  5254. 2
  5255. 2
  5256. 2
  5257. 2
  5258. 2
  5259. 2
  5260. 2
  5261. 2
  5262. 2
  5263. 2
  5264. 2
  5265. 2
  5266. 2
  5267. 2
  5268. 2
  5269. 2
  5270. 2
  5271. 2
  5272. 2
  5273. 2
  5274. 2
  5275. 2
  5276. 2
  5277. 2
  5278. 2
  5279. 2
  5280. 2
  5281. 2
  5282. 2
  5283. t3llur1de: The fact that the angels were offered volition in ONE issue does not prove they were created with "free will". Free will implies volition in EVERY issue, not just a singular event. Saying that angels then have free will because they were allowed to make a choice if they wanted to side with god or with Satan is like saying that a slave has freedom because his master ONCE allowed him to choose if he wanted to eat stale bread or sloppy gruel for dinner. Every Biblical source and interpretation claims that man was distincr from the angels because man was created with free will by default, whereas the angels were not. Humans are gods personal little lab rat experiment, forcing humans to run through mazes for his own amusement. Angels are purposefully designed beasts of burden. Humans did not create cancer. Human beings as well as other animal species were afflicted with cancer long before industries creating carcinogenic pollutants even existed. And even if you were to argue that humans are "responsible" for cancer because of pollution, then if God really didn't want humans to suffer from cancer he could've just appeared and said "Hey you know that crude oil you burn in vehicles and industries? Don't do that, because the pollutants will give you cancer. You are my children so I don't want to see you accidentally cause suffering to one another due to ignorance of the world and it's chemical compounds that I created" But did your god bother doing that? No, because he enjoys seeing humans suffer and die to cancer. Because he is an immoral and unethical monster. I damn sure wouldn't want to spend eternity with a god like that. In fact all I'd like to do is put a bullet through God's skull and splatter his brains all over the pearly gates. A just reward and fitting end for an unethical and immoral monster.
    2
  5284. 2
  5285. 2
  5286. Lucky: No i'm not asking for any kind of world. I'm claiming that your god is both evil and a hypocrite. His teachings supposedly claim that us humans are forbidden from being evil against oneanother, or we will be punished in the afterlife. We're supposedly not allowed to kill eachother (except people of other religions and races, those are perfectly fine to enslave and murder according to the bible), yet god kills us as he pleases both directly, through agents and through sheer neglect. And he doesn't even bother to ensure that the really wicked people get killed or subjected to a torturous existence. He, his agents and his biological mechanicsms kills completely arbitrarily and indiscriminately. He has the power to ensure that our existence doesn't have go be so miserable. It wouldn't cost him anything to end disease, starvation, thirst and the other maladies plaguing billions of people. Yet he choose not to. So not only is he uncaring towards all the suffering, he is also extrwmely uncharitable because he has ultimate power and has to pay no price to fix exactly everything, yet he refuses. An entity behaving this way, and then presumes to tell me that I can't break his "commandments" or live in sin, is a fucking hypocrite and he can frankly take his commandments and rules about sin and shove them up his ass. If he refuse to lead by example regarding all his rules, laws and commandments, then he can expect no loyalty or devotion from me. I'd sooner kill him than follow the teachings of his enslaved sheep.
    2
  5287. Lucky: No I don't demand a specific world or a "perfect world" out of hand. Being atheist I realize that the world is not designed but created by a long chain of chemical processes following the laws of physics that has no intent or design behind it. So trying to "demand" a better world would be completely pointless. It would be like demanding that the ocean spits me right back up on safe land instead of drowning me if the ship I sail across the atlantic sinks for some reason. The ocean will not hearken to my demands, because the ocean is not an intelligent being with any "intent" to drown me. If I drown I do so as a matter of natural consequence of ending up in the water far from land. What I am saying however is that IF you religious people are right, and there is "intelligent design" behind the world and some sort of sentient creator made the world, then I do DEMAND that the world be made more merciful to people by this omnipotent creator, if I am also expected to accept your claims that this creator is a morally "good" being. The problem with you religious people is that you want to have the cake and eat it too. On the one hand you want to claim that the world is not evolved, it is designed by an omnipotent creator. But even though it's logically impossible for this creator to be morally "good" considering all the manifestations of evil and suffering in the world (that is the specific evil and suffering that mankind cannot be blamed for, because mankind did not decide that volcanoes should erupt, tsunamis or earthquakes to form or lethal diseases to spread and killing innocent people or animals). I'll buy the argument that we humans are responsible for things like wars and oppression in pursuit of wealth and power. The suffering stemming from that is our responsibility and cannot be blamed on God from a moral or ethical perspective since this specific death and suffering stem from the choices we make as individuals and as a species. But when it comes to natural disasters and the evolution and spread of harmful diseases, then you can no longer blame mankind for that because we didn't create natural disasters like earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, tornadoes etc. We also didn't create disease like cancer, ebola, malaria etc. These diseases and natural disasters are NOT our responsibility. We didn't design the system that cause these things to happen. YOUR GOD DID! (according to your beliefs, not mine) In fact, almost all humans across the world will agree that if we could stop natural disasters and diseases from happening, then we would take the necessary steps to do so. But as it is, it is entirely out of our hands. Nothing we do or refrain from doing will stop earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, cancer and virulent diseases from causing us and other species pain, suffering and death. Your god is to blame. Your god created this system. Your god as well as you also claim that god is "perfect". That his power is absolute. That he is omnipotent and can literally do ANYTHING. So following pure logic, only two conclusions about God can be reached on this matter: Either you and the religious people are wrong when you assume that God is omnipotent. He created these death-causing natural disasters and diseases by mistake. He didn't think things through and couldn't forsee or stop the consequences. Ergo he is NOT omnipotent, but flawed. OR He is omnipotent. He could forsee all consequences. He didn't make any mistakes but the system he created is working just as intended. Which means: he derive pleasure or entertainment from seeing us humans suffer and die at the hands of his system. His creation. He laughs at our misery when volcanoes erupt and spew molten lava and poisonous gasses over human beings. He finds it entertaining when a plague sweeps over a human society killing innocent and guilty alike. There are no other possibilities to this equation, no matter how much you religious people may want there to be. Either god is a sadist, or he is not omnipotent. Therefore I say: if God doesn't make the world better when he should have the power to do so (if he is omnipotent), then he's just an evil douchebag for refusing. Or he CAN'T make the world better, because his powers are limited, in which case he's just incompetent. Evil sadist, or incompetent doofus. Take your pick which assesment you like the most, because frankly I don't care which.
    2
  5288. 2
  5289. 2
  5290. 2
  5291. 2
  5292. 2
  5293. 2
  5294. 2
  5295. 2
  5296. 2
  5297. 2
  5298. 2
  5299. 2
  5300. 2
  5301. 2
  5302. 2
  5303. 2
  5304. 2
  5305. 2
  5306. 2
  5307. 2
  5308. 2
  5309. 2
  5310. 2
  5311. 2
  5312. 2
  5313. 2
  5314. 2
  5315. 2
  5316. 2
  5317. 2
  5318. 2
  5319. 2
  5320. 2
  5321. 2
  5322. 2
  5323. 2
  5324. 2
  5325. 2
  5326. 2
  5327. 2
  5328. 2
  5329. 2
  5330. 2
  5331. 2
  5332. 2
  5333. 2
  5334. 2
  5335. 2
  5336. 2
  5337. 2
  5338. 2
  5339. 2
  5340. 2
  5341. 2
  5342. 2
  5343. 2
  5344. 2
  5345. 2
  5346. 2
  5347. 2
  5348. 2
  5349. 2
  5350. 2
  5351. 2
  5352. 2
  5353. 2
  5354. 2
  5355. 2
  5356. 2
  5357. 2
  5358. 2
  5359. 2
  5360. 2
  5361. 2
  5362. 2
  5363. 2
  5364. 2
  5365. 2
  5366. 2
  5367. 2
  5368. 2
  5369. 2
  5370. 2
  5371. 2
  5372. 2
  5373. 2
  5374. 2
  5375. 2
  5376. 2
  5377. 2
  5378. 2
  5379. 2
  5380. 2
  5381. 2
  5382. 2
  5383. 2
  5384. 2
  5385. 2
  5386. 2
  5387. 2
  5388. 2
  5389. 2
  5390. 2
  5391. 2
  5392. 2
  5393. 2
  5394. 2
  5395. 2
  5396. 2
  5397. 2
  5398. 2
  5399. 2
  5400. 2
  5401. 2
  5402. 2
  5403. 2
  5404. 2
  5405. 2
  5406. 2
  5407. 2
  5408. 2
  5409. 2
  5410. 2
  5411. 2
  5412. 2
  5413. 2
  5414. 2
  5415. 2
  5416. 2
  5417. 2
  5418. 2
  5419. 2
  5420. 2
  5421. 2
  5422. 2
  5423. 2
  5424. 2
  5425. 2
  5426. 2
  5427. 2
  5428. 2
  5429. 2
  5430. 2
  5431. 2
  5432. 2
  5433. 2
  5434. 2
  5435. 2
  5436. 2
  5437. 2
  5438. 2
  5439. 2
  5440. 2
  5441. 2
  5442. 2
  5443. 2
  5444. 2
  5445. 2
  5446. 2
  5447. 2
  5448. 2
  5449. 2
  5450. 2
  5451. 2
  5452. 2
  5453. 2
  5454. 2
  5455.  @renkol123  You're not allowed to vote for policies. Only parties. And when some parties have a monopoly on certain policies that you agree with/need, a lot of people feel they have to vote for that party, even if the party in question also promotes policies you dislike or even hate. That is a thing with the Social Democrats in Sweden. Basically they have monopolized the issues of workers rights, labour code and so on. Legislation and policies that a lot of people depend on to get by. Sadly they also took the woke pill, so they are (unofficially now) pro-immigration. So the choice you're left with is either you vote for them and try to keep the labour code and welfare intact. While having to suffer the effects of migration. Or, you vote them out of office, but then risk getting a rightwing government who will immediately proceed to start chopping up the labour code and destroy tax funded institutions that people depend on, just so they can give some tax breaks to the ultra wealthy and themselves. They did it before after all, when they regretfully got into office for eight years... Oh and back then the rightwingers also were pro-immigration because they could use it to get cheap labour and undermine the labour code, since migrants don't know their rights nor are they likely to join any unions. So I wouldn't trust those assholes further than I can spit. This is the predicament that a lot of people find themselves in. Me, I vote for the "racist" party who want to stop this crap. But while they are the fastest growing party in the country, it's a long way to go before they would have a majority in parliament. Also, because of this whole war in Ukraine thing, they've taken a hit in the polls. Because now immigration is a "good thing" again, so the bleeding hearts liberals can "save Ukrainian women and children".
    2
  5456. 2
  5457. 2
  5458. 2
  5459. 2
  5460. 2
  5461. 2
  5462. 2
  5463. 2
  5464. 2
  5465. 2
  5466. 2
  5467. 2
  5468. 2
  5469. 2
  5470. 2
  5471. 2
  5472. 2
  5473. 2
  5474. 2
  5475. 2
  5476.  @stephenglazer4224  I know that Krav Maga is the taught hand to hand combat system taught by the IDF. And as you may have noted, i'm fairly certain I mentioned Krav Maga as an effective system, due to the fact that it is used by the IDF. I'm not saying that Muay Thai is useless in it's entirety. What i'm saying is if Muay Thai really was such a potent form of martial arts, then these armed forces would've utilized Muay Thai in it's entirety, rather than going with Systema or Krav Maga (the latter of which uses PARTS of Muay Thai, but replace the majority of the style with it's own or borrowed elements from other styles). This because the needs and purposes of the military are different to the needs and purposes of exhibition fighters. The armed forces of the world are focused solely on practicality in as many imaginable situations as possible. The reason why they only incorporate small parts of an exhibition fighting style, is because they had to trim a lot of "fat" from the fighting style (fat being elements that are deemed useless to their purposes). This applies to Krav Maga and it also very much applies to Systema. Now you may have experience with a lot of martial arts, but I humbly suggest that you'll have a difficult time convincing me that the style of a ring- or cage fighter would be more effective in a real world life and death situation than the style trained and utilized by a member of the armed forces. One practices martial arts for sport. The other practices martial arts to kill as well as keeping themselves alive in the line of duty.
    2
  5477. 2
  5478. 2
  5479. 2
  5480. 2
  5481. 2
  5482. 2
  5483.  @vinny5638 : You misunderstand. I'm not trying to paint the people like Hitler in a prettier picture. Hitler was an amoral and unethical, genocidal asshole. What i'm saying is BECAUSE Hitler and other racist organisations like the KKK have acted upon their racist beliefs with such brutal and unethical methods as they have, the entire concept of racism (that is, the idea that humans actually CAN be subdivided into different races, and that they possess specific racial traits that differs them from one another, which is a morally and ethically neutral idea and doesn't necessarily have to manifest in KKK-lynchings or Third Reich Holocausts) the concept of racism in itself has become culturally and socially marked as "tainted", even to the point where actual scientists actively refrain from and avoid lines of inquiry that may actually prove that there are inherent biological differences between races, and that there's valuable sociological and political information to be gained from such research. Only a tiny minority of scientists dare to investigate these matters, and when they present findings that actually go against the virtue signalling, multi-cultural utopian ideals, they get their names and research dragged through the mud by the collective academia. I think, before WWII broke out, this "pariah" culture surrounding the concept of academic and morally neutral racism hadn't yet been formed, so scientists weren't as afraid of investigating racial differences between people as they are now. Granted, their standards of scientific research had about the same quality you could expect from the time period. But some of them might've actually been onto something important. Something that we will never know now, because WWII created a virtue signalling paranoia and collective scorn of ANYTHING that could be construed as even remotely "racist".
    2
  5484. 2
  5485. 2
  5486. 2
  5487. 2
  5488. 2
  5489. 2
  5490. 2
  5491. 2
  5492. 2
  5493. 2
  5494. 2
  5495. 2
  5496. 2
  5497. 2
  5498. 2
  5499. 2
  5500. 2
  5501. 2
  5502. 2
  5503. 2
  5504. 2
  5505. 2
  5506. 2
  5507. 2
  5508. 2
  5509. 2
  5510. 2
  5511. 2
  5512. 2
  5513. 2
  5514. 2
  5515. 2
  5516. 2
  5517. 2
  5518. 2
  5519. 2
  5520. 2
  5521. 2
  5522. 2
  5523. 2
  5524. 2
  5525. 2
  5526. 2
  5527. 2
  5528. 2
  5529. 2
  5530. 2
  5531. 2
  5532. 2
  5533. 2
  5534. 2
  5535. 2
  5536. 2
  5537. 2
  5538. 2
  5539. 2
  5540. 2
  5541. 2
  5542. 2
  5543. 2
  5544. 2
  5545. 2
  5546. 2
  5547. 2
  5548. 2
  5549. 2
  5550. 2
  5551. 2
  5552. 2
  5553. 2
  5554. 2
  5555. 2
  5556. 2
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559. 1
  5560. 1
  5561. 1
  5562. 1
  5563. 1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. People who claim that they could defeat a trained knight usually strikes me as people who haven't been in a fight at all (I mean not even bare knuckle fistfights). Due to a somewhat mispent youth in an inner city enviroment, I've been involved in a few. Even fights involving bats and knives. But I guess someone might argue that it doesn't compare to armored fighting, so I guess the closest analogy to that would be my years training kendo. Now kendo is a very simplified and sportslike version of japanese swordfighting with the goal of scoring points. All very formal and not very simulationist of real combat. But at least you wear armour, and your goal is to hit very specific parts of your opponents armour to score points. However, the points of contact are nowhere near as small as the weak spots of a knight armour. Kendo is about striking the head or "men" in japanese, the wrists or "kote", the abdomen or "do", or a piericing strike to the throat or "tsuki". And it is REALLY DAMN HARD to land a correct strike that will earn you points in kendo. Your opponent moves around constantly, blocks and even shoves and trips you to prevent you from landing a scoring hit (this is why kendo appealed to me a lot more than European fencing, because it's more "physical"). Considering that kendo is very formal and based around a lot of rules and you can expect where your opponent is likely to strike, I don't even want to think about what it would mean to fight an actual knight to the death. But if I were to attempt it, I'd likely go with weapons that i'm most familiar and comfortable with, which would be a dagger (preferably a long bladed punch-dagger or a stiletto) and I'd attempt to close the gap and basically be in the knights face, preventing him from being able to use the long reach of his sword. And even then it's extremely risky for me, since a trained knight is likely to have a lot more experience than me. In fact the only things I've got going for me would be the familiarity and preference with short blades and being slightly (but only slightly) faster and agile than a person wearing armour and holding a shield if I am not.
    1
  5572. 1
  5573. 1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578. 1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586. 1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. I don't think The Blades or Akaviri are that overtly Japanese-inspired. I'd argue that the Dunmer/Dark Elves are more intended to be an asian analogy (although more of a combination between Japanese, Chinese and Mongols). Not only do they run around with a crapton of Katanas, Wakizashis and Tanto's on Morrowind. The city of Vivec is pretty much entirely made up of Pagodas. You have a guild of assassins calling themselves the "Morag Tong". You have the Ashlanders living a nomadic lifestyle out of yurts, clearly inspired by ancient Mongol warriors. You also have several pieces of interior decoration that might made you think you walked into a chinese or japanese restaurant. You have "Opium dens" inspired by the real world kind. Morrowind also has a lot of wizard-, and hermit type characters with a strong resemblance to ancient chinese philosophers and japanese hermit monks. Their native gods, the Daedra, bear a striking resemblance to both Shinto spirits and indian hindu gods in many of the statues and portrayals throughout TES3: Morrowind. Morrowind itself is a volcanically formed archipelago (like Japan), but it also contains features typical of many tropical coastal regions in southeast asia like mangrove forests. Facial features of the Dark Elves if you look past the red eyes, pointy ears and blue-grey to dark grey skintone also contain elements of slightly slanted eyes and other east asian features in terms of bone structure. A lot of available styles of beards and facial hair also nods to prominent chinese and japanese characters in film. A lot of things I bring up here might not be "historical" of course while others certainly are. The rest are however pop-cultural and make a lot of references to east asian cultures.
    1
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 1
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607. 1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616. 1
  5617. 1
  5618. 1
  5619. 1
  5620. 1
  5621. 1
  5622. 1
  5623. 1
  5624. 1
  5625. 1
  5626. 1
  5627. 1
  5628. 1
  5629. 1
  5630. 1
  5631. 1
  5632. 1
  5633. 1
  5634. 1
  5635. 1
  5636. 1
  5637. 1
  5638. 1
  5639. 1
  5640. 1
  5641. 1
  5642. 1
  5643. 1
  5644. 1
  5645. 1
  5646. 1
  5647. 1
  5648. 1
  5649. 1
  5650. 1
  5651. 1
  5652. 1
  5653. 1
  5654. 1
  5655. 1
  5656. Scott Burton: ALL feminists are about female superiority. The bullshit about "being for equality" in all brands of feminism is tied to a pretty significant disclaimer. Namely that AAAALL feminists assumes that all women in every society is at a disadvantage (even when they're not). Like the wage gap for instance, which is a proven and debunked myth. A wage gap simply doesnnt exist in any sexist, unwarranted sense. But ALL feminists assumes it does, because their ideological overlords say it does. Nothing will change their opinions, no matter how much proof or statistical surveys you present that logically and scientidically prove thw wage gap to be a myth. So they all run around with this assumption, and at the same time they demand financial and political actions and concessions to remedy this non-existant wage gap. Pretend that the wage gap exists, then these ideas might've been reasonable. Because if a group is proven to be disadvantaged, then granting them certain positive advantages will serve to offset the original disadvantage and create an equilibrium. BUT, what happens when you give a non-disadvantaged group advantages? That's right! They gain an unfair advantage over all others. And ALL feminists agree that this non-existant disadvantage (among several others non-existant disadvantages) exists and that it needs to be adressed by granting women priviliges. The whole "idea" about being "for equality" is nothing but a deception and a front to legitimize giving privilige and power to women (mostly middle- to upper class white women). They're trying to make people think "Hey! Feminists say they are for equality. And equality is nice! Therefore feminis must be nice too!" When in reality, feminists are about as good champions for equality as communists are champions for "fairness".
    1
  5657. 1
  5658. 1
  5659. 1
  5660. 1
  5661. 1
  5662. 1
  5663. 1
  5664. 1
  5665. 1
  5666. 1
  5667. 1
  5668. 1
  5669. 1
  5670. 1
  5671. 1
  5672. 1
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682. 1
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 1
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. I wouldn't say that it's merely a victory of strategy, but also a defeat in strategy on the part of the french since they relied so much on armored cavalry. Yes, the armor helped their noblemen to survive, but when analyzing a battle and the equipment used, you also need to look at what usefulness it had during the battle. Imagine the costs of making that armor, and the costs of breeding and maintaining all those horses. Now imagine how many longbowmen you could've recruited and deployed for the same amount of money! The way I see it, the use and reliance on heavily armored knights is pretty much the same mistake that the germans committed during World War 2. They made these technologically brilliant tanks and warmachines, that were masterpieces of engineering. But this in turn made their upkeep exorbitant as well as difficult to produce in sufficient numbers and the logistics involved in maintaining them on the front lines faltered, which eventually lead to these tanks being a really bad investment on the germans part. Another great example of this is another of Hitlers monstrous Superweapons: The Schwerer Gustav artillery cannon. It was an artillery piece so large that it could only be transported on two parallell train tracks, and needed a souped up locomotive to pull it. While it also was an impressive and giant piece of artillery that could lob giant shells which could obliterate even subterranian, reinforced bunkers, it's net worth for Hitlers war effort was actually negative because the targets it destroyed wasn't worth as much as the upkeep and maintenance of the Gustav itself. So to conclude: I understand the fascination with advanced and superior arms and armour. The ideas and engineering going into constructing them is often quite ambitious and cool overall. And in a "fight" they will usually grant their user significant advantages. But what we need to keep in mind is that which might grant the user an advantage in a fight, might not do the same in a battle or in a war. In fact they may prove to be more of a detriment in a battle or a war.
    1
  5691. I can also attest to the fact that video games and movies are much more effective att teaching a new language than books and schools will ever be. Especially videogames and movies with SUBTITLES! English is not my native tongue, but in grade school I was put in an advanced class of english at high school levels because I had exceeded so far beyond my peers that I wasn't learning much at all during regular classes. The reason? My mother didn't outright forbid me from watching science fiction, action, horror and fantasy for adults when I was a boy. So while my peers were only allowed to watch locally produced kids shows in our native tounge, I was watching films like Alien, The Terminator, Robocop, Conan the Barbarian, Star Wars, Predator and the like at the age of 6 or 7 years old. These films the characters spoke in english, but were subtitled in my native language. And I absorbed english like a sponge that way. I was entertained the whole time, and had that childlike fascination of these movies that I watched them over and over. Then video gaming came along for me, and I had even more incentive to learn more advanced words in written and spoken english. So when I got to the point in school where me and my peers were supposed to be INTRODUCED to learning english, not only could I pretty much read and understand an english newspaper, I could hold an adult conversation in english with near perfect fluency and even understood and could describe quite a few technical and academic terms. This is a big reason why I hate the practice of dubbing in video games and movies. Not only does it detract from immersion when for instance, a movie set in france where all the characters are supposed to be native french, yet they speak in english with some british english accent, but it also misses out on a golden opportunity to make the audience learn a new language without really realizing that they are. I wish they made more games and films with subtitles. It will only make their viewers and players better people.
    1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697. 1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. On the issue of implementation in half-swording and murder strokes. How about reducing the number of directions you can strike from while half-swording or murderstroking? From what I understand of the current mechanics, your and your opponents first person views are essentially divided into segments. And depending on which segment of the screen you drag your mouse towards while performing an attack or parry, the attack or parry is going to be directed to that segment of the screen. This means that in order to successfully block an opponents attack, you have to parry in the corresponding segment of the screen to your opponents segment, or else your parry will fail and you will get hit. Now using a sword normally or a warhammer etc you can pretty much strike from any direction, represented by the full number of corresponding segments of your screen. HOWEVER! From my knowledge of murder strokes and half-swording, your angles of attack (especially against an armored opponent) are somewhat limited, compared to cutting with a sword normally. If you're gonna use a murder stroke for instance, then you're more likely to do an overhead strike or maybe striking from left or right side. Murderstroking from underneath your opponents guard would be somewhat awkward, and while I guess that it's theoretically possible to do like an "uppercut" murderstroke to the underside of the jaw of your opponent, it doesn't strike me as a very likely move. This could be represented in the game mechanics as a reduction in segments of your screen. If we assume that your field of view is game mechanically segmented into 12 segments (12 different angles that you can attack from, and which your opponent has to parry against), then when you switch to the murder stroke grip or half-sword grip, your segments are reduced (the bottom ones are removed completely since attacking from the bottom of the screen with a murder stroke is unlikely) to maybe 8 segments or even 6. This will of course give your opponent an easier time to parry your attacks (which would be realistic, since switching grips to murder stroke or half-swording is a very visual cue of what your opponent intends to do, so you'll know where to expect the attacks to come from), so the full plate armor will give you that advantage, but the sword user will also have a way to deal lethal damage to you despite your weapon being primarily intended for cutting and thrusting.
    1
  5702. 1
  5703. 1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707. 1
  5708. 1
  5709. 1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. 1
  5718. 1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. Filming In Portland: It's stupid trying to find a "political identity". What I vote for is no part of my identity and it doesn't define me as a person. A responsible, free thinking individual should just concern himself by voting for whichever party or group that happens to represent his rational self-interests for the time being. Staying "loyal" to a party no matter what, and forming your identity around a political ideology is what causes the kind of mess that Sweden is going through now. Most Swedes vote either for Socialdemocrats or Moderates not out of rational self-interest but because they have "always" voted for one of these parties, and even go so far as taking a measure of pride in being a "loyal" party-supporter, which is the most fucking stupid, idiotic behaviour a democratic citizen could ever exhibit. I will most likely vote for the Sweden democrats. But I will drop them in an instant if I get the impression that they won't represent my rational self-interest: which is avoiding turning Sweden into some sort of parallell state next to muslim, Sharia enclaves, getting the wages dumped because mass-immigration generate desperate people that will take any job at any pay and seeing my national culture and identity destroyed by left-wing cultural marxists. At the time being, the Sweden democrats represents the best way to fulfill these interests, but as any grown person knows: the partyline can quickly change, and if it does you better have the integrity to abandon the party in favor of something better. Not staying "loyal" or forming your identity and sense of self around the party.
    1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732. 1
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735. 1
  5736. 1
  5737. I could think of yet another reason why someone would prefer a bokuto over a katana. Namely: ease of use. Cutting with a sword isn't just a matter of hitting your opponent with the edge. It will cause a cut, yes. But to make the really lethal cuts (like decapitation, bisection or dismemberment) there is a significant amount of technique involved. Basically you have to both accelerate the blade towards your target, but also pull on the handle in the same motion so that once the blade bites into your target, you'll also have the blade running it's length, with force, along the striking area. Doing this is trickier than it may first seem. Even more so during the frantic and hectic conditions of mortal combat. No amount of training mock situations and sparring will truly prepare you for the encounter with a life or death situation and the effects it has on you mentally and physically, and what might seem like second nature to you during calmer conditions might become instantly forgotten when you're faced the the prospect of dying. A bokuto, on the other hand, isn't a cutting weapon. It's a blunt weapon. So, even with the stress of a duel to the death, you won't have to worry as much about cutting techniques as long as you manage to bash your foes skull in with the heavy wooden stick you've got in your hand. You only need to worry about hitting him, and avoid getting hit yourself. Which would be a significant stress relief and burden loosened from your mind, that might just give you the edge to win. Of course, Miyamoto Musashi is known for being an expert swordsman, and his expertise and muscle memory performing correct cuts would be second nature to him, so his use of the Bokuto was most likely the psychological aspect and getting his opponents to underestimate him. But I think that even Miyamoto Musashi himself would've agreed that the best weapon is the one that's the easiest to use on a reflexive and instinctual level. And this is a trend that seems to have held true even into modern times (which is why the Ak-47 automatic rifle and it's later iterations have proven to be so successful in warfare, since you can train an uneducated farmer to use it properly and lethally in under five minutes of training)
    1
  5738. 1
  5739. 1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 1
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. JamlessJiminie: Well aren't you a biological defect? Biology is, after all, living cells trying to procreate and reproduce at the core of it. Suppose that all human beings or another species evolved to be entirely homosexual. What would happen to that species then when less and less of it's individual members engage in heterosexual reproduction and have less and less offspring? That species would eventually die out within a few generations. So if you are a homosexual, then it's pretty self-evident that you are a defect because your sexuality is unsustainable across generations. Your attraction and sexual habits can never lead to procreation, so your sexuality is therefore an evolutionary dead end. A living species needs fertile heterosexual members that procreates to survive. A homosexual that can't reproduce is just dead weight when all is said and done. Luckily for you, we have developed technologies and a society that will allow you to lead a fulfilling life anyway. We even have technologies that could allow you to reproduce genetically as well, as long as you can accept the usage of sperm donors or surrogate mothers. But the fact that our species has managed to invent technological means to circumvent the shortcomings of your defective nature doesn't make your defects any less of a defect. We have invented wheelchairs as well for people who have disabled legs. Wheelchairs help these people live something closer to normal lives, but wheelchairs doesn't magically turn their disability into a non-disability, just like surrogate mothers and sperm donors cannot make gay people less defective. I don't think you are helped by trying to delude yourself that your defects aren't really defects at all.
    1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. 1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755. 1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 1
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. 1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770. 1
  5771. 1
  5772. 1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. 1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 1
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. 1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. 1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. 1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820. 1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. 1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 1
  5837. 1
  5838. 1
  5839. 1
  5840. 1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847. 1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. 1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. 1
  5862. 1
  5863. 1
  5864. 1
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 1
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880. 1
  5881. 1
  5882. 1
  5883. 1
  5884. 1
  5885. 1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959.  @Leonardorussobr : Sorry, but the west has never thought of things the way I do. The fall comes from people indulging in limitless hedonism as a replacement for their asinine suckling at the teats of the church and it's mental opium, which I don't do nor believe I should do. My ideology values independence, critical thinking and responsibility. It doesn't have room for living like a slave to baser urges like sexual promiscuity (there's completely logical and non-religious reasons why it's a bad idea to sleep around) or being a drug addict. And the funny thing is, your "church" is filled with the same kind of lazy hedonists that you yourself seem to despise. Especially in the upper echelons of your religions power structure. Priests, bishops, monks, cardinals and popes are exceedingly wealthy and live far more comfortable lives than the average joe ever does, and have always done so in every religion known to man. And they are able to indulge in this vile hedonism and lazy lifestyoe by conning sheep like you out of your hard earned money. And not only are they conning you out of your money, but even fool you into revering them for being "messengers of god" or some shit like that. There is ZERO logic in being a religious slave. Never has been, never will. And regarding your stupid statement about "not having all the answers", we'd have EVEN LESS answers about the universe today if there wasn't people who broke away from your religious "god did it"-explanations and actually STUDIED the universe and unlocked several secrets which were hidden in religious superstition by their primitive ancestors. The pursuit of knowledge and science is infinitely more valuable than just accepting to not know or be content with the illogical and factually untrue statement that "god did it".
    1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. WithBrittany: I understand. I guess when I think of the word "culture" it basically means the whole package. While the aesthetic and culinary aspects like you mention are certainly part of a culture, I'd say that certain ingrained values and moral beliefs also compose a part of culture as well. And some, very traditional, conservative people tend to believe that you'll "lose" your culture if you change some of the values and morals. But I'd argue that both South Korea and Japan are very good examples of Asian cultures who have successfully adopted certain changes to their culture with many influences from the west (like in the tech industries and economy) while still maintaining a great emphasis on the traditional aesthetics and culinary practices in a very harmonious and balanced way. People from Korea still seem to put great value on things like hanbok, traditional hanok houses and such while still very capable of adapting to and incorporating international practices and activities that serve to benefit the country financially and making it a powerful country in global trading. This is something I try to highlight as a shining example in my own country. Being a European, sadly we're afflicted by a "multiculturalist" political movement, that seems more hellbent on completely destroying everything that sets my own countrys culture apart from others, even to the point where they try to eliminate and/or ridicule things like aesthetics and traditional foods. So when I try to argue against it I tell people to look to South Korea and Japan and how you have successfully maintained a balance and harmony between the traditional and the imported. But still it breaks my heart a little to think that some koreans may feel a cultural pressure to give up their children for adoption if they're not born with perfect health. So that's where I see that some changes might be proper.
    1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. 1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. Christopher Nelson: Everything about humans bottles down to functions of biology. Including human psychology and the social behaviours, norms as well as taboos. If you look at sex and attitudes towards sex from a strictly evolutionary perspective, then promiscuity in women is a clear deviant behaviour and has quite valid explanations as to why promiscuity in women is discouraged. This because women can only produce a limited amount of eggs through their ovaries during their lifetime, whereas men can produce sperm cells at ages where the majority of women are completely infertile. Also, pregnancies in women are relatively long and usually only result in a single offspring. And when the baby is born, it also require years of nurture and protection in order to mature to adulthood and become self-sufficient and be able to carry on the genes of it's parents. In the modern world we have access to birth control in the form of contraceptives as well as abortions. But these inventions are relatively new, and it would be naively optimistic to assume that human psychology and behaviour should've evolved fast enough to take birth control into account. In a fully natural context, women can't control pregnancy. In nature, women have a survival imperative to be strictly selective regarding mates and only invest her limited eggs with a worthy partner. For men it's completely different. The genetic survival strategy for the male gender is to impregnate as many women as possible in the hope that some of his offspring will survive to adulthood. This is what is known as "sexual conflict" in biology. Women and men, on account of their different reproductive organs have different strategies and clashing biological interests in how they pass along their genes. And from the male perspective, there is also a biological justification to avoid selecting a long term mate who exhibit signs of promiscuity. Because if a man does settle down with a woman who sleeps around, then he also risks wasting his nurturing efforts on offspring that doesn't belong to him. Once again, scientific acheivements allows humans to test if offspring is really theirs, but we can't assume that our psychology and social instincts have been able to evolve fast enough to "catch up" with these recent inventions.
    1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014. 1
  6015. 1
  6016. 1
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 1
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. 1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. 1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058. 1
  6059. 1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. 1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071. 1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088. 1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101. 1
  6102. 1
  6103. 1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110. 1
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 1
  6120. 1
  6121. 1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. 1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. 1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. 1
  6147. 1
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151. 1
  6152. 1
  6153. 1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 1
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165. 1
  6166. 1
  6167. 1
  6168. 1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. 1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 1
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. 1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. 1
  6195. 1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 1
  6202. 1
  6203. 1
  6204. 1
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220. 1
  6221. 1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229. 1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. 1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 1
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. 1
  6241. 1
  6242. 1
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248.  @benpark5074  I don't have any problems with being gay. So that's not really an issue at all. Frankly being gay would be kind of convenient since dating and relationships seems to be less complicated from my experience with gay couples. If I see guys with a lot of fitness to their bodies, the only conclusion that I make is basically along the lines of "Hmm, that must be useful for heavy lifting or physically taxing activities". But I don't see any beauty in it. Only utility. It's like comparing a well engineered tractor with a souped up engine to a budget tractor with a weaker engine really. There's no beauty to either vehicle. The only thing that matters are the specs and capabilities. I guess what turns me off the most from the male physique is their almost simian appearance. The jutting brow, the oversized chin, the hair. It reminds me more of some kind of monkey than an object of beauty. Beautiful women don't have the same kind of simian characteristics to their appearance like men do, so that's probably why I can recogonize their beautiful features and tell them apart from the less attractive ones. And before you ask, yes, everything I've said applies to what I see in the mirror too. But i've never felt bothered by it since looking "beautiful" was never a goal of mine to begin with, and I haven't experienced much trouble with romancing the opposite sex either. So, apparently my own appearance is agreeable with the women I felt attracted to. I don't really need to understand or relate towhat it is that they find attractive, only that they do.
    1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 1
  6254. 1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. 1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. 1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272. 1
  6273. 1
  6274. 1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 1
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 1
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. 1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308. 1
  6309. 1
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 1
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 1
  6339. 1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345. 1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. 1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 1
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375. 1
  6376. 1
  6377. 1
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. 1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. 1
  6401. 1
  6402. 1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. 1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. 1
  6409. 1
  6410. 1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. 1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. 1
  6420. 1
  6421.  @-smp-scientificmethodpersp838  That certainly sounds like agenda-pushing to me. I mean, we barely even have any evidence of early African written language, much less symbols of advanced mathematical equations. Anyhow my point is that just because you make "early finds" of a discovery or invention, it doesn't mean that subsequent findings of similar discoveries or inventions in other parts of the world must have been "exported" to them from the first culture. After all, the need to be able to count and put up equations is a pretty omni-present need across all human cultures in every part of their history. Even the most primitive and isolated tribes in the world today have some sort of system of mathematics to aid them in things like construction work, trade or keeping stock of resources. Necessity is the mother of all invention. And since everyone needed mathematics, it's reasonable to assume that it developed independently in many parts of the world. So if one wants to make the claim that Africa gave mathematics to the world, one can't just cite "early finds" like your professor did. You also have to prove that there was some relationship and cultural trade between these early african mathematicians and other cultures. And considering that Africa was dubbed as the "dark continent" and "wild and unexplored wilderness" even up to the late 1700's, it's pretty safe to assume that not much in the way of mathematical exports transpired between Africa and the rest of the world.
    1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425. 1
  6426. 1
  6427. 1
  6428. 1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. Jimmeh: Well, the "parasites" aren't parasites by choice. They are a long lasting creation and consequence of socialist policies, making full on privatization efforts near impossible. The way socialist politicians trap voters is by making as many of them dependant on government welfare in one shape or form as possible. Because they know that even if they lose mandate to capitalist/liberal parties for a short while, the backlash their privatization efforts will inevitably recieve pretty much guarantees that the socialist parties will be back in power soon enough. This because while capitalist parties are more than happy to outsource and privatize as much as possible, they rarely take the average incomes and salary levels into account when doing it. Average people with average incomes are relying on things like subsidized healthcare to be able to live. Most of them wouldn't be able to afford it if they had to pay for the full costs out of their own pockets. Capitalists wants "austerity" in public spending and try to take away things like subsidized healthcare, because subsidized healthcare has to be funded with high taxes. BUT, they aren't too keen on making sure that the wages for people of average incomes are raised sufficiently to make them be able to afford paying for privatized healthcare out of their own pocket. Without socialist influence for several decades, the market could potentially reach a state where average incomes are balanced against the average costs of things like healthcare and education (although looking back in hidtory at times when the bourgouise had a bit too much power, average workers were exploited like hell and recieved little in return for doing all the work, but i'm not a communist so I don't run around assuming that it HAS TO happen like that, even though I do take the risk of it happening into account). The problem is that socialism has already created too many citizens dependant on it's policies for their very survival. These people will have to suffer, and the really sick ones even risk dying as a result of too much privatization and austerity. Socialism isn't economically sustainable, but you're not really offering the "proles" a very appealing option either. And since humans, by nature, focus primarily on issues that are their most immediate concern, you're not likely to get an maintain a majority vote for capitalist policies that will leave the majority of people unemployed, homeless, sick, or having significantly reduced rights and conditions in their workplace. Or to put it in more simple terms: Liberals/capitalists usually argue in favor of appealing to the "rational self interest" of wealthy capital owners, and defend their actions when they're motivated by "rational self interest". The problem is that they never take the rational self interest of the vast majority of labourers into account.
    1
  6436. Gibbons3457: Let me explain this in simple terms so anyone can understand: Debt = pretty much what it says. It's the national debt whereby the government has borrowed money from a bank for certain projects, and is now paying back what they owe the bank at a certain interest rate. Ideally the yearly national budget covers the interest rate AND pays off some of the debt as well in order to decrease the amount of money tjat the government owes over time. Normally though, the government is content with merely paying off the interest rate while not paying off the actual debt, because preventing the national debt from increasing is considered a win in itself. Deficit = The amount of money "missing" from a yearly budget to cover all the costs of both running society AND paying off the interest on the national debt. The money needed can be missing for various reasons: taxes are set too low, people evade paying taxes, people aren't working/consuming enough, businesses are leaving the country and set up shop elsewhere, government bumbled the budget from last year (investments didn't pay off as much as the government projected etc.) Austerity = making budget cuts to certain departments of society, with the intent of reducing the deficit, in order to afford paying off the interest on the national debt. People naturally hate austerity for obvious reasons. And people (like you) question why the government should prioritize paying off some "silly national debt" rather than spending that money on the people. Of course, we could do like socialist muppets do and go "mañana mañana" when it comes to the national debt and the interest rate. However, every year you don't pay off the interest rate, the national debt increases, and a rampant increase in national debt is dangerous for any society, because once your national debt reaches a level where the yearly interest rate exceeds your yearly Gross National Product (GDP, which is essentially the amount of money/profit/value that your society "produce" each period) your society is fucked. Because every bank in the world will know that in order for you to merely pay off the interest rate (not paying off the debt/loan itself) you're gonna have to dump all into merely paying interest. You won't afford to make any kind of investments, you won't be able to pay for the basic things to make your society function and so on. Which means no one will lend you any more money or make investments into your country, which in turn means that the value/purchasing power of your currency will plummet and it will all lead to a downward spiral of societal decay that no country can recover from on it's own without help from the outside. If you want examples of this, look at Greece and Spain. Both well on their way to financial collapse.
    1
  6437. 1
  6438. 1
  6439. 1
  6440. 1
  6441. 1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444. 1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. 1
  6449. 1
  6450. 1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455. 1
  6456. 1
  6457. 1
  6458. 1
  6459. 1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. 1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. 1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. 1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. 1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492. 1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 1
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. 1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 1
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512. 1
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521. 1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526. 1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532. 1
  6533. 1
  6534. 1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1
  6553. 1
  6554. 1
  6555. 1
  6556. 1
  6557. 1
  6558. 1
  6559. 1
  6560. 1
  6561. 1
  6562. 1
  6563. 1
  6564. 1
  6565. 1
  6566. 1
  6567. 1
  6568. 1
  6569. 1
  6570. 1
  6571. 1
  6572. 1
  6573. 1
  6574. 1
  6575. 1
  6576. 1
  6577. 1
  6578. 1
  6579. 1
  6580. 1
  6581. 1
  6582. 1
  6583. 1
  6584. 1
  6585. 1
  6586. 1
  6587. 1
  6588. 1
  6589. 1
  6590. 1
  6591. 1
  6592. 1
  6593. 1
  6594. 1
  6595. 1
  6596. 1
  6597. 1
  6598. 1
  6599. 1
  6600. 1
  6601. 1
  6602. 1
  6603. 1
  6604. 1
  6605. 1
  6606. 1
  6607. 1
  6608. 1
  6609. 1
  6610. 1
  6611. 1
  6612. 1
  6613. 1
  6614. 1
  6615. 1
  6616. 1
  6617. sourC0W: the elderly will earn more per hour, but being elderly they will not work as MANY hours as younger employees, which means that companies will need to hire more elderly employees to do the IT, accounting and secretary work. So in the end, the wage total will become more equal over time. The point is to stop an untenable situation where elderly people are forced into doing hard manual labour which they don't have the constitution for, and get young people off their asses from office jobs (which is not healthy for their bodies anyway) and get the appropriate age categories assigned to appropriate jobs that fits their physical capabilities better. Also regarding the concept of "unfair". Fairness is an entirely subjective concept. Your suggestion of tokenism and quotas have already been tried and it doesn't work in practice. All it does is amplify stereotypes and bigotry in the work place since law mandated quotas of representation means that everyone assumes by default that a woman, black guy or muslims at the workplace only got their jobs because of state quotas and not because of ability. Age limits are much less discriminatory in that regard since all humans grow older, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. And like I've already pointed out: we have age limits for plenty of positions and priviliges in society already (legal drinking age, legal driving age, legal working age, legal age to own firearms, even a legal age to have sex) and the public backlash has never been particularly significant. Instead most of society agrees that age limits to things are completely reasonable and logical. Therefore convincing the population of age limits for certain kinds of jobs won't be a problem. Also, in older societies, age limits were the standard practice. You could never reach "master" or "grandmaster" titles within a trade guild before a certain age, no matter how much of a child prodigy you might've been at your craft. It was also standard practice within most trade guilds that the physically harder tasks for any project was assigned to the younger novices, apprentices and journeymen while the more intellectually demanding and planning stages was done by the adepts, masters and grand masters of the guild.
    1
  6618. 1
  6619. 1
  6620. 1
  6621. 1
  6622. 1
  6623. 1
  6624. 1
  6625. 1
  6626. 1
  6627. 1
  6628. 1
  6629. 1
  6630. 1
  6631. 1
  6632. 1
  6633. 1
  6634. 1
  6635. 1
  6636. 1
  6637. 1
  6638. 1
  6639. 1
  6640. 1
  6641. 1
  6642. 1
  6643. 1
  6644. 1
  6645. 1
  6646. 1
  6647. 1
  6648. 1
  6649. 1
  6650. 1
  6651. 1
  6652. 1
  6653. 1
  6654. 1
  6655. 1
  6656. 1
  6657. 1
  6658. 1
  6659. 1
  6660. 1
  6661. 1
  6662. 1
  6663. 1
  6664. 1
  6665. 1
  6666.  @Yakub9000  Well my position is basically this: some individuals are naturally drawn to danger, and humanity in general does have deep seated urges towards the spectacle of violence. We are a violent species. And I don't believe that we'll ever shed that instinct, regardless of how much philosophy or indoctrination we get subjected too. And I think that in some instances it's probably more dangerous to try and shoehorn some naturally violent people into fitting into mainstream society than it would be to let them express their deep seated and inescapable urges in a more purposeful and controlled enviroment. Some people will simply be natural born killers and brawlers. This because it was biologically beneficent to have such traits earlier in mankinds history. To fend off predators or rival human tribes. Civilized society doesn't offer these people the means to turn their aggression towards meaningful and constructive ends, so they often end up very downtrodden on the lowest ends of the social ladder, and I don't think that is fair or the best way to deal with them. So perhaps in an arena, they could find the purpose and meaning they feel deprived of, to the point where they spend their days engaging in petty and violent crime for the sake of the "rush" they get from it. If you want to find out more about this mentality then I'd suggest you look into the topic of football hooliganism. They are REALLY into fighting. The sport of soccer/football is really just secondary to the brawling they engage in with eachother on the streets. So instead of relegating them to the streets where they put the lives of involuntary bystanders at risk, why not let them have an arena?
    1
  6667. 1
  6668. 1
  6669. 1
  6670. 1
  6671. 1
  6672. 1
  6673. 1
  6674. 1
  6675. 1
  6676. 1
  6677. 1
  6678. 1
  6679. 1
  6680. 1
  6681. 1
  6682. 1
  6683. 1
  6684. 1
  6685. 1
  6686. 1
  6687. 1
  6688. 1
  6689. 1
  6690. 1
  6691. 1
  6692. 1
  6693. 1
  6694. 1
  6695. 1
  6696. 1
  6697. 1
  6698. 1
  6699. 1
  6700. 1
  6701. 1
  6702. Luis Carrion: Refugees should just be turned away at the border. I'm not interested in what might get them to become refugees, because it's not my or the western worlds problem. Renewable energy sources have a certain strategic value, yes. Because it's bad for ones military strategy to be dependant on fuel derived from resources mostly found in other countries. The problem is: electricity is not as versatile as an energy source as petroleum based fuels are. Electricity might work fine when you need to go a limited distance with your tesla and have it parked for several hours to recharge. But if you have to pull a heavy load with a truck, or shift dirt with a bulldozer or (if we move over to military strategy): drive a tank or fly a jet fighter, then suddenly electricity is utterly useless as an energy source. As long as the U.S means of defense is powered by petroleum based products, the U.S is forced to ensure stable pipelines of crude oil into it's own country. To let crude oil producing trading partners succumb to civil wars ane insurrections means compromising the U.S military as a whole, and that can never be allowed to happen under any circumstance considering how many enemies the U.S has in the world. If they can manage to develop electrically powered jet fighters or tanks however, with an operating range that rivals that of petroleum powered variants, then it might be a different story. But until such innovations have been invented (and that's a big "if" because it's not even sure that you can build something like it), crude oil has to stay.
    1
  6703. 1
  6704. 1
  6705. 1
  6706. 1
  6707. 1
  6708. 1
  6709. 1
  6710. 1
  6711. 1
  6712. 1
  6713. 1
  6714. 1
  6715. 1
  6716. 1
  6717. 1
  6718. 1
  6719. 1
  6720. 1
  6721. 1
  6722. 1
  6723. 1
  6724. 1
  6725. 1
  6726. 1
  6727. 1
  6728. 1
  6729. 1
  6730. 1
  6731. 1
  6732. 1
  6733. 1
  6734. 1
  6735. 1
  6736. 1
  6737. 1
  6738. 1
  6739. 1
  6740. 1
  6741. 1
  6742. 1
  6743. 1
  6744. 1
  6745. 1
  6746. 1
  6747. 1
  6748. 1
  6749. 1
  6750. 1
  6751. 1
  6752. 1
  6753. 1
  6754. 1
  6755. 1
  6756. 1
  6757. 1
  6758. 1
  6759. 1
  6760. 1
  6761. 1
  6762. 1
  6763. 1
  6764. 1
  6765. 1
  6766. 1
  6767. 1
  6768. 1
  6769. 1
  6770. 1
  6771. 1
  6772. 1
  6773. 1
  6774. 1
  6775. 1
  6776. 1
  6777. 1
  6778. 1
  6779. 1
  6780. 1
  6781. 1
  6782. 1
  6783. 1
  6784. 1
  6785. 1
  6786. 1
  6787. 1
  6788. 1
  6789. 1
  6790. 1
  6791. 1
  6792. 1
  6793. 1
  6794. 1
  6795. 1
  6796. 1
  6797. 1
  6798. 1
  6799. 1
  6800. 1
  6801. 1
  6802. 1
  6803. 1
  6804. 1
  6805. 1
  6806. 1
  6807. 1
  6808. 1
  6809. 1
  6810. 1
  6811. 1
  6812. 1
  6813. 1
  6814. 1
  6815. 1
  6816. 1
  6817. 1
  6818. 1
  6819. 1
  6820. 1
  6821. 1
  6822. 1
  6823. 1
  6824. 1
  6825. 1
  6826. 1
  6827. 1
  6828. 1
  6829. 1
  6830. 1
  6831. 1
  6832. 1
  6833. 1
  6834. 1
  6835. 1
  6836. 1
  6837. 1
  6838. 1
  6839. 1
  6840. 1
  6841. 1
  6842. 1
  6843. 1
  6844. 1
  6845.  @jesupcolt  Look at North Korea today. The population has been starving for decades now. But that doesn't stop the North Korean military and leadership from engaging in hostile actions against it's southern neighbour or from making nuclear missiles and doing test launches. A hungry and oppressed population is not as much of a problem for country leaders or the military as you think it is. Stalin was not that different from Kim Jong Un in mindset after all. If food was running short, he'd have confiscated anything to eat from the civilians and redistributed it to the troops, leaving millions to starve to death so he can keep the war effort going. In fact, he kinda did this already, although thankfully with not as many casualties thanks to food shipments from the allies. A lot of soviets starved to death anyway. And Stalin wouldn't have baulked at letting even more starve to death, if the allies hadn't sent any foodstuffs. So, like I said, the Soviets would've beaten the Germans eventually. Because the german invasion force was far too undermanned and underequipped to ever hope to succeed. Russia itself is too massive for a mere 4 million troops to ever have the hope of taking and pacifying. Ironically, Putin has today made the exact same mistake as Hitler did when trying to take Ukraine, and under the same flawed assumption ("we just need to kick the door in and the entire country will fold") Putin sent in a pathetically small first wave of a mere 250.000 men to take a country with a population of 50 million people and about a third of the size of Russia. And just like with Hitlers Operation Barbarossa, the battle was lost before it even began.
    1
  6846. 1
  6847. 1
  6848. 1
  6849. 1
  6850. 1
  6851. 1
  6852. 1
  6853. 1
  6854. 1
  6855. 1
  6856. 1
  6857. 1
  6858. 1
  6859. 1
  6860. 1
  6861. 1
  6862. 1
  6863. 1
  6864. 1
  6865. 1
  6866. 1
  6867. 1
  6868. 1
  6869. 1
  6870. 1
  6871. 1
  6872. 1
  6873. 1
  6874. 1
  6875. 1
  6876. 1
  6877. 1
  6878. 1
  6879. 1
  6880. 1
  6881. 1
  6882. 1
  6883. 1
  6884. 1
  6885. 1
  6886. 1
  6887. 1
  6888. 1
  6889. 1
  6890. 1
  6891. 1
  6892. 1
  6893. 1
  6894. 1
  6895. 1
  6896. 1
  6897. 1
  6898. 1
  6899. 1
  6900. 1
  6901. 1
  6902. 1
  6903. 1
  6904. 1
  6905. 1
  6906. 1
  6907. 1
  6908. 1
  6909. 1
  6910. 1
  6911. 1
  6912. 1
  6913. 1
  6914. 1
  6915. 1
  6916. 1
  6917. 1
  6918. 1
  6919. 1
  6920. 1
  6921. 1
  6922. 1
  6923. 1
  6924. 1
  6925. 1
  6926. 1
  6927. 1
  6928. 1
  6929. 1
  6930. 1
  6931. 1
  6932. 1
  6933. 1
  6934. 1
  6935. 1
  6936. 1
  6937. 1
  6938. 1
  6939. 1
  6940. 1
  6941. 1
  6942. Harry Pothead: No we cannot achieve global peace in due time. At least not without harsh oppression of factions, countries and cultures who oppose it. The only way to do it would be through a dominant, military or economic faction that conquers all others and beat them into unconditional surrender and full submission. Hardly the most ethical or morally superior course of action if one values freedom and democracy. I never said I'd "destroy" art or philosophy. I'm saying I'd throw practicioners of art and philosophy out from the academic world, because government funds spent on these pursuits are wasted money. If they go out and get real jobs and decide to waste their own salaries on "art and philosophy" then that's their prerogative, because at least they have contributed to society through actual labour with tangible, measurable results in terms of profit and financial growth. But not a single tax dollar should be allowed to be spent on a bunch of libertine parasites who run around thinking it's okay to have your life funded by government means because you decide to sit around, making "sculptures" or "paintings" that looks like some idiot scribblongs a four year old would make in kindergarten, or sitting in some anti-intellectual echo chamber rambling random thoughts based on nothing but your own, insular imagination and calling yourself a "philosopher". Science, actual science like chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology all have tangible benefits to society and humanity. Therefore they present utilitarian opportunities and substitute useful areas of research to spend government funds on. "Art" and "philosophy" does not. Because every dealer in these topics are quacks and charlatans. Entitled, parasite cancergrowths on society that needs to be cut off from government funding.
    1
  6943. 1
  6944. 1
  6945. 1
  6946. 1
  6947. 1
  6948. 1
  6949. 1
  6950. 1
  6951. 1
  6952. 1
  6953. 1
  6954. 1
  6955. 1
  6956. 1
  6957. 1
  6958. 1
  6959. 1
  6960. 1
  6961. 1
  6962. 1
  6963. 1
  6964. 1
  6965. 1
  6966. 1
  6967. 1
  6968. 1
  6969. 1
  6970. 1
  6971. 1
  6972. 1
  6973. 1
  6974. 1
  6975. 1
  6976. 1
  6977. 1
  6978. 1
  6979. 1
  6980. 1
  6981. 1
  6982. 1
  6983. 1
  6984. 1
  6985. 1
  6986. 1
  6987. 1
  6988. 1
  6989. 1
  6990. 1
  6991. 1
  6992. 1
  6993. 1
  6994. 1
  6995. 1
  6996. 1
  6997. 1
  6998. 1
  6999. 1
  7000. 1
  7001. 1
  7002. 1
  7003. 1
  7004. 1
  7005. 1
  7006. 1
  7007. 1
  7008.  @ajossi  Well I'd revamp the electronics as well. First of all, I'd remove the LED's. You want to squeeze as much reliability out of any firearm that includes electronics as you possibly can. So having LED's light up is just waste of power, and also it's going to be terrible for shooting in low light conditions since the glowing LED will mess up the shooters night vision. Second, I'd skip using a watch that includes a bunch of controls and options. An RFID chip can be made very small and doesn't require battery power of it's own. It's enough for the reader of the chip to be electrified. So instead of a watch, I'd design a ring for the shooter to wear on his or jer finger with the RFID chip inside of it. And also reduce the range of the reader to the point where the ring basically has to be in contact with the pistol grip for the pistol to fire. Third, I would seriously consider if a dynamo of some kind could be integrated into the gun, and perhaps if the RFID reader could be made in such a way where it reads in "snapshots" whenever the trigger is depressed. As in the reader isn't turned on constantly to check if the RFID chip is nearby or not. The reader only starts up when you pull the trigger and checks for the RFID hex code inside the ring, activates the firing pin for one shot and then shuts itself off before the cycle of the gun has been completed. This I would do to save power but also getting back to my idea with the dynamo, you might actually have the gun being "self powered". As in the dynamo is integrated with the slide, so when you pull the slide to load a bullet into the breech, the slide also winds the dynamo, creating a little charge being stored in a small rechargeable battery or capacitor which powers the RFID reader and the electromagnet. This means that for every round fired, the dynamo will get wound up and hopefully store the necessary charge needed to fire the next round, negating the need for separate batteries altogether.
    1
  7009. 1
  7010. 1
  7011. 1
  7012. 1
  7013. 1
  7014. 1
  7015. 1
  7016. 1
  7017. 1
  7018. 1
  7019. 1
  7020. 1
  7021. 1
  7022. 1
  7023. 1
  7024. 1
  7025. 1
  7026. 1
  7027. 1
  7028. 1
  7029. 1
  7030. 1
  7031. 1
  7032. 1
  7033. 1
  7034. 1
  7035. 1
  7036. 1
  7037. 1
  7038. 1
  7039. 1
  7040. 1
  7041. 1
  7042. 1
  7043. 1
  7044. Marxiavelli24: See there? Your master got his head smashed from behind with a glass bottle. That's the stuff brawlers learn (often painfully so). They don't teach you about getting clocked with a glass bottle in a dojo. They don't teach you about people jumping you from behind when you're not even aware of being in a fight. Now a brawler who takes up martial arts, stands a good chance of developing the knowledge from martial arts into practical usage. But if someone has never been in a fight before, a formal style of martial arts with formal rules and a formal setting isn't going to teach you being a practical fighter. The key to being a practical fighter is very nebulous. It's that undefinable trait or ability which only develops through real fighting. Being amped up and ready. Having the correct reflexes, like a veteran instinctively reaching for a gun and shoot back as soon as he hears a specific noise in the enviroment, or being watchful for details that no one with combat experience would even know to look for. Also, this nebulous quality somewhat contradicts the ideals of formal martial arts about living a peaceful and tranquil life, with "inner balance" and similar Buddhist-stuff. Maintaining this ability means being very on edge, and having a mindset that's anything but peaceful or tranquil. Just look at boxers that was previously mentioned. They gain a lot of their power through rage. And this isn't some myth, but there's been actual scientific tests where you could measure the amount of PSI a punch generated from a boxer when he punched being in a normal mindset compared to when he psyched himself up into a rage to the point where he generated enough force to crack a persons skull with a single punch. But ask any psychologist and they'll tell you why being so close to such rage is bad for your mental health (which also explains why so many heavy weight boxers end up in the news or in prison for having beaten some poor sap into a pulp) And unsurprisingly, most successful heavy weight boxers are also experienced brawlers from troubled youths.
    1
  7045. 1
  7046. 1
  7047. 1
  7048. 1
  7049. 1
  7050. 1
  7051. 1
  7052. 1
  7053. 1
  7054. 1
  7055.  @Manannan_mac_Lir  But the thing is, the decision to use those nukes in the first place was deliberated for quite some time on beforehand. So no, it was not a matter of "hindsight" but FORESIGHT. The pacific war had gone on for a very long time before the nukes were deployed. American forces hardly captured ANY prisoners from the enemy, nor from Japanese civilians during that time. The amount of captured prisoners was so staggeringly low to be unprecedented. Do you know why? Because even Japanese civilians had the mindset that they would fight to the bitter end. Japanese soldiers were even worse. So the Pentagon crunched the numbers of Japanese troops killed in action versus Japanese troops caught as prisoners of war or who surrendered and applied those statistics to a scenario of a mainland invasion of Japan and realized that they would've ended up having to fight and kill more than ten times as many Japanese citizens (soldiers and civilians alike) through conventional warfare. So tell me, how is a deathtoll tenfold larger than the deathtoll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki getting nuked a "better" result? War is war at the end of the day. There are no "good" outcomes, only more or less deadly outcomes. Wishing that nukes shouldn't exist is about as naive as to wish that war shouldn't exist, but it does. And the fact remains that countries with nuclear weapons are safer than countries without them, since even superpowers are scared of provoking a possible nuclear conflict with smaller nuclear countries.
    1
  7056.  @Manannan_mac_Lir  Uh, it was naval blockades that cause the Empire of Japan to launch on attack on Pearl Harbour in the first place. Also what "freedom of choice" do you think the average citizen in Japan enjoyed? Have you even looked at their culture today? Even today the Japanese are extremely conformist and will do as they are told by the authorities. During the Covid pandemic their government didn't even need to issue any mandates, because the Japanese just obeyed the instructions anyway. This is what Japan is like TODAY. Imperial Japan was like that but cranked up to eleven. Every single Japanese citizen was taught from birth that the Emperor was their living god, and that every japanese person owed their life and honour to him and the fatherland. Their entire military was basically like ISIS in terms of fanaticism and devotion. And remember ISIS are so fanatical that they have no problem finding suicide bombers for any attack they want to stage. Imperial Japan was exactly like that, but had many millions of people with the ISIS mindset. So what basis do you have to even suggest that they would've just "chosen" on their own individual accord to surrender after a naval blockade? I want to hear you justify why tenfold the number of dead Japanese people is better than the lower number of dead Japanese caused by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Do you have any RATIONAL reason whatsoever to prefer a higher killcount as opposed to the lower one? Because to me you sound kind of monstrous prefering to see that many more civilians dead.
    1
  7057. 1
  7058. 1
  7059. 1
  7060. 1
  7061. 1
  7062. 1
  7063. 1
  7064. 1
  7065. 1
  7066. 1
  7067. 1
  7068. 1
  7069. 1
  7070. 1
  7071. 1
  7072. 1
  7073. 1
  7074. 1
  7075. 1
  7076. 1
  7077. 1
  7078. 1
  7079. 1
  7080. 1
  7081. 1
  7082. 1
  7083. 1
  7084. 1
  7085. 1
  7086. 1
  7087. 1
  7088. 1
  7089. 1
  7090. 1
  7091. 1
  7092. 1
  7093. 1
  7094. 1
  7095. 1
  7096. 1
  7097. 1
  7098. 1
  7099. 1
  7100. 1
  7101. 1
  7102. 1
  7103. 1
  7104.  @batesvillbilly368  I have no ignorance. I know about the persecutions. They were just completely irrelevant to my statements. You see, christianity fell under the kind of written works that contradicted the state. Which I spoke about in my original post. Had you just asked first, you wouldn't have had to embarass yourself like this. But here we are, you made baseless assumptions about my statements, invented strawmen to attack me with, and ended up looking like a dumbass because of it. 😀 Religion is also not "part of" secular culture. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, whatever. It has no bearing on works of fiction unless the authors purposefully draw inspiration from them in their works, which makes the fiction theistic by definition. Also, yet again you bring up completely irrelevant strawmen to "prove a point" I never once argued that communism works. Yet you bring it up like an idiotic non sequiteur to "counter" something I never said. Unlike you, I give credit where credit is due. The USSR did some terrible things, but also did some beneficial things... Like turning a country of ignorant and uneducated farmers into an industrial society of literate people. It doesn't excuse the persecutions, but the persecutions also do not detract from the achievements. But you, being a non-intellectual and political demagogue can't do that. You have to smear ideologies you disagree with by default. Even if the USSR had invented the cure for cancer, you would still not be able to admit that achievement of theirs. Because you are disingenous. A proper bad faith actor. Which also explains why you resorted to strawmanning to begin with. I mentioned a truth about the USSR, which didn't immediately paint the USSR in an negative light. And that was like waving a red sheet in front of you, making you go berserk. Becase you're probably one of the unquestioning idiot worshippers of the free market fairy. So nobody should have the nerve to mention any achievements of the USSR on your watch, isn't that right, little libertarian?
    1
  7105. 1
  7106. 1
  7107. 1
  7108. 1
  7109. 1
  7110. 1
  7111. 1
  7112. 1
  7113. 1
  7114. 1
  7115. 1
  7116. 1
  7117. 1
  7118. 1
  7119. 1
  7120. 1
  7121. 1
  7122. 1
  7123. 1
  7124. 1
  7125. 1
  7126. 1
  7127. 1
  7128. 1
  7129. 1
  7130. 1
  7131. 1
  7132. 1
  7133. 1
  7134. 1
  7135. 1
  7136. 1