Youtube comments of Seven Proxies (@sevenproxies4255).
-
3700
-
2800
-
2700
-
2600
-
1600
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
1100
-
1000
-
997
-
926
-
912
-
910
-
845
-
845
-
842
-
807
-
781
-
767
-
744
-
708
-
708
-
700
-
690
-
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
-
660
-
644
-
643
-
629
-
620
-
616
-
613
-
582
-
570
-
528
-
515
-
497
-
496
-
487
-
479
-
475
-
475
-
464
-
444
-
443
-
426
-
415
-
405
-
401
-
396
-
389
-
379
-
377
-
376
-
360
-
356
-
354
-
354
-
350
-
337
-
330
-
322
-
316
-
315
-
310
-
304
-
302
-
296
-
296
-
295
-
293
-
292
-
291
-
284
-
282
-
280
-
280
-
277
-
271
-
264
-
263
-
260
-
254
-
253
-
241
-
240
-
239
-
235
-
234
-
232
-
231
-
230
-
225
-
225
-
224
-
224
-
218
-
214
-
208
-
206
-
203
-
200
-
198
-
198
-
196
-
196
-
194
-
192
-
192
-
188
-
187
-
187
-
186
-
186
-
184
-
183
-
181
-
178
-
176
-
175
-
169
-
167
-
167
-
166
-
166
-
164
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
160
-
158
-
154
-
152
-
151
-
149
-
148
-
146
-
146
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
136
-
135
-
135
-
134
-
131
-
130
-
130
-
128
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
126
-
126
-
126
-
123
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
101
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
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
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
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
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
@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
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
2006: SD gets 2,93 % of the vote
2010: SD gets 5,70 % of the vote and thus pass the 4 % barrier for getting seats in parliament.
2014: SD gets 12,86 % of the vote and becomes the third largest party in the country (another milestone)
2018: SD gets 17,53 % of the vote, reinforcing it's status as the third largest party, while now being a serious contender for second largest.
2022: SD gets 20,6 % of the vote, beating out the rightwing "Moderates" for the place as second biggest party in Sweden (a historical moment, since the only contenders for first place and second place in Swedish politics have always been between the leftwing Social Democrats and the rightwing Moderates)
I don't think many other European countries, save for Poland and Hungary can brag about a similarly rapid growth of voters who are rejecting the globalist multicultural project.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
It is exceedingly difficult to be sure.
All I've had to go on so far is applying the more basic military realities to the situation.
Like, I can be pretty sure that Russia isn't "winning" right now. I make this assumption due to several factors. First it's always harder to attack and take territory than it is to defend territory unless the numbers and equipment are ludicriously uneven. Attackers usually have to account for heavy casualties initially, until they manage to break through.
Second, the taskforce that Putin put together for this invasion is relatively small considering the mission they are expected to carry out.
We're talking about a couple hundred thousand troops, expected to take a country with a population in excess of 40 million people, and it's not a "small" country by any stretch either.
That said, nobody can argue that Ukraine is winning either, because while they are dug in and defending, the Russians definitely have mobility on their side.
So the Russians can almost strike at will, at any target they like, but they're facing difficulties in capturing and holding territory for extended periods of time. The Ukrainians can hold territories better, but they can't kick the Russian forces out of the country either.
Note, I make these conclusions based on numbers and equipment alone. I won't even bother with news sources, because the propaganda war on both sides is in full swing so no news reports can really be trusted at all.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
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
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
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
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
They'll look high and they'll look low
They'll look everywhere we go
But when the sinners find us we won't hide
They'll come loud and they'll come fast
But we shoot first and we can last
Keep your rifle by your side
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this Earth was made for us"
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this sinful life just ain't enough"
So we'll take a stand
'Cause we must protect our land
Keep your rifle by your side
They'll come day and they'll come night
They'll have our children in their sights
But if they don't have Faith their eyes are blind
They can scream and they can shout
But they will never smoke us out
Keep your rifle by your side
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this Earth was made for us"
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this sinful life just ain't enough"
When we hear the voice
You know we have no other choice
Keep your rifle by your side
They'll have bombs and they'll have tanks
Because they have money in their banks
But we won't fall as long as we can fight
They'll go on and preach their hate
But they won't get past the gate
Keep your rifle by your side
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this Earth was made for us"
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this sinful life just ain't enough"
When I see your face
I know I must protect my place
So, keep my rifle by my side
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this Earth was made for us"
Singing, "Oh, Lord, this sinful life just ain't enough"
When I see your face
I know I must protect my place
I'll keep my rifle by my side
Keep my rifle by my side
Keep your rifle by your side
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@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
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
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
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I hope the Daily Wire don't opt for putting out "conservative" childrens shows. All they need to do is put out some "politically neutral" entertainment for kids.
I mean, when I grew up I liked shows like TNMT, Swat Kats, The Pirates of Dark Water, He-Man And the Masters of the Universe, Lucky Luke, Asterix and Obelix and Tintin.
There weren't any "political messaging" in either of those. Sure, some of them were violent, but the violence was often pretty tame and just that regular level of action that appeals to young boys and make them excited.
But I can't remember a single situation where they came off as "preachy" or trying to spread political or ideological messages aside from regular human decency stuff along the lines of: "bullying is bad" or "protect those who aren'r as strong as you".
You know, ideals that anyone can agree with, regardless of political views.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
In all fairness, the Soviet Union wasn't as repressive towards culture as reputation have it cracked up to be.
If you ask people who lived in it, they'll tell you that they were very familiar with culture and fiction from the "capitalist west".
Moby Dick, Sherlock Holmes, Treasure Island, Spaghetti Westerns. All of them were read and viewed by a Soviet audience, with the blessings of the state.
The reason for this is that despite the state socialism, the soviets mostly respected culture and saw exposure to it as an integral part to education, and they did implement statewide education quite successfully, turning a country of mostly illiterate farmers into a country where almost everyone was literate, and higher education produced engineers and scientists that made them win the space race.
Their censors looked more to repressing works that directly and overtly contradicted the state or tried to spread dissent. So outright political texts would end up being censored, while storytelling and fiction were mostly left alone.
There are more prominent examples of cultural censorship in other socialist states though, like China, Cambodia and North Korea. Their officials were among the first to think that stories from the capitalist west might inspire sedition among the population, which is why they censored more harshly.
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'd also like to add: don't choose your partner based on the reputation you think you'll get or what your family will say. Which might be a pertinent lesson to a Japanese guy.
Family is important, yes. But you can't have your family, your friends, your co-workers or your boss running your whole life.
You are the one who have to actually LIVE with your partner every day after all. So go for someone that makes you happy and interested. The wrong mindset is thinking "I like this gyaru, but what would my parents say if I introduced her to them?"
It doesn't matter what your parents say. If they are good parents they will want you to be happy and they will try to support you, even if the girl you are with make them skeptical at first glance.
If they are bad parents they might try to sabotage your relationship or forbid it. But if you want to really impress your father, you must show him that when you are an adult, you are your own man and you make your own decisions in life. And if the girl they disapprove of is the one who makes you happy, you stick by her regardless of what they say.
Parents rarely stay mad forever, and if they see that you form a long lasting relationship with a gyaru, they will come around eventually.
Trust your own instincts rather than relying on the first impressions and opinions of other people. It's your life, and you only get one.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There are no rights devoid of compulsion. That's just a fantasy of liberalism.
Even the rights that might not by themselves require anyones labour to make happen, you'll still need to rely on labour from someone else in protecting them.
Like the right to freedom of speech for example. Doesn't cost anyone anything for you to speak. BUT if someone tramples on your right to freedom of speech, who's going to defend it from their abuse? You, the individual?
Might work if you only have one or two antagonists to go up against. But what if it's an entire gang or an army? Are you still going to be able to defend your right to freedom of speech on your own? No, you'll probably die in the attempt.
You need help. From policemen, soldiers, courts and government. They are compelled to do their duty in protecting that basic right, so that you can enjoy it.
If all of them decide that they're not going to be compelled to help protect your right to freedom of speech, then you, de facto, have no right to freedom of speech.
So all rights, no matter how basic or cheap in terms of resources and labour are always derived from compulsion and duty.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Petq011 Slavery wasn't that profitable, truth be told. Depending of course on which era of slavery we're talking about.
If we're refering to the slave trade in the U.S, the cost of purchase of a slave, and his upkeep was significantly higher compared to the cost of paying a comparable worker with a salary.
If you owned slaves, then you had to get them to work for years and even decades before the investment actually started to pay itself off.
That's a long time to spend ensuring that your slaves don't escape or die of disease in the meantime.
A hired farmhand was dirt cheap by comparison, since you didn't have to pay for lodgings or food for hired labour. It was expected to provide them with minimum lodgings (like being allowed to sleep in your barn), but every other living expense was something the farmhand was expected to pay out of their own salary.
A slave, by comparison, wasn't entitled to a salary. You had to pay for EVERYTHING involved in keeping them alive and productive (food, lodgings, doctor appointments etc.)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think they simply drank more in the 1960's. Alcohol has a lot of calories, but doesn't really make you all that fat, unless your beverage of choice happens to be beer.
See "calories" are just a measurement of energy. The way they test calorie content in food and drinks is, to put it simply: by burning it and counting the number of seconds the food item will stay burning.
Doesn't really tell you much at all about how healthy it is for you, or how fat it'll make you, since plenty of stuff will burn well (like alcohol), but not all of it will make you fat.
To figure out what makes you fat, you need to look into the biochemical conversions of nutrients into fatty deposits. The most recent scientific studies draws a correlation between a carb heavy diet and obesity. Whereas a protein and fat heavy diet does not.
So, eat more meat and dairy. Avoid carbs. Gotta cut out the bread, the beer, the pasta, the grains and fruits and sugars.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Radical suggestion perhaps: but I think laws should be passed that certain jobs should only be eligible to the elderly. Meaning if you are below a certain age, you shouldn't be allowed to do certain kinds of jobs.
Jobs like office work, IT, accounting, bureaucratic and administrative positions in general.
With old age the body tends to be more fragile, but for most elderly people aside from the unfortunate individuals afflicted with disease, the mind is still perfectly intact. And the elderly have something that the young does not possess: experience.
I see no reason why a 20-something should spend his or her days as a stock broker, or IT-tech support worker, wasting away when they, by virtue of being young could perform so much better in labour jobs.
Construction, sanitation, assembly line work, automechanic work, service jobs. These should be the kind of jobs that young people should be steered towards.
That way, plenty of positions of employment for the elderly, that the elderly can actually perform, despite their fragile bodies will open up.
Also, legislation should consider a nationwide reduction in the allowed working hours per day that companies can employ people for the administrative jobs, in order to maximize the corporate need for elderly and experienced people to fill these positions.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tespri : Oh the Finns never liked Swedes eh? Amazing then how you liked all the guns and ammo we sent your sorry asses to defend yourselves against the invading Russian horde during the Winter War.
135,402 rifles, 347 machine guns, 450 light machine guns with 50,013,300 rounds of small arms ammunition;
144 field guns, 100 anti-aircraft guns and 92 anti-armour guns with 301,846 shells;
300 sea mines and 500 depth charges;
17 fighter aircraft, 5 light bombers, 1 DC-2transport aircraft turned into bomber, and 3 reconnaissance aircraft, totally comprising 1/3 of the Swedish air force at the time
Along with thousands of Swedish volunteers fighting against the Soviets on your side.
You were more than happy to accept our help then, you swampland dweller...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TheShadowofDormin: It's because of their alphabets. Specifically katakana and hiragana.
These characters mean a specific sound, but each character is always a vowel and a consonant, unlike the western alphabet where each letter is either a vowel or a consonant.
So while our letters sound like "a, b, c, d, e" katakana and hiragana are always pronounced as "ka, ki, ku, ke, ko" or "ra, ri, ru, re, ro".
So in a schoolbook teaching japanese students english, they probably use katakana or hiragana letters to demonstrate how an english word is pronounced. Which then makes the words include a lot of redundant vowels, like having a "u" sound at many words.
Like the way they pronounced "kit kat" in the video, some of them said "ki-tu ka-to".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Nikarus2370 You're probably right.
When I looked at the video and there was talk about contact exploder, it conjured images of naval mines into my mind. You know, the kinds of mines that are basically spherical, equipped all over with spring loaded pins, that when depressed they trigger the explosive in the mind.
I assumed there was a similar mechanism involved in the nose cone of the torpedo with the direct contact exploder. And if that was the case, then I wouldn't have designed it with a single pin to be depressed through impact, because it would require a very specific angle of engagement to properly depress the pin. (If such a torpedo had impacted at an angle slightly off 90 degrees, then chances are it would've just bent the pin and prevented it from being depressed all the way to the bottom of the mechanism)
Granted, my idea would initially have problems with water pressure in the front of the torpedo since the more velocity it picks up, the greater water pressure would be exerted on the nosecone. But this would've been solved with spring tension in the pins to be set at a specific degree as to keep the pins extended until the torpedo actually impacts a hard surface.
As with bomb making in general though, there are a huge selection of methods to get a bomb to explode.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Alright, it's hypocritical for sure. But I don't see the problem of synthetic beef so long as it fulfills the critera of flavor and texture not being altered or worsened, and that it doesn't come with worse detriments to your health that beef already contains.
I don't relish the fact that bovines have to die to supply me with beef, and if there is a way to spare their lives will still being able to eat beef, then I think it's worthy of exploration.
So far I've actually switched to vegetarian hamburgers from a specific fast food chain, because frankly the resemblance to meat burgers is so damn great that I honestly can't tell the difference.
And to be perfectly honest, I can't say that ground beef was a favourite of mine anyway. In my view, ground beef is basically ruined beef. I want my beef in steak form, cut directly from the muscles of the animal. Not ground up and "processed".
But until they can produce synthetic steaks that are similar enough to actual steaks that I can't tell the difference, I will continue to eat steaks, while also sticking to vegetarian burgers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Celestial. dreamer
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Look at that fucker missing his front teeth. First of all, why is he clinging on to that pathetic, receding hair? And the glasses?
If he just shaved his fucking head, started using contacts, got a couple of sleeve tats and wore more denim or leather vests, he could probably pull off a moderately badass biker look.
If you've ever been to an outlaw biker club, then you'd see a lot of those guys. In their forties, with pot bellies (so they're not exactly in good shape), shaved heads, tatted arms etc. And they STILL have biker bitches hanging off their arms. And a lot of them are also missing teeth even (and people assume they got their teeth knocked out in fights, only enhancing the bad boy status of their whole image)
How hard can it be to do this very cursory research to understand how little you need to change your appearance to become more attractive to women?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Ray: Correct.
Biggest mistake in the U.S and most democracies in the west is freedom of religion.
Christians always defended it and the special priviliges that they earned through it. But now they too get to see how it gets abused by invading muslims to the detriment of western societies.
People can be perfectly welcome to worship whatever tribal fetish they prefer in the privacy of their own homes (if their God is truly forgiving and merciful, then he would not object to this). But in public, overt, organized religion should be banned.
No churches, no mosques, no synagogues, no temples, no Jehovas witnesses banging on doors pushing the bible, no religious idiots protesting outside abortion clinics, no Westboro Baptist Church, No Jihadi sermons in mosques, NO FUCKING BURKHAS, HIJABS, STARS OF DAVID, CROSSES, OR SHOUTED MUSLIM CALLS TO PRAYER FROM MINARETS.
Just ban it all and let religitards know that their religion is THEIR business and no one elses, and it is to be kept private at all times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Marching with 50 kilograms of armour"
Ok, not only is that completely false based on the fact that battlefield plate armour did NOT weigh 50 kilograms but a lot less. But marching and fighting with 50 kilograms of extra weight on your body is not that big of a deal.
Modern soldiers in certain units have to carry nearly 50 kilograms of gear and weapons all the time, while marching and fighting.
Ask a designated light machinegunner or anti-tank weapon specialist in a special forces unit. (special forces like recon units usually have to carry a lot more gear than regular infantry since their missions often require them to work independently of the larger force, being cut off from regular supplies and logistics for days at a time so they have to carry everything they need to eat, sleep, drink, protect themselves from hostile weather conditions, NBC-attacks, treat injuries and medical problems, tools, weapons, ammo which adds up to a huge amount of weight)
If you asked the operator of a recoilless rifle anti-tank weapon he'd probably be happy if all he had to carry was. some puny ass plate armour, because what he has to carry now almost weigh twice as much. :P
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@2steps1ceps38 Depends how badly you crave alcohol.
I enjoy whisky and cigars. And i'll admit, I smoke and drink almost daily.
However, some days I need to get up earlier for work the next morning, or I've had a particularly hard day at work and just feel like going to bed early.
During these days, I don't go outside for my after dinner ritual of a smoke and some whisky.
So far I haven't experienced any cravings at all when I go without alcohol or cigars, even for several days in a row.
Sometimes I skip it for a few weeks because I've noticed that daily smoking and drinking end up numbing my tastebuds and sense of smell, so I can't enjoy the flavor as much.
And since flavor is the primary reason for me, I take a long break to reset the tastebuds so I can enjoy the smoking and drinking better a few weeks into the future.
My alcohol consumption is also always rationed.
Never drink more any given day than what fits in my pocket flask, which is about a quarter of a bottle of whisky.
If I drink the whole flask in an evening, then that's it. No more for me that evening. And it doesn't even get me buzzed, let alone drunk.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Melian_Dialogue No they're not. But you have to understand that the customer and service provider relationship is very specific.
Some customers are Karens, yes, but as long as they shop at the store, the employer will want their business.
Then you have to factor in the much broader customer base of normies who will basically just see an employee being disrespectful towards customers without a reprimand and might take their business elsewhere.
If you want to complain about annoying customers in private among a group of friends then that's more than reasonable.
I worked in retail twice, and even the managers complained about certain kinfs of annoying customers in the breakroom with me to blow off steam, so most of them will be understanding too.
But you just can't be "public" about it, because there's real risks of losing customers involved if you don't keep up appearances
That's just the reality of retail. The profit margins aren't that great in general, so you can't really afford to lose customers just to allow employees to badmouth them over social media.
And if your need to do this is so great, there are plenty of other businesses where there's more freedom to it (like being maintenance techs, which I am now. While customer service likes to handle customer relations, they understand that we might get grumpy enough to call tennants retards to their faces, but it's not like the tennants can take their business elsewhere because of it)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Calling it racism is a bit of a stretch. Accents are just funny by nature. And that woman who called it racism should note that western white people also make fun of eachothers english accents. Like americans living in the northern regions making fun of the "southern twang" of americans in the deep south. Or brits making fun of american accent and vice versa.
Even in britain itself, making fun of local accents is fairly common (cockney, scot, irish, scouser, welsh etc.) especially in stand-up comedy and televised sketches. Same goes for americans and british people making fun of Australian english.
Oh, and practically everyone makes fun of how germans and russians speak english as well.
What non-white, non-western people need to understand about white, western culture and humour is that not all instances of impersonation and jokes around accent are hostile or insulting in nature.
Part of "fitting in" in the west means having self-deprecation humor as well as having a witty jest to deliver back when someone is "taking the piss" out of you.
If you run around feeling offended all the time someone makes a joke at your expense, then you'll never fit in or understand western, white people.
And since we have constitutionally protected freedom of speech, it's unlikely that we'll conform to indian or eastern standards of "politeness" and culture in our own homes. But if we visit India, we're likely to "do as the romans do..."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Zasumbadji:
I don't care about what I "tell the world" because when it comes to being objectively right about something as I am, the issue is not a democracy. I don't need popular approval to be right, when the right answer can be reachef with logical deduction, so I have no reason to care what "the world" assumes about me.
I make my ad hominem attacks because I see you for what you are. Like all vile, disgusting social justice warriors, you are intellectually dishonest. Your only mission in any debate is to poison the well in order to further your cultural marxist agenda (which is why you chose to attack Raf for not being "woke enough", even thoug everything he said in the video was completely true, you don't care about thw truth, you only care about the implications of the truth and how "people of colour" might be "affected" by the truth)
You are the kind of vile, digusting piece of shit that argues that the world should just ignore that white people are being tortured, raped and murdered by the black majority in south africa, because "historically, black people are oppressed".
And that's why I hate you and would never dream of being charitable in a debate with you.
You represent a cancer that needs to be cut out and burned away from society. The cancer of "social justice" and cultural marxism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm surprised Louis XIV of France didn't get a mention.
Quoting the wikipedia article here:
Despite the image of a healthy and virile king that Louis sought to project, evidence exists to suggest that his health was not very good. He had many ailments: for example, symptoms of diabetes, as confirmed in reports of suppurating periostitis in 1678, dental abscesses in 1696, along with recurring boils, fainting spells, gout, dizziness, hot flushes, and headaches.
From 1647 to 1711, the three chief physicians to the king (Antoine Vallot, Antoine d'Aquin, and Guy-Crescent Fagon) recorded all of his health problems in the Journal de Santé du Roi (Journal of the King's Health), a daily report of his health. On 18 November 1686, Louis underwent a painful operation for an anal fistula that was performed by the surgeon Charles Felix de Tassy, who prepared a specially shaped curved scalpel for the occasion. The wound took more than two months to heal.[123]
Louis died of gangrene at Versailles on 1 September 1715, four days before his 77th birthday, after 72 years on the throne. Enduring much pain in his last days, he finally "yielded up his soul without any effort, like a candle going out", while reciting the psalm Deus, in adjutorium me festina (O Lord, make haste to help me).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Personally I can't really relate to being proud of anything you exerted no control over.
As in the case of achievements of ancestors. I had no say in what they did since I wasn't even born at the time, so I can't take any pride from that since their achievements are theirs alone.
I think a more accurate feeling would be veneration. I venerated my ancestors for the good deeds they did, and may strive to emulate their example.
This same dynamic, of course, applies to bad things they did as well.
My duty as a descendant is to venerate the good parts, while also doing my best not to repeat the bad ones, and hopefully contribute to making our society better.
And I don't think veneration has to be mutually exclusive to condemnation either. One can certainly venerate just, moral and good actions of a person, while also condemning the unjust, immoral and evil acts of the same person (to a reasonable limit, for example no amount of good deeds would excuse child molestation in my opinion)
Pride is something I reserve for my own actions and achievements, as well as the actions and achievements of my own descendants.
Since I can make a reasonable claim that I played a part through my own action into their development and subsequent actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't understand why anyone is interested in any soccer at all. Don't care if it's men or women playing. Adult human beings chasing a fucking ball on a grassy field and treating it like it's some epic, life or death battle is a very, very conspicuous behaviour in my book.
Don't get me wrong, just playing a game for fun is not the end of the world. But people take sports way too fucking seriously.
It's also pretty apparent that team sports are really just a "civilized" placeholder for warfare. Back in ancient times and medieval times, people didn't have giant, international soccer tournaments. They gathered their weapons and beat the crap out of the inhabitants of their neighbouring villages, towns and kingdoms and everyone was excited about doing it.
I would much rather be a spectator of these actual battles, where life and death truly hangs in the balance, than these pale, zero risk, placeholders we call "sports".
It's the only way to get me interested.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasonmarinara6492 The problem with digital cloning is that there's no guarantee of demonstrable continuity of consciousness.
Example: Your current consciousness is currently locked inside your own body (Jason A). You make a digital clone of your consciousness uploaded to a computer (Jason B).
Since the day you were born, you have only been able to experience the world from the perspective of Jason A.
Jason B, while having a duplicate of your mind, is still his own individual, separate form you (Jason A).
Jason B might think, reason and react just like Jason A does. But Jason A will never be physically capable of experiencing the world directly through Jason B's senses. There's no continuity of consciousness between Jason A and Jason B. One is just a separate duplicate of the other, but they're still two persons/individuals, experiencing the world through their own senses.
And unless you're of a religious persuasion, you can't really prove that if Jason A were to die, then Jason A would basically have his consciousness "transfered" to Jason B, just because Jason B is a duplicate.
So you're not gonna die in Jason A's body, only to suddenly wake up as Jason B afterwards and continue living.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay, if a woman has slept with a lot of men or many men have seen her naked, then sure, it gives me the ick.
But at the same time, plenty of women have seen me naked and I've slept with quite a few as well.
While the general attitude in society might be different towards men and women respectively, my rational mindset find it difficult to judge a woman for having a similar sexual past to my own.
I don't feel like i'm being "fair" judging a woman's past more harshly than I judge my own.
So I'd at least be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman like that, so long as I feel confident that she's a different person now, in the same manner as I'm a different person today.
I don't feel like I have a right to sleep around as much as I have, while also condemning every woman who has a sexually active past, so long as it actually stays in the past.
At the end of the day, I don't consider myself a "stud" for having slept with several women. My attitude towards it is more of lamentation over the fact that sometimes I exercised poor judgement with one night stands, and the other times represents relationship "failures" for me, since those sexual encounters eventually lead to an ending of the relationships in question.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The irony is that The Imperium of Man is about as diverse as it could possibly get, with uncountable worlds with different cultures, traditions, superstitions, rituals and so on.
And within these cultures you have all manner of ethnic groups, sexualities, genders etc.
The Imperial Creed only discriminates against heretics, psykers and mutants.
So for example, you could have an all-female regiment of the Imperial Guard and it would be completely lore friendly (in fact in the Ciaphas Cain novels, regiments of the Valhallan Ice Warriors were initially gender segregated, before two such regiments were merged, with a woman being designated as their commanding officer)
So Gee Dubya could've shoehorned their diversity quota in without any lore clash or community backlash, either by introducing an all-female Imperial Guard regiment, or simply do what the Eldar and Dark Eldar sprues of miniatures always had: female and male miniatures.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@legrand3774 : You don't have a soul, and your mind is not "special". That's just a Disney-fantasy delusion on your part. I don't have a soul either. Nobody does.
Your brain does not allow you to "percieve" anything. It is your sensory organs that allows perception. Eyes, ears, tastebuds, olfactory senses, nerve endings experiencing touch etc.
I don't care what drugs your own that happen to mess up the processing facility to your sensory organs, you can't "perceive" something that isn't there physically speaking.
The only perception you are capable of is the narrow band of the lightwave spectrum which your eyes permit you to see. The same goes for the soundwave spectrum. You are not a bat, nor are you an owl or a shark. And no amount of drugs will ever make you "sense" anything of what the ears of a bat, the eyes of an owl, or the electrical sensory apparatus that Sharks are evolved with.
I am not "arrogant" for stating this. I go with the hard, measurable science of physics and biology. If your drug induced hallucinations cannot be measured by more objective instruments, then whatever tou think you see isn't real. It's that simple.
And when your brain dies, whatever consciousness you have will invariably die with it, just as the light disappears when the matter based lightbulb breaks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians aren't that anti-social though. From speaking to Russian ex-pats, one thing they all told me about is how strange they found it that neighbours in western countries seem so isolated from eachother.
Yes, the brutalist hab blocks of Russia may look depressing. But what tenants would do to spruce things up is set up some greenery near the bottom floors, and neighbours (as in not relatives) would go into these communal spaces with greenery to hang out in the afternoons, chit-chatting, gossiping, playing chess, drinking beer and maybe do some barbecue.
You know, the "squatting slav" stereotype, hanging out with some neighbours, eating sunflower seeds and having a beer.
But when you look at the west, how many tenants of apartment buildings actually "talk" or hang out with eachother? At best they might say hello if they bump into eachother in the staircase or elevators, but otherwise they keep themselves completely isolated from eachother.
As a western person myself, I too feel instinctually that it would be strange to have communal gatherings between neighbours in the afternoons when the workday is over. But for slavs, that's completely normal and a form of local community building.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Got no love of Ubisoft or Assassins Creed Shadows.
That said, I find it a bit strange how gamers are fine with players having the freedom to beat pedestrians to death, steal their cars, run over innocent pedestrians and shoot up entire neighbourhoods with rocket launchers and miniguns in a game like Grand Theft Auto, but as soon as a game gives the player the freedom to destroy a shrine or church, then it's bad.
Don't get me wrong here, anyone is perfectly welcome to find either in-game acts to be offensive (because, let's face it, they are offensive), and if this player choice makes it so you don't wish to buy the game, then again, that's an entirely valid position to take.
Just so long as nobody calls for such games to be banned from sale or intends to put pressure on developers to self-censor.
Tolerance need to go both ways in this regard. There are many people who have objections to the church and other religions as well, and it is their right to have them. But they're still obliged to tolerate these religions and adherents to exist.
And so, religious people must also tolerate offensive games to exist as well as the people who want to play them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The best type of armor during a zombie apocalypse will be: bullet resistant kevlar and SAPI plates.
Because if your first worry is getting bitten by zombies, then you're doing it wrong. The most dangerous threat to your life during a zombie apocalyose won't be from the zombies themselves, but rather a combination of dehydration, starvation, disease and other humans, armed with firearms and out to kill you and take your supplies from you.
However, if I were to use some sort of armor to specifically protect me from zombie bites, then I'd go with mail. Specifically the type of mail that divers use to protect themselves against shark bites.
Many species of shark has significantly more biting strength than a walking, human corpse would have. So if it works against sharks, it'll definitely work against zombies.
You could also make an armour out of thick, nitrile rubber (spare car or tractor tires maybe?) as they sometimes give these to bears and wolves in zoos as biting toys, and they have a really hard time trying to chew through it.
1
-
1
-
Daniil Ponomarenko: Actually no, it isn't "countered" by your silly little question. Because you don't use evidence to prove that something doesn't exist, evidence is only useful to prove that something does exist.
Also, you're the one claiming god does exist. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not us who question your claims. You have to prove that he does exist. We do not have to prove he doesn't, by the simple merit that he has never shown himself to us and thus we logicslly assume he doesn't exist. Until proven otherwise of course.
Now the sick part about religious people is that you don't know he exists, and you can't prove it either. But you assume he does for no reason.
It's no different than assuming that unicorns or leprechauns exists, despite the fact that no one has ever seen them or any kind of traces of them.
You belong in a mental institution. Believing in some mystical, fictional superbeing is real, despite having no evidence, and that it tells you how to live your life is basically the same as being afflictws by schizophrenia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a very difficult topic to discuss and speculate around. Mainly because it all bottles down to how magic works in the particular setting.
Some settings offer very little explanation of how magic works. Other settings give more in-depth explanations. But there is also a huge variety in how it works.
For instance, in one setting, fire based magic attacks might work on the principle that the warlock basically summons a gout of flames that emmanate from the warlock towards the target. In that setting, armour made of fire-retardant materials would make sense.
But in another setting, inncineration of a target might be caused through getting the target to spontaneously combust (the source of heat and inevitable fire is caused inside the targets body), in such a setting, fire retardant materials worn on the body would be rendered useless.
And in other settings, magic is sometimes basically a forced shared fantasy between the warlock and the intended target with the power of suggestion (like the matrix: "I thought It wasn't real?", "Your mind makes it real") which somehow manifests itself magically in real life.
In that type of scenario, worn armour would be irrelevant, since the determining factor of whether the target gets burnt to a crisp or not is solely dependant on the targets ability to steel his mind and disbelieve the almost telepathic subliminal suggestion that the magic user tries to imbue his victim with in order to incinerate him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zandman26: Right, we had a multi-cultiralist right wing, libtard rule. Anf the socialist idiots in government right now swallowed the multi-culturalist bait, because they, like the rest of the non-Sweden Democrats are terrified of being seen as "racist". So the current, left-wing idiots in government continued the very same policies as the previous, multi-cultiralist libtard government did.
The only truly right wing party in Sweden are the Swedish Democrats. The other parties are no different from eachother in the slightest, and it doesn't mattwr which of them you vote for, since none of them are in any true opposition to the other.
The other 7 parties are largely homogenous in thought and in principle, because all of them are more concerned about being seen as "good" people, rather than attaining a competent form of rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"For those of you who don't know what a weeaboo is:
A non-japanese person who basically denounces their own culture and calla themselves japanese.
They try to learn japanese through the anime they watch and usually end up pronouncing it wrong and looking like a complete idiot.
KEEP IN MIND: That a non-japanese person can like the culture, watch anime and speak japanese and RESPECT THE CULTURE, while still keeping in touch with their own.
Which keeps them from being a weeaboo.
Weeaboo's basically disrespects the culture and make complete asses of themselves.
Even if you don't know the definition, you've definitely seen these guys around, on the internet, at your local comic book store, in your mom's attic.
They smell bad, they're disgusting."
-Filthy Frank
Okay, so aside from the habit of collecting weapons that you can't even use ;)
I think you're falling pretty short of Papa Franku's definition of a weeaboo, since you didn't learn japanese through anime and can a tually pronounce japanese like a real japanese person instead of sounding like an anime character.
And seeing as how many videos you've done about romans, roman weapons and armour, roman society and even flat out telling people that roman armour is among your favourites etc. They'd be hard pressed to claim that you've "denounced your own culture".
So whatever opinion one might have of weeaboos or name calling, it's simply incorrect calling you one due to the fact that you're not living up to the definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xtincttv When you say appropriation, do you mean that you object to so called "cultural appropriation"?
If so, then we might disagree a bit, because I see cultural appropriation as a non-issue.
In my view, culture does not belong to anyone but to everyone.
Your culture and my culture represents contributions from our respective people's to the collected history of the world, and they should be for everyone to experience and enjoy.
That said, in terms of representation, what I care about the most is to have accurate depictions of characters from history and legend.
A black historical figure should be played by a black actor, just as a white historical figure should be played by a white actor.
The only exceptions I can think of would be where they've done an extraordinary good job in the make-up and costume department, which is rare but not unheard of.
An example that springs to mind would be the film Lawrence of Arabia, where the british actor Alex Guinness portrayed King Faisal.
He did such a good job of it that not only did the film become a smash hit in Egypt and the arab world, but when he was in his costume and make-up, local arabs actually mistook him for the real King Faisal.
So I wouldn't want that kind of movie magic to be discarded.
But in general, casting directors should strive to get actors who can portray historical figures as accurately as possible in order to enhance the immersion for the viewer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesroper4952 : No, overpopulation was not the incentive for exploration. It wasn't even an issue back then because of plagues and wars that had culled the numbers of Europeans quite substantially at the time.
The Americas was discovered by accident by Europeans who wanted to find new, and better trade routes by sea to asia. The american continent just happened to be in the way.
The fact that diseases felled native americans so easily just goes to show the importance of exploration and interaction with other cultures. Being isolated for millennia leaves any population with a weak, over-specialized immune system, making new microbes and viruses inroduced that much more deadly.
Also, the earliest Viking discoveries of Canada did not "run into natives" at all. There is no historical record of any interaction between them, because the areas where they landed were unpopulated for miles.
Historical evidence suggests that they abandoned their settlements due to logistical reasons. Just as they did with some on iceland and greenland.
Their expeditions were not nearly as large or well equipped as those of Columbus were, which is why they couldn't gain a foothold.
Diseases or not, native americans didn't have much resistance to offer. Primitive weapons like spears, slings, bows and arrows can't really compete with guns and cannons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1