|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 13 2016 01:25 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote:On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long.
This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Right. So you're just a monster. I'm done with you.
What's the point of winning if you have to equally redistribute your winnings? We already give a lot of help to peoples all across the globe and within our own community. Just how thin do you want to stretch our systems and countries?
|
On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long.
This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Straight outta 1880, about time we draw lines on a map and conquer these African animals, right?
|
A guy holding a particular historical view (which is Hegel's, by the way - not exactly a populist street thug) = a monster. Gotta love this forum.
|
On August 13 2016 01:31 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:25 a_flayer wrote:On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote:On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long.
This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Right. So you're just a monster. I'm done with you. What's the point of winning if you have to equally redistribute your winnings? We already give a lot of help to peoples all across the globe and within our own community. Just how thin do you want to stretch our systems and countries? The good old Might makes Right argument. Still just as puerile, reductive and devoid of empathy as it always has been.
|
On August 13 2016 01:33 SoSexy wrote: A guy holding a particular historical view (which is Hegel's, by the way - not exactly a populist street thug) = a monster. Gotta love this forum. Hegel has nothing to do with Testie's view.
|
Norway28695 Posts
ye, testie is more like this other german guy whose name starts with H. I get the confusion.
|
Would all the shitposters please go back to the US politics thread? Thank you.
|
Well Testie decided to break out his classic "genetically predisposed to commit crimes argument". Shit begets shitposts.
|
On August 13 2016 01:33 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote:On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long.
This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Straight outta 1880, about time we draw lines on a map and conquer these African animals, right?
No. Leave them alone for the most part. Focus on our own countries and what we can improve here. Rather than forcing more in, integrate the people we already have that feel disenfranchised and try to find solutions. Which is a meaningless platitude (something the left is guilty of all the time) but I think rather than saying, 'all cultures are equal' we have to be honest and call bullshit for what it is.
There will always be tonnes of starving people in the world, and it's not our fault. It's nobody's fault except the parents who chose to have kids when they had no means to provide for them. Nor is it our duty or imperative to help them, because we will stretch ourselves too thin in attempting to do so.
So take Chad for instance, iirc it's Chad or Niger. Probably both who knows. Anyway, women compete with each other somewhat in that the more children they bear, the more desirable they are or must seem. I literally have no business in this persons life or mindset, whether they live or die is not up to me, nor do I have a duty towards them. But with a birthrate of 7.6 or 6.3 respectively, I'm only one man, I can only do so much. I'm angry enough at dating women who don't pull their fair share, let alone having to pay for someone else's child that they should not have had to begin with. With this birth rate alone going by the, "we must help those in need" attitude, we will forever make ourselves slaves to those whom didn't have the foresight to close their legs.
As for the might makes right lacking empathy, it's not lacking empathy nor is it devoid of empathy of compassion.
|
If you just pretend that Testie is Alfred Rosenberg, what he says makes way more sense.
|
On August 12 2016 23:05 D_lux wrote: Some people said that this is okay since there can't be any terrorists among them and it is totally fine and infact our duty to do this.
Other people said that this isn't such a good idea to do because its extremely likely that there are terrorists among these people. Those who said this were shunned and had been called racist, xenophobes, islamophobe etc. etc.
Aren't you simplifying things a bit?
Yes I am, because I don't want to write a book here The big picture is still what I described. There were actually politicians that said that. If someone wanted to halt these refugees they were immediately called racist xenophobe whatever. Quite literally when "refugees" along their way to their desired location were not allowed take a shit where they fancied all of europe went apeshit hysterical and started calling everyone names.
There is a spectrum, it's not "you're pro-refugees, so you think they are all nice" or "you are against refugees, so you think they are all evil".
I think you are confusing things. I feel like you are equating everyone that enters a country as a refugee. There are no problems with refugees, determining who is one is the problem.
That doesn't mean we should blindly accept everyone. If we know that someone is a terrorist, then yes, that person should be sent back. We should be careful and watchful, but we shouldn't turn all refugees away just because there is a chance that some of them are evil.
Again, determining whos a refugee and whos a terrorist is not easy. You act like it can be done in 10 seconds. You also conveniently forget that most of those "refugees" lost their passports so now Germany and Europe is full of hundreds of thousands of people whom we absolutely know nothing about, not even how old exactly they are, let alone know if they are terrorists or refugees.
If you are flat out against all Muslims just because some Muslims are terrorist, then, yes, you are a xenophobe and islamophobe, because you are judging people by their origin and religion instead of by their person. Black people are criminals, brown people are terrorists, red people want your scalp, yellow people want to steal your company secrets and green people fly in with their flying saucers to probe your anus. It's so simple to think like that, instead of accepting that, yes, some green people want to probe your anus, but many more other green people just want to work in your factories without having to fear getting killed by a stray deathray from the anus-probing sort of green people.
I don't understand why you are saying this textbook bullshit to me about muslims and black people and whatnots. I was talking about migrants/refugees/illegal migrants. They could be norwegian exchange students for all I care. NOBODY should get a free pass on an external schengen border if they arent properly checked. And thats exactly what happened and now Europe is feeling some of the consequences.
P.S.
Liquid'Drone is a true zen moderator
|
You just don't know Hegel then.
|
On August 13 2016 01:50 farvacola wrote: If you just pretend that Testie is Alfred Rosenberg, what he says makes way more sense. I forgot about good old Alfred. He had that deep loathing of religion
|
Interpreting Hegel, particularly with regards to his historicism, is one of the most contentious undertakings in continental philosophy, so yeah, when someone nakedly aligns his thoughts with a vulgar "will to power" diatribe, it is safe to assume that the person doing the alignment either has no idea what they are talking about or is hoping that no one actually knows anything about Hegel.
If there were a Samizdat bat signal, I would light it right now
|
On August 13 2016 01:39 Ghostcom wrote: Would all the shitposters please go back to the US politics thread? Thank you.
Sorry, I'm treating this as a livethread more or less. I need to stay out of these threads, really.
|
On August 13 2016 02:01 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:39 Ghostcom wrote: Would all the shitposters please go back to the US politics thread? Thank you. Sorry, I'm treating this as a livethread more or less. I need to stay out of these threads, really.
Nah, apparently I'm the one that needs to stay away. When even moderators think this is the level of discourse then it's obviously me who is in the wrong. It's almost tragicomic that this is a prime example of how a few bad apples ruins it for all the good people out there.
|
On August 13 2016 01:47 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:33 OtherWorld wrote:On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote:On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long.
This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Straight outta 1880, about time we draw lines on a map and conquer these African animals, right? No. Leave them alone for the most part. Focus on our own countries and what we can improve here. Rather than forcing more in, integrate the people we already have that feel disenfranchised and try to find solutions. Which is a meaningless platitude (something the left is guilty of all the time) but I think rather than saying, 'all cultures are equal' we have to be honest and call bullshit for what it is. There will always be tonnes of starving people in the world, and it's not our fault. It's nobody's fault except the parents who chose to have kids when they had no means to provide for them. Nor is it our duty or imperative to help them, because we will stretch ourselves too thin in attempting to do so. So take Chad for instance, iirc it's Chad or Niger. Probably both who knows. Anyway, women compete with each other somewhat in that the more children they bear, the more desirable they are or must seem. I literally have no business in this persons life or mindset, whether they live or die is not up to me, nor do I have a duty towards them. But with a birthrate of 7.6 or 6.3 respectively, I'm only one man, I can only do so much. I'm angry enough at dating women who don't pull their fair share, let alone having to pay for someone else's child that they should not have had to begin with. With this birth rate alone going by the, "we must help those in need" attitude, we will forever make ourselves slaves to those whom didn't have the foresight to close their legs. As for the might makes right lacking empathy, it's not lacking empathy nor is it devoid of empathy of compassion. It's simply accepting the truth that without a hierarchy of power chaos ensues. Dude. I know I shouldn't even answer but I will anyway. Let me get this clear : if you get in your truck, break in someone's property, drive over their dogs and kill their cows, and set fire to their house, are you going to walk out and be like "What? Helping them to recover what I've destroyed? Why? I've no business with them, I don't even know them" ? And even if you do react like that (which would not surprise me in the slightest, I have to say), do you think society is going to let you in peace ? No.
Now if you look at actual History, that's pretty much what the West - or to be more precise, the UK/France/Germany/Italy/Spain/Portugal/Russia/the Netherlands/Belgium/settlers from these countries - did to basically every culture or ethnicity except Japan, with intensity ranging from "just break in and steal stuff" to "burn everything and kill everyone". From that historical fact, you have three broad choices : accept the fact and try to repair what you can, ignore the fact and live in perpetual denial (which, I guess, is fine as long as you don't try to argue stuff), or accept the fact and consider that the West had some divine right of exploiting the whole world, in which case you become a white supremacist. But if you are a white supremacist, please have the balls to argue honestly, instead of spewing mountains of abusive arguments based on no substancial evidence, things that only Trump and his campaign team would dare to say with a straight face.
|
On August 13 2016 02:05 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 02:01 a_flayer wrote:On August 13 2016 01:39 Ghostcom wrote: Would all the shitposters please go back to the US politics thread? Thank you. Sorry, I'm treating this as a livethread more or less. I need to stay out of these threads, really. Nah, apparently I'm the one that needs to stay away. When even moderators think this is the level of discourse then it's obviously me who is in the wrong. It's almost tragicomic that this is a prime example of how a few bad apples ruins it for all the good people out there.
As someone that lurks a lot, i was enjoying the discussion, both sides made good points but yea as you said kinda turned to shit.
|
On August 13 2016 02:05 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 02:01 a_flayer wrote:On August 13 2016 01:39 Ghostcom wrote: Would all the shitposters please go back to the US politics thread? Thank you. Sorry, I'm treating this as a livethread more or less. I need to stay out of these threads, really. Nah, apparently I'm the one that needs to stay away. When even moderators think this is the level of discourse then it's obviously me who is in the wrong. It's almost tragicomic that this is a prime example of how a few bad apples ruins it for all the good people out there. It would help if you'd point out clearly who do you think is shitposting, since basically everyone on the last two pages is coming from the US thread... For instance, I have no idea if what you consider shitposting is Testie's posts, or the oneliners that followed, or my own posts, etc
|
On August 13 2016 02:09 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2016 01:47 SK.Testie wrote:On August 13 2016 01:33 OtherWorld wrote:On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote:On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long.
This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Straight outta 1880, about time we draw lines on a map and conquer these African animals, right? No. Leave them alone for the most part. Focus on our own countries and what we can improve here. Rather than forcing more in, integrate the people we already have that feel disenfranchised and try to find solutions. Which is a meaningless platitude (something the left is guilty of all the time) but I think rather than saying, 'all cultures are equal' we have to be honest and call bullshit for what it is. There will always be tonnes of starving people in the world, and it's not our fault. It's nobody's fault except the parents who chose to have kids when they had no means to provide for them. Nor is it our duty or imperative to help them, because we will stretch ourselves too thin in attempting to do so. So take Chad for instance, iirc it's Chad or Niger. Probably both who knows. Anyway, women compete with each other somewhat in that the more children they bear, the more desirable they are or must seem. I literally have no business in this persons life or mindset, whether they live or die is not up to me, nor do I have a duty towards them. But with a birthrate of 7.6 or 6.3 respectively, I'm only one man, I can only do so much. I'm angry enough at dating women who don't pull their fair share, let alone having to pay for someone else's child that they should not have had to begin with. With this birth rate alone going by the, "we must help those in need" attitude, we will forever make ourselves slaves to those whom didn't have the foresight to close their legs. As for the might makes right lacking empathy, it's not lacking empathy nor is it devoid of empathy of compassion. It's simply accepting the truth that without a hierarchy of power chaos ensues. Dude. I know I shouldn't even answer but I will anyway. Let me get this clear : if you get in your truck, break in someone's property, drive over their dogs and kill their cows, and set fire to their house, are you going to walk out and be like "What? Helping them to recover what I've destroyed? Why? I've no business with them, I don't even know them" ? And even if you do react like that (which would not surprise me in the slightest, I have to say), do you think society is going to let you in peace ? No. Now if you look at actual History, that's pretty much what the West - or to be more precise, the UK/France/Germany/Italy/Spain/Portugal/Russia/the Netherlands/Belgium/settlers from these countries - did to basically every culture or ethnicity except Japan, with intensity ranging from "just break in and steal stuff" to "burn everything and kill everyone". From that historical fact, you have three broad choices : accept the fact and try to repair what you can, ignore the fact and live in perpetual denial (which, I guess, is fine as long as you don't try to argue stuff), or accept the fact and consider that the West had some divine right of exploiting the whole world, in which case you become a white supremacist. But if you are a white supremacist, please have the balls to argue honestly, instead of spewing mountains of abusive arguments based on no substancial evidence, things that only Trump and his campaign team would dare to say with a straight face. This kind of rethoric does not make sense to me. UK, France and all those bad countries have done some bad thing, yeah good - like every country. The oriental slavery was a genocide (systematically cutting black's genitals to prevent reproduction) that lasted way longer than the european one and nobody is asking reparation from the arabic countries. Like real, what made the civil right movement such a success, and what makes the black community in the US such an important historical actor is their capacity to pass their resentment and fight for actual rights, equality, etc. not for revenge.
The occident has no debt towards the muslim. What we owe to ourselves is to live together, not to repair something a very thin minority profited from ages ago.
This discussion is not hegelian, it's nietzschean by the way
|
|
|
|