Jump to content

South Africa going full Mugabe


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

In percentage terms of human history, how long is the time span between 1918 and today, keeping in mind that people still have trouble adapting to the social changes brought about by the end of feudalism

Really? Really? Really?

Absolutely ridiculous. I suppose it makes sense considering how often you guys like to call back to slavery or whatever. Nationalism today is not 1918 Nationalism nor 1945 or whatever else. Nationalism like many things can evolve, there are different versions, and can differ based on culture and other factors. You're trying to simplify something, pretend it's an old form, and then claiming it's all bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ogaden said:

Yeah gee I wonder why nationalism looked bad in World War 2

OH SHIT DAMN SON! Roz types an entire paragraph and gets shut down with a sarcastic one-liner. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery really wasn't that long ago.  Hell the Roman Empire really wasn't all that long ago.  Things change and technology changes and states come and go, but the humans involved are the same generation after generation.  It will take ten thousand years maybe to actually evolve into a more moral creature, but our genes are the same rapist, enslaving caveman that burned down a village a ten thousand years ago just to watch it burn.

  • Upvote 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

Slavery really wasn't that long ago.  Hell the Roman Empire really wasn't all that long ago.  Things change and technology changes and states come and go, but the humans involved are the same generation after generation.  It will take ten thousand years maybe to actually evolve into a more moral creature, but our genes are the same rapist, enslaving caveman that burned down a village a ten thousand years ago just to watch it burn.

Translation: Nothing matters. Changes that have happened should be ignore, whites should forever be punished for slights however long ago... strange I don't see you taking the same stance with Muslims? Aren't we just for bombing the middle east to pieces? Don't they deserve that too for what they've done? And finally your globalism should be allowed to run rampart even though it would make the rest you want impossible. All you want to do in reality is break the bonds people have, divide them, making them easy pickings for heavily capitalistic companies. 

No. People are not rapists or whatever other guff you think. We have come a long way and you know this considering all these things you go on about as being why deaths such as in South Africa and Haiti are deserved aren't present today (outside Muslim areas anyway). Nationalism is a force of good that can be used negatively, big deal, you can say that about everything including your precious Communism or whatever you are. At it's core Nationalism brings people together while your guff tries to dissolve the bonds of people while replacing them with nothing, making them easy pickings of the companies. People need to be united by something, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lightning said:

I always assume leftists are trolling. Russia turned out so well when communism/socialism took over after all. 

Not that you would know the difference between a strong intellectual argument and trolling. 

Just now, Rozalia said:

Translation: Nothing matters. Changes that have happened should be ignore, whites should forever be punished for slights however long ago... strange I don't see you taking the same stance with Muslims? Aren't we just for bombing the middle east to pieces? Don't they deserve that too for what they've done? And finally your globalism should be allowed to run rampart even though it would make the rest you want impossible. All you want to do in reality is break the bonds people have, divide them, making them easy pickings for heavily capitalistic companies. 

No. People are not rapists or whatever other guff you think. We have come a long way and you know this considering all these things you go on about as being why deaths such as in South Africa and Haiti are deserved aren't present today (outside Muslim areas anyway). Nationalism is a force of good that can be used negatively, big deal, you can say that about everything including your precious Communism or whatever you are. At it's core Nationalism brings people together while your guff tries to dissolve the bonds of people while replacing them with nothing, making them easy pickings of the companies. People need to be united by something, simple as that.

This guy must really have some passionate views on where Northern Ireland should be. And Wales. And Scotland. Ironic that this guy lives in "the United Kingdom."

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lightning said:

I always assume leftists are trolling. Russia turned out so well when communism/socialism took over after all. 

Yeah they went from the most backwards state in Europe that had just lost to one third of the German army and the only other state more pathetic than they were (the Ottomans) to a world power that defeated all of a stronger Germany 30 years later.  They went from a 20% literacy rate to a 98% literacy rate, atomic weapons and managed to outproduce Germany in the war by all metrics.

Now with leftism gone Russia has been reduced to a regional power with a rising infant mortality rate and a GDP about the same as Belgium.

Yeah what a disaster leftism has been for Russia

  • Upvote 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

Yeah they went from the most backwards state in Europe that had just lost to one third of the German army and the only other state more pathetic than they were (the Ottomans) to a world power that defeated all of a stronger Germany 30 years later.  They went from a 20% literacy rate to a 98% literacy rate, atomic weapons and managed to outproduce Germany in the war by all metrics.

Now with leftism gone Russia has been reduced to a regional power with a rising infant mortality rate and a GDP about the same as Belgium.

Yeah what a disaster leftism has been for Russia

Except that isn't what you want anyway. Your Full Power Globalism is not what Russia went through, it's a horror show only seen in dystopian fiction. 

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rozalia said:

Except that isn't what you want anyway. Your Full Power Globalism is not what Russia went through, it's a horror show only seen in dystopian fiction. 

Is that why the US had to fix the 1996 elections to keep the communist party from winning and reversing all those wonderful reforms that caused the single greatest drop in HDI in human history?

tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ogaden said:

Is that why the US had to fix the 1996 elections to keep the communist party from winning and reversing all those wonderful reforms that caused the single greatest drop in HDI in human history?

What is the relevance in your statement. I told you that what the Soviet Union was is not what your Full Power Globalism brings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

What is the relevance in your statement. I told you that what the Soviet Union was is not what your Full Power Globalism brings. 

I agree actually, but this was due to the failure to bring it about.

In 1918 and 1919 there were socialist uprisings all throughout the world.  France, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, China, Egypt, Poland and more, every country on earth.  In all but four countries the establishment suppressed the uprising by force and hundreds of thousands were murdered, except in Germany, Hungary, Iraq and Finland.  Russia tried to reach their army to support the protestors, striking workers and revolutionaries but they got bogged down fighting reactionaries and the Entente Powers in Poland, and were not able to make it to Germany in time before the German Rotrepublik was crushed by the Freikorps, then Hungary fell, China's revolutionaries were defeated by the colonial powers, etc.  In the end, only Russia remained.

When Stalin came to power he was not committed to internationalism or really, socialism all that much.  He ended the internationalist policy of world revolution and declared Socialism in One Country, establishing Stalinist doctrine.  After World War 2 he did not incorporate any countries into the soviet union and opted instead for buffer states.

Stalin in many ways was the last Czar.  He cared only about his own power.

Edited by Ogaden
  • Upvote 1
tvPWtuA.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ogaden said:

I agree actually, but this was due to the failure to bring it about.

In 1918 and 1919 there were socialist uprisings all throughout the world.  France, Spain, Hungary, Romania, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, China, Egypt, Poland and more, every country on earth.  In all but four countries the establishment suppressed the uprising by force and hundreds of thousands were murdered, except in Germany, Hungary, Iraq and Finland.  Russia tried to reach their army to support the protestors, striking workers and revolutionaries but they got bogged down fighting reactionaries and the Entente Powers in Poland, and were not able to make it to Germany in time before the German Rotrepublik was crushed by the Freikorps, then Hungary fell, China's revolutionaries were defeated by the colonial powers, etc.  In the end, only Russia remained.

When Stalin came to power he was not committed to internationalism or really, socialism all that much.  He ended the internationalist policy of world revolution and declared Socialism in One Country, establishing Stalinist doctrine.  After World War 2 he did not incorporate any countries into the soviet union and opted instead for buffer states.

I am aware of these things. National Communism is far smarter than Internationalist Communism as it can actually have a chance at working. 

It all exists in a chain upward. Yourself at the bottom, then your family, friends, town/city, region, country. Country is well established and even then you get people such as yourself, and you think you're going to get Russians or whoever to care about Congolese? No. People are different and will conflict with each other based off their differences. If separate by states then this conflict can be civil, though yes it could mean invasions (though we live in different times today in the west). If both are together then you get race wars, you get conflict, division. The EU, supposed to be a stepping stone towards such a nightmare itself cannot manage even Europe as the north is radically different to the south... and you think you can include South America and Africa into that? You're dreaming. 

Your full power globalism would make a lot of very rich capitalists very happy. It'd mean death, rape, and general suffering for everyone else. Rebellions, riots, and wars would break out across the entire world quick enough. If that sort of anarchy is what you want then cool, be an anarchist, but lets not pretend such a world is going to be some utopia. 

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

I am aware of these things. National Communism is far smarter than Internationalist Communism as it can actually have a chance at working. 

It all exists in a chain upward. Yourself at the bottom, then your family, friends, town/city, region, country. Country is well established and even then you get people such as yourself, and you think you're going to get Russians or whoever to care about Congolese? No. People are different and will conflict with each other based off their differences. If separate by states then this conflict can be civil, though yes it could mean invasions (though we live in different times today in the west). If both are together then you get race wars, you get conflict, division. The EU, supposed to be a stepping stone towards such a nightmare itself cannot manage even Europe as the north is radically different to the south... and you think you can include South America and Africa into that? You're dreaming. 

Your full power globalism would make a lot of very rich capitalists very happy. It'd mean death, rape, and general suffering for everyone else. Rebellions, riots, and wars would break out across the entire world quick enough. If that sort of anarchy is what you want then cool, be an anarchist, but lets not pretend such a world is going to be some utopia. 

Because today's world is more full of death, rape, and anarchy than it was when nationalism peaked in the 40s. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

Because today's world is more full of death, rape, and anarchy than it was when nationalism peaked in the 40s. 

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? It's more or less true, though. If you're implying that nationalism has a positive correlation to crime, you're full of bullshit :P

5ab1cb7519285_ScreenShot2018-03-20at7_57_13PM.thumb.png.204ad3d0d57b13ec92a7295298e97837.png

It's true that we had less data about the 'shithole countries', but homicides have trended upwards since the 40s, if only due to the growing share of global population held by unstable developing world (read: third world) nations. Anyways, Western Europe and America don't contribute much to global death, rape, and anarchy either way.

For America, crime rates peaked in the 90s—which were hardly a period of fervent nationalism.

Edited by Them

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Them said:

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? It's more or less true, though. If you're implying that nationalism has a positive correlation to crime, you're full of bullshit :P

5ab1cb7519285_ScreenShot2018-03-20at7_57_13PM.thumb.png.204ad3d0d57b13ec92a7295298e97837.png

It's true that we had less data about the 'shithole countries', but homicides have trended upwards since the 40s, if only due to the growing share of global population held by unstable developing world (read: third world) nations. Anyways, Western Europe and America don't contribute much to global death, rape, and anarchy either way.

For America, crime rates peaked in the 90s—which were hardly a period of fervent nationalism.

Yes, it was sarcasm. I'm surprised you know what sarcasm is, considering your understanding of history and statistics are far below the suggested level of understanding nuance. 

 

Not understanding where I'm going with this? No problem. I've got two words for you: Nazis and 60,000,000. Crack a book if you can't connect the dots. 

Also, while homicide rates are going up, how is it related to globalization? Sure, the homicide rates are going up during the time there is globalization, but so did vaccination rates. Why isn't your conclusion that vaccines cause homicidal tendencies? Look, its a very plausible argument: the vaccine was invented in the 1800s, right when your graph that you pulled out of your ass starts. After that, the rates of vaccines (and the amount of vaccines) go up, correlating to the rate of homicides. Therefore, vaccines are the cause of homicidal tendencies, and the next time when people say you should get a shot for chickenpox (because you sound like you would be at that age who would need one), you should reject the vaccine and die choking on fluid building up in your lungs to avoid becoming a homicidal maniac. 

 

The above fallacy is called a causation-correlation fallacy. Basic-fuking statistics. If you don't know basicfricking statistics, you shouldn't use it. That being said, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that homicide rates are going up because of the massive population explosion following the end of World War II. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Yes, it was sarcasm. I'm surprised you know what sarcasm is, considering your understanding of history and statistics are far below the suggested level of understanding nuance. 

 

Not understanding where I'm going with this? No problem. I've got two words for you: Nazis and 60,000,000. Crack a book if you can't connect the dots. 

Also, while homicide rates are going up, how is it related to globalization? Sure, the homicide rates are going up during the time there is globalization, but so did vaccination rates. Why isn't your conclusion that vaccines cause homicidal tendencies? Look, its a very plausible argument: the vaccine was invented in the 1800s, right when your graph that you pulled out of your ass starts. After that, the rates of vaccines (and the amount of vaccines) go up, correlating to the rate of homicides. Therefore, vaccines are the cause of homicidal tendencies, and the next time when people say you should get a shot for chickenpox (because you sound like you would be at that age who would need one), you should reject the vaccine and die choking on fluid building up in your lungs to avoid becoming a homicidal maniac. 

 

The above fallacy is called a causation-correlation fallacy. Basic-fuking statistics. If you don't know basicfricking statistics, you shouldn't use it. That being said, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that homicide rates are going up because of the massive population explosion following the end of World War II. 

Hi Caecus.

Please tell me where I said that globalization is the cause of increased instances of homicide. You're the one trying to prove a correlation and you failed at doing so. In addition, you haven't provided and compelling arguments or alternatives, so I see no reason to question the validity of the graph I brought up. Homicide rates are used to measure the level of criminality in a region. Find me one source that includes war casualties or capital punishment under homicide rate.

Thanks and have a nice day.

Cheers!

Edited by Them

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

If you look at the actual numbers of attacks on farms and farm murders you can actually see that both have been decreasing steadily in the last 15 years and have more then halved since 2001... (https://www.afriforum.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Report-Farm-attacks-and-farm-murders-in-South-Africa1.pdf) And i wouldn't claim that 50 farm murders a year amount to genocide like many right wingers have been claiming. I think nobody can really argue that the land the white farmers now possess was mostly stolen from the native population hundreds of years ago.This was followed by hundreds of years of abuse and discrimination by whites. It is only just that now that the age of racial repression is finally over for South Africans a redistribution of land and wealth from the former oppressors to the formerly oppressed is started.

 

Edited by Karl VII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Karl VII said:

If you look at the actual numbers of attacks on farms and farm murders you can actually see that both have been decreasing steadily in the last 15 years and have more then halved since 2001... (https://www.afriforum.co.za/wp-content/uploads/Report-Farm-attacks-and-farm-murders-in-South-Africa1.pdf) And i wouldn't claim that 50 farm murders a year amount to genocide like many right wingers have been claiming. I think nobody can really argue that the land the white farmers now possess was mostly stolen from the native population hundreds of years ago.This was followed by hundreds of years of abuse and discrimination by whites. It is only just that now that the age of racial repression is finally over for South Africans a redistribution of land and wealth from the former oppressors to the formerly oppressed is started.

 

And the blacks in government are those natives are they? They were brought in from outside the area and so are as "native" to the land as the whites. Just because they're black doesn't mean they're native to all of Africa or whatever. It'd be like saying that Cape Verde belongs to blacks as they are the "natives" even though all those there were brought in by whites who actually lived there first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Them said:

Hi Caecus.

Please tell me where I said that globalization is the cause of increased instances of homicide. You're the one trying to prove a correlation and you failed at doing so. In addition, you haven't provided and compelling arguments or alternatives, so I see no reason to question the validity of the graph I brought up. Homicide rates are used to measure the level of criminality in a region. Find me one source that includes war casualties or capital punishment under homicide rate.

Thanks and have a nice day.

Cheers!

Hi "Them."

I honestly don't know if you said anything at all in your short, unhinged paragraph on death, rape, and criminality "since the 40's." If you honestly believe that nationalism wasn't a cause of the first or second world war and that the world war fatality numbers have more zeros than you can count to, you're - and you'll have to pardon my frankness - dumb as shit.

It gets on my nerves when people try to make the argument that the post-war era of free trade and economic cooperation is an Orwellian hellscape, all the while they drive dirt-cheap quality foreign cars, buy and consume exclusive products made in foreign nations, and enjoy an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, and exchange of culture, all because they grew up with this closed-minded notion in their heads that an arbitrarily social belief of people with different colors of skin or amount of foreskin around their penises causes themselves to be unsuccessful when in reality, they are just dumb as shit. Yeah, I'm looking at you, @Lightning and @Rozalia. Stop blaming other people for your own problems. 

That being said, I don't know where your graph comes from. I frankly don't even care to go look for it, because if you were anywhere near the level of seriousness in an intellectual debate, you would know that a 3rd grader with Microsoft excel could have made that graph (and presumably did) and it wouldn't tell you jack shit. Why are we talking about homicide rates in the first place? Is it because your immediate thought of "death, rape, and anarchy in the 1940's" meant homicide/criminality rates in the world, and not the catastrophic historical event that killed millions and displaced nearly a quarter of the world's population? I thought WWII causes were empirical evidence, it's obviously not for some people. You're driving the point of my argument. 

 

Thanks! U too, have a nice day.

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Hi "Them."

I honestly don't know if you said anything at all in your short, unhinged paragraph on death, rape, and criminality "since the 40's." If you honestly believe that nationalism wasn't a cause of the first or second world war and that the world war fatality numbers have more zeros than you can count to, you're - and you'll have to pardon my frankness - dumb as shit.

It gets on my nerves when people try to make the argument that the post-war era of free trade and economic cooperation is an Orwellian hellscape, all the while they drive dirt-cheap quality foreign cars, buy and consume exclusive products made in foreign nations, and enjoy an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity, and exchange of culture, all because they grew up with this closed-minded notion in their heads that an arbitrarily social belief of people with different colors of skin or amount of foreskin around their penises causes themselves to be unsuccessful when in reality, they are just dumb as shit. Yeah, I'm looking at you, @Lightning and @Rozalia. Stop blaming other people for your own problems. 

That being said, I don't know where your graph comes from. I frankly don't even care to go look for it, because if you were anywhere near the level of seriousness in an intellectual debate, you would know that a 3rd grader with Microsoft excel could have made that graph (and presumably did) and it wouldn't tell you jack shit. Why are we talking about homicide rates in the first place? Is it because your immediate thought of "death, rape, and anarchy in the 1940's" meant homicide/criminality rates in the world, and not the catastrophic historical event that killed millions and displaced nearly a quarter of the world's population? I thought WWII causes were empirical evidence, it's obviously not for some people. You're driving the point of my argument. 

 

Thanks! U too, have a nice day.

Hello Caecus.

Since you so politely decided to not address any of the statements I made in my post and are putting words in my mouth, I see no reason to continue this conversation. You can add a mark to your tally of internet arguments won.

Best Regards

Edited by Them

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Them said:

Hello Caecus.

Since you so politely decided to not address any of the statements I made in my post and are putting words in my mouth, I see no reason to continue this conversation. You can add a mark to your tally of internet arguments won.

Best Regards

Nah mate. He is a dishonest person whose word is no good. He loses automatically to everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Nah mate. He is a dishonest person whose word is no good. He loses automatically to everybody.

Scathing. For someone who claims he has no morals, you really seem to have a hypocritical concern for other people's moral compass. If you need a double standard to win an argument, you've lost automatically. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Caecus said:

Scathing. For someone who claims he has no morals, you really seem to have a hypocritical concern for other people's moral compass. If you need a double standard to win an argument, you've lost automatically. 

And where did I claim I have no morals? Exactly. Don't make ridiculous claims you can't back up. Me not being concerned about Trump dick pics or whatever doesn't mean I don't have morals.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

And where did I claim I have no morals? Exactly. Don't make ridiculous claims you can't back up. Me not being concerned about Trump dick pics or whatever doesn't mean I don't have morals.

Not Trump dick pics. Trump fricking another woman while his wife just squeezed his child out of her vagina and then having the intelligence to then have the woman sign a NDA, but the stupidity not to sign it himself. 

In the state of Alabama, supporting and defending a pedophile is called being amoral. That's why Alabama is a blue state now. If somehow the collective state of Alabama has a better moral compass than you, you don't have any morals, and each time you shout out "I WANT A PEDOPHILE FOR SENATE!", you are in reality claiming "I DON'T HAVE A fricking MORAL COMPASS!"

Furthermore, are you suggesting you have morals? Take your own advise, and don't make ridiculous claims you can't back up.  

  • Downvote 2

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2018 at 11:29 PM, Caecus said:

Not Trump dick pics. Trump fricking another woman while his wife just squeezed his child out of her vagina and then having the intelligence to then have the woman sign a NDA, but the stupidity not to sign it himself. 

In the state of Alabama, supporting and defending a pedophile is called being amoral. That's why Alabama is a blue state now. If somehow the collective state of Alabama has a better moral compass than you, you don't have any morals, and each time you shout out "I WANT A PEDOPHILE FOR SENATE!", you are in reality claiming "I DON'T HAVE A fricking MORAL COMPASS!"

Furthermore, are you suggesting you have morals? Take your own advise, and don't make ridiculous claims you can't back up.  

Eh? Alabama isn't blue, what're you on? They've been republican for a long time and will continue to be. Roy Moore wasn't a pedophile, as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent until proven guilty, and he hasn't been proven guilty by any means. The women who accused him admitted to forging the creepy comments in her yearbook that were supposedly from Roy Moore. There was another instance of her story not adding up as well. She claimed she couldn't get away because of child locks, but cars in the 70s didn't have child locks. I've been paying to attention to this whole argument, and all you seem to do is personally attack Rozalia. He may "not have morals" but at least he has the common sense to understand and form a decent argument with real evidence. What you see in the Alabama election is the desperate last attempts of the Democrats to get seats in congress, they have to go so far as to make allegations based on literally nothing to win elections.

I would argue the the most hypocritical person here is you, the most immoral one, you. Wanna know why? You perpetuate an argument based on thousands of different, personal accounts, and potentially tampered and forced testimonies from war criminals who were probably promised a shortened sentence or better prison quarters if they fit the narrative driven by the allies, this leads to the fact that all the numbers ever given were rough estimates, not absolutes in the Holocaust. But it is a known FACT that white farmers (Boers specifically) are killed and impoverished by the government daily because of the ruling parties of South Africa. Do not claim morality when you only look at ONE perspective, and ONE side of the argument.

Edited by Rygus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.