ComradeMilton Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: A large number of immigrants wrote about the Statue being a symbol of their arrival in America. Sorry your history classes left that out. Ours was mostly focused on history, not street names and statues. I mean, aside from a wall being on Wall Street at one point, many historical documents referencing the street by name, having the name inscribed in historical buildings, you're right. The entirety of Wall Street currently is kind of a group slang for the NYSE and major investment banks. That's not even history, it's slang. I see no reason to change out some street names and statues which have been in place for over a hundred years just because some people are offended by paint on a sign or metal on a pedestal referencing someone who did horrible things hundreds of years ago and likely have no effect on them today. There are just a lot of candidates that didn't commit treason and did a lot to benefit the United States who should be remembered for their meaningful actions, not celebrated as the time the South almost got to keep slaves. We change out street names and statues more often than I think you're noticing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 39 minutes ago, Gabranth said: If Trump wasn't elected then the electoral college would be redundant. (It's already redundant.) Is the electoral college bad? Yes. There's barely a valid reason to even vote, depending on your statue's EC delegates since some of them don't need or vote for who wins that state's popular vote. I don't think so, it was made to make sure that the interests of each bit of land had their say. It's saying that the interests of city dwellers are more important than rural areas, and that's just not true. There are like 100 people in a city for every person in a rural area, making the election based on whole votes makes the individual counties feel unimportant. Is this a new SJW for farmers and ranchers? Fair enough, unprofessional polling probably isn't the way to go. No, I'm in Australia. Thought I made that clear with the bit on Ned Kelly. Nothing wrong with a bit of reconciliation and respect for Southern history. For treason, violent war crimes, attempting to own human beings being something nice to reminisce about and honor? So I guess no more respect for the first amendment for people who you don't agree with? There is nothing wrong with having a march to display your interests. Of course, all violence should be condemned and I don't mean to sound like a child but in reality, Antifa and BLM groups began the violence The most violence I've seen involving anyone on the left is difficulty not being shot, bombed, assassinated, lynched or mowed down by a car from the Neo-Nazis, arriving to the march unannounced and without permission, unlike the original protesters. They don't need permission. Of course, the perpetrator of the car attack should also be condemned. It is worth noting that Alex James Fields Jr, the driver of the Dodge had no ties to any supremacy groups, so he really was just a lone wolf. Albeit, you can say that Muslims use the same argument and I am still quick to dismiss it, but it is still worth noting that this guy was not part of any group, and as far as I can tell, no one is celebrating his actions, unlike Muslims and ISIS. Now I guess they know the repercussions of sucker-punching a guy who is taking an interview or hitting someone with a bike lock. That's not to say this is good in any way, but perhaps now a second thought is needed before counter-protesters show up to attack people without provocation at an otherwise peaceful protest. And don't get this mistaken, it would have been peaceful if it weren't for counter-protesters, at every single march or rally, you can always expect the leftists to begin the fights.lol, no you can't. It's the whole strategy of masked men being violent How did you determine their political beliefs other than a preference to have masks?, and when they are met with violence they can turn to big daddy media and say "See! They are the violent ones". Don't get it mistaken either, these are not regular old liberals, that would be downplaying the extremist nature of these individuals. They are communists and black supremacists, plain and simple. It's not only not plain and simple, it's actively incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: Ours was mostly focused on history, not street names and statues. The entirety of Wall Street currently is kind of a group slang for the NYSE and major investment banks. That's not even history, it's slang. here are just a lot of candidates that didn't commit treason and did a lot to benefit the United States who should be remembered for their meaningful actions, not celebrated as the time the South almost got to keep slaves. We change out street names and statues more often than I think you're noticing. I liked my history class. Whenever we had to write a paper in a less than formal tone, I would always get off track and discuss why the US should've bombed the shit out of the USSR in the late 50s/early 60s. So you're basically ignoring everything I posted? Ok. Yes they should. The South would've lost slaves either way. Britain already took a hard stance against slavery. If your best ally was against slavery, while your economy is built on slavery, tension will rise. In the end, if the South had to choose, I suspect they would export cotton as opposed to keeping slaves. What good are slaves if you can't sell what they make? 1 minute ago, ComradeMilton said: violent war crimes Almost every side of every conflict. It's not something the South did exclusively. Have you heard of Sherman's March? By that standard, let's take down Union statues. We committed a war crime when we imprisoned survivors from the U-505 in WWII. Let's take down US Navy statues from WWII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 17, 2017 Author Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Rozalia said: I love how I dropped the word cuck a couple of times a year back and it has lead to possessing 3 different people to spam it all over the place. When those other guys do it, no effect. When the Roz does it he gets results and people making fools of themselves. Thankfully like one of those other people you will soon be deported as you deserve. 1: I love your always pathetic attempts at trying to use such things yourself. No one buys it mate, please do stop wasting time with it. Let me tell you a story. A man opposed the government, killed the king, and ruled with absolute power over parliament. Along the way he is considered to have genocided the Irish though some claim it wasn't genocidal in nature (which is irrelevant to people such as the ones involved here). Once he died and his government quickly fell apart the King's son took over and ordered the man's body dug up, judged (a corpse can offer no defense of course), and then beheaded. Who was the man? Guess who also has 4 statues of him in the country. 3: Hehehe. The President of America himself does it. Lets me very clear here. They were racists. Like the other racists their statues will be in the cross hairs of these people. 5: Not at all. Different parts of the country have their own heroes, many of which fought against other parts of it. There are Scottish, Welsh, Irish heroes who fought against the English/British and in reverse. Does that mean I should want all their statues smashed now? Of course not. 2& 4 & 6 (cute): Excuse me? Lets see what wording I used: "they will simply move on to Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will get the same treatment". I referred to a very wide group, of which many did not own slaves. Washington being an example of a slave owner and Lincoln simply of a racist. Nothing wrong with what I said even if it can be easily misunderstood for cheap pops by people such as yourself. 1. Your shithole of an island isn't America and the fact that you think we have any remote similarity other than the language we speak (and you guys speak it wrong) is insulting to 300 million people of a nation that saved your country from (ironically) angry German nationalists twice. 3. Yeah, and the President of the United States is a dumbass. I'm not ashamed to admit that our leader is the dumbest dipshit to ever sit his fat ass in the office. 5. To be entirely fair, the Scotts, Welsh, and the Irish weren't hell-bent on racial enslavement to better their economy. I also refer back to the fact that your shithold of an island isn't America and there is no comparison. 2&4&6: You lumped Lincoln in with the rest. The commas link the 3 nouns. Now, I'm no "proper" English expert, but down in the ol' US, when you link 3 nouns by commas and then proceed the next sentence with "They," it is assumed you mean all three nouns, not just "Washington" and "the rest." Your own fault for being a dumbshit and not knowing any American history, stop blaming your ignorance on your grammar deficiencies. 9 minutes ago, Gabranth said: If Trump wasn't elected then the electoral college would be redundant. Is the electoral college bad? I don't think so, it was made to make sure that the interests of each bit of land had their say. It's saying that the interests of city dwellers are more important than rural areas, and that's just not true. There are like 100 people in a city for every person in a rural area, making the election based on whole votes makes the individual counties feel unimportant. But according to your vision of "the will of the majority," this isn't it. Fact of the matter is, 3 million more people voted for Clinton over Trump. If you really do believe in "the will of the majority," you would be condemning the electoral college, not praising it. The purpose behind the electoral college is inherently against the principles of democracy (the Greek city-state form). It favors a republic (the Roman form), in which the impulses of the easily swayed people are controlled by the electoral college of people serving as a check against demagogues. A true believer in the "will of the majority" would condemn a Roman-style republic in favor of a more direct democratic system. Otherwise you have someone who isn't elected by the majority, has an approval rate of 33% of the American public, and has people from his own political party calling him an amoral dipshit. Pointing to the electoral college and saying that it represents the will of the majority is silly. 13 minutes ago, Gabranth said: Nothing wrong with a bit of reconciliation and respect for Southern history. I disagree. In my previous posts, I pointed out that these "reconciliation" efforts were a form of political correctness that ultimately allowed the US government to feel like they are unified again while ignoring the terrorism of mob lynchings and state laws that infringed on individual rights. Just like how people criticize PC culture today for being all talk and not actually solving any issues, we need to look at these statues and monuments as the dumb shit that they were: token gestures which ignored the larger reality of racism and violation of human rights. 21 minutes ago, Gabranth said: So I guess no more respect for the first amendment for people who you don't agree with? There is nothing wrong with having a march to display your interests. Of course, all violence should be condemned and I don't mean to sound like a child but in reality, Antifa and BLM groups began the violence, arriving to the march unannounced and without permission, unlike the original protesters. Of course, the perpetrator of the car attack should also be condemned. It is worth noting that Alex James Fields Jr, the driver of the Dodge had no ties to any supremacy groups, so he really was just a lone wolf. Albeit, you can say that Muslims use the same argument and I am still quick to dismiss it, but it is still worth noting that this guy was not part of any group, and as far as I can tell, no one is celebrating his actions, unlike Muslims and ISIS. Your right to swing your fist ends at someone's face. Nazis can march all they want, spreading their slogan of white supremacy and racism. In America, that's allowed and we should be proud of that. Nonetheless, the first amendment doesn't protect Nazis from me calling them a bunch of dumbshits and saying their cause is against the moral heart of this republic. Lol, I also like how you are trying to anticipate my arguments. I actually wasn't going to go with that one, but that's pretty good. But I'll take you up on "no one is celebrating his actions." As far as I can tell, no one is, but justifying his violent action is pretty damn close: https://www.glamour.com/story/daily-stormer-heather-heyer-mocking-article If the title "daily stormer" doesn't give you a clear idea, I can tell you they are neo-nazis. 27 minutes ago, Gabranth said: Now I guess they know the repercussions of sucker-punching a guy who is taking an interview or hitting someone with a bike lock. That's not to say this is good in any way, but perhaps now a second thought is needed before counter-protesters show up to attack people without provocation at an otherwise peaceful protest. And don't get this mistaken, it would have been peaceful if it weren't for counter-protesters, at every single march or rally, you can always expect the leftists to begin the fights. It's the whole strategy of masked men being violent, and when they are met with violence they can turn to big daddy media and say "See! They are the violent ones". Don't get it mistaken either, these are not regular old liberals, that would be downplaying the extremist nature of these individuals. They are communists and black supremacists, plain and simple. Rioting and murder are two different things, first of all. It's one thing to chuck a rock through a window and punch someone, a whole 'nother thing to run into a crowd with a car in some ISIS-level bullshit. Second, right-wing extremist violence is by far more prevalent than left-wing violence. It should be noted that left-wing extremist violence is on the rise, that is correct, but is far disproportionate to right-wing extremism. http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/fact-check-is-the-far-right-largely-responsible-for-extremist-violence/ That being said, we've already gone over the fact that not all the counter protesters can be tied with a left-wing extremist group. Unlike white supremacists and Nazis, most decent people see a statue of Robert E. Lee and think "Oh, that's the guy who led a rebel army to try and preserve the institution of human enslavement. We probably shouldn't have a statue of him at the county hall." On the other hand, people shouting "blood and soil" down the street might be giving away their identity. Besides, while Vanguard America may deny that Alex Fields was part of their group, he was photographed protesting with them, carrying their slogans and symbols. Again, I have yet to see a moderate, history buff who is willing to march with Nazis and White Supremacists to "preserve history and culture." Please do tell if you ever do find someone like that, I have a lot of questions for them. 47 minutes ago, Gabranth said: If you are against Communism does that make you a part of the alt-right? Basically the same comparison. Regardless, that shouldn't be how you define alt-movements. They exist because the members of them don't feel their interests are represented in the main parties. Could you consider a member of the alt-right an establishment Republican? Of course not. Just the same as you could not consider an alt-leftist an establishment Democrat. Besides, the term 'alt-left' was coined way before Trump, ironically by leftists themselves during the election. Ah, then we are in agreement. You don't have to be an alt-leftist to see Nazis marching down the street trying to preserve an over glorification of a rebel general to feel like there should be something done about this. From my understanding, BOTH parties are anti-Nazis and white supremacists. Hell, I'd march against them too. They could be marching to keep a taco bell on state street open and I would still march against their dumbasses even if it means I have to (god-forbid) go to del taco. 39 minutes ago, Gabranth said: Sure, Roz, Peter Quill and I had this argument a solid 16 hours ago on Discord. Here's what came of it - https://pastebin.com/uuGeM0a5 Tl;dr, Rob E Lee was a great general, and the statue depicts him, not the KKK sympathisers that it was built for. But again, you are still missing my argument that these statues were built in an era of reconciliation. They were built to placate the south and to "allow the nation to heal," while ignoring mob lynchings and Jim Crow. In essence, they were built for the KKK. Lee's ability to kill a shit ton of people isn't relevant here, it's the fact that the purpose of these statues were token gestures of PC culture that allowed the entire country to ignore the real problems. 44 minutes ago, Gabranth said: As much as the confederacy was for slavery, had they won the civil war then pressure from England - their greatest trading partner had they won - would require them to drop slavery anyway. Here's a good video explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNbgoeEUwM First, the south's entire economy depended on the export of cotton to the textile factories of England. Cotton, which, by the end of 1860, England had acquired through her colonies in Egypt and India. Second, the southern economy collapsed when a fungal blight ate the cotton in the 1880s Reconstruction era. Compounded by the fact that England was no longer buying cotton at the rate pre-war, the south became the largest exporter of poor white trash to the west. Even under the circumstances where cotton was no longer profitable, the south continued to invest in agriculture well into the 20th century. It wasn't until the end of the Second World War and the military-industrial complex pork barrel that the south turned to industry and started building Uncle Sam's bombs. That's entirely excluding the fact that the SOUTH WAS WILLING TO KILL A MILLION AMERICANS TO PRESERVE THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. Jim Crow was slavery in all but name. The video is misinformed, and you are naive to believe that the south would have abandoned slavery due to pressure from England. You think proud southerners are going to bend to the pressure from pricks on an island on the other side of the Atlantic? Tell that to George !@#$ing Washington. Quote 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 More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said: I liked my history class. Whenever we had to write a paper in a less than formal tone, I would always get off track and discuss why the US should've bombed the shit out of the USSR in the late 50s/early 60s. So you're basically ignoring everything I posted? Ok. No, I read them. I just don't agree. On those positions there doesn't seem like a reason for either of us to address those because I'm quite sure you're not going to change your mind and I'm not likely to change mine. Yes they should. The South would've lost slaves either way. Britain already took a hard stance against slavery. If your best ally was against slavery, while your economy is built on slavery, tension will rise. In the end, if the South had to choose, I suspect they would export cotton as opposed to keeping slaves. What good are slaves if you can't sell what they make? When and how would the South have lost its slaves? Britain could suggest they do so, but even today a decent number of people think they should be able to go back and own people in the South and (probably) a handful of people in the Union as well. It's kind of like the atomic bombings during World War II where it seems like the Japanese might surrender on their own, but guaranteeing they do, minimizing expected casualties (we're still working through the purple hearts made for the invasion of Japan to this day) and demonstrating a new weapon to the Soviets meant it could be an assured thing, rather than an expected one. Almost every side of every conflict. It's not something the South did exclusively. Have you heard of Sherman's March? By that standard, let's take down Union statues. We committed a war crime when we imprisoned survivors from the U-505 in WWII. Let's take down US Navy statues from WWII. Have you read about Andersonville? As for the others go nuts as far as I'm concerned. 3 hours ago, Caecus said: 1. Your shithole of an island isn't America and the fact that you think we have any remote similarity other than the language we speak (and you guys speak it wrong) is insulting to 300 million people of a nation that saved your country from (ironically) angry German nationalists twice. 3. Yeah, and the President of the United States is a dumbass. I'm not ashamed to admit that our leader is the dumbest dipshit to ever sit his fat ass in the office. To be fair I don't think he's proven he's fat. 5. To be entirely fair, the Scotts, Welsh, and the Irish weren't hell-bent on racial enslavement to better their economy. I also refer back to the fact that your shithold of an island isn't America and there is no comparison. 2&4&6: You lumped Lincoln in with the rest. The commas link the 3 nouns. Now, I'm no "proper" English expert, but down in the ol' US, when you link 3 nouns by commas and then proceed the next sentence with "They," it is assumed you mean all three nouns, not just "Washington" and "the rest." Your own fault for being a dumbshit and not knowing any American history, stop blaming your ignorance on your grammar deficiencies. It's probably my fault in some way. But according to your vision of "the will of the majority," this isn't it. Fact of the matter is, 3 million more people voted for Clinton over Trump. If you really do believe in "the will of the majority," you would be condemning the electoral college, not praising it. There is an actual thing called the Tyranny of the Majority. If we didn't have anyone dissenting we would have no use for the Constitution. It's there to protect unpopular minority rights, but is due for a change since it most of the stupid shit about the EC and Senate allotment come from 200 years ago before highways, cars, income taxation, random visits from US Presidents and people in rural or low population states wanting exaggerated power to compensate and make sure their lack of people wouldn't in some way influence elections. This didn't make sense and continues to not make sense now. The purpose behind the electoral college is inherently against the principles of democracy (the Greek city-state form). It favors a republic (the Roman form), in which the impulses of the easily swayed people are controlled by the electoral college of people serving as a check against demagogues. A true believer in the "will of the majority" would condemn a Roman-style republic in favor of a more direct democratic system. Otherwise you have someone who isn't elected by the majority, has an approval rate of 33% of the American public, and has people from his own political party calling him an amoral dipshit. Pointing to the electoral college and saying that it represents the will of the majority is silly. I disagree. In my previous posts, I pointed out that these "reconciliation" efforts were a form of political correctness that ultimately allowed the US government to feel like they are unified again while ignoring the terrorism of mob lynchings and state laws that infringed on individual rights. Just like how people criticize PC culture today for being all talk and not actually solving any issues, we need to look at these statues and monuments as the dumb shit that they were: token gestures which ignored the larger reality of racism and violation of human rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at someone's face. Nazis can march all they want, spreading their slogan of white supremacy and racism. In America, that's allowed and we should be proud of that. Nonetheless, the first amendment doesn't protect Nazis from me calling them a bunch of dumbshits and saying their cause is against the moral heart of this republic. Yeah. You can be a hateful !@#$ and are protected from governmental interference as long as it doesn't fall into one of the few exceptions. People, corporations and so forth can do whatever the !@#$ they want about it. If you're supporting mass killing don't be too surprised at people no longer wishing to employ, associate, befriend or otherwise interact with you because other than the government's being prevented to do so it makes no stipulations for other groups of people and the consequences that may arise as a result. Lol, I also like how you are trying to anticipate my arguments. I actually wasn't going to go with that one, but that's pretty good. But I'll take you up on "no one is celebrating his actions." As far as I can tell, no one is, but justifying his violent action is pretty damn close: https://www.glamour.com/story/daily-stormer-heather-heyer-mocking-article If the title "daily stormer" doesn't give you a clear idea, I can tell you they are neo-nazis. Rioting and murder are two different things, first of all. It's one thing to chuck a rock through a window and punch someone, a whole 'nother thing to run into a crowd with a car in some ISIS-level bullshit. Second, right-wing extremist violence is by far more prevalent than left-wing violence. It should be noted that left-wing extremist violence is on the rise, that is correct, but is far disproportionate to right-wing extremism. In the US since 2000 the total number of people killed or harmed by someone from the American version of the left is zero. Non-leftist activity during that same period includes bombings, assassinations, torture, lynching, summary executions adds up to around 5,000 people dead. http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/fact-check-is-the-far-right-largely-responsible-for-extremist-violence/ That being said, we've already gone over the fact that not all the counter protesters can be tied with a left-wing extremist group. Unlike white supremacists and Nazis, most decent people see a statue of Robert E. Lee and think "Oh, that's the guy who led a rebel army to try and preserve the institution of human enslavement. We probably shouldn't have a statue of him at the county hall." On the other hand, people shouting "blood and soil" down the street might be giving away their identity. Besides, while Vanguard America may deny that Alex Fields was part of their group, he was photographed protesting with them, carrying their slogans and symbols. Again, I have yet to see a moderate, history buff who is willing to march with Nazis and White Supremacists to "preserve history and culture." Please do tell if you ever do find someone like that, I have a lot of questions for them. Even the ACLU helping them was just for the two legal precedents to prevent erosion of parts of the Constitution. Ultimately the ACLU received the precedents it wanted and told the Neo-Nazis they could !@#$ off now. First, the south's entire economy depended on the export of cotton to the textile factories of England. Cotton, which, by the end of 1860, England had acquired through her colonies in Egypt and India. Second, the southern economy collapsed when a fungal blight ate the cotton in the 1880s Reconstruction era. Compounded by the fact that England was no longer buying cotton at the rate pre-war, the south became the largest exporter of poor white trash to the west. Even under the circumstances where cotton was no longer profitable, the south continued to invest in agriculture well into the 20th century. It wasn't until the end of the Second World War and the military-industrial complex pork barrel that the south turned to industry and started building Uncle Sam's bombs. It took FDR years to get the TVA setup to provide electricity to the South. I'm not sure if they should be pleased that a Democrat who won a World War, served four terms, established the welfare state, adjusted to reduce and then remove the Great Depression by infrastructure construction (among other things), including the South finally having access to electricity is more important or that they don't like them federals putting their gang-stalking/UN Helicopter facility. Most of the conservatives from the South labeled themselves as Democrats well into the 1950s out of resentment of the Republican actions of Lincoln preserving the Union and preventing continued ownership of slaves. That's entirely excluding the fact that the SOUTH WAS WILLING TO KILL A MILLION AMERICANS TO PRESERVE THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. Jim Crow was slavery in all but name. If the South had gotten over its racism sooner we wouldn't have required a giant military escort to integrate schools in Alabama. The Voting Rights Act, remove of literacy tests and poll taxes were meant to keep the black population from realizing that they could vote too and not put up with shit. Traditionally correct, but then the KKK bombs your children in a church and you wonder if it's even worth it. The South has already started trying to remove these proventative measures in favor of requiring ID currently, which prevents the poorest from voting since they have to work too hard and with too little time to get to a post office or DMV office to get official ID, which is why it'd succeed in reducing the number of minorities voting just like the good old days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 There is nothing Milton will not ignore. If Wiki it is mocked. If an article then mocked. If direct source it is mocked. Even simple dictionary definitions get mocked and ignored. You're the lowest person I've ever seen on here. Even Islamists and Nazis are more reasonable then slime like you. 7 hours ago, Caecus said: 1. Your shithole of an island isn't America and the fact that you think we have any remote similarity other than the language we speak (and you guys speak it wrong) is insulting to 300 million people of a nation that saved your country from (ironically) angry German nationalists twice. 3. Yeah, and the President of the United States is a dumbass. I'm not ashamed to admit that our leader is the dumbest dipshit to ever sit his fat ass in the office. 5. To be entirely fair, the Scotts, Welsh, and the Irish weren't hell-bent on racial enslavement to better their economy. I also refer back to the fact that your shithold of an island isn't America and there is no comparison. 2&4&6: You lumped Lincoln in with the rest. The commas link the 3 nouns. Now, I'm no "proper" English expert, but down in the ol' US, when you link 3 nouns by commas and then proceed the next sentence with "They," it is assumed you mean all three nouns, not just "Washington" and "the rest." Your own fault for being a dumbshit and not knowing any American history, stop blaming your ignorance on your grammar deficiencies. 1: Cute. You think you can provoke me with petty attacks like that. Your talk was one of "this is simply common sense" and I told you my country's history on that and... most countries are like that in fact. The King's son beheading a corpse we can chalk up as heat of the moment, with the death of his father still very fresh. People wanting to destroy the statue of a long since dead man because of the explosion of anger due to being found out to be losers, is not quite the same. 3: Guess who else takes the same view as said President? A great many of his supporters. In fact... combine that number with the extreme left and more people (that care about the issue) likely think that view then don't. No hard numbers on that obviously, just an observation. 5: As said, they like to say that Cromwell carried out a genocidal campaign on the Irish... speaking of them. The English used immigration of Scots and other measures (taking land from the Irish and giving it to the Scots for example) to you could say "breed out the Irish" in the north. The result was that while the south was very rebellious due to being the Irish, the northern Irish (Ulster Scots) stayed loyal. All that and no statues of Cromwell or Kings/Queen that oversaw that are being smashed. Almost like people are reasonable or something. Well except the likes of the IRA, terrorists, who used to kill a lot of people. Even they aren't destroying Cromwell statues though. 2&4&6: Let me include Lee in that then to make it clearer then. Lee, Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were Confederate generals. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will all get the same treatment. I could have phrased it differently certainly, but I did as I did and stand by it. I know full well you're just trying to jump on any little thing so you can be a big man and shoot out some insults, which do get them in while you can as only a couple months now to your deportation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 17, 2017 Author Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Rozalia said: There is nothing Milton will not ignore. If Wiki it is mocked. If an article then mocked. If direct source it is mocked. Even simple dictionary definitions get mocked and ignored. You're the lowest person I've ever seen on here. Even Islamists and Nazis are more reasonable then slime like you. 1: Cute. You think you can provoke me with petty attacks like that. Your talk was one of "this is simply common sense" and I told you my country's history on that and... most countries are like that in fact. The King's son beheading a corpse we can chalk up as heat of the moment, with the death of his father still very fresh. People wanting to destroy the statue of a long since dead man because of the explosion of anger due to being found out to be losers, is not quite the same. 3: Guess who else takes the same view as said President? A great many of his supporters. In fact... combine that number with the extreme left and more people (that care about the issue) likely think that view then don't. No hard numbers on that obviously, just an observation. 5: As said, they like to say that Cromwell carried out a genocidal campaign on the Irish... speaking of them. The English used immigration of Scots and other measures (taking land from the Irish and giving it to the Scots for example) to you could say "breed out the Irish" in the north. The result was that while the south was very rebellious due to being the Irish, the northern Irish (Ulster Scots) stayed loyal. All that and no statues of Cromwell or Kings/Queen that oversaw that are being smashed. Almost like people are reasonable or something. Well except the likes of the IRA, terrorists, who used to kill a lot of people. Even they aren't destroying Cromwell statues though. 2&4&6: Let me include Lee in that then to make it clearer then. Lee, Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were Confederate generals. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will all get the same treatment. I could have phrased it differently certainly, but I did as I did and stand by it. I know full well you're just trying to jump on any little thing so you can be a big man and shoot out some insults, which do get them in while you can as only a couple months now to your deportation. 1. Dead serious. Your comparison is irrelevant and incorrect. 3. Yes, I'm sure David Duke does have the same view as the president. He's made it quite clear that he was very happy with his speech. 5. Again, your shithole of an island isn't America, and the fact that you continue to somehow equivocate them is insulting to Americans. 2/4/6: See, you are still using the commas wrong. Washington and Lincoln were not Confederate generals. But I get your gist now. It seems that you all have a really hard time conceptualizing what is wrong with Lee. It's not that he was a traitor and rebel that killed half a million people. It's not that he was a slave owner who fought to preserve the institution of slavery. It's the fact that he's both, and that he represents an organization that attempted to reverse the progress of equality. Lincoln and Washington understood that the moral progression of this republic has always been towards equality and the preservation of rights, despite the inherent social culture of the time. They foresaw an eventuality. Lee did not understand that. The confederacy did not understand that. To make the argument that Washington and Lincoln will eventually be next is stupid. There is no equivalency between Washington and Lincoln and leaders of the confederacy because they are fundamentally different. One is an embodiment of an eventuality, a path that the moral heart of the republic walks, the other seeks to destroy it. Get that through your thick skull, and learn some American history before coming to the conclusion that people will think Washington and Lincoln are anywhere close to what Lee is and what he stood for. By the way, if you are still on about how the President of the United States thinks that, all I have to say is that he doesn't know American history either. That's right, I'm ashamed to admit it, but the US collectively elected a President who is an uneducated dipshit that found his fat ass in the seat of the oval office by appealing to Nazis, Neo-Confederates, and Russians. And if you are thinking "Oh, those are greatest threats American had faced in the last 150 years," you would be right. Quote 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 More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Caecus said: 1. Dead serious. Your comparison is irrelevant and incorrect. 3. Yes, I'm sure David Duke does have the same view as the president. He's made it quite clear that he was very happy with his speech. 5. Again, your shithole of an island isn't America, and the fact that you continue to somehow equivocate them is insulting to Americans. 2/4/6: See, you are still using the commas wrong. Washington and Lincoln were not Confederate generals. But I get your gist now. It seems that you all have a really hard time conceptualizing what is wrong with Lee. It's not that he was a traitor and rebel that killed half a million people. It's not that he was a slave owner who fought to preserve the institution of slavery. It's the fact that he's both, and that he represents an organization that attempted to reverse the progress of equality. Lincoln and Washington understood that the moral progression of this republic has always been towards equality and the preservation of rights, despite the inherent social culture of the time. They foresaw an eventuality. Lee did not understand that. The confederacy did not understand that. To make the argument that Washington and Lincoln will eventually be next is stupid. There is no equivalency between Washington and Lincoln and leaders of the confederacy because they are fundamentally different. One is an embodiment of an eventuality, a path that the moral heart of the republic walks, the other seeks to destroy it. Get that through your thick skull, and learn some American history before coming to the conclusion that people will think Washington and Lincoln are anywhere close to what Lee is and what he stood for. By the way, if you are still on about how the President of the United States thinks that, all I have to say is that he doesn't know American history either. That's right, I'm ashamed to admit it, but the US collectively elected a President who is an uneducated dipshit that found his fat ass in the seat of the oval office by appealing to Nazis, Neo-Confederates, and Russians. And if you are thinking "Oh, those are greatest threats American had faced in the last 150 years," you would be right. 1: America is simply more extreme these days. Both on the Far-Right and Far-Left. Leads to these unreasonable things. People like you should know better however. 3: Referred to Trump supporters. You bring up David Duke. A proven losing tactic that only insults reasonable people and solidifies their support of Trump. Hard to care about Nazis when you are constantly told you yourself are a Nazi when you ain't. 5: Your attacks would perhaps matter if you haven't said worse about America and Americans in the past. 2/4/6: Always nice to see reason, thank you. Now for... the rest. You fail to understand that I nor anyone else for that matter has said that Lincoln and Washington are on the same plain as the Confederates. Simply that these people do not stop as they must simply fight forever against the racists real or imagined, alive or dead. Once all the Confederates are gone what then? Mission done, pack up and go home? No. They will talk about how dare Lincoln get all that praise when he was a racist who did what he did for purely cynical reasons. How dare Jefferson the racist rapist be honoured. So on. If there are no fights to fight then they have no reason to exist, and as such it is an ever expanding conflict for them. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/16/lincoln-memorial-vandalized-spray-painted-expletive/571697001/ Speaking of that Lincoln recently got vandalised and also back in 2013 from what I recall reading the other day. Look forward to them stepping up their attacks when the Confederates go. I like being right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 17, 2017 Author Share Posted August 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Rozalia said: 1: America is simply more extreme these days. Both on the Far-Right and Far-Left. Leads to these unreasonable things. People like you should know better however. 3: Referred to Trump supporters. You bring up David Duke. A proven losing tactic that only insults reasonable people and solidifies their support of Trump. Hard to care about Nazis when you are constantly told you yourself are a Nazi when you ain't. 5: Your attacks would perhaps matter if you haven't said worse about America and Americans in the past. 2/4/6: Always nice to see reason, thank you. Now for... the rest. You fail to understand that I nor anyone else for that matter has said that Lincoln and Washington are on the same plain as the Confederates. Simply that these people do not stop as they must simply fight forever against the racists real or imagined, alive or dead. Once all the Confederates are gone what then? Mission done, pack up and go home? No. They will talk about how dare Lincoln get all that praise when he was a racist who did what he did for purely cynical reasons. How dare Jefferson the racist rapist be honoured. So on. If there are no fights to fight then they have no reason to exist, and as such it is an ever expanding conflict for them. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/16/lincoln-memorial-vandalized-spray-painted-expletive/571697001/ Speaking of that Lincoln recently got vandalised and also back in 2013 from what I recall reading the other day. Look forward to them stepping up their attacks when the Confederates go. I like being right. 1. K. 3. Snowflake Trump supporters, boo-hoo. People insult my intelligence and my moral compass and so I prove them right by supporting Nazis because my feelings were hurt. I need safe-spaces too! 5. K. 2/4/6: You are assuming that all Americans are as uneducated about American history as you are. Granted, if you judged our country and our own knowledge about our history by the leader we elected, I can see why you would make such a fallacy. Your slippery slope argument is stupid, because it can be applied to anything since it relies on something that hasn't happened yet. For example, we could say that since neo-Nazis and the KKK are allowed to keep up statues of slave-holding traitors, the logical extreme would be that eventually people will start putting up statues of Hitler and Himmler. And why would they stop there? Why would they not start up concentration camps to exterminate inferior races? It's a slippery slope when you feed Nazi trolls. Look forward to them stepping up their Nazification of America when the Confederate statues stay up. I like being right. Quote 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 More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Just now, Caecus said: 1. K. 3. Snowflake Trump supporters, boo-hoo. People insult my intelligence and my moral compass and so I prove them right by supporting Nazis because my feelings were hurt. I need safe-spaces too! 5. K. 2/4/6: You are assuming that all Americans are as uneducated about American history as you are. Granted, if you judged our country and our own knowledge about our history by the leader we elected, I can see why you would make such a fallacy. Your slippery slope argument is stupid, because it can be applied to anything since it relies on something that hasn't happened yet. For example, we could say that since neo-Nazis and the KKK are allowed to keep up statues of slave-holding traitors, the logical extreme would be that eventually people will start putting up statues of Hitler and Himmler. And why would they stop there? Why would they not start up concentration camps to exterminate inferior races? It's a slippery slope when you feed Nazi trolls. Look forward to them stepping up their Nazification of America when the Confederate statues stay up. I like being right. 3: Nothing to do with being a snowflake or whatever. If X person started saying all black people were BLM thugs, guess what, even if he had the (D) sign on him he'd not get much in the way of black people voting for them. Lumping normal good people in with the Nazis and other groups has no positives at all, zero. 2/4/6: Not all slippery slopes are incorrect. You have prove what I said that gets us to the end result of them targeting the other figures is wrong which you did not do. You simply brought up your own slippery slope and stated that as yours is wrong then mine must also be. For many years I have seen these groups at work, jumping on the smallest of things as they need attention, they need to feel good, they need to fight the good fight. Here in Britain for example there has been an attempt to import BLM. They did the whole "hands up don't shoot" thing, they have protested, they've marched protected by the (unarmed) police all the way. In reality Black folk here are under-represented in police shootings and not many happen to begin with. So what do they do in the face of what the numbers say? Stop as there is no actual fight to fight? Of course not when Global warming can be deemed racist and they can now protest over that. These groups never deem the job to be done, they will fight forever until they become so discredited that they fall apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 17, 2017 Author Share Posted August 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Rozalia said: 3: Nothing to do with being a snowflake or whatever. If X person started saying all black people were BLM thugs, guess what, even if he had the (D) sign on him he'd not get much in the way of black people voting for them. Lumping normal good people in with the Nazis and other groups has no positives at all, zero. 2/4/6: Not all slippery slopes are incorrect. You have prove what I said that gets us to the end result of them targeting the other figures is wrong which you did not do. You simply brought up your own slippery slope and stated that as yours is wrong then mine must also be. For many years I have seen these groups at work, jumping on the smallest of things as they need attention, they need to feel good, they need to fight the good fight. Here in Britain for example there has been an attempt to import BLM. They did the whole "hands up don't shoot" thing, they have protested, they've marched protected by the (unarmed) police all the way. In reality Black folk here are under-represented in police shootings and not many happen to begin with. So what do they do in the face of what the numbers say? Stop as there is no actual fight to fight? Of course not when Global warming can be deemed racist and they can now protest over that. These groups never deem the job to be done, they will fight forever until they become so discredited that they fall apart. 3. No, it just sounds like the right has a snowflake issue and don't want their feelings hurt, even if it means electing a Nazi to the white house. 2/4/6: Why the hell is the burden of proof on me? You are the one making a dipshit claim about the future with shit evidence. If you make the claim, you prove it. The only proof you presented is just a vandalization of the Lincoln memorial which says "!@#$ law," and assuming that means people want to take down a statue. You have no argument, and you are trying to force it on me. You are obviously at the end of your rope here. Quote 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 More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 10 hours ago, Rozalia said: There is nothing Milton will not ignore. If Wiki it is mocked. If an article then mocked. If direct source it is mocked. Even simple dictionary definitions get mocked and ignored. You're the lowest person I've ever seen on here. Even Islamists and Nazis are more reasonable then slime like you. You seem pretty obsessed with me and what I post for someone who holds me in such contempt and appears to rage out whenever I point out things like the above paragraph where you make things up and then dispute them as if I'd said them. Thankfully your opinion of the United States is entirely irrelevant. 1: Cute. You think you can provoke me with petty attacks like that. (Shall we do a count of who is performing the most petty attacks? I don't think you'd like it pointed out how often you do that very thing in your posting. Your talk was one of "this is simply common sense" and I told you my country's history on that and... most countries are like that in fact. The King's son beheading a corpse we can chalk up as heat of the moment, with the death of his father still very fresh. People wanting to destroy the statue of a long since dead man because of the explosion of anger due to being found out to be losers, is not quite the same. To be fair I assumed you meant when they disinterred Cromwell to mount his head on top of one of the palaces or the Tower for like a century. How can we know what happened to him without a statue or street name? 3: Guess who else takes the same view as said President? A great many of his supporters. In fact... combine that number with the extreme left and moreu people (that care about the issue) likely think that view then don't. No hard numbers on that obviously, just an observation. Congress already doesn't like him if you'd noticed the polling on that. 5: As said, they like to say that Cromwell carried out a genocidal campaign on the Irish... speaking of them. The English used immigration of Scots and other measures (taking land from the Irish and giving it to the Scots for example) to you could say "breed out the Irish" in the north. The result was that while the south was very rebellious due to being the Irish, the northern Irish (Ulster Scots) stayed loyal. All that and no statues of Cromwell or Kings/Queen that oversaw that are being smashed. Almost like people are reasonable or something. Well except the likes of the IRA, terrorists, who used to kill a lot of people. Even they aren't destroying Cromwell statues though. The RUC killed a really significant number of Catholics with the active assistance of the RUC. It's quite thoroughly documented. No statues to back up that assertion, but if you consider books as a possible source of information there are a ton of very thoroughly researched material indicating the NI's RUC cooperation very thoroughly with the protestants. 2&4&6: Let me include Lee in that then to make it clearer then. Lee, Washington, Lincoln, and the rest. They were Confederate generals. Washington had been dead for almost a century at that point (so it would've been very impressive for him to command Union forces) and Lincoln was commander in chief of Union forces, not Confederate forces. They were slave owners. They were racists. They will all get the same treatment. I could have phrased it differently certainly, but I did as I did and stand by it. I know full well you're just trying to jump on any little thing so you can be a big man and shoot out some insults, which do get them in while you can as only a couple months now to your deportation. It's funny, I've actually read all the posts people make, including yourself and you're the only one I see routinely tossing out childish insults in these discussions. Why would he be deported? 8 hours ago, Caecus said: To make the argument that Washington and Lincoln will eventually be next is stupid. There is no equivalency between Washington and Lincoln and leaders of the confederacy because they are fundamentally different. One is an embodiment of an eventuality, a path that the moral heart of the republic walks, the other seeks to destroy it. Get that through your thick skull, and learn some American history before coming to the conclusion that people will think Washington and Lincoln are anywhere close to what Lee is and what he stood for. Yeah. To be honest if you want a direct comparison start naming roads in England after famous figures in either the first Irish Republican Army, the Provisional Irish Republican Army or the Real Irish Republican Army and of course installing statues of them throughout England. If it's important to know history and ignore whether they've contributed good or bad things is irrelevant so by all means honor those that waged war on England as much as the Confederacy did to the United States, I would suspect the English population would be enraged at the very idea of honoring them for their part in history. If you switch IRA to Confederacy perhaps you'd understand why it's ridiculous honoring traitors. By the way, if you are still on about how the President of the United States thinks that, all I have to say is that he doesn't know American history either. That's right, I'm ashamed to admit it, but the US collectively elected a President who is an uneducated dipshit that found his fat ass in the seat of the oval office by appealingazis, Neo-Confederates, and Russians. And if you are thinking "Oh, those are greatest threats American had faced in the last 150 years," you would be right. 4 hours ago, Rozalia said: 1: America is simply more extreme these days. Both on the Far-Right and Far-Left. Leads to these unreall sonable things. People like you should know better however. More extreme on the right, yeah. We don't really have much of a left group in the United States so we often vote with the Democrats as they're generally at least centrist. Our electoral choices at present are centrists who lean Neocon and the far right. 3: Referred to Trump supporters. You bring up David Duke. A proven losing tactic that only insults reasonable people and solidifies their support of Trump. Hard to care about Nazis when you are constantly told you yourself are a Nazi when you ain't. Funny, you do this very thing in virtually every post. 5: Your attacks would perhaps matter if you haven't said worse about America and Americans in the past. Yours would matter if you were American. 2/4/6: Always nice to see reason, thank you. Now for... the rest. You fail to understand that I nor anyone else for that matter has said that Lincoln and Washington are on the same plain as the Confederates. Simply that these people do not stop as they must simply fight forever against the racists real or imagined, alive or dead. When has this been done before to offer you a chance to prove your assertion of the United States replacing street names and removing a few statues has happened before, let alone escalated? Once all the Confederates are gone what then? Mission done, pack up and go home? No.Yes. They will talk about how dare Lincoln get all that praise when he was a racist who did what he did for purely cynical reasons. How dare Jefferson the racist rapist be honoured. So on. If there are no fights to fight then they have no reason to exist, and as such it is an ever expanding conflict for them. Based on ... ? Speaking of that Lincoln recently got vandalised and also back in 2013 from what I recall reading the other day. Look forward to them stepping up their attacks when the Confederates go. I like being right. It must be a terrible experience posting here if you like that. 3 hours ago, Rozalia said: 2/4/6: Not all slippery slopes are incorrect. You have prove what I said that gets us to the end result of them targeting the other figures is wrong which you did not do. No one has to do anything for you, Roz. You do not control these forums; you're just a random poster from the UK. You're not American, can't vote here, your opinion of how the US is run is entirely lacking in value. You simply brought up your own slippery slope and stated that as yours is wrong then mine must also be. For many years I have seen these groups (which groups?) at work, jumping on the smallest of things as they need attention, they need to feel good, they need to fight the good fight. Have you done much polling on "these groups" to indicate their motives for doing what they do or just making random claims that might avoid being addressed if you post a long enough rebuttal? Here in Britain for example there has been an attempt to import BLM. They did the whole "hands up don't shoot" thing, they have protested, they've marched protected by the (unarmed) police all the way. In reality Black folk here are under-represented in police shootings and not many happen to begin with. So what do they do in the face of what the numbers say? Stop as there is no actual fight to fight? Of course not when Global warming can be deemed racist and they can now protest over that. These groups never deem the job to be done, they will fight forever until they become so discredited that they fall apart. Based on ... ? 1 hour ago, Caecus said: 3. No, it just sounds like the right has a snowflake issue and don't want their feelings hurt, even if it means electing a Nazi to the white house. Despite holding almost all three branches of federal government they're still somehow being oppressed, in constant threat of having their guns seized (often citing Obama, which isn't really clear as to why after he's left office he'd be able or desire to do either during his terms or afterward. 2/4/6: Why the hell is the burden of proof on me? You are the one making a dipshit claim about the future with shit evidence. If you make the claim, you prove it. The only proof you presented is just a vandalization of the Lincoln memorial which says "!@#$ law," and assuming that means people want to take down a statue. You have no argument, and you are trying to force it on me. You are obviously at the end of your rope here. IDK, this is a pretty typical Roz post. Step 1. Decide on which lie or lies to use for a false quotation Step 2. Deny you're doing that. Step 3. Make an ineffective argument of no use. Step 4. Be sure to include a number of petty and childish insults peppered throughout, but attempting to keep them from butting up against your implied claim that it's everyone else doing so. Step 5. See the responses to your post and become enraged that they're so easily dismissed. Step 6. Repeat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Caecus said: 3. No, it just sounds like the right has a snowflake issue and don't want their feelings hurt, even if it means electing a Nazi to the white house. 2/4/6: Why the hell is the burden of proof on me? You are the one making a dipshit claim about the future with shit evidence. If you make the claim, you prove it. The only proof you presented is just a vandalization of the Lincoln memorial which says "!@#$ law," and assuming that means people want to take down a statue. You have no argument, and you are trying to force it on me. You are obviously at the end of your rope here. 3: If I was to mention black folk would you start calling them all criminals? If yes then alright. If no then why is it alright to target a group as you have done but not others? 2/4/6: I actually did provide support to my claim that this fight is endless for these groups. Could bring up certain feminists too. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/ I'm making a prediction based on current events and the way these type of characters operate. Can you say they do not operate that way? Already there are cases and people saying what I said is going to happen. Edited August 18, 2017 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Rozalia said: 3: If I was to mention black folk would you start calling them all criminals? If yes then alright. If no then why is it alright to target a group as you have done but not others? 2/4/6: I actually did provide support to my claim that this fight is endless for these groups. Could bring up certain feminists too. I'm making a prediction based on current events and the way these type of characters operate. Can you say they do not operate that way? Already there are cases and people saying what I said is going to happen. There are also Christian sects that believe the world will end at a certain time. Then when it doesn't, adjust for a new time. BLM isn't really an organized group and black blocing is a tactic, not a group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 18, 2017 Author Share Posted August 18, 2017 55 minutes ago, Rozalia said: 3: If I was to mention black folk would you start calling them all criminals? If yes then alright. If no then why is it alright to target a group as you have done but not others? 2/4/6: I actually did provide support to my claim that this fight is endless for these groups. Could bring up certain feminists too. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/ I'm making a prediction based on current events and the way these type of characters operate. Can you say they do not operate that way? Already there are cases and people saying what I said is going to happen. 3. Ok, I see your point now. But I'm not sure if Donald Trump sees your point. His statement condemning the KKK and Nazis out by name on Monday was followed up by David Duke reminding the president who put him in the White House. Not a full day goes by, and Trump walks back his statement to appeal to "who put him in the white house." I'm sure that people might get offended and do some reverse psychology dipshit move like they are 10 year olds, but what happens when Trump himself thinks his base is a bunch of Nazis? 2/4/6: So you have one person on CNN talking about it, and you assume that leads to that eventuality. I don't see how this is significant. Are there protests marching in the capitol to take down monuments of Washington and Jefferson? Are there any scheduled removals of those statues by state or federal governments? If we judged the probability of one thing happening just because some random "commentator" on CNN says it should happen, Clinton would be president, the economy would be simultaneously at its best and worst since 1970, and Guam would be an irradiated coral reef. Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi). Quote 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 More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Caecus said: 3. Ok, I see your point now. But I'm not sure if Donald Trump sees your point. His statement condemning the KKK and Nazis out by name on Monday was followed up by David Duke reminding the president who put him in the White House. Not a full day goes by, and Trump walks back his statement to appeal to "who put him in the white house." I'm sure that people might get offended and do some reverse psychology dipshit move like they are 10 year olds, but what happens when Trump himself thinks his base is a bunch of Nazis? 2/4/6: So you have one person on CNN talking about it, and you assume that leads to that eventuality. I don't see how this is significant. Are there protests marching in the capitol to take down monuments of Washington and Jefferson? Are there any scheduled removals of those statues by state or federal governments? If we judged the probability of one thing happening just because some random "commentator" on CNN says it should happen, Clinton would be president, the economy would be simultaneously at its best and worst since 1970, and Guam would be an irradiated coral reef. Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi). 3: David Duke can say what he likes. He is hardly a credible person to be listening to. As for the statement... word is what Trump said in that statement was prepared by his advisers for him. What he said after with his targeting of the Alt-Left was Trump himself speaking. Not the first time such a thing has occurred from what I recall. 2/3/6: My point is the thinking is there and she is hardly the only one saying such things. At the moment the focus is on the Confederates but it will change targets when they are gone. Do you think that these groups will all suddenly peacefully go into the night on this issue when the Confederates are gone, which if so please do say so. Even with that focus on Confederates two different Lincoln statues have been vandalised already (you may have missed it, but a link at the bottom of the youtube link). The example I gave you from my country shows that these people will protest and campaign even when the problem they are doing so doesn't exist, to the point they have to claim issues like climate change is racist so they aren't forced to talk about what the actual figures say. Not quite. You should stop the march of these things from the start and beat them before they can enter a frenzy. You tell them no and stop them. Give in and where do you stop? Already attacks have happened. What happens when those groups campaign for statues being taken down and are rejected after having taken down the Confederates? They'll take it into their own hands as from what I recall they did with one of the Confederate statues. As for the Nazis. I've had to for however many years now had to defend their likes more than I would have liked, however you stand up to what is wrong whoever is being targeted. I'm no stranger to being called a racist for talking about low immigration, having integration, Brexit, so on. These people will throw those they don't agree in with the Nazis and if okay to take away their (Nazi) freedom of speech, to imprison them, so on, then me and other reasonable people will feel the hammer of these people too for they have no restraint. The way to defeat these people is not by making victims of them, but by simply letting them speak. Ripping them apart is not a hard job, easily done in fact and I do it all the time. Along the way I've been called some things of course, though a lot less than my previous large dealings with Progressive types funnily enough. Let me think of some statements made towards me. Nationalist cuck was one of them for not being ethnic about it. Being asked why I want to wipe out the white race for talking about my uh, shall we say... activities. Degenerate also naturally. Actually thinking on it... I get attacked by pretty much everyone so perhaps why it just washes off me. Islamists are another group who have their own attacks towards me such as me apparently being a Jew (you'd think Nazis would go with that one, but nah, Islamists seem to hate Jews even more). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 41 minutes ago, Rozalia said: The way to defeat these people is not by making victims of them, but by simply letting them speak. Ripping them apart is not a hard job, easily done in fact and I do it all the time. I assume this is a joke, but if not I have never seen you "rip apart" anyone; just childish insults and ignoring the parts of posts you can't even offer an opinion on, let alone factual corrections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 18, 2017 Author Share Posted August 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Rozalia said: 3: David Duke can say what he likes. He is hardly a credible person to be listening to. As for the statement... word is what Trump said in that statement was prepared by his advisers for him. What he said after with his targeting of the Alt-Left was Trump himself speaking. Not the first time such a thing has occurred from what I recall. 2/3/6: My point is the thinking is there and she is hardly the only one saying such things. At the moment the focus is on the Confederates but it will change targets when they are gone. Do you think that these groups will all suddenly peacefully go into the night on this issue when the Confederates are gone, which if so please do say so. Even with that focus on Confederates two different Lincoln statues have been vandalised already (you may have missed it, but a link at the bottom of the youtube link). The example I gave you from my country shows that these people will protest and campaign even when the problem they are doing so doesn't exist, to the point they have to claim issues like climate change is racist so they aren't forced to talk about what the actual figures say. Not quite. You should stop the march of these things from the start and beat them before they can enter a frenzy. You tell them no and stop them. Give in and where do you stop? Already attacks have happened. What happens when those groups campaign for statues being taken down and are rejected after having taken down the Confederates? They'll take it into their own hands as from what I recall they did with one of the Confederate statues. As for the Nazis. I've had to for however many years now had to defend their likes more than I would have liked, however you stand up to what is wrong whoever is being targeted. I'm no stranger to being called a racist for talking about low immigration, having integration, Brexit, so on. These people will throw those they don't agree in with the Nazis and if okay to take away their (Nazi) freedom of speech, to imprison them, so on, then me and other reasonable people will feel the hammer of these people too for they have no restraint. The way to defeat these people is not by making victims of them, but by simply letting them speak. Ripping them apart is not a hard job, easily done in fact and I do it all the time. Along the way I've been called some things of course, though a lot less than my previous large dealings with Progressive types funnily enough. Let me think of some statements made towards me. Nationalist cuck was one of them for not being ethnic about it. Being asked why I want to wipe out the white race for talking about my uh, shall we say... activities. Degenerate also naturally. Actually thinking on it... I get attacked by pretty much everyone so perhaps why it just washes off me. Islamists are another group who have their own attacks towards me such as me apparently being a Jew (you'd think Nazis would go with that one, but nah, Islamists seem to hate Jews even more). 3. Really? Cause that's pretty convenient timing. The day immediately after, some KKK big wig reminds Trump of who elected him and he turns right on his head to placate the Nazis. 6: Again, your country is hardly relevant here in America. As far as we are concerned, there are only 5 countries out there: The US, Canada, Mexico, Texas, and Not the US. Notice how your country isn't on that list. At this point, you are speculating with flimsy evidence, essentially pointing to one person on CNN and rumors. As for the Nazis. Nobody is taking away their freedom of speech or imprisoning them (except for an Alex Fields), and the fact that you somehow think that is happening is false and defends their cause enough. If you don't want yourself to be associated with Nazis, perhaps you should start by not making excuses for them and their ideology. And the fact that you think Nazis are "other reasonable people" is disturbing and perhaps is why you are constantly accused of being a Nazi. I would recommend some introspection when assessing whether or not you are a Nazi. If you find yourself on the same side as them often enough, maybe you should take a closer look at what you believe instead of blaming it on other people like the spoiled little brat of a President we have. To conclude, I still stand by my statement, albeit with some adjustments: Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi for keeping up statues of racist terrorists who killed a million Americans to try and keep the institution of slavery). 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 P.S.: Nazis always deserve worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Monster Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Hey guys, I just wanted to drop in and give a quick Verbal Warn to everyone associated with this thread. We've received some reports and instead of just pointing a finger at one, we are going to collectively warn the group. Try and keep it civil, no matter how heated the issue is or how sensitive the issue is to you personally. As per the rules of the forum, we are allowed to throw in 2 verbal warns inside a thread, after that we close it and are able to actually warn a profile. Lets keep it from going that far. Healthy debates. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Mad Sweeney said: Hey guys, I just wanted to drop in and give a quick Verbal Warn to everyone associated with this thread. We've received some reports and instead of just pointing a finger at one, we are going to collectively warn the group. Try and keep it civil, no matter how heated the issue is or how sensitive the issue is to you personally. As per the rules of the forum, we are allowed to throw in 2 verbal warns inside a thread, after that we close it and are able to actually warn a profile. Lets keep it from going that far. Healthy debates. o/ If you don't indicate the issue how are we going to address it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Mad Sweeney said: Healthy debates. o/ I'm posting while eating french fries and drinking a milkshake. Is that healthy? On 8/17/2017 at 9:04 PM, ComradeMilton said: When and how would the South have lost its slaves? Britain could suggest they do so, but even today a decent number of people think they should be able to go back and own people in the South and (probably) a handful of people in the Union as well. Have you read about Andersonville? As for the others go nuts as far as I'm concerned. Britain would've been the South's favorite trade partner (selling CSA cotton to British textile mills). Don't act like their suggestions would be equal to Sheepy suggesting we all start Baa-ism churches around the world. I would like to see some numbers. What I consider "a decent number of people" must be different from what you consider, or (from what I know of living in 3 southern states) your statement is misleading. IMO, going town to town burning down buildings needed for people to live is a little worse than a poorly managed prisoner of war camp which was intended to be temporary. The Union was notified about the poor conditions, however, the Union did not reinstate prisoner of war exchanges. Edited August 19, 2017 by WISD0MTREE 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 On 18/08/2017 at 5:10 AM, Caecus said: 3. Really? Cause that's pretty convenient timing. The day immediately after, some KKK big wig reminds Trump of who elected him and he turns right on his head to placate the Nazis. 6: Again, your country is hardly relevant here in America. As far as we are concerned, there are only 5 countries out there: The US, Canada, Mexico, Texas, and Not the US. Notice how your country isn't on that list. At this point, you are speculating with flimsy evidence, essentially pointing to one person on CNN and rumors. As for the Nazis. Nobody is taking away their freedom of speech or imprisoning them (except for an Alex Fields), and the fact that you somehow think that is happening is false and defends their cause enough. If you don't want yourself to be associated with Nazis, perhaps you should start by not making excuses for them and their ideology. And the fact that you think Nazis are "other reasonable people" is disturbing and perhaps is why you are constantly accused of being a Nazi. I would recommend some introspection when assessing whether or not you are a Nazi. If you find yourself on the same side as them often enough, maybe you should take a closer look at what you believe instead of blaming it on other people like the spoiled little brat of a President we have. To conclude, I still stand by my statement, albeit with some adjustments: Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi for keeping up statues of racist terrorists who killed a million Americans to try and keep the institution of slavery). 3: Tell me. Years back when far-right loonies would link to some random Muslim guy, usually a cleric of some sort saying Obama was their guy (as in a Muslim)... that mean absolutely anything? What about Nazis link to that former Jewish guy who is a priest or something (never watched the video but had it linked to me enough times) who says that yes, the conspiracy is real? David Duke can say what he likes as I said. The KKK is, and has for a long time been an irrelevance. 6: To a point the examples were unneeded, America after all has hit a point where they are far more rabid than those over here could ever hope to be. What being shown to be losers will do to such people I suppose. Sad! So the Lincoln monument torched is a rumour now? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/ What about removing Washington's name? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/ Imagine. With all the focus on the Confederates they still have it seems plenty of energy for targeting others. Imagine when the Confederates are gone, oh boy. The only way you could take it as me calling Nazis reasonable people would be if you believe me to be one. I said "me and other reasonable people". As in you let these people run wild on the Nazis and they may come for them first but then they'll come for you later, you know that old meme. What excuses have I made for Nazis also? Is this all you're going to do? Imply I'm a Nazi? Just accuse me directly buddy and don't wimp out. When you do though I do hope you are ready to prove said accusation. The simple truth of the matter is these Nazis can't fight their opponents in actual debates, they're horrible as you would expect. However even if they reach an answer the wrong way that doesn't make their position wrong. Globalism for example when they oppose it they might do so because of the Jews or whatever else, but opposing globalism is certainly something I agree with. As such I do the job right and battle the Neo-Liberals or Progressives. Likewise while not seen on here I do the same in reverse such as on discord where I argue leftwing policy with Nazi sorts far better than a Progressive ever could. Those are two other loony groups by the way. Progressives are just the white nats of the left, identify politics mongers in constant rage and see conspiracy everywhere. Neo-Liberals my thoughts on are very well documented. To the dustbin of history the lot of you I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 19, 2017 Author Share Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Rozalia said: 3: Tell me. Years back when far-right loonies would link to some random Muslim guy, usually a cleric of some sort saying Obama was their guy (as in a Muslim)... that mean absolutely anything? What about Nazis link to that former Jewish guy who is a priest or something (never watched the video but had it linked to me enough times) who says that yes, the conspiracy is real? David Duke can say what he likes as I said. The KKK is, and has for a long time been an irrelevance. 6: To a point the examples were unneeded, America after all has hit a point where they are far more rabid than those over here could ever hope to be. What being shown to be losers will do to such people I suppose. Sad! So the Lincoln monument torched is a rumour now? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/ What about removing Washington's name? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/ Imagine. With all the focus on the Confederates they still have it seems plenty of energy for targeting others. Imagine when the Confederates are gone, oh boy. The only way you could take it as me calling Nazis reasonable people would be if you believe me to be one. I said "me and other reasonable people". As in you let these people run wild on the Nazis and they may come for them first but then they'll come for you later, you know that old meme. What excuses have I made for Nazis also? Is this all you're going to do? Imply I'm a Nazi? Just accuse me directly buddy and don't wimp out. When you do though I do hope you are ready to prove said accusation. The simple truth of the matter is these Nazis can't fight their opponents in actual debates, they're horrible as you would expect. However even if they reach an answer the wrong way that doesn't make their position wrong. Globalism for example when they oppose it they might do so because of the Jews or whatever else, but opposing globalism is certainly something I agree with. As such I do the job right and battle the Neo-Liberals or Progressives. Likewise while not seen on here I do the same in reverse such as on discord where I argue leftwing policy with Nazi sorts far better than a Progressive ever could. Those are two other loony groups by the way. Progressives are just the white nats of the left, identify politics mongers in constant rage and see conspiracy everywhere. Neo-Liberals my thoughts on are very well documented. To the dustbin of history the lot of you I say. On 8/17/2017 at 10:10 PM, Caecus said: Your evidence is still shit. Ultimately, your argument behind not removing Confederate statues is that it would lead to the removal of other statues. It's a simple-minded argument that ignores everything else egregiously wrong with Confederate statues (presumably because you can't win the moral argument without sounding like a neo-Nazi for keeping up statues of racist terrorists who killed a million Americans to try and keep the institution of slavery). I think you have a hard time understanding this, considering the country you come from. When you have up statues of Jefferson and Washington, you can justify their existence because of the things they have done for this country despite being slave owners or racists. When you have up statues of Lee, Bedford Forrest, or Davis, it is entirely indefensible. Their legacy is terrorism. Their legacy is a racially divided country. Their legacy is a million graves of Americans. If your only argument is that keeping up these statues will prevent the statues of other people from coming down while ignoring what these statues symbolize and mean, your argument is morally bankrupt and at an end. I've given plenty of reasons why these statues should be removed, none of which has been refuted. You have only given one, and it is flimsy at best. These are how most of our debates end, Roz. You end up debating the minute points while providing nothing when actually confronted with the debate topic at hand. Edited August 19, 2017 by Caecus Quote 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 More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 (edited) On 19/08/2017 at 3:28 PM, Caecus said: I think you have a hard time understanding this, considering the country you come from. When you have up statues of Jefferson and Washington, you can justify their existence because of the things they have done for this country despite being slave owners or racists. When you have up statues of Lee, Bedford Forrest, or Davis, it is entirely indefensible. Their legacy is terrorism. Their legacy is a racially divided country. Their legacy is a million graves of Americans. If your only argument is that keeping up these statues will prevent the statues of other people from coming down while ignoring what these statues symbolize and mean, your argument is morally bankrupt and at an end. I've given plenty of reasons why these statues should be removed, none of which has been refuted. You have only given one, and it is flimsy at best. These are how most of our debates end, Roz. You end up debating the minute points while providing nothing when actually confronted with the debate topic at hand. The current line from the less excited shall we say. If you like it or not those men have cultural value to the south of America. Texas for example also has it's own heroes who at the end of the day were simply rebels, traitors, and all the rest. Sam Houston doesn't just have a huge statue but also a city named after him. Speaking of rebels... what of the Democratic party? Many of the Confederates including their President were Democrats who entered into rebellion. Why is a party that rebelled like that allowed to exist (I am aware the Democrats continued in the Union, as a much depleted force)? Surely by the same token you take the party should be banned no? In fact... the Democrat party has quite the history when it comes to slavery and the rights of non-whites, quite the negative one. Where is their banning? Why are the anti-racists all over there? Surely history trumps all else no? You going to just ignore the attacks that have already occurred including the torching of a Lincoln monument that I linked? If you think those rabid foot soldiers of identity politics won't turn on you then I am sorry for your naivety. Edited August 20, 2017 by Rozalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.