| @Meusnier Of course I would. That is why it's called might makes right. Morals isn't a factor in it because it's realistically just manipulable nonsense. Besides how do you know what Pascal believed in? Did you know him? Have you ever talked to him? Is he on your friend list here on MAL? Figured not. Besides I can do whatever I want. The maker of the baseball bat can say that it's intended use is for sport and not for cracking people's skulls but it's not going to stop me from using it that way if I want to. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just. - Blaise Pascal |
Meusnier said: VampireSylphy said: From a moral perspective, no. But from a practical perspective, yes. And that is why it's called the United States of America even though it originally belonged to the Natives and I imagine a swift quelling of any attempts to retake it for themselves would end in them being slandered as terrorist and "evil" and we see that might has now become justice once again proving Pascal's quote, that being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just. I can use a quote however I want the same way I can use a baseball bat to crack someone's skull even though it's not it''s intended use instead of batting a baseball because it is not ideals that affect reality, it's action. And if you trespass on my land by defaulting on rent, I will have the cops forcefully remove you. Likewise if any native plan an attack on the White House, I imagine every federal agency would be on their trail ready to shut them down You do not even believe in your own words for you would do any legal action to recover your lost property. No, you cannot make anyone argue against what he believes in (or believed in when he was alive) or would likely believe today. This is not only dishonest but base. Dawizz said: @Meusnier you are one of those, aren't you? We get it, all the Indians were living in harmony, none of the tribes did anything bad to each other, they all shared the land, living side by side, never killing, slaving or conquering each other. Perfect harmony. You know what? We came, we saw, we conquered, I don't give one fvckin Iota if you don't like that fact, a very nornal fact of life, the strong regaly fvcks the weak, deal with it. If the indians don't like it, they can pack their bags and return to Siberia/Mongolia/Russian steppes, weirdly none have ever done it, I wonder why? You are the typical by product of today's woke education system, blame the Whites for everything, forgetting that if it wasn't for the Whites the world would be a much darker & backwater place than it is right now. We didn't start slavery but we sure did give it it's name and certainly put a stop to it! Facts, now go deal with those facts somewhere else. "Those" what? I did not say any of that, but your lazy caricatures still do not justify the large-scale massacres that white trash from Europe carried in the continent. I love being accused of wokeness by negationists of your kind. Almost all large-scale wars of the last century were started by white people, but surely, the Middle East would be a much darker place without the last two decades of wars... People of your kind think that inventing oil painting, cinema, and quantum mechanics gives one a pass to do anything (China invented paper, gunpowder, and compass, so I guess that it can rightfully invade Japan). You are not living during the Italian Renaissance (that is built on the Islamic Golden Age anyway), so spare me your fantasies on the positive role of white men in today's world... It is written "its name," not "it's name." Go back to primary school. You did not end slavery, at least not in the USA when slaves were liberated but not given land, so that they stayed in poverty, contrary to the (white) European immigrants who would be given lands in the West and the Midwest (and one should also mention another invention that you did not boast a lot about: segregation). You still see the consequences of slavery up to this day. The only thing that I see in your post is the usual schoolboy argument: "But, Sir, he did it too!" I am not "blaming Whites (sic) for everything," but claiming that they are some kind of Übermenschen everyone should be thankful to is nothing short of absurd. But I do not think that you can understand such nuances from your romanticised vision of history and reality. This right here is wen I knew I won the argument >"It is written "its name," not "it's name." Wen you don't have any valid arguments your kind resort to this childish behavior, finger pointing and becoming the internet grammar & nazi police. You are a woke/negationists and a revisionist all in one little soy-infused package. There is a reason why the native people and their descendants of the smallest, least populated with the fewer natural resources continent of the world gave to the said world, hold on to your hat cowboy: Democracy, the age of discovery, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, inventions some off them saved countless life, the Space age and everything and anything in between. There is a reason why we did all of this and much, much more, while other power houses like China fvcked up beyond repair. You talk of the Middle East like it was/is some type of paradise on earth, like the Arab tribes never hated each other, not like the Sunni hate the Shia beyond words and vice versa, but I'm sure it's the White fault, right? It as to be. You also talk about >"the Italian Renaissance (that is built on the Islamic Golden Age anyway)" forgetting to say that the arabs stole, I mean borrowed from India/China so much stuff and I might even say that half if not more of the so called islamic golden age was build on pillaged goods from china/india and on lesser degree the Byzantine Empire but moving along. But I'm sure da Vinci, Filippo Brunelleschi and so many need to acknowledge the arabs some how. Why should the slave had to have any land for free? What was their rights to said land? They were given free ride and land back in Africa, (Liberia), why did they stay in such a horrible place? Maybe, just maybe things were not has bad as your kind imagine them to have been, just saying. Fvck off! We did end it, period! Go cope somewhere else, the Royal Navy ended the Atlantic slave trade. And for 200+ years slavery was gone from most parts of the world, but not from places were non Whites ruled....Funny how that worked out? No, what it is, is that you are a brainwashed sell out, boot licker, bending the knee for online brownie points. Facts are facts we build this world, we gave the world 80% if not more of everything ever done/invented, we gave slavery it's name, we ended it, we gave the finest art/medicine/inventions/ freedom/democracy/capitalism to the rest of the world, deal with it, cope, cry soy tears. |
| Me every time I hear the word "reparations": 🤣🤣🤣 |
Narmy said: logopolis said: No, that's trade. Capitalism is things like "I own that land, you need to pay me if you want to live there". "I own that factory, that means I get to tell you all how you work and take the profit for myself". Yeah, people who love capitalism have no fucking clue what it even is. It's when someone who doesn't work takes the earnings from the people who do work. Generally when they are talking about how bad communism is they are just describing capitalism. If you think that's a good system you are a cuck who enjoys slavery. Or you can just NOT work nobody's forcing you. Slavery is when I kidnap your child to be conscripted into a child soldier squad, cut off your elderly parents arms to spread fear like the RUF because they aren't physically able enough to work, and send you to the diamond mine to work under watchful eyes of armed guards who will not hesitate to shoot you if you mess around. Now that's slavery. Horrible way to live |
vasipi4946 said: I was making fun of @Deathko because wanting Workers To Own The Means Of Production is what Ronald Reagan talked about in a speech when Cuban troops invaded Grenda.  @Deathko is SUCH AN EXTERME RADICAL HE HAS THE SAME VIEWPOINT AS REAGAN...the Godfather of American Conservatism. I said nothing about "wanting Workers To Own The Means Of Production". Also what's up with all those capital letters, are you having a seizure? ^_- |
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
Say-My-Name said: Because the way I see it, capitalism is broken, but it's still the best system we got, when compared to the rest. Feel free to disagree and tell me why, if you do. Capitalism is broken. It encourages economic disparity which will inevitably cause only a few people holding all the wealth while actively keeping the rest of the population with the bare minimum. But there isn't any real alternative that a majority of the population would accept with open arms. People tend to love having the fantasy that one day they could become rich within this system even when the odds are almost always against them. People like having the idea that one day they could make huge amounts of money doing minimal work or effort. |
 |
Bruh you're the one getting all red in the face and crying about how whites are oppressed in all your posts lol. Get some self awareness and go chill in a corner < ' >_< ' > |
Prophetess of the Golden Era |
Deathko said: According to his other posts he's a gay non-White (said he was a minority) who is married to a guy too.Bruh you're the one getting all red in the face and crying about how whites are oppressed in all your posts lol. Get some self awareness and go chill in a corner < ' >_< ' > |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart!  |
Narmy said: 149597871 said: We don't and never had capitalism Of course we do. That's just something that people who can't accept that capitalism is a bad system say. Capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production, which is exactly what we have. That is just a matter of swapping definitions until a statement stops making sense. I just answered the topic with textbook definition. "Capitalism = when private entities own stuff; Communism - when the state owns stuff" has always seemed like silly and oversimplified idea of economics, that I don't think it's worth discussing, but if these are your definitions sure. Not that it'd make that much sense anyway since the state is far more powerful than any private entity even in our current system. vasipi4946 said: 149597871 said: Corporatism is not what you think it means. It is vertical syndicalism based on early medieval guilds. Mussolini wrote about corporatism and defined it as such. It's not "it's when capitalists run the country".transition to corporatism I never said it was. I used the textbook definition. Large corporations running the country is called corporatocracy, but what we currently have is closer to corporatism. |
149597871Oct 6, 2022 4:52 AM
149597871 said: That is just a matter of swapping definitions until a statement stops making sense. I just answered the topic with textbook definition. "Capitalism = when private entities own stuff; Communism - when the state owns stuff" has always seemed like silly and oversimplified idea of economics, that I don't think it's worth discussing, but if these are your definitions sure. Not that it'd make that much sense anyway since the state is far more powerful than any private entity even in our current system. Those aren't my definitions since there is no state in communism in the first place. Capitalists capturing the state is called fascism. |
 |
Narmy said: If by communism we refer to attempts by socialist states that end up opting for capitalist economies - Because a system without it, in practice, fails by eliminating the market and pretending that they can solve unforeseen events of all kinds.logopolis said: No, that's trade. Capitalism is things like "I own that land, you need to pay me if you want to live there". "I own that factory, that means I get to tell you all how you work and take the profit for myself". Yeah, people who love capitalism have no fucking clue what it even is. It's when someone who doesn't work takes the earnings from the people who do work. Generally when they are talking about how bad communism is they are just describing capitalism. If you think that's a good system you are a cuck who enjoys slavery. If the day comes when we don't need it, yeah welcome to the model that surpasses capitalism. |
   You and the rose are connected. Know the weight of your own life |
| Normie take. We should operate on fully random laws generated and governed by artificial intelligence, which change every 4 to 8 years. Actually, that sounds a lot like Brazil. Never mind. |
Thread locked. Casual Discussion Rules: 7. Controversial/sensitive topics liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse) are no longer allowed. This includes but is not limited to topics about: gender, sexual orientation, lgbt, homophobia race, xenophobia, immigration sexual assault, abortion pedophilia, lolicon/shotacon, incest, teenage-adult relationships politics, political ideologies, laws, policies controversial public figures/leaders, hate groups religion drugs, illegal activities |
More topics from this board
» Do the well-known stereotypes associated with people from your country actually apply to you? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Oct 8 |
72 |
by Auron
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Isn't it technically impossible to prove other people exist?memeticmeme - 3 hours ago |
9 |
by memeticmeme
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» are there any "Hikikomori" here like me? ( 1 2 )Ymir_The_Viking - Yesterday |
51 |
by Necronomicon
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» All of you who learned English as a 2nd language, is your accent clear or thick?fleurbleue - 5 hours ago |
17 |
by JaniSIr
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» Why does media hype up 16th birthdaysPandemoniumm - 58 minutes ago |
7 |
by Merve2Love
»»
25 minutes ago |