Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Ganelon

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.28 seconds.

  1. Replies
    6
    Views
    41

    Poll: ►►Re: have you ever seen a chicken in real life◄◄

    Chickens are a myth
  2. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Edoua Maije View Post
    right lol , ganelon needs to do some serious rethinking on this setup honestly.
    Yup
  3. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Left winger views don't align with nazis, who are far right wingers. So the answer is yes, left wingers distance themselves literally on the other end of the political spectrum.

    Not all right wingers are nazis. But nazis ARE right wingers.

    What viewpoints do nazis espouse that align with the left?
    My point is that the left does even less than the right to distance themselves from their rabid, dangerous, radical cousins.
  4. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slaveryósubordination to the superior raceóis his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

    I wonder what more you need.

    Keep in mind I'm not saying that they were literally the same as Nazis. The Nazis did far worse in history, in part because they weren't as fucking stupid and didn't shoot themselves in the foot at every moment like the Confederacy did. But the Confederacy's ideas were as dangerous as Nazi ideas and they came from the same type of hatred.

    In terms of death toll, it's hard to put a specific number on the slave trade, but the death toll from the Atlantic slave trade and from the Holocaust were roughly equal. Not all of these can be attributed to the Confederacy, but they are all attributed to the ideas that the Confederacy was founded on.
    Iím not ignoring that point. I know full well what the VP of the CSA said. However, racist attitudes werenít uncommon at the time, and honestly I think you canít divorce the economic aspect of slavery from the institution at all. Its no wonder that racialist policies and slavery survived the longest in the territories where it had economic utility. Brazil and the South were (I believe) the two places in the Americas where slavery survived the longest.

    If were talking about the death toll, a fairer comparison would be the number of Jewish deaths resulting from pogroms and general antisemitism, versus the number of blacks who died in segregation. You can take both the segregation/slavery occurring in the CSA/the South and in RSA. The number of total Jews killed in pogroms or mass exterminationís most likely far exceeds the number of slaves or blacks who perished under conditions of slavery and apartheid/segregation.

    The two things that really stand out to me when comparing the Confederates and the Nazis are a) the historical context, and b) the general cultural atmosphere directly caused by/related to the evil committed by both. Remember that slavery was a very old institution in 1860 and it wasnít as if the South wanted to enslave northern blacks, which is a crucial point that must not be forgotten. Iíve already mentioned the economic aspect, and in my view it cannot be done away with in discussions of slavery. Further, the South did not engage in mass slaughter of slaves; had they been that racist, they couldíve done it; yet they chose not to.

    Anyways, I donít think I can convince you that the Confederacy... isnít as evil as the Nazis. You certainly can tell convince me of the reverse. For me, and Iíll finish by saying this, there is something distinctly awful and heart-wrenching about the Nazis, something the Confederates didnít have and probably couldnít have had. The inherent statism of the Nazis plays a huge role in this, but itís not all. In my view, the war couldíve been avoided if the Union had attempted to compromise with the south in a different way (rather than essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending nothing was wrong). I believe the South couldíve been reasoned with if the proper steps had been taken. This couldnít have happened with the he nazis, who were hell-bent on annihilating everyone who wasnít of the master race. In fact the Nazis were so evil, that they put their murderous goals above the need to win the war. Hitler accelerated the mass killings when he started losing the war. Thatís no coincidence. And the fact that Hitler killed the Jews instead of enslaving them is quite telling.
  5. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Because they don't do NEARLY enough to distance themselves from it.
    And left wingers do? There is a worrying lack of reaction on the left nowadays when it comes to major social issues such as the riots in America; and these riots are all parts of a greater whole. A couple in the US got painted by the media as racists for defending their home against looters who broke into their yard. It was actually quite astonishing to see the differences in the portrayal of that event between CNN and Tucker (Iím not counting Fox News as a whole because I only watch Tucker, and sometimes Ingraham).

    There are many other examples, and I doubt I am in the wrong here. The left really is more radical than the right nowadays. I believe that the elements of the radical right that exist today arose as a response to ideological excesses on the left. This is not to excuse them of course, but theyíve played a major role in polarization.

    Take climate change for instance. There is a really high chance that climate change will not be a significant disaster this century. If you take a look at various statistics the environmentalists like to peddle as a) evidence of human influence on the climate and b) evidence of a major humanistic catastrophe occurring later, youíll find that many of them have no actual basis in reality. There is evidence to suggest that humans are influencing the climate to a significant extent, but the evidence also says that carbon emissions are actually decreasing (and its not because of green energy): developed countries are now switching to cleaner power sources like uranium and natural gas, which do not pollute. Thereís a plethora of other reasons, all arising from increase industrialization, technological development and economic growth: forests have actually started growing back in Europe and America, precisely because agriculture has become more efficient and needs less space. I see apocalyptic environmentalism as coming precisely from the left, and more exactly, itís coning from people who I do not trust: a poll revealed that a significant proportion of British children were convinced that they wouldnít live past the age of 30 (because of climate change).

    This is just an example of many.
  6. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    We arenít currently looking at a replacement for Jan.
  7. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    They were also nowhere near as widespread as the Nazi gas chambers.
    Honestly the first state, in my view, that bordered on being totalitarian, in human history would probably be revolutionary France. But even if they had wanted to be totalitarian, they couldnít have been. Neither could the confederates. The technology simply didnít exist, and IMO cultural attitudes in the south werenít tilted so far in the racial supremacy direction for them to be described as nazis.
  8. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Have you ever heard of lynching?
    Those werenít institutionalized. I can point you to pogroms in Russia against the Jews; doesnít mean that the Russian Empire was fascist. Fascism did not even exist back then. Lynching is an indicator of cultural attitudes, though even the the term Ďlynchingí brings to mind images of vigilanteism. Those were by no means advocated by the state.
  9. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Uhhh the nazis are really without parallel in human history, unless you look at Italy (and even *they* werenít as bad as the Nazis). I certainly donít see confederates summarily executing blacks just for being black. Thatís what he nazis did. The confederates didnít, and apart from the issue of slavery, they were otherwise not repressive, had a democratic government closely modeled after the government of the US, and gave (free white) men the right to vote. Even South Africa, bad as it was, wasnít comparable to Nazi Germany. I donít know why, and I donít know what the difference is, but itís definitely there IMO.
  10. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Even disregarding that aspect, itís seldom a good idea to execute the leaders of a rebellion. Especially one like the Confederacy. Like, in case of a communist or nazi uprising I would definitely consider execution or life imprisonment for the leaders but, the Confederacy was in no way comprabile to either of these.

    Thirdly - you hate the Confederate flag but do you hate the South African flag? The one they had prior to apartheid? Nobody really ever talks about that flag but to me the flag of South Africa has literally nothing to do with Apartheid, anymore than Afrikaans (an extremely ugly language btw) does.
  11. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    If anything, I think the Union was too easy on the Confederacy. They basically let all the traitors live out the rest of their lives on their old estates and plantations, when really they should have executed Lee and Davis and stamped out the entire pathological culture that led to the rebellion and glorification of slavery and racism. Instead they let the cancer of racism fester in the south. That's what I truly fault the Union for.

    I also find it absolutely pathetic that southerners have had 160 years to find a culture and symbols that aren't the Confederacy and they still haven't been able to. I have no sympathy for them now that people are burning their traitor rags and demolishing their illegitimate landmarks and memorials when they've had so much time to find and create something else to unite around.
    Why is the secession such a great deal to you? I believe in the right of the individual to protest, even by force of arms, against a government they consider illegitimate. Itís not as if they attempted to defect to an enemy country (Mexico or some shit). They only wanted to secede. By executing them you essentially shit on the constitution. Misguided as they were, they werenít traitors. I have no doubt that many of them wouldíve given their lives for the United States before and after the war if, say, Britain invaded via Canada, or if Mexico became revanchist and conducted a Reconquista of California.
  12. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Secondly and most importantly, the traitor state known as West Virginia would not exist /s
  13. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I think the war couldíve been avoided if the Union, instead of compromising with the South by essentially ignoring slavery, had tried to reach an equitable settlement with the south by offering to shoulder at least part of the costs of the abolition and founding trade schools for slaves so that they could have economic utility as free men (and by offering slave holders money for each slave they freed). I believe gradual abolition wouldíve been a very smart decision had it actually been attempted. Not only could they have avoided the war but perhaps the Jim Crow laws in the south as well, and the South wouldíve had time to catch up to the rest of the country, seeing as they had untapped mineral reserves (in the appalachians, say).

    I donít know. It sounds awfully simplistic but I want to believe that war wasnít inevitable, and I believe gradual, incremental change is fundamentally a better idea than radical change in such scenarios.
  14. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Wikipedia says that the North was in favour of gradual rather than immediate abolition. This I can actually agree with it and it seems as unbiased as you can get with respect to the north’s motives, and its something I can actually get behind, myself. You can’t nust free people who’ve never known freedom their entire lives and expect them to do something. I don’t know enough about this to discuss it in any depth, but my suspicion is that freeing children first and declaring those born of slaves to be free men would be a good start.
  15. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Weíre not actually going in circles. Weíre arguing for similar but slightly different things and fighting over it. I am saying the United States fought the war to preserve the Union, while the confederates fought the war primarily so that they could continue to practice slavery. And that the North didnít care THAT much about slavery, and that you canít divorce the economic aspects of slavery from the discussion. The first states to secede were the ones that most heavily depended on slave labour. Thatís no coincidence. And Iím saying the North could afford to make abolition noises because their economy wasnít based on slavery. I just think the North was at least partly hypocritical.
  16. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I mean, youíre right that the North cared about slavery but obviously when push came to shove, preserving the Union was more important to them than the issue of slavery. Thatís why all the compromises with the south were forged, and thatís the light in which Iím seeing the war. A war to preserve the union. And partly to feel the slaves. Slavery was obviously not going to last forever in the south as most other countries had already done away with it.
  17. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    My last post was kinda dumb (the one ĎI didnít @ youí). I knew what you meant so there was no need for it.
  18. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Fine. I donít mind talking about this honestly Iím kinda miffed when people tell me that Iím pushing a dogma. No shit Iím gonna Ďkeep pushingí my dogma if you say that kind of thing to me lmao. Sure, slavery was important in the North, I just think its importance is exaggerated. We can argue to what extent that is the case but itís unfair to just ignore the economic aspect of slavery from the equation. Slavery had a great economic benefit. Did the North benefit from slavery? Probably, but they didnít benefit from it anywhere near as much as the South did. Itís not like the northern economy shut down because of abolition, lol.
  19. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I didnít @ you
    lol
  20. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    From the link in previous posts



    Even historians of that era overwhelmingly disagree with the rhetoric put out here.
    So, the quote there says that the Union fought to put down a rebellion. I do agree slavery was a contentious issue in the north but it was definitely nowhere near as important to them as itís made out to be.
  21. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.
    They didnít, the south did, but the north didnít do anything to stop them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash
    The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.
    Fair enough. Youíre right that ingrained societal attitudes such as these donít change overnight just because you want them to. However, segregation still occurred in national areas (e.g. the military).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash
    Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?
    Thatís possible.
  22. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Again, if it had been, Jim Crow laws would never have been passed in the South, and blacks wouldíve had representation (they didnít even have the right to vote in most states in the South)
  23. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Its just, it is clearly an exaggeration to state that the North was all good and nice. Sure they cared about slavery to some extent, but obviously not enough to prevent the passing of Jim Crow laws, or to cease funding the American Colonization society. The North considered preservation of the Union the primary goal of the war - not slavery. Slavery wasnít immediately abolished, and the Union had made many compromises (like the Missouri compromise) with the southern states and even gave the south extra representation due to the fact that they had slaves (slaves needed representation or something. idk the reason)

    Its biased as hell. The North was racist, just less so than the south. Did the support abolition? Yes, but it wasnít anywhere near as important to them as itís usually made out to be.
  24. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Idk I donít really have the energy but my point about abolitionism has nothing to do with empathy. Iím saying itís easy to be in favour of personal freedom (who the fuck is in favour of slavery?) in some abstract sense, but a lot tougher to implement said belief in practice.
  25. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    The north couldíve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didnít. Iím not saying the south wasnít racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldnít have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesnít mean that they werenít racist.
  26. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Jim Crow laws and military segregation are not slavery. Nobody is claiming the north wasn't racist.

    I love the statement "Itís easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesnít affect you, isnít it". Probably the funniest sentence I've read in this thread. I like how we've gotten to the point where feeling empathy for enslaved people is an argument against someone's character.
    I just think itís hypocritical. All men are equal but some men are more equal than others. That kinda thing
  27. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Itís a very simple economic explanation and I donít see how you can deny it. Many major countries had abolished slavery - France, Britain having banned it earlier than even the northern states. And the people who owned slaves in the south were primarily of British origin. I canít see how you could say that it was anything other than economic reasons that persuaded the south (or the north, for that matter) to take the stance that they did on Slavery. Youíre saying slavery cannot be disentangled from the secession war, Iím saying the economics of slavery cannot be ignored when looking at the institution of slavery in the south.

    Like, the only other reason I can think of is a demographic one - there were far more blacks in the southern states than in the northern states (if Iím not mistaken, they were ~30% of the population in some states).
  28. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    If you donít think slavery wasnít a contentious issue in the north (it was, I just donít think it was anywhere near as contentious as itís usually made out to be), then why do you think the North abolished slavery whilst the south didnít?
  29. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Sure but that doesnít capture the entire economic situation. The south was primarily agricultural and heavily dependent on slave labour. The northern economy was not agricultural; it was most industrial and mechanized, and just because the textile industry depended on the southern slave economy, it doesnít mean that their economy depended on it. The northern economy continued to grow after the war - showing that slavery wasnít an integral part of it.
  30. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? Iím just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didnít affect their economy much. They didnít have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. Itís easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesnít affect you, isnít it
  31. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Please cut it with the personal insults. This is your first and final warning.
  32. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Nuclear Apocalypse

    Thread Author:Ganelon

    Post Author:Ganelon

    Replies
    2
    Views
    50

    ►►Re: Nuclear Apocalypse◄◄

    In fact if my math is right 35 CM of water would be enough for a person to spend around 1-4 days without risk of radiation sickness or severe long term effects. You need 7 cm of water to halve radiation. So a layer of 70 cm would essentially allow indefinite human habitation (it would increase the risk of cancer, but hey)
  33. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Nuclear Apocalypse

    Thread Author:Ganelon

    Post Author:Ganelon

    Replies
    2
    Views
    50

    ►►Nuclear Apocalypse◄◄

    So if you look at 80-90% of fiction out there, thereís this idea that people would survive after a nuclear apocalypse in bunkers. And a strange thought occurred to me. Bunkers are solid targets that you can bombard with multiple nuclear missiles. No matter how sturdy a bunker is, shooting tens or even hundreds of missiles at it will bring it down.

    So: why wouldnít you instead invest in building submarines capable of holding hundreds of people and maybe some frozen eggs in stasis? You could even grow your food via artificial meat and recycle your air, and you can get drinking water from processing salt water. If all else fails, you can just organize regular fishing trips (water is a very good radiation shield and if you go deep enough - perhaps even 200-300 m would be enough - you can avoid pretty much all of the fallout indefinitely, waiting for radiation levels to decline to tolerable levels). Assuming that no cobalt-thorium bombs are used, you really only need to stay put for around 6 months - after which you could start repopulating the Earth. With cobalt thorium bombs (which I believe no country would use), youíd need to stay out for 50 years. Current submarines can go without fuel resupply for nearly 25 years. All youíd need to do is give a submarine twice the usual amount of uranium fuel and youíd be set (as long as you could either a) fish, or b) grow food).
    submarines also have the advantage of being quite sturdy - nothing short of an underwater collision (or another submarine, or a mine, or a depth charge) is going to sink it.

    TL;DR Bunkers suck, submarines are dope.
  34. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Quinne View Post
    @S-FM Magellan Core

    If the end of the game.

    Its 3 players day

    1 mafia
    1 citizen
    1 vigilante with 1 shot left

    And the citizen is lynched.

    Do town win because the vigi can shoot the mafia or maifa since its down to 2 players?
    Iíll get back to you on that. But most likely the Town would win
  35. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Anyways if the Union had really cared about blacks they wouldnít have founded the American Colonizatjon Society. Even ignoring the way Liberia turned out, you canít kick your citizens from your country just because theyíre of a different skin colour.
  36. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I think itís simple really: the South was racist, AND they used racism as an excuse for slavery.
    The North was racist but they were industrialized and didnít need slaves. Why do you think the north abolished slavery very early on (with New York abolishing it in 1792, if Iím not mistaken).
  37. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

    You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.
    Iím not sure who youíre arguing with here. Both of us agreed that the South was evil; we simply stated that the North as, as well.
  38. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.
    Good question. The political climate at the start of the war was such that it is possible the South wouldnít just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North wouldíve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo
  39. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Fair point. But I believe people have beliefs as they are convenient to them. My favorite recent day story comes from Oxford where the students launched a climate change protest and demanded the college stopped its use and investments in fossil fuels. The dean responded by offering to shut off the gas powered heat as a step in that direction which some people asked the dean if that was provocative. He responded "You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope; It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement"

    Saying "I want healthcare" once you are sick is easy but being told to pay into it while you are healthy is not taken well
    Saying "Give tax money to this cause" is easy until that money is coming out of your pocket

    People want the benefit or to benefit the cause they care about but if you ask them to pay for what they want they will usually jump to ATE or a red herring. Sure they want homeless people to have a home but ask them to take one into the room next to their teenage daughter? Then its no longer convenient to have such a belief and they will fight it harder than they ever would have supported homeless housing.
    Oh, absolutely. Such people do exist. Iím thinking that people are opportunistic with their belief system (a fact they are probably aware of on some preter-conscious level). I believe that there are also genuine ideologues who flock to a belief system simply because they donít have anything else in their lives. This group naturally overlaps with the opportunists you described, so Iím not sure how you separate them.

    Or maybe Iím wrong and there is no difference between the two groups and rabid ideologues are just holding on to ideologies that they believe wonít kill them, and their belief system then is simply a tool - not something they truly believe in, deep town.
  40. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Let me rephrase this:
    For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. Iím saying the Union didnít give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

    I also donít think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.
  41. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Iíve thought about it. Itís time for you to learn big words, and thus the names stay as they are. :P
  42. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    I will see what I can do about it. If I change names without informing players who arenít here, they may be confused as to why they are suddenly unable to access their accounts.
  43. Replies
    3,029
    Views
    15,389

    ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    In case anyone is curious, here is the reasoning behind each name:
    Rotholfo Goncales - alteration of Rodolfo GonÁalez
    Billigan Holbird - Bill + Gilligan and Hilbert
    Lois Francklyn - Lewis/Louis/Lois Franklin
    Gollert Twissell - futuristic sounding name
    Vladislow Kennt - Vladislav + a German (Jewish) sounding name
    Jiles Carballo - Giles Carbalha (Portuguese name)
    Joha Schtilzt - Johann Schlitzt
    Lembird Oshay - Lambert OíShea
    Fred Attlebish - Fred + a futuristic English name
    Arnarld Quinne - Arnold Queen
    Marlwyn Janson - Marylin Johnson
    Jan Korvin - John Corvin
    Marck Wilbird - Mark Wilbert
    Bart Pilfter - Bart + a futuristic sounding name
    Edoua Maije - phonetic spelling of Edouard Maillť
  44. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I think the war was more about secession than slavery. The only reason the north attacked the south was because they tried to secede. The South seceded because they were afraid slavery would be abolished in the South as well - I think the Union didnít really give much of a shit about freedom and whatnot.
  45. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Oh taxation is easy!

    Low corporate taxes, scrap welfare and replace with negative tax brackets, scrap most sales tax, tax property and capital gains rather than wealth.
    Negative tax brackets? I have never heard of such a thing, is that essentially a way of giving people money if they donít make enough?
    I donít know if I agree with that though. I think wellfare is a better idea. People who donít have a lot of money probably shouldnít be trusted with it.
  46. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    The strongest argument in favour of the Union not really giving much of a shit about slavery are the Jim Crow laws. It took nearly a century to repeal them. Why?
  47. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Who else thinks fusion power is fucking dope?
  48. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Anyway, one change Iíd like to see is a more interactive taxation system where you get to choose where a certain percentage of the taxes you pay go. I would put as much as I could into space exploration because itís, in my view, the single most important problem we are facing right now, and it heavily contributes to scientific advancement. Hell, it would be nice if we really went to Mars before 2030 like NASA is currently planning on doing.
  49. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Intent and action are interlinked. When action deviates strongly from intent, perhaps the person was lying about their real intent.
  50. Replies
    748
    Views
    7,491

    Sticky: ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Lol!

    I kinda think its funny how caught up people get on categories. Add 20 qualifications that are exactly the same but with two different names and you will be put in the box that the other side wants you to be in so they can tell you that you are wrong. Even if they hold the same 20 qualifications themselves.

    The oppositional defiant nature of people never ceases to amuse me. I feel like bigotry is one of the defining characteristics of our generation. All too often any effort to open someones mind is seen as an attack on their belief structure and invalidated into an argument instead of a discussion.
    The issue is that belief systems are more or less necessary. And that most people look to politics for a concrete belief system that they can use in their lives. Itís not STRICTLY a categorisation issue because e.g. someone who is staunchly against, say, capitalism, will probably try to refuse capitalism in all of its forms.
Results 1 to 50 of 500
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4