Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Marshmallow Marshall

Search: Search took 0.19 seconds.

  1. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Sherman didn't go far enough.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JhvvjEysHU

    WHILE WE WERE MARCHING THROUGH... wait what is this place


    I'm locking this thread. The actual serious discussion was done lol, and the thread is horribly off-topic now. Just read the title and then read the most recent pages if you don't believe me ;).
  2. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    The only time someone has agreed with me in this thread or not attacked me is when I took the leftist side.
    That's because...

    Left is Right
    Freedom is Slavery
    War is Peace



    Also, this thread has derailed so many times that nobody can reply to anything logically anymore xD
  3. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Yes it does make you a satanist, and therefore you should have no problem changing the motto to "In God we trust, and Satan too"


    I think I'll pass xD

    There are probably too many Christians in the US to make that change. It's not a truly religion-neutral country, like you said yourself. And Utah would launch a civil war if that happened lol.
  4. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Its weird that you’d be for polygamous marriages, even from a utilitarian perspective it’s PLAIN wrong, it leads to social unrest because some men don’t get any women.
    Objection, Your Honor. I don't think the defendant meant "polygamy" under the meaning of "a system under which a man can have multiple wives, but a women cannot have multiple husbands"; the point of Mr. Ganelon is therefore irrelevant.
  5. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    No, the point is for people to turn their firstborn child into the literal incarnation of Satan and conquer the World through their awesome power.
    Just make sure your firstborn gets all the inheritance or they may try to assassinate their siblings.
    Rofl claim Alexander the Great's legacy too
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    I will refer you to these posts, buried in the "cancerous" portion of the thread.

    "In god we trust" is in no way a moral statement, and should not be the motto of a country that prides itself in being a diverse melting pot of ideas.
    Isn't that unrelated to my post, though? Satanists are serving a power they believe to be evil (Satan is evil incarnate by definition), while other religions serve a power they believe to be good. In other words, they don't even try to be moral lol: that is the whole point. Hence why I have a hard time understanding their "code of conduct" @Helz quoted, which just seems to be common sense and pro-science without references to religion. I follow that code of conduct, does that make me a satanist xD?
  6. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Satanists are encouraging moral behavior? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of satanism to promote admittedly pure evil (whether that exists or not) and literally praise it?
  7. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    IMO only racists and smoothbrains say that the Confederacy was about state rights or whatever. The VP of the Confederacy had an entire speech about slavery: https://iowaculture.gov/history/educ...eech-alexander

    "[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is 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."
    Or at least people who don't care at all about racism (or rather "applied racism" and slavery), which isn't really better than racism itself, so... more or less, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    also how can you say that black people are inferior when you permanently look like you died 5 days ago lmao

    Spoiler : image :
    This is not so relevant to the debate lol, but it's quite funny
  8. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    If there's a statue of Robert E. Lee somewhere in a public space for "commemorating a great historical man who is a model for society", which there very probably is, off with its head, definetly. That stuff belongs in a museum to preserve history without glorifying persons directly associated and known mostly for slavery and for its defense. However...
    Quote Originally Posted by naz View Post
    Mag....have u looked at them?
    That is a celebration of Lincoln's abolition of slavery... it depicts a reality: slaves who were under their masters, and then Lincoln giving them freedom (yes, that is a very pompous and propangandist sentence, but it's still exactly what this statue represents). It's not glorifying slavery, it's glorifying its ABOLITION, and that is definetly something worth glorifying. It may not have been perfect, but it was a pretty damn good improvement.

    ~~

    As for "confederates are not racist", uhm, sorry, they are. Perhaps a reminder of the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States would be useful...
    Spoiler : Declaration of independence of Mississippi :
    Mississippi

    A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

    In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

    The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

    The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

    The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

    It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

    It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

    It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

    It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

    It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

    It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

    It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

    It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

    It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

    It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

    It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

    It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

    It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

    Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

    Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

    Whoever supports that cause cannot be anything but racist, or at least completely uncaring about people being literally ENSLAVED, treated as PROPERTIES only because of their origins, which isn't exactly better.
  9. ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    I think its a bit disingenuous to say the civil war wasn't only about slavery. Sure some other elements were at play but they are all either directly or indirectly linked to slavery. Who do you think worked the agriculture sectors? Why do you think the south were upset over the northerners (abolitionists) making claims to new territory gains? Why do you think the final nail was the election of Abraham Lincoln?

    It's all linked to slavery. The fruits of the labor from slaves, the tradition of owning slaves, the battle to determine the survival of slavery itself.
    https://www.battlefields.org/learn/p...eceding-states

    Here's rather clear and direct evidence for anyone who would be contradicting Rumox there lmao

    ~~

    Source for Ganelon about Canadian gender law thingy: https://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-1...ronoun-misuse/

    ~~

    I love politics, but please keep it nice, everyone. Rules still apply ;)
Results 1 to 9 of 9