If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
What else are you supposed to do with them? They'd grow up to be in a society that despised them and there would always be the potential of them turning out like their parents. The majority of whites fled before the massacres anyways, I kind of doubt there were that many children left. In general I suppose soldiers have an easier conscience letting children just starve or become street criminals after being kicked out of society, which is how it usually turns out, but the end effect isn't much different from murder.
rms
Active Member
here's a new piece by Haidt, haven't read it yet but sure it's full of good stuff
https://www.city-journal.org/html/age-outrage-15608.html
https://www.city-journal.org/html/age-outrage-15608.html
rms
Active Member
#gentrify and #stopAndFrisk
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/nyregion/new-york-city-crime-2017.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/nyregion/new-york-city-crime-2017.html
Dak
mentat
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 674
- 113
What a garbage opinion. Any halfway decent human being would think that the killing of the children was wrong, but you justify it because their life could potentially be shitty afterwards? The numbers dont matter either; even if it was only one child, the act of killing him/her would be just as wrong.
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
#noborders
This is pure hypocrisy. "Safe zones" are merely one set of borders substituted for the other set of borders which have not been enforced. Germany's women deserve all the Diversity that they have requested.
This is pure hypocrisy. "Safe zones" are merely one set of borders substituted for the other set of borders which have not been enforced. Germany's women deserve all the Diversity that they have requested.
Dak
mentat
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/12/food-swamps-are-the-new-food-deserts/549323/
tl;dr: People make choices that have consequences.
tl;dr: People make choices that have consequences.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
Most wars kill children in large numbers. Americans killed many thousands of Nazi German children. If you think one ex-slave revolutionary murdering one child of a slaver somehow disqualifies the ethical basis of the entire revolution, you're as radical a pacifist as Gandhi, or you're a hypocrite that thinks murdering by bayonet is any different from murdering by drone strike.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Or he opposes drone strikes, deaths during the American revolution, the death of German children during WWII and any other example of an atrocity you can dredge up to strawman him with. 
You're right, you can't think that killing children is bad and a slave revolution is good at the same time.
You're right, you can't think that killing children is bad and a slave revolution is good at the same time.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
"Like, everything is bad dude, the solution is like, to do nothing, god it feels good being a radical centrist"
Dazed and Brutal
Yall About to Witness
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
Withholding my inferior seed for the betterment of humanity, for one.
Dazed and Brutal
Yall About to Witness
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
You have nothing but memes as usual. Typical /pol/tard edgelord.
"If you oppose children being massacred during a revolution that means you're either an extreme pacifist or a hypocrite because for some reason I'm assuming you support all kinds of other violence that goes on hur dur radical centrists and their fence-sitting about genocide and shiet."
Yeah, you're a genius.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
You have nothing but memes as usual. Typical /pol/tard edgelord.
"If you oppose children being massacred during a revolution that means you're either an extreme pacifist or a hypocrite because for some reason I'm assuming you support all kinds of other violence that goes on hur dur radical centrists and their fence-sitting about genocide and shiet."
Yeah, you're a genius.
Somehow defending the black slave revolt of Haiti against their white masters is now /pol/. That makes sense a lot of sense, Mr. Kekistani Feminist Killer.
Obviously the intentional killing of defenseless children is a bad thing. I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean that it's necessary to make hay about a small number of murdered children in a war when powers of war almost always massacre children. The firebombing and nuking of Japan was a massacre of children on a scale much larger scale than what the Haitians did. There is no reason children SHOULD be spared, meaning no reason they should expect immunity from violence, because historically they have almost never been spared. If you know a way to wage war without killing children, I'd love to hear it. I love how the guy that was just shitting all over Gandhi's pacifism is now suddenly ultra-concerned about the tiny number of white children killed during a revolution that freed many-fold more black children. Every post you make shows how ridiculous your entire transabo persona is, you're just another Anglo supporter of imperialism.
And again, the only reason we call the Haitian revolution a genocide is because the white initiators of genocide begun the racial polarization. The revolution merely represented a reversing of the poles.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 674
- 113
Way to jump to conclusions about my perspective. I disapprove of the killing of children in any numbers, and that any time that it happens is a tragic accident. I wont deny the entire slave uprising, but if some asshole decides to kill the children in the process, then he/she is a fucking dickhead for doing so. Casualties of war seem to always involve innocent civilians, and I think most people recognize this as an unfortunate circumstance rather than as an active part of the process. Just because it happens doesnt mean it should be justified.
And tbh, yes, I think actively stabbing a child to death with a bayonet is quite different from accidentally killing a child with an errant bomb. The result may be the same, but the intention was not. According to you, someone driving a vehicle who accidentally kills a child who jumped into the road after a ball is to be equally judged as someone who murders a child with a kitchen knife.
Yes, because history means it is right. Children should be spared because they have yet to play a role in the world. Why is this something that has to be explained?
This is the /pol type shit CIG is talking about. Casualties of war are always a mistake.
Last edited:
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
If action X always leads to outcome Y after thousands and thousands of years, at some point the "it was an unforunate accident" excuse runs dry. The killing of children, let alone civilians in general, is almost a necessity of war. The very action of war is inherently dehumanizing and pits people along national (and frequently therefore ethnic/religious/etc lines), which helps those participating ignore that they are in fact simply committing murder and rape.
A child jumping into a busy road and being killed is an accident. A trillion-dolar industry dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions, enforcing embargoes on vital supplies, and driving armed soldiers hopped up on adrenaline through foreign streets is not an accident, it is simply murder on a scale too massive for most people to be able to comprehend. It's like when a pit bull owner acts totally shocked that their dog snapped and killed someone, they had literally NO IDEA that this could happen. Who knew that war leads to the rape of women and murder of children? Certainly not I, the distinguished Western gentleman and spreader of Democracy(tm)!
Similar threads
