If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

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]

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.

If you think one ex-slave revolutionary murdering one child of a slaver somehow disqualifies the ethical basis of the entire revolution

You're right, you can't think that killing children is bad and a slave revolution is good at the same time.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

"Like, everything is bad dude, the solution is like, to do nothing, god it feels good being a radical centrist"

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

what have you done about anything you care about

 

[HamburgerBoy]

what have you done about anything you care about

Withholding my inferior seed for the betterment of humanity, for one.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

touche

 

[CiG]

"Like, everything is bad dude, the solution is like, to do nothing, god it feels good being a radical centrist"

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

This is the /pol type shit CIG is talking about. Casualties of war are always a mistake.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

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)!

 

[CiG]

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.

I like how you think this makes any sense or is a counter-argument. I criticized Gandhi's pacifism because he preached inaction against violence (famously recommending that the Jews oppose Hitler non-violently and no he didn't mean they should just leave Germany either), how the fuck is that comparable to criticizing revolutionaries for slaughtering children, raping and killing women etc in the process of throwing off the shackles of slavery? Yes, it is possible to think the massacring was over the top while also supporting the anti-slavery revolts.

That doesn't mean that I'm naive about war either.

This is why I tease you for being a /pol/tard because it's as if you can't comprehend or talk about anything without taking the most needlessly edgy ridiculous position on any given topic. It's why you're a eugenicist I guess.

Obviously the intentional killing of defenseless children is a bad thing. I never said it wasn't.

fwiw I think it's at least arguable that the white massacres weren't totally a bad thing in Haiti.

I don't see why women or even children should be spared when they directly benefited from and existed to perpetuate the institution that men put into power.

I get women but children? Seriously?

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.

You're right, you took the slimy route and basically danced around saying it's a good thing.

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.

The guy mocking centrism is expending energy defending the status quo of war.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I like how you think this makes any sense or is a counter-argument. I criticized Gandhi's pacifism because he preached inaction against violence (famously recommending that the Jews oppose Hitler non-violently and no he didn't mean they should just leave Germany either), how the fuck is that comparable to criticizing revolutionaries for slaughtering children, raping and killing women etc in the process of throwing off the shackles of slavery? Yes, it is possible to think the massacring was over the top while also supporting the anti-slavery revolts.

That doesn't mean that I'm naive about war either.

This is why I tease you for being a /pol/tard because it's as if you can't comprehend or talk about anything without taking the most needlessly edgy ridiculous position on any given topic. It's why you're a eugenicist I guess.

You're right, you took the slimy route and basically danced around saying it's a good thing.

The guy mocking centrism is expending energy defending the status quo of war.

It is extremely unrealistic to expect the Haitian revolutionaries to not engage in the same forms of grotesque violence that their oppressors did unto them for generations. Somehow being raped and killed on the sugar cane fields of Haiti is something they were just supposed to deal with, but being raped and killed in the ghettos and concentration camps of Eastern Europe is worthy of retaliation.

Japanese raped and killed Chinese children. Americans raped and killed Japanese children. Russians raped and killed German children. Germans raped and killed Russian and Jewish children. Whenever one side is allowed total victory over another side, war trophies are taken. It is inextricable.

Where did I defend the status quo of war? I'm opposed to war except when done defensively. The Haitian revolution was fundamentally defensive. The result of war, an irrational, enraged male population encouraged to massacre and rape, is an unavoidable byproduct of a necessary war. Therefore, the massacre of innocents in a defensive war, while not good inherently, are not a bad thing that should be pointed out as noteworthy or staining the end result. I'm not saying that the "status quo" is a good thing, I'm saying that it's vital to the act of war, it's a part of our biology and almost anyone put into the same circumstances would behave the same way. The people primarily to blame for the massacre of children in Haiti were their French parents that prioritized their pride and/or greed over the safety of their children. If you start an act of aggression (slavery) and refuse to retreat after losing the consequent war, death is the only outcome you should expect.

I'm dancing around nothing, I'm stating that the Haitian revolution was a tiny drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of violence perpetuated against innocents. You're forcing your retarded Kekistani-typical underdogging into issues where it's not needed. "B-but a couple thousand white slave owners and their families were killed after refusing to leave, it was a bad revolution!" "B-but sometimes the feminazis are bad too!"

 

[CiG]

You should probably stop repackaging realpolitik, as if you actually have an original thought on any of this.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You should probably stop repackaging realpolitik, as if you actually have an original thought on any of this.

"I may be wrong, but at least my argument is different!"

lolwut

You're a supporter of rape and war. Admit it like the filthy mongrel Anglo dog you are.

 

[EternalMetal]

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.

lol, so that makes it just fine and dandy? I also think the use of the word "necessity" is poor word choice. Casualties may almost always be inevitable, but they are not a necessity. Quite the opposite actually. Casualties just prolong war for the most part.

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.

Now you are just trying to bait me into saying war is bad, and then you will proceed to call me a Ghandi-loving pacifist who doesnt understand how the world works. Im not sure that rape is a part of modern warfare, and that any American soldier caught doing so would be punished accordingly. Not even American soldiers tbh, I think most modern countries would have a huge issue with such atrocities being committed by their soldiers.

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)!

Yes, war is murder on a massive scale. But it isnt indiscriminate murder; the goal of any soldier is to kill opposing soldiers, not to rape women and kill children.

 

[CiG]

"I may be wrong, but at least my argument is different!"

lolwut

You're a supporter of rape and war. Admit it like the filthy mongrel Anglo dog you are.

My argument isn't wrong. I'm not saying innocent deaths and rapes don't happen or haven't always happened during wars or revolution, I'm saying they shouldn't happen. You might think they should happen however and that would be on you.

All you're doing is taking basic realpolitik (eg "shitty things happen in war, just is what it is") and repackaging it as if you think you have an original position. I get the pragmatism of these subjects, it's not fucking hard to gauge.

Also I don't think I have ever supported a war in my entire life, you however with your shitty recycled realpolitik positions actually support the status quo of what happens during war or even revolution. Because something happens doesn't mean one has to agree with it happening, that should be pretty obvious.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol, so that makes it just fine and dandy? I also think the use of the word "necessity" is poor word choice. Casualties may almost always be inevitable, but they are not a necessity. Quite the opposite actually. Casualties just prolong war for the most part.

Of course not, it's terrible. But it's also expected. If you don't want to get massacred and treated as if less-than-human, don't engage in dehumanizing actions like slavery and treat those same people exactly the way you don't want to be treated.

If they are inevitable (adj. certain to happen; unavoidable), they are by definition also necessary (adj. determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable). Can you give examples of wars that were prolonged by excessive casualties? Wars have gradually shortened with our increased ability to kill many people over a short time-frame. Certainly nukes were dropped with the intent of shortening the war, killing innocent Japanese children to save American soldiers.

Now you are just trying to bait me into saying war is bad, and then you will proceed to call me a Ghandi-loving pacifist who doesnt understand how the world works. Im not sure that rape is a part of modern warfare, and that any American soldier caught doing so would be punished accordingly. Not even American soldiers tbh, I think most modern countries would have a huge issue with such atrocities being committed by their soldiers.

Why would I be trying to bait you into saying that? I said myself that non-defensive war is bad.

You're right that wanton rape and murder are not brushed under the rug as easily as they used to be. The world's attitude to rape and war has changed significantly with increased freedom of information. I should point out, however, that 1) the Haitian revolution happened at a time when Americans would continue to rape, torture, and murder African slaves for 60 more years and 2) soldiers are like cops, they have a mutual relationship that promotes covering up for each other. You can reduce rape and murder, but it's still going to come naturally with war.

Yes, war is murder on a massive scale. But it isnt indiscriminate murder; the goal of any soldier is to kill opposing soldiers, not to rape women and kill children.

Depends on the soldier, but when you take a man away from home and independent responsibilities, as well as curtailing his ability to blow off steam and get his nut, rape and murder are going to become comorbidities of being a warrior. Indiscriminate murder certainly happened in Vietnam by our Great Men In Uniform(tm).

 

[CiG]

If you don't want to get massacred and treated as if less-than-human, don't engage in dehumanizing actions like slavery and treat those same people exactly the way you don't want to be treated.

And how is a child supposed to achieve this?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My argument isn't wrong. I'm not saying innocent deaths and rapes don't happen or haven't always happened during wars or revolution, I'm saying they shouldn't happen. You might think they should happen however and that would be on you.

All you're doing is taking basic realpolitik (eg "shitty things happen in war, just is what it is") and repackaging it as if you think you have an original position. I get the pragmatism of these subjects, it's not fucking hard to gauge.

Also I don't think I have ever supported a war in my entire life, you however with your shitty recycled realpolitik positions actually support the status quo of what happens during war or even revolution. Because something happens doesn't mean one has to agree with it happening, that should be pretty obvious.

Why shouldn't (should: v. used to indicate what is probable) it happen? It's a natural outcome of war. When dogs are adopted to shelters, one common test of their fitness to be placed into a home is to try pestering them with a plastic hand while they're eating food. The passive, non-abused/well-domesticated dogs ignore the pestering. The natural, more aggressive dogs will bite the plastic hand, and then be put down. Perhaps if we underwent a human domestication process where we bred out the biological urges to rape and murder in times of war, you could say that humans shouldn't do bad things during war. Until then, I argue that they should, because it's a predictable outcome of war.

I never claimed to have an original opinion, you've been calling me an edgy contrarian and now I'm suddenly "basic realpolitik". You're too old and too unintelligent to change in my estimation, but if you ever grow up and learn how to argue ideas instead of arguing ego, I'll be able to address any points you make directly.

You've never supported a war in your life? Including defensive wars?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

And how is a child supposed to achieve this?

A parent is supposed to protect their child. For not fleeing with their children, the French slavers are responsible for the murder of their children.