havok579257 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305515930' post='2242146'] Sure some of them did, thats why we got one so fast, but they thought itshoudl be very small,and militias should make up the bulk of the troops. I am totally okay with that, lets go. I want a HK-G3. [/quote] you understand though the nazi/japan power front would be running the world right now. without the federal government jumping in and forming the us army, navy, airforce ww2, let alone ww1 would have not had the outcome we had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305516265' post='2242150'] you understand though the nazi/japan power front would be running the world right now. without the federal government jumping in and forming the us army, navy, airforce ww2, let alone ww1 would have not had the outcome we had. [/quote] Oh well If WWI had had a differnet outcome the world would be better for it. We fought on the wrong side in WWI. Had the central powers won that war, there would have been no Nazi's so who knows what would have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305516499' post='2242155'] Oh well If WWI had had a differnet outcome the world would be better for it. We fought on the wrong side in WWI. Had the central powers won that war, there would have been no Nazi's so who knows what would have happened. [/quote] i have never heard the argument that we were on the wrong side in ww1 and it would have been better had we lost. although i still think we would have had a nazi party. hitler was one of the greatest motivators of people and he desired to put his master race into place. it would have eventually happened. the fact still remains that without the federal government stepping in and forming a federal government, the freedom which we talk about today would not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305466929' post='2241816'] If a man were dying of blood loss, would it be moral to take people with a matching blood type and, under penalty of law, require them to donate blood? [/quote] One could hope that we live in a society where people would donate blood when asked. If the one bleeding out is a soldier, then (in the absence of a blood supply) the field medic is likely to set up a drip directly from an unwounded soldier. He could be ordered to give his blood in this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305519954' post='2242181'] One could hope that we live in a society where people would donate blood when asked. If the one bleeding out is a soldier, then (in the absence of a blood supply) the field medic is likely to set up a drip directly from an unwounded soldier. He could be ordered to give his blood in this scenario. [/quote] Soldiers give up their civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305516745' post='2242157'] i have never heard the argument that we were on the wrong side in ww1 and it would have been better had we lost. although i still think we would have had a nazi party. hitler was one of the greatest motivators of people and he desired to put his master race into place. it would have eventually happened. the fact still remains that without the federal government stepping in and forming a federal government, the freedom which we talk about today would not exist. [/quote] No the Kiaser would have never been overthrown, there would have been way for it to form. I don't understand, how did the federal government, form itself? I do not think we are more free for having a federal government, far from it. I think the federal government has been a constant agent of the reduction of freedom, trampling on the rights of the individual and the States for years. I would happly succeed from the US in a minute. I have no doubt that those in Texas would be more free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1305507880' post='2242066'] A rather ignorant comment. Really? ALL DISCRIMINATION is sin. Do you deny this or not. Is all sin equal? No.[/quote] It would be an ignorant comment if I was advocating discrimination. I'm not. I'm explaining the reasons why affirmative action isn't what you are making it out to be. [quote] I am a white, but I don't see the power that I have over a black person. [/quote] Well, then, you are blind to the realities of this world. I can't dialogue with you if you don't acknowledge the fact that white's hold a more "dominant" position in today's society. It's pointless to talk about fixing a problem if you don't think a problem exists. [quote] But reverse discrimination is just as real and harmful as the discrimination in the first place, whether you can see the results or not.[/quote] Disagree. Let's say the "goal" is being able to post in the phatmass phorum. If I discriminate against Swedish people, and do not allow them to visit phatmass, that results in them not posting in the phorum. If they discriminate against me on the other hand, It doesn't stop me from posting in the phorum. Again, one results in actual discrimination, the other has little if any effect. [quote]That you can't see that discrimination against whites does not have consequences is simply blind. No sin is without consequences or results as you call it. [/quote] Then I'm blind. As long as whites hold the dominant position in society, you'll never convince me that they are being "discriminated" against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Dust, why do mexicans need affirmative action, when you guys have the apple fields and other migrant seasonal work? I mean, when the United Farm Workersrs launched their "take our jobs" campaign, in response to Americans saying that Mexicans were taking their jobs, only approx. 16 Americans rose to the challenge and were given a job, in which hardly any of them stayed with the job. As far as I'm concerned, mexicans [and other migrant workers] have complete job security and employment opportunities. If anything white americans need an "affirmative actions" that gives them a kick in the pantaloons so they atleast giver you guys some competition in the fields. Sure the pay is low but last I checked most mexicans weren't that tall. I mean whoever heard of a 7' tall mexican? He'd have a hell of a time picking strawberries off the ground. On a more serious note: I used to pick black berries and apples for extra money, in the blistering sun and I wouldn't want to every do that again. It was pretty brutal. We used to actually fill our flats with dirt and just line them with black berries.This whole myth that Mexicans picking apples off trees in Yakima Washington, that supports our trade with China, for no money is ridiculous. The average America doesn't want to work those jobs and I don't blame them it's hard work but if it wasn't for Mexicans doing those jobs, our trade with China would collapse. Edited May 16, 2011 by RezaMikhaeil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus_lol Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305530798' post='2242214'] Dust, why do mexicans need affirmative action, when you guys have the apple fields and other migrant seasonal work? I mean, when the United Farm Workersrs launched their "take our jobs" campaign, in response to Americans saying that Mexicans were taking their jobs, only approx. 16 Americans rose to the challenge and were given a job, in which hardly any of them stayed with the job. As far as I'm concerned, mexicans [and other migrant workers] have complete job security and employment opportunities. If anything white americans need an "affirmative actions" that gives them a kick in the pantaloons so they atleast giver you guys some competition in the fields. Sure the pay is low but last I checked most mexicans weren't that tall. I mean whoever heard of a 7' tall mexican? He'd have a hell of a time picking strawberries off the ground. [/quote] This post is amazing. It amazes me that you are actually serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1305531607' post='2242216'] This post is amazing. It amazes me that you are actually serious. [/quote] What actually amazing is that you think I'm serious and can't tell the difference between that and satire. Must be a Canadian thing. Maybe I need to speak your language. "Do you knew what I'm talkin aboot?" Edited May 16, 2011 by RezaMikhaeil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305519954' post='2242181'] One could hope that we live in a society where people would donate blood when asked. If the one bleeding out is a soldier, then (in the absence of a blood supply) the field medic is likely to set up a drip directly from an unwounded soldier. He could be ordered to give his blood in this scenario. [/quote] That's not the scenario, and the hope that people would donate blood is irrelevant. Taking a pint of blood will not harm people and it will save a life. So is it acceptable to force them to do it? If I had wanted to ask about soldiers, I would have asked about soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305529661' post='2242212'] It would be an ignorant comment if I was advocating discrimination. I'm not. I'm explaining the reasons why affirmative action isn't what you are making it out to be.[/quote] What you are advocating is AA and what I have seen is that the implementation of AA is discriminatory. That the discrimination does have consequences. This you seem to deny. [quote]Well, then, you are blind to the realities of this world. I can't dialogue with you if you don't acknowledge the fact that white's hold a more "dominant" position in today's society. It's pointless to talk about fixing a problem if you don't think a problem exists.[/quote] No, I did not once say that discrimination does not exist. You seem to miss my points entirely. I said I am not doing it. The way AA is implemented it does in fact discriminate against whites but you seem to be saying that is okay because it doesn't have any consequences. I totally disagree. [quote] Let's say the "goal" is being able to post in the phatmass phorum. If I discriminate against Swedish people, and do not allow them to visit phatmass, that results in them not posting in the phorum. If they discriminate against me on the other hand, It doesn't stop me from posting in the phorum. Again, one results in actual discrimination, the other has little if any effect.[/quote] The problem with your analogy is that it is not the same. Job 8 has two applicants. Not two Jobs. A white and a black apply. The white is more qualified but because of AA the black is given the job. They don't give both the job. I've seen this happen so don't sweep it under the rug as you currently are. Whitey may have a half dozen kids. Don't tell me they aren't hurt if he can't find a job for 2 more years. [quote]Then I'm blind. As long as whites hold the dominant position in society, you'll never convince me that they are being "discriminated" against. [/quote] Yes you are clearly blind. Edited May 16, 2011 by dUSt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) [quote] Let's say the "goal" is being able to post in the phatmass phorum. If I discriminate against Swedish people, and do not allow them to visit phatmass, that results in them not posting in the phorum. If they discriminate against me on the other hand, It doesn't stop me from posting in the phorum. Again, one results in actual discrimination, the other has little if any effect.[/quote] What is ridiculous about your analogy is that there are three parties involved in a hiring. Not two. A proper analogy would be that in order for you to make up for the discrimination against a swede, you would delete a post by a white or prevent a white from posting. Or if a swede asks for mebership, you prevent a white from joining the forum. Edited May 16, 2011 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 [quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305529661' post='2242212'] Then I'm blind. As long as whites hold the dominant position in society, you'll never convince me that they are being "discriminated" against. [/quote] so then as long as a race is the dominate percentage of a society, they can not be discriminated against? its impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 this dead horse is still being kicked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now