Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:31 pmThe East Marches wrote:At least Princes has the courage to say what they mean.
Doesn't excuse him at all honestly.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Right Wing Discussion Thread V - Emperor's Holy Inquisition
Page 235 of 497
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:31 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:32 pmDoesn't excuse him at all honestly.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:32 pmNusaresa wrote:The Princes of the Universe wrote:There's a key difference between us - I don't pretend to be anything else.
Nu uh. That isn't a difference.Jochizyd Republic wrote:Nuu
ur just authoritarian and occasionally confusedThe United Colonies of Earth wrote:All inside, nothing against, nothing outside...THE STATEOF BIG BRAIN CITY
nuuuuuuuuuu
Brainish rule is all-encompassing, all-embracing. All must submit to the might and authority of The Big Brain.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:33 pmThe East Marches wrote:The V O I D wrote:
I am not totalitarian. Seriously, do I really have to spam it? I will if I have to.
@TEM. The Civil Rights movement and other issues weren't brought to light till the 60s and are still going on in some forms today.
Princes refers to the 40s, when rights weren't very well enforced nor really acknowledged as of yet, or protected.
You can lie to yourself all you want. Don't be surprised when people call it for what your ideas are. At least Princes has the courage to say what they mean.
I am not lying to anyone. My god, it's getting to the point of being bait. I said to stop; that means stop. Doesn't mean "it's okay, keep calling me what I'm not."
ffs seriously.
Nusaresa wrote:The V O I D wrote:
I am not totalitarian. Seriously, do I really have to spam it? I will if I have to.
Mass silencing of other ideologies, even in the name of 'tolerance and goodwill', and dictating the personal lives of individuals is the very definition of totalitarianism.
We shan't drag this conversation.
Do you even read or keep up to date? Anyways, I'm semi-authoritarian, if anything. And I'm not dictating people's personal lives, either, but okay, sure, why not.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:33 pmConscentia wrote:The East Marches wrote:I could have sworn I read that you rejected the authority of the state or some thing in LWDT.
I don't recall ever saying that on the LWDT. I have previously said that I am a philosophical anarchist, although I don't remember if I've done so on the LWDT - definitely elsewhere on NSG. What I reject is the notion that the state has any inherent legitimacy - that there is any duty or obligation to obey the state. However, the state is not all authority - there is authority outside the state. Philosophical anarchism is distinct from the wider movement of political anarchism in that it does not entail a universal opposition authority or hierarchical organisation. This is why I say that I am not an anarchist - it would be very misleading were I to do so.
What authority do you recognize?
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:33 pmThe East Marches wrote:Yes, with that I agree. Also they exemplary war record too speaks volumes.
Go for broke, 442nd. =')
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:34 pmThe V O I D wrote:I am not lying to anyone. My god, it's getting to the point of being bait. I said to stop; that means stop. Doesn't mean "it's okay, keep calling me what I'm not."
ffs seriously.
"You have an opinion of me I don't like; that's bait!"
Really not helping your case.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:34 pmJochizyd Republic wrote:FelrikTheDeleted wrote:
Well let's look at what rules some other place in the world, I pick the Middle East, what rules there, oh what do you know its religion.
Dah Middol EEST
All current Islamic Fundamentalism was pretty much inspired by protestantism. a result of your enlightenment.
Protestantism was probably the mother of the Enlightenment. Not the other way around.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:34 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:35 pmThe V O I D wrote:The East Marches wrote:
You can lie to yourself all you want. Don't be surprised when people call it for what your ideas are. At least Princes has the courage to say what they mean.
I am not lying to anyone. My god, it's getting to the point of being bait. I said to stop; that means stop. Doesn't mean "it's okay, keep calling me what I'm not."
ffs seriously.
I'm not calling you totalitarian as you've no power. I am calling your ideas totalitarian. Put me on foes list if you dislike hearing feedback or don't post.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:35 pmConserative Morality wrote:The V O I D wrote:I am not lying to anyone. My god, it's getting to the point of being bait. I said to stop; that means stop. Doesn't mean "it's okay, keep calling me what I'm not."
ffs seriously.
"You have an opinion of me I don't like; that's bait!"
Really not helping your case.
But it is. They keep saying it at me like it automatically becomes fact, and I keep telling them to stop and quit it.
Not going to bother responding to anyone who calls me totalitarian any further. If they do so, I'll correct their post and ignore any of their attempts to bother me with the nonsense.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:36 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:36 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:38 pmSo long as one of us goes down (preferably not me) is all that matters.
I can hear the Orthodox and Catholic cries of despair.
The greatest (and worst for some) thing to be developed in history is the printing press and the accessibility of information.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:39 pmNusaresa wrote:The V O I D wrote:
I am not totalitarian. Seriously, do I really have to spam it? I will if I have to.
Mass silencing of other ideologies, even in the name of 'tolerance and goodwill', and dictating the personal lives of individuals is the very definition of totalitarianism.
We shan't drag this conversation.
I'm all for it, I want to see them defend their beliefs.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:40 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:40 pmI don't fight in things where I know there will be nothing but an impasse and no compromise.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:41 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:41 pmThe East Marches wrote:New confederate ramenia wrote:
Elaborate more, how did our founding fathers know and avoid this?
The important thing to remember is the context of the American Revolution versus that of the French. The American Revolution was not a proper revolution. It was men who believed themselves to be "English" having their God given rights trampled upon. There is the salient point found in Locke's writing. I'm on mobile atm so I don't have the exact quote handy. You can't believe in the natural rights of man without believing in a higher power of some sort.
This is a key point, it does not matter what God it is. Many of my fellow Christians misunderstand the reasoning of the founding fathers. They meaning God in a rhetorical meaning. As in you are not beholden to another man for your God given rights. Does this make sense? Some of them are better thought of as being deists.
That is why you saw support in Britain for American Revolution among Enlightenment thinkers. However, those same thinkers argued bitterly against the French Revolution and rightfully so.
Not necessarily, it can be substituted. I mean, I do it all the time.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:42 pmNusaresa wrote:I don't fight in things where I know there will be nothing but an impasse and no compromise.
"If fighting is sure to result... you must fight." - Selectively Edited Sun Tzu Quotes Vol. II
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:43 pmHonor 100% yes, that gets tossed out the window. Courage? I disagree. It takes serious guts to walk up to a checkpoint and blow yourself up. It takes courage to ambush a patrol of men much much more heavily armed than you just to prove a point that they can't cross a certain valley with a fight. Starring into the face of death requires guts.
I agree that all that matters is victory. Perhaps I am a bit of a sentimentalist after the fact.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:43 pmNusaresa wrote:The East Marches wrote:
Yes but even in a foe, you can respect courage.
So long as one of us goes down (preferably not me) is all that matters.Courage and honor are discarded in war and combat.The United Colonies of Earth wrote:When everybody knows what the good book says, things happen.
I can hear the Orthodox and Catholic cries of despair.
The greatest (and worst for some) thing to be developed in history is the printing press and the accessibility of information.
I frankly don't understand that. It's not like everybody will stop going to church if they know how to read.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:44 pmPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:44 pmThe East Marches wrote:Nusaresa wrote:So long as one of us goes down (preferably not me) is all that matters.Courage and honor are discarded in war and combat.
Honor 100% yes, that gets tossed out the window. Courage? I disagree. It takes serious guts to walk up to a checkpoint and blow yourself up. It takes courage to ambush a patrol of men much much more heavily armed than you just to prove a point that they can't cross a certain valley with a fight. Starring into the face of death requires guts.
I agree that all that matters is victory. Perhaps I am a bit of a sentimentalist after the fact.
There's a thin line between courage and stupidity. Suicide bombers are the latter.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:44 pmMinzerland II wrote:The East Marches wrote:
The important thing to remember is the context of the American Revolution versus that of the French. The American Revolution was not a proper revolution. It was men who believed themselves to be "English" having their God given rights trampled upon. There is the salient point found in Locke's writing. I'm on mobile atm so I don't have the exact quote handy. You can't believe in the natural rights of man without believing in a higher power of some sort.
This is a key point, it does not matter what God it is. Many of my fellow Christians misunderstand the reasoning of the founding fathers. They meaning God in a rhetorical meaning. As in you are not beholden to another man for your God given rights. Does this make sense? Some of them are better thought of as being deists.
That is why you saw support in Britain for American Revolution among Enlightenment thinkers. However, those same thinkers argued bitterly against the French Revolution and rightfully so.
Not necessarily, it can be substituted. I mean, I do it all the time.
You missed the part where it said in a rhetorical sense my friend. I clarified what I meant.