Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Mardla]

As long as it is within the guidelines of Shari'ah, yes.

Prove it.

Says who?

That was actually a prophetic dream. Allah SWT told the Prophet Muhammad SAWS that his marriage to A'isha RA would happen.

Slavery is a human rights violation.

*snorts* "Human rights", lol. Who gets to decide what those are?

[Kowani]

So keeping slaves is fine, eh?

As long as it is within the guidelines of Shari'ah, yes.

Also, you have said before that child marriage is fine.

Prove it.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=446384&p=34798386#p34798386

[Torrocca]

Also, regarding what I said about Torra in the previous thread: I meant that she ought to be held accountable for bad behavior, not that I would report just to "use the mods as a weapon". And also, sorry for getting her pronouns wrong, I was a bit distracted.

Luckily enough, I don't happen to do stupid shit like say, "we should kill these people!" or what-have-you.

Even better, if you search a bit through my post history, with a few keywords, you can easily see I openly condemn atrocious shit like wanton murder or even full-fledged genocide, so to even argue I'd do something as callous and shitty as advocate for murder is plain stupid.

The worst I've openly done is say that American soldiers at Dachau weren't morally wrong for filling some Hungarian Nazis from the SS with lead.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If your god is telling people they're gonna marry kids you should find new gods lol

[Northeast American Federation]

If your god is telling people they're gonna marry kids you should find new gods lol

Golly gee, sure smells like bigotry around here.
/sarc

[Greater Cesnica]

Slavery is a human rights violation.

*snorts* "Human rights", lol. Who gets to decide what those are?

I know right?

[Kowani]

But not a sharia violation

And here I thought we were over haggling about sharia and Islam in these threads.

I swear, if I hear one more discussion about Islam on this thread I WILL dissolve Parliament!!

Amin is a thing, and the IDT’s full of Jolthig and Sah’s ranting, so I don’t particularly want to go there.

[Salus Maior]

Slavery is a human rights violation.

*snorts* "Human rights", lol. Who gets to decide what those are?

...Governments?

[The South Falls]

Agreeable.

Source for the EZLN?

I was off by a bit, it's about 363,000 people.

It's still not paradise.

[Bienenhalde]

Communism still destroys the environment. The thing is, that human nature comes to play in government, and the government becomes a corrupt mess.

Someone clearly missed out on Green Anarchism it seems. :3

Green anarchism is a silly ideology. I mean, unless you decide to go full an-prim and try to destroy all civilization and technology, how will you stop people from harming the environment for their own selfish purposes except through government action? Linkola-ist eco-authoritarianism is a superior ideology.

[Reikoku]

It's never okay to marry a nine year old, sorry.

Says who?

Especially when you claim to have God speaking to you.

That was actually a prophetic dream. Allah SWT told the Prophet Muhammad SAWS that his marriage to A'isha RA would happen.

If the Abrahamic God says pedophilia is acceptable even in just one instance (which considering child marriages were common back then, he did more than once) then I'm glad to believe in many gods. Shirk ftw

[The South Falls]

Slavery is a human rights violation.

*snorts* "Human rights", lol. Who gets to decide what those are?

We see why you argued for slavery.

[Mardla]

*snorts* "Human rights", lol. Who gets to decide what those are?

...Governments?

Some governments permit slavery

[Greater Cesnica]

And here I thought we were over haggling about sharia and Islam in these threads.

I swear, if I hear one more discussion about Islam on this thread I WILL dissolve Parliament!!

Amin is a thing, and the IDT’s full of Jolthig and Sah’s ranting, so I don’t particularly want to go there.

Not anymore. Only Amin.

[Torrocca]

I was off by a bit, it's about 363,000 people.

It's still not paradise.

I, too, shift my goal posts wantonly.

[Salus Maior]

And here I thought we were over haggling about sharia and Islam in these threads.

I swear, if I hear one more discussion about Islam on this thread I WILL dissolve Parliament!!

Amin is a thing, and the IDT’s full of Jolthig and Sah’s ranting, so I don’t particularly want to go there.

Then don't. And who cares what Amin's Islamic opinions are?

[Uxupox]

Says who?

That was actually a prophetic dream. Allah SWT told the Prophet Muhammad SAWS that his marriage to A'isha RA would happen.

If the Abrahamic God says pedophilia is acceptable even in just one instance (which considering child marriages were common back then, he did more than once) then I'm glad to believe in many gods. Shirk ftw

where is charlemagne when you need him.

[Reikoku]

If your god is telling people they're gonna marry kids you should find new gods lol

Tbf, Zeus raped women constantly as a swan, and Woden and the Norse gods aren't much better. Westerners don't have better options than Jesus.

[Joohan]

I've got a good question to start things off!

Who, in society, should be enfranchised? That is to say, who should be able to wield political power?

In America ( and most of the western world ), it is any adult over the age of 18 who is a citizen, not a violent criminal, or mentally handicapped. In the last two centuries of European history, enfranchisement was reserved for white men of property or noble standing. During the Medieval period of Europe, only landed nobility held enfranchisement. And in the time of the Roman Republic/Empire, only men who had served the state were enfranchised.

Personally, I think that only those who have contributed directly to the survival and prosperity of the system should have say in it's operations. How one would receive such a privilege would depend upon what they could contribute, depending upon their ability; this would mean different requirements for different individuals. For example: able bodied men might be expected to do military or emergency service. Disabled individuals might be expected to preform more public services, such as case work or educational programs. Woman might be expected to produce at least two children, or something akin to this. A couple might be able to achieve enfranchisement by adopting an orphan or taking in foster children. I believe that enfranchisement should be a privilege earned, not given.

[Mardla]

*snorts* "Human rights", lol. Who gets to decide what those are?

We see why you argued for slavery.

Boy oh boy, libs never stop being salty over the idea of child rapists doing forced labor.

[Greater Cesnica]

Amin is a thing, and the IDT’s full of Jolthig and Sah’s ranting, so I don’t particularly want to go there.

Then don't. And who cares what Amin's Islamic opinions are?

I don't want him owning slaves or marrying pre-buscent girls. He's said he would own slaves.

[Salus Maior]

...Governments?

Some governments permit slavery

So? The point I'm making is that certain governments collaborated in order to create "Human Rights". They didn't exist before that, obviously.

[Greater Cesnica]

We see why you argued for slavery.

Boy oh boy, libs never stop being salty over the idea of child rapists doing forced labor.

I prefer low-voltage electrocution, but I second this.

[Bienenhalde]

Went to the bookstore a few days ago. Due to little moneyz, had to pick between Storm of Steel and the I-Ching. Ended up choosing the latter and pretty impressed so far. I wish that there were Taiwanese parties built around the philosophy of the text.

Well, that is nice. Are you making any progress in understanding it?

[Mardla]

I've got a good question to start things off!

Who, in society, should be enfranchised? That is to say, who should be able to wield political power?

In America ( and most of the western world ), it is any adult over the age of 18 who is a citizen, not a violent criminal, or mentally handicapped. In the last two centuries of European history, enfranchisement was reserved for white men of property or noble standing. During the Medieval period of Europe, only landed nobility held enfranchisement. And in the time of the Roman Republic/Empire, only men who had served the state were enfranchised.

Personally, I think that only those who have contributed directly to the survival and prosperity of the system should have say in it's operations. How one would receive such a privilege would depend upon what they could contribute, depending upon their ability; this would mean different requirements for different individuals. For example: able bodied men might be expected to do military or emergency service. Disabled individuals might be expected to preform more public services, such as case work or educational programs. Woman might be expected to produce at least two children, or something akin to this. A couple might be able to achieve enfranchisement by adopting an orphan or taking in foster children. I believe that enfranchisement should be a privilege earned, not given.

Taxpayers