10,771 Forum Posts by "Tancrisism"
At 7/6/09 02:51 PM, Ledgey wrote:At 7/6/09 09:43 AM, Tancrisism wrote:Isn't that like saying any American who takes pride in their country is responsible for the murdering of natives? Or the slave trade?At 7/6/09 06:04 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: No, I cannot avoid the history of GBR, but I cannot be held personally accountable for it either.Of course not. I meant that not merely for you, but for anyone who feels a sense of pride for being British.
Did I ever say that they are responsible? You are completely taking my words out of context.
I am saying that anyone who finds themselves taking pride in some sort of nation-esque idea must take into account every aspect of that nation.
Americans who take pride in being American are not responsible for the murdering of the natives or the slave trade, but they are ignoring that aspect, as well as the belligerence and unjust overthrowing of democracies in the 20th century.
There is no rational way to be a nationalist because no nation is innocent. Not even Switzerland, for instance, who accepted happily the money from the Jews during the Holocaust.
It's crazy that today, there is a taboo in saying that you're British and proud. What, because of an Empire that began to crumble a hundred years ago? Because we're classed as imperialists?
I will never understand this argument, we are a much different nation than we were back then.
I hope you actually attempt to read my point, then, so you can understand it, instead of inferring things that obviously are not there.
At 7/6/09 04:48 PM, Ledgey wrote: To be honest, it might not have been the best choice of words to say "proud" of being British, more to identifying yourself as British. I wouldn't say that I'm satisfied because I'm born here, more along the lines of because I think we have a great culture for the most part.
And I merely find British history interesting, but I do not see why I have to identify with it to the point where I feel ashamed about where I'm born. Anyone in this country should not have to feel like this because of our ancestors.
Absolutely. Perhaps you do understand my point. When I traveled around Europe I didn't apologize for being American, nor did I say I was proud of it. If people wanted to judge me for being American, that was their mistake. I was by no means proud of the current president (Bush), or the entire horrible policy of the Cold War, but I wasn't going to apologize merely for by mere chance having been born here.
At 7/6/09 06:04 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: No, I cannot avoid the history of GBR, but I cannot be held personally accountable for it either.
Of course not. I meant that not merely for you, but for anyone who feels a sense of pride for being British.
At 7/5/09 07:30 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote: Fair enough, but even so, I'd like to point out that being an island, Great Britain has a huge advantage over most other countries. No doubt if GBR were connected to mainland Europe, it would not have remained unconquered for so long.
Indubitably.
In any case, I maintain that this is not criteria for measuring the greatness of a nation.
I'd say it both is impressive as a feat and as a testament to how much damage ambition and greed can do to humanity.
Ignoring history, GBR's 80% belief in evolution, adherence of humanitarian laws and relative wealth, quite obviously win.
Including history, GBR has a far longer and infamous list of offences. I'd be ashamed, nationally, to be from GBR. But I'm not a nationalist, so the reasons in the above paragraph are why I love GBR.
...But you are a national of GB. You can't avoid that. The country you are from is responsible for India/Pakistan's problems, South Africa (apartheid, Boer Wars), the current problems in the Middle East (with joint responsibility with France, and increasing responsibility from the US), among others.
GB is a good place to live in comparison with other places, though, for sure.
If we are going on the most inventive nation, why not just hand it to the Greeks and be done with it?
They were quite inventive, but any large, dominant, affluent, and stable power is inventive. The Greeks in their time, until the conquest by Philip of Macedon; the Romans in their time; the Chinese, the Mongols, the Arabs (think - numbers); naturally, the British were inventive too in their own right. The US, of late, has also been quite inventive (by of late I of course mean the past 100 years or so), as have the Japanese. Britain has been steadily inventive as well.
"The Most Inventive" is, overall, a bullshit category.
At 7/5/09 06:52 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote:At 5/20/04 12:35 PM, Flesh-shredder wrote: Thats whyList of invasions prior to 1066. Not exactly a great track record.
Notice that he said almost 1000 years. It is currently 2009. 1066 was almost 1000 years ago.
I thought the largest empire in terms of landmass was that of Ghengis Kahn, but I could be wrong.
Nope, the British empire was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar gest_empires - Genghis Khan's empire was about 24 million kilometers squared, while the British was about 33.
Not that I don't love Britain, but for totally different reasons.
Agreed man. I'm American, and I see any form of nationalism as absolutely ridiculous. Nevertheless, it's good to give credit where credit is due. Flesh-Shredder is obviously blindly nationalistic (the Brits are the most inventive? k).
At 7/4/09 05:39 AM, ViolentAJ wrote: You make good points, but it's BS. I'm not the master of anyone. It's the Zionists that force multiculturalism down our throats.
What? Do you know what Zionism is? This is almost the direct opposite...
It is Zionists that brought many of the slaves to America.
The Portuguese in the 1500's, English in the 1600's and 1700's, and then the Anglo-American cotton traders in the 1800's were Zionists? Incredible, especially considering that was long before Zionism was even birthed...
At 7/5/09 07:22 AM, Celx-Requin wrote: Not in Alaska good sir(completely legal there)!
I'm Canadian, and I even know that...
That's not true. Not that you aren't Canadian; I have no reason to doubt that. Marijuana is not completely legal, or legal at all, in Alaska. It's merely been decriminalized.
At 7/2/09 01:49 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Hitler wasn't a military genius, but a manipulative one, and the fact that his most trusted generals talked and gossiped about how crazy he was only drives home the point harder.
The fact that the battle of Stalingrad even happened indicates this. His generals encouraged him to go south and take the key cities in the Caucasian peninsula in order to secure the vast oil fields there, and in doing so effectively cripple the Soviet Union. Hitler decided this would be a good idea, but first, he thought, they should take Stalingrad as a fuck you to Stalin. The siege and battle ended up lasting two years, causing the most deaths out of any battle in history, and was a loss overall for Germany. Way to go.
Not to mention his aiding the Italians in their conquest of Greece delayed his Russian invasion by about two weeks, which, in WW2 time, could have meant a lot more expansion before the winter.
Woops.
At 7/1/09 10:03 PM, Jon-86 wrote: It seems more negative rather than "generic making fun of a stereotype" but that might just be me?
Yes, I definitely agree. It's idiotic.
At 6/30/09 01:26 AM, POOPIES wrote: I'm about ready for them to make tobacco illegal. I'd like to watch the nicotine-addicted masses die in a withdrawal-initiated heap in the streets.
Your logic is entirely flawed. You imply that you believe that if tobacco was made illegal, it would simply disappear and everyone addicted to it would be fucked.
Alcohol was banned for the 1920's, did they stop drinking?
Marijuana is illegal, does it not exist? Or even harder drugs, like heroin, for that matter?
If tobacco was illegal, it would still be bought and sold. The only difference would be that instead of the economy benefiting, only criminals would profit.
Here is the entire argumentfor and against gay marriage.
I think it's a good thing, mainly because now all the ingredients must be accounted for and the tobacco industry is under control of the FDA.
At 6/28/09 08:03 PM, NeonFlame126 wrote: The discussion in its entirety is very long, I'll admit, but most of the length is taken up be a couple words to a line and to take things out would take out the effect of seeing his counter-arguments and such.
Well, that aside, overall I agree with your points. Keep up the good fight without being too close-minded yourself.
This is almost impossible to read entirely. You should condense it and take out the uninteresting, obnoxious, and idiotic things. For instance:
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and so on.
At 6/28/09 12:07 AM, MichaelHurst wrote: That argument I just had with my friend (aka myself) is not going to convince congress to pass a law legalizing marijuana. As much as I wish arguing would help and that normal people would have more of a voice, its pointless.
The primary idea guiding your point is that what one person does cannot effect or change anything.
History has shown countless times that this is untrue, and various arguments have, in fact, changed the course of history.
Stop being small-minded.
At 6/26/09 11:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I know it's inconvenient, but the Old Testament does still apply because Christians didn't toss it out, they've just tended to pick and choose how to do things and seem to believe God mellowed out after having a kid.
Not to mention several key Christian ideas come from the Old Testament, such as the Ten Commandments.
At 6/26/09 06:38 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Oh my God no way man, I just got a (CHIA)kovsky pet at the Wal-Mart right next tothe new Dennys. Anyway, the weathers been pretty bad, it might MikHAIL.
Holy (MOS)COW! Those things are such (VA)SILY pets.
Thanks for your analysis.
Got any information for us, or any links, or a thought-through idea?
Hey guys, guess what! I just got accepted as an (COM)INTERN at the new Denny's!
At 6/25/09 08:25 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I just saw them PUTIN on their shoes, so don't worry.
Yeah, I heard them say they did that. They won't stop YELTSIN.
At 6/25/09 06:29 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:At 6/25/09 06:24 PM, Tancrisism wrote:Agreed, they should be RUSSIAN.Someone needs to TROT over and help too.
That's BOL-SHE(t)VEK!
At 6/24/09 09:32 PM, Xybrik wrote: What else would one use to define themselves as a Christian other than the Bible?
Simply the teachings of Jesus, not the mythology created surrounding him.
Then again I suppose the word "Christ" wouldn't be fitting, since it is Greek for "Messiah" (more or less). Then again, that term could be used figuratively.
At 6/25/09 05:24 PM, Yorik wrote: I think they should quit STALIN and hop right on that.
Right, guys?
Agreed, they should be RUSSIAN.
Here's a better analogy.
You live in a big city. The owners of the city spotted a nice grassland and decided to buy it up from the previous owners. The inhabitants of the grassland are at first happy with this idea because your city promises them their own independent land after your city buys it up.
After a difficult time in a buy/sell struggle, your city finally prevails and gets ownership of the land. Unfortunately for your city, another city also wants ownership and claims several parts, so the grassland people are not able to be granted their land because both cities fear the other becoming too rich. Meanwhile, a family from the cities are invited and encouraged to start settling there because a long-lost family member once lived there.
Well, after those two cities have a long debacle with several other cities, they finally decide that the grassland peoples should be divided up, and they invite the beaten family to settle further, and call a part of the grassland the family's city.
The people who had lived in the grassland were denied their unity, their independence, and now seem to have their land and peoples squandered by the cities. They try to push the growing family out of their grassland, but to no avail.
Over time, the family becomes more and more settled, and they become more and more inhabited in the grassland. Now the grassland is just as much their home as the peoples who were there prior to their resettlement, but both sides are worried for their safety.
At 6/24/09 05:35 PM, ILovezoms wrote: heh touche... but I really don't want this to turn into another one of those debates my point is it just turns into what what you joked about as I said arguing about it is pointless so I won't argue about it on a random forum
It is definitely fated to turn into a religious debate, as that's what always happens. So I'll help provoke the inevitable.
KRISTCHYANITYZ DUMM
I agree with the OP in this case too. It's completely irrational and stereotypical. I've met plenty of cool French people.
It is true, though, that when I backpacked around Europe they were usually the most awkward... Perhaps it was coincidence.
At 6/23/09 10:44 PM, Xybrik wrote: Yes, but my point wasn't to back the validity of the Bible, only to show that the churches people claim to be members of believe that the bible has authority and that the beliefs they claim to have do not line up with the religious sect that they claim to be a part of.
What I am saying is that the other guy was right in that there is no one definition of what a Christian is, not to mention what a "good Christian" is. The Bible is not an authoritative source of what defines a Christian.
At 6/23/09 11:19 PM, Grammer wrote:At 6/23/09 10:43 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Stalin was power-mad and wanted himself to basically be viewed as a deity. Everything glamourised him as essentially a god. Religion was therefore a huge threat, and was markedly destroyed. It was a political move.Ok, well, I guess we'll just disagree on that.
Do you have a counter-point?
I've researched quite a bit about old Uncle Joe, but if you know something I don't I'd like to hear it.
That's interesting, have you read the Koran? Not being snide, I'm interested to know if you have. I thought about buying a copy, you know, to educate myself on what Muslims believe.
I read about 45% of it. I stopped when I realized it was repeating itself over and over and when I found myself tired of being told that I was certain to burn in hell. I've got a pretty decent copy of it; I'd recommend it if you are interested in the religion of the people over there in the Middle East (it seems to be sort of an important place these days).
I'll probably finish it sometime, but right now it is in California and I am in Massachusetts.
At 6/24/09 06:32 AM, poxpower wrote:At 6/23/09 10:38 PM, Tancrisism wrote:Those who supposedly are killing themselves for Allah are being deceived by the warlords who are controlling them.Even in that case, it's religion that's driving them to suicide. The promise of eternal paradise is a religious promise no matter what name you attach to it.
What's your point?
Distorting religious beliefs to achieve political goals, which is what these warlords do, is definitely comparable to warlords who distort nationalist beliefs to achieve political goals. The religion is the tool used, not the cause.
I realized after posting that I'd love to take a jab at a few of your other responses to some people.
At 6/23/09 06:28 PM, Grammer wrote: Why did he target the religious?
Stalin was power-mad and wanted himself to basically be viewed as a deity. Everything glamourised him as essentially a god. Religion was therefore a huge threat, and was markedly destroyed. It was a political move.
I suppose that's all I've got for you.
But yeah, suicide bombing is about as far from the Quran as one can get. Those people are not true Muslims in the strictest sense (that is, those who submit to god and believe that the Quran is the direct word of god given to Muhammed).
At 6/23/09 06:28 PM, Grammer wrote:At 6/23/09 06:15 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Islam bombers - working off the Qur'an.I haven't read the Koran, so I can't say they're actually doing it in the name of Islam. If the Koran tells not to kill innocent people, then you can't really scapegoat something that tells you not to kill.
Actually, I've read most of it, and it specifically says not to commit suicide when it is listing the grave mortal sins.
Those who supposedly are killing themselves for Allah are being deceived by the warlords who are controlling them.
At 6/22/09 04:03 PM, Xybrik wrote: All I am saying is, according to the Bible, one without the other is pointless. They should come in pairs. If your faith in Christ is true, than the works should follow. Though, I believe it is possible to have works without faith. Morality is not exclusive to Christianity in any way and many religions have moral teachings that overlap in many ways.
You say it according to the Bible, though. The Bible was doctored by countless politicians over the past 1600 years.
In Massachusetts and Maine, it's illegal to cook clam chowder with tomatoes.
Fuck you, New York!
Also, in North Dakota (I believe), it is legal to kill a Native American on horseback, IF you are in a covered wagon.
