but according to water, if we remove the parental responsibilty, he will view me tyring to stop my son as

bad

id ban all drugs

if it doesn’t directly threaten him, it’s not your job to intervene with violence.

banning things creates a market for them.

wew

Making things legal makes a market for them as well.

A larger one.

Because it's legal.

in some cases, yes.

but the illegal trade of things like drugs and alcohol has proven vastly more harmful than the legal trade.

nearly 80% of violent crime in america is related to drugs.

damn i don’t have the source for that rn

would you support the deportation of all blacks

after all, they're 13% of the population yet are responsible for more than 50% of all murder

i would support the right of property owners and landlords to create an ethnically pure area, sure.

but not removal by force.

In America

not in ayncrapistan

my point still stands, you shouldn’t *have* to let black people live in your apartment building.

would you be fine with the USA deporting all blacks

probably not.

not to say it wouldn’t improve things, of course.

In an ancap society

how would you stop someone from buying up land and declaring their own country?

So even if it would vastly reduce the amount of signifigant violence

you wouldnt support it

on an individual basis removal of those who commit violence is acceptable, but generalizing to the point of 50% collateral damage isn’t acceptable.

halving the amount of murders isnt acceptable?

there are ways to do so without 50% collateral

i said

deport

not genocide

50% of the people you deport are innocent

Discord TOS

what is this about

deporting black people

Tfw i got censored

@The Big Oof Water's view focuses on violence being bad

and that we should avoid all violence

and the state uses violence to rule

a pretty retarded view

Would you not use violence or the threat of violence to declare your own personal sovereignty in a stateless society?

I already asked such

with no force, it's going to be impossible

he even admits its unrealistic

ironic, as he has a crusader in his avi

Most people are lazy and not motivated to stand for something

or against something

its why most people are status quoist

Others would deem something too dangerous

and the extent that they will go to try and change society

is voting

That's why the libertarian view of the world is unrealistic

even antifa limits itself to just vandalism and punching people they deem alt right

not even just the ancap view

but the free market one as a whole

It assumes people give a shit

They don;t

People still buy products from shitty companies

because they don't care

the libertarian or ancap world

will change nothing

infact, it will speed up the transition to Neo-Sodom

See the faggots that use Chrome and Google and complain about violations of their privacy

when switching to an alternative is so easy

People are just faggots

that won't stand up for themselves as consumers

Its why democracy doesnt work

mob rule

Democracy is a negotiated rule between the mob and large business

change my mind

when the mob is just a bunch of people who only care about what ZHRUMPF said, what celebrities are doing etc

@The Big Oof change business to the media

the businesses just respond to what the media molds its customers to be

Hollywood, news, tv shows

all the fabulous sources of dopamine and """""""information""""""""

media is business

unfortunately

I just like putting the 2 in different catagories

@PunishedMuskovy sorry to drop out on ya like that last night, just moved into a new place and the internet is patchy at best.

if you’d like to continue discussion in the future i’d be open to that, so long as the internet doesn’t shut down again.

Music goes in <#507036970472570880>

enough of the fucking notifications

@Reb Trump They're partnership requirements

You can opt out of partnership pings

go to bot commands and do ?ranks to see how

@ everyone pings are required to partner with many servers

I'll just give you the role

thanks

Philosophy is no longer a valid subject to go to college for as it is dominated by postmodern neo-marxists pushing their agenda via “philosophy”. Change my mind.

I don't like their opinions and I am incapable of challenging them so the subject is invalid

Person I don’t like says things I don’t like therefore they are stupid so I must paint them in the light of a neanderthal

Grug agree

Grug also agree

Postmodern neomarxists

Marxism is not post modernist ever

race became the new class divide

^ Good

it's not an accurate portrayal of class

unless you want to assign value to being white

When I went to the college tour before i started my first semester, the tour group i was with talked with the philosphy teacher

that course reeks of postmodern hedonism

^

I took english minorities...

worst decision ever

pure cultural marxism

I doubt philiosphy courses nowadays dont even have you read the greeks

Well in my humanities we did at least

But over all the other clases have this sprinkled out

and thats the thing

hopefully they had you read The Republic atleast

they probably went from greek philosphy to liberal shit

well no

we did get Seneca (dont know if that how you said it btw)

which philiosphers did you get?

We got socraties and plato and Seneca

Senecas work was spot on

its called on the shortness of life

Even though it says life is short, its probably the most anti yolo book ever lol

Because he argues we make it short.

Its a good read and I highly recommend it.

>philosophy is no longer a valid subject

>it’s dominated by post modernism

"Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled."[77]- Albert Einstein.

I’ll leave it at this

If you think all philosophy is filled with subjectivists and antirealists. U obviously have not taken the time to look into philosophy

^

"Science with out religion is lame, religion with out science is blind" Albert Einstein

One of the most famous members of the tribe

u said religion without science twice

there

lol

nope

@Deleted User I don’t think thats an actual quote, especially since the meaning of lame has changed since then.

Might be a translation or something, idk

From german

Idk

I just found it intersting

and its similar to the other quote

To bad mine is real 🤷

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#ConAlbEinPhiPhy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

I feel like if you serve a set number of years with the US Military you should be given citizenship

Like

People want citizenship right? Make the required amount like 4-5 years. Military becomes bigger and stronger, people have to get vetted, people serve with our military

Plus people couldn’t keep whining “US CiTiZeNsHip toO hArD”

You wouldn’t be able to take in every person that signs up for it of course, equipping them would for far too expensive

Im skeptical about giving migrants the ability to go into positions of power in the military

I’m just thinking of basic frameworks

Not giving Juan the Drug Dealer the ability to enlist and become a general or something

@Orwell why wouldn't you be? They literally have no loyalty to the nation. Imagine if someone wanted to bribe them to be a spy, or they were fighting some enemy they were ethnically related to, or another migrant who was their superior decided to stage a coup. What would keep them from betraying the nation? Patriotism? Maybe, but I would never trust in that.

well im against immigration either way

but if we were pushing it maybe we could just toss them into labor camps instead

use them as fuel for warp drives

i dont think theyd survive to get their citizenship

~~that’s the point genius~~

@Flat i think as you've put out enlisting in a pretty general role would be a valid route to citizenship and the us programs emulating your frame are pretty successful. In that role campodin's objection doesnt seem to bear much weight as they're effectively just grunts, not privvy to much thats useful and pretty replaceable. if they show leadership potential and get their citizenship maybe then think about commissioning them

Basically, yeah.

apologies for the word salad there btw

In the end it boils down to merceneries being paid with citizenship for military services. There is no real reason why those people would abandon their former loyalities / identify with the host population / not fractionize from the society after millitary service. That plus the mechnizm creates a gender disbalance and that alone would cause conflict later on.

Given the payment of citizenship is only meaningful if they actually want to integrate into the host society it seems irrational that those who don’t seek to do so would make use of such an offer. Nor need military service be restricted to men.

The former is largely self selecting and self discriminating as candidates might easily be expected to serve or train under conditions that would simply not be worth the pay packet alone. Certainly there’s parallels here with the French foreign legion, marines, special forces and arguably most military employment

As for the latter quotas could be implemented if it’s a concern

Grammar just all over the place today

Well.. depending on the country of origin obtaining a paper that allows you to legally work in the host country and/or use its social services could already be a form of payment.

I would argue that the bigger material disproportion between the country of origin and the host country the bigger the incentive.

Right but if your willing to go through the grinder for 6 years in order to do so it’s difficult to argue they don’t identify strongly with the opportunity that nation offers

Very few would accuse the legion of being disloyal to France or the Gurkhas un-British for example

Neither have a reputation for poor integration upon ceasing their period of service and accepting citizenship of their respective country, despite Nepal being much poorer than the uk

"identify with the opportunity" that is a wordplay used to mask the simple buisness nature of the arrangement. For some reason workers on the market do no identify with the "opportunity" that their employers gave em and on average pick the more attractive offer when given the chance.

Many do not find military service an attractive offer however especially as money is very hard to enjoy when dead

Typically foreign services are subjected to more, not less dangerous positions than their domestically sourced counterparts

The reason being very simple, no one at home will miss them

Being prepared to put up with that and traditionally being underpaid compared to their counterparts demonstrates at least for the period of service that those members who serve their time must find their achievement more valuable to justify that difference and have achieved more with less. The past being the best indicator of the future, it’s realistic to expect that behaviour of excellence to continue

Lets be honest here... in the modern times military serive in a developped country is not that harsh in comparition to what it used to be. Most of the wars nowdays do not happen between equals and the casualites on the side of the modern country are very limited in such confrontations.

Please do some research on the French foreign legion, Gurkhas or similar groups and then get back to me with how cushy their position is

Exp since such offer would attract people who already have some military exp. For them it could even be an opportunity to get in a less risky position that they alreay are.

That does not map to how these units are utilised and experienced military personnel would be aware of that

What of I said do you disagree exactly?

That those units would not be harsh and that they would represent less risk then they may already be subjected to

That is preety obv...you can just google how many US casulaites were there in the Iraq war and compare it to the number of casualites on the side of Iraqis.

It is a reality denial if you think the risk they take is comparable.

Your making a generalisation that every units experience is the same which is incorrect

I am making a preety reasonable assumption... but if you disagree you can prove me wrong by showing appropriate statistics, risk analysis etc.

As I’ve mentioned, foreign units are treated much differently than units from home as they are not subjected to the same political pressure to return soldiers to their families

No one is going to use those people as a cannon fodder... not in the current political climate.

I can chase up some stats if you’d like but I do not have them immediately available.
It’s unclear how you believe the current political climate would effect foreign soldiers in the same way that it would when boys from home die

Foreign soldiers have no families in that country nor do they have representatives

FIrst of all it is politically poblematic and such incidents can be used against you by the opposition.

Second of all modern wars aren't thought like that.

There is no footsoldiers charge on the enemy hidden in bunkers

There is no political incentive for advocating them and those that are the most ardent supporters of care for refugees and international empathy are the most callous and ardent critics towards the military

Not when it can prove discriminatory treatment.

What would be the political benefit in doing so. Who’s vote does it win?

The soldiers? They can’t vote

The minority vote for example. The liberal vote for exmaple.

Some of them will pass the citizenship sooner or later.

and then they will be able to vote.

It is preety much the same as now

Typically the military has an old boys mentality where if they went through it others should to. It’s often an impediment to cultural change

In any case they would be a very fine minority

also I am not sure if you have any data that shows ethnic composition of French foreign legion and how well they integrate after the service... how well their children integrate etc

and they wouldn't appreciate their comrades being treated as cannon fodder

plus you also have minorities that are already in the contrues of origin

and they will most likely be interested in this

I’m not sure either but I need not limit myself to the legion. Other foreign units exist. Again, those who have earned the citizenship in such a capacity will always be a very slim minority which will call into question the efficacy on spending time chasing such a niche vote. Minorities originating from that country are also unlikely to empathise with those who earn service through citizenship as that service creates a very wide cultural gap and difference in experience. Not to mention the normal tensions between military members and civilians

There is also the point that justified or no, the argument that they knew what they signed up for is persuasive and that’s the cost of getting what they want

I understand if any immigration is undesirable for you that this is not a policy which serves your aims but it is hard to see in what ways you might see this as not a strict improvement over the conventional process

Even accepting your criticism as valid, which clearly I do not, this process creates undoubtably a more thorough process of vetting the commitment of future citizens

There is a lot of assumptions and guesses that don't have a lot back em up here on the other hand are some examples how the media sees minorities in the military: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/study-shoes-black-service-members-punished-more-in-military_us_5938847ce4b0b13f2c66da83?guccounter=1

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/26/transgender-ban-america-and-military-always-regret-discrimination/514060001/

There is a lot of this type of crap in google.. those are just some example

s

These are also domestic troops Aki with families back home

There is no reason why it wouldn't translate to the foreign legion.

It is not like their families write those artickles mind you

and yeah I would agree that this vetting process is a step forward

I would like to know how you believe this process would be worse then conventional immigration however and to my knowledge there is very little push to make the legion or Gurkhas more inclusive or less unrelenting

but I don't think it is a goal to be aimed at

In what way

Because clearly if your goal is no immigration this doesn’t serve that but any conversation we could have would be unproductive

The issue as it stands is improvements to ensure effective immigration, i would suggest

Any conversation on this issue at least

Hmmm... I would say that my goal would vary depending on the host country. When we are talking about USA or Germany or UK or France that alreay have big problems with minorites and at the same time falling birthrates I would be aiming at halting all migration from the third word countries and drastically limiting it from all others.

I disagree but it is relevant for the purposes of this discussion that military service as a selector for immigration would not need to be mutually exclusive to other policies and could be used in conjunction with your preferred plan

It would also provide a buffer of the length of service before those members enter civil society

If you can accept being particularly callous you could demand the service as a condition to even be considered for citizenship

Ok... I see that we have reached some conclusion that I guess both you and me are ok with.

At least in that military service might be a valid prevision for consideration of citizenship

I could agree with that.

I’m glad we could hash that out. I think the conversation was productive for both of us

Yup I agree! I kinda need to analyse this train of thoughts a bit more before continuing... maybe... if it is necesairy I guess... but yeah I think it was a productive discussion.

I’d be happy to continue when you’ve done so.

The Nation of Islam needs to be outlawed

why

they understand that whites and blacks should stay away from each other

farrakhan is pretty redpilled imo

although hes not consistent

They assassinate and use violence to intimidate people in order to not speak out against them and generally censor opposition

well they did kill malcolm x

Yeah. Because he left the group, tried to convert, and spoke out against their shitty beliefs

What did they do? Put 21 rounds into him.

i honestly dont know what to think about them

you might think theyre shit but they understand the importance of having separate communities

theyre kinda like the KKK

em the modern ones

not the old lynching ones