DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: July 8, 2022, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Even comparing 1400-1450 to 1950-2000, there were fewer wars in
the former.
#Post#: 14605--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: guest30
Date: July 9, 2022, 8:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@90sRetroFan
The liberals say that if we oppressed by people, and we seek
revenge which give more suffer to the oppressor, that's not
fair. The attack rates must be counter by the same rates. For
example, if we got a bad words from people even though we not do
anything, if we punch and hurt their body, then it's us who are
guilty. What about that?
My answer is we need them to stop their action, not make a same
response to their interaction to us. Any better answer?
#Post#: 14611--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: July 10, 2022, 7:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"more suffer to the oppressor, that's not fair. The attack rates
must be counter by the same rates."
They learned this from Judaism:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#In_Torah_Law
--- Quote ---
> In the Hebrew Law, the "eye for eye" was to restrict
compensation to the value of the loss. Thus, it might be better
read 'only one eye for one eye'.[1] The idiomatic biblical
phrase "an eye for an eye" in Exodus and Leviticus
(עין תחת
עין‎, ayin tachat ayin) literally means
'an eye under/(in place of) an eye' while a slightly different
phrase (עַיִן
בְּעַיִן
שֵׁן
בְּשֵׁן, literally
"eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth") is used in another passage
(Deuteronomy) in the context of possible reciprocal court
sentences for failed false witnesses.[8][9][10] The passage in
Leviticus states, "And a man who injures his countryman – as he
has done, so it shall be done to him [namely,] fracture
under/for fracture, eye under/for eye, tooth under/for tooth.
Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will
be given to him." (Lev. 24:19–21).[8]
--- End Quote ---
This is a materialistic trading calculation. Yet ethical trading
must be based on mutual consent. Once one side initiates
violence, the two sides are not in a trading relationship any
more, therefore to nevertheless continue with trading
calculations is to ignore the ethical prerequisites of trade.
In terms of fairness, the only people who deserve to be treated
fairly are those who treat others fairly. Oppressors by
definition do not treat others fairly. To continue to treat
oppressors "fairly" is thus in fact to be unfair to everyone
else.
"My answer is we need them to stop their action"
This is a practical duty, which I also acknowledge. But it is
separate from the issue of what they deserve. If someone
initiated violence in the past but then became paralyzed (thus
are guaranteed to never initiate violence again), they still
deserve to be punished for the violence they initiated in the
past no less than someone else who initiated similar violence
but who did not become paralyzed.
#Post#: 14896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: guest30
Date: July 27, 2022, 10:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@90sRetroFan
I recently see about the history of liberalism movements, and it
said that oftenly liberalism also resulting in confronting the
opposition because of injustice and discrimination. For example,
like 1960s counterculture in the United States and Western
Europe, and the counter-movements of the "South American" people
to the Spanish colonialism.
What about that? My best answer for them is, the liberals more
care about the same treatment of people rather than punishment
to the people who are voluntary agree to follow a discriminative
worldview like Aristotelianism and Homerus princip for example.
Any answer other than that?
#Post#: 14897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: July 27, 2022, 11:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"the liberals more care about the same treatment of people
rather than punishment to the people who are voluntary agree to
follow a discriminative worldview"
I agree. If you look at:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/ethnotribalism-the-computer-simulation/msg48/#msg48
they are (d). Therefore they are statistically guaranteed to
lose against racists who are (c).
If False Leftists had really been effective in opposing racism
in the past, racism would not be making a comeback now. Racism
returning today proves that everything False Leftists did had at
most a temporary effect. Their greatest mistake was to presume
(wrongly) that racists can be taught not to be racist, when in
reality:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/superiority-cannot-be-taught/
#Post#: 14916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: guest30
Date: July 30, 2022, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@90sRetroFan
The liberals say that the colonialism happened not because
democracy. And it happened because of authoritarianism. And they
also answer with the other arguments that colonialism was not
presented "the real democracy". So, what about that arguments?
My current answer is even colonialism still happening during the
period of liberalism and democracy in the colonist nations. And
only the second world war which made it end, even more quickly,
not the democracy. But any other strong arguments?
#Post#: 14918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: July 30, 2022, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of democracy claim that the majority of the demos
will vote for policies which benefit the majority of the demos,
and therefore a democracy will implement policies which benefit
the majority of the demos. We agree with this.
Colonialism benefits the colonizers.
Therefore a democracy will colonize any country too weak to pose
a threat to the colonizing demos.
(As a corollary, democracy will promote invention of machines by
the demos, so that other countries without such machines become
weaker in comparison and thus able to be colonized without
risk.)
"authoritarianism"
Democracy promotes authoritarianism among the demos. This was
covered on the main site:
--- Quote ---
> The essence of this tendency is best described as Western
plebian hubris: a refusal to recognize the existence of a few
enlightened individuals incomparably superior to everyone else
in the same society and who therefore deserve absolute authority
as rulers, judges and other arbitrators. ... This plebian hubris
was by no means egalitarianism; on the contrary, it merely
replaced the qualitative belief in the superiority of high-grade
individuals worldwide over low-grade masses worldwide with an
ethnocentric belief in the superiority of “white” over
“non-white” regardless of grade, implying, for example,
precedence of ”white” commoners over even “non-white” royalty,
which provided the psychological priming for the uniquely
Western phenomenon of colonialism.
--- End Quote ---
""the real democracy""
HTML http://aryanism.net/wp-content/uploads/Aristotle2.png
#Post#: 15023--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: guest30
Date: August 6, 2022, 7:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@90sRetroFan
When we openly declared to against gentrification and control
the markets. The liberals say that we are cheating on earning
and only complaining not to compete. What the best answer for
that?
My answer is we don't want the capitalism and social jealously
increasing. But I feel that's still weak arguments
And by the way, how can Aristoteles behave like Jews. I realize
that recently. He openly declare scientific racism for the sake
of homogenous community. Is he Jewish?
#Post#: 15024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: August 6, 2022, 8:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They want people to compete over who can add more unnecessary
products into the economy. What we are doing can be interpreted
as the opposite competition: we want people to compete over who
can remove more unnecessary products from the economy.
They want a competition in complexification. We want a
competition in simplification.
There is no indication that Aristotle was Jewish as far as I
know. However, he is from Thrace:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Life
--- Quote ---
> Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stagira, Chalcidice, about 55
km (34 miles) east of modern-day Thessaloniki.[10][11]
--- End Quote ---
(by no coincidence the same region as Achilles, as our enemies
like to emphasize:
HTML http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/western-civilization-late-20th-century-pop-culture/comment-page-2/#comment-170659
--- Quote ---
> Achilles, the “city destroyer” who is the ultimate symbol of
an Indo-European warrior elite that was “ferociously male in its
focus, with male gods and a cultivation of violence, with no
great attention paid to dwellings or public buildings, but a
fascination with weaponry, speed and violence.”[xxv] Even in the
world of the Iliad, Achilles’ homeland in Thessaly is further
north than that of any other character.
--- End Quote ---
), therefore geographically speaking Aristotle is likely to have
more Turanian blood than the Greek average.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_horseman
Certainly, Aristotle is immensely admired in Judaism:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#On_medieval_Judaism
--- Quote ---
> Moses Maimonides (considered to be the foremost intellectual
figure of medieval Judaism)[178] adopted Aristotelianism from
the Islamic scholars and based his Guide for the Perplexed on it
and that became the basis of Jewish scholastic philosophy.
Maimonides also considered Aristotle to be the greatest
philosopher that ever lived, and styled him as the "chief of the
philosophers".[179][180][181] Also, in his letter to Samuel ibn
Tibbon, Maimonides observes that there is no need for Samuel to
study the writings of philosophers who preceded Aristotle
because the works of the latter are "sufficient by themselves
and [superior] to all that were written before them. His
intellect, Aristotle's is the extreme limit of human intellect,
apart from him upon whom the divine emanation has flowed forth
to such an extent that they reach the level of prophecy, there
being no level higher".[182]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 15037--------------------------------------------------
Re: Debate with the Liberals
DIR By: guest30
Date: August 7, 2022, 8:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And, the liberals's arguments to defend their ideology is, when
the censorship and strict rules implemented. The people being
boring and not happy. And that is not empathic. That's why the
refugees and the people who dislike their place of origin tend
to move to the democratic West which free and advanced rather
than the others. What about that?
This is I'm not yet have the answer
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page