>refused to fight in WW1 due to pacifism
>when he was too old to fight in WW2 he conveniently decides that some wars could be worth fighting
I would've refused to fight as well but bare lols that his """""""philosophy""""""" couldn't stand one dose of reality. What a load of worthless pseudo intellectual mental masturbation.
>>956382
>says war is ok
>actually fought in a war
Also too cowardly to debate the Eternal Anglo
>>956382
Coward.
>>956382
>implying WW1 wasn't a senseless war
>implying WW2 wasn't unavoidable
I've never read a man more eager to dismiss ideas that require more than a minutes contemplation.
he is truly the non thinking man's """""philosopher""""
They were very different wars.
>responding to pasta
A fool is I.
>>956382
>People can NEVER change their minds, nope not ever
>>956399
>>actually fought in a war
>injured when mounting a horse
ftfy
Ol' Shitty Witty fought in a war. He was even a POW.
>>959627
My opinion is that everyone should give to the poor. As soon as I am not poor I will change my mind =D
>>956382
WWI was garbage and anyone who willingly chose to fight in it was a retarded. Literally every single individual, from the highest ranking politicians to the lowliest soldier, was a completely and utter idiot if they believed they were fighting for anything other than a dick measuring contest.
WWII was an actual threat caused by the retarded of WWI. WWI is Nationalism at it's peak. It's stupid tribalism and had literally no point. People can barely point to a cause other than "everyone wanted to fight and needed a trigger, and then some rich dude got shot."
WWII was a fight against a cute dude hopped up on amphetamines that couldn't stop killing and if he had succeeded, would've caused Europe to implode into most likely a century of civil war.
Only retards are fully pacifist. most of the time, pacifism is correct. The only time pacifism needs to be let go is when war-tards fuck shit up so much that radical madmen take control of a bunch of retards pissed off by the wars caused by said war-tards.
This is what put me off.
http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
He argues that spending on luxuries is better than spending on failed investments, but while failed investments are bad you have to take risks or the economy would never grow. He completely ignores the simple concept of risk and goes on this bizarre tirade.
>>956501
>>956403
>cowardly
Holy shit mayne give the guy a break he was 90 years old at the time
>>959720
>WWII was a fight against a cute dude hopped up on amphetamines that couldn't stop killing and if he had succeeded, would've caused Europe to implode into most likely a century of civil war.
>>956422
>>implying WW1 wasn't a senseless war
>>implying WW2 wasn't unavoidable
You two need to get an education. Someday that kind of faulty thinking won't be allowed. The West declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Poland is irrelevant; he was only expanding eastward towards the Soviet Union, meaning they were in no danger. The war was all Britain and France's fault. You are thinking inccorectly. WWII absolutely didn't need to happen any more than WWI did, but the Jews willed it.
>>956403
>>961053
Jesus Christ, that's low
>Mosley attempting to redeem himself by trying to force a 90 year old Bertrand Russell to debate him
WW1 could have been avoided by brits if they really wanted to. They'd avoided similar treaty commitments in the past.
>>959693
1, that's not the same. 2, there's nothing wrong with that either.
