What happens to all the people who lived before the True Religion™ appeared or who lived their lives ignorant of the True Religion™? Do they go to hell?
That's that Limbo was invented for.
>>1367769
Do they at least get a chance to move to Heaven? Is it really fair not to give them a chance if they lived a thousand years before christ and a thousand miles away?
Yes, obviously. 1st commandment....
What are some historical symbols of ideologies? Fascism is an Eagle, Monarchy should be Lion, Libertarianism is Snake. What about other ones like commies and such?
Nothing you said is correct.
Traditionally red is revolution and white is reaction.
A fist is generally a socialist symbol, and the hammer and sickle are obviously communist.
As the centuries progress, will he still be as vilified as he is today? Or will people view him as a "Napoleon" of sorts?
>>1361960
Napoleon was extremely succesful and great so I don't see how that comparison holds.
>>1361960
He didn't lead battles personally, and he personally ordered the deaths of millions of people.
I think, no.
let's go
Post your favorite armours and/or uniforms from any time and place in history, also, feel free to write facts and/ or the history of the armour you are posting.
Imagine that a man robs a bank, and in the process injures or kills two workers. After this he hides away for 10 or 20 years. During these years the man has realized what he did was gravely wrong, and has turned himself into a proper, well meaning citizen. He rehabilitates himself. But then he is finally found by the police, and is put in jail for the crime he committed. What I want to know is why? Prison is for rehabilitating criminals, but he has already done that for himself. Why must he be punished for the sake of punishment?
Is it right or wrong?
> Prison is for rehabilitating criminals
No it's not. It's foremost purpose is to remove criminals from society as they are individuals that have shown to everyone that they pose a threat. Rehabilitation is a secondary purpose that is only attempted, let alone achieved, in certain instances. A society's desire to see one pay for their crimes is another secondary purpose on a similar level.
>>1368331
Because then it implies that with enough time anyone can get away with anything despite being caught. Shouldn't have killed two individuals. If he has a good lawyer the lawyer can probably get him some good slack.
>>1368331
If you use right or wrong terms you are trying to criticise justice by its own logic.Needs a bigger perspective.
If the history spoken by non-assblasted anglos is true, how do Unionists in NI still act so ironclad about the IRA ever being seen as anything other than ISIS tier terrorists?
Everyone I ask about that backwards country says "Irish people were oppressed. Political means to help were met with violence by protestant paramilitary groups who were in cahoots with the very protestant police force. So the IRA stepped in."
Any Unionists on this site chime in with "no surrender" memes and Britbongs talk shit about how irish people in NI were fine and the IRA had no justification in ever attacking anyone.
So what's the story here, lads? Which side is the retards in denial?
There were no laws that said 'Catholics have half a vote'; just laws that made it so Catholics had half as many votes per head than Protestants. Own your home? You could vote. Renting? You could not.
The IRA won voting rights for Catholics, and stopped, allowing the rest of the process to continue peacefully. Of course, some elements didn't stop, either for ideological or financial reasons.
Wanting equal rights for catholics is not the same as being republican.
Being unionist is not the same as wanting to treat catholics as second class citizens.
Unionists and republicans are against eachother. Protestants and catholics are 'against' eachother. There is some overlap between the two issues, but they are not one and the same.
>>1360579
>Wanting equal rights for catholics is not the same as being republican.
It's sort of the same thing. Republicans wanted equal rights for Catholics in the United Kingdom as their minimum necessary requirement, and they got it.
Unionists /do/ want to treat Catholics as second-class citizens, when they oppose votes that would bring counties into the Republic, they're denying those individuals full citizenship (which naturally includes the right to leave).
So /his, was America truly never great?
I for one think this is bullshit. Everyone does bad shit at some point, and the US aint perfect. But considering how it is a significant pillar of western society, I'd say the US deserves some credit.
America was great from 1776 to 1963. After that it's varied between shit and decent
Americans just want a reason to shoot fire works and to be proud of being a independent nation for over 200 years. Liberal cucks just hate this because they can't wank off to europoors enough and so they do shit like burn American flags and post on Facebook.
You could say that same stuff about every nation that contributed to history. It's all meaningless anyway, just people misremembering a past before heavy industry left for Asia. And of course the US deserves credit, people make fun of us because retards like you take them seriously.
Are there any good arguments for the existence of God?
Not really any that both hold up to scrutiny *and* specify a particular god, and definitely not from that guy.
Thankfully /pol/'s too stupid to understand most of Craig's bad arguments, but jeez, he really did a number on the online apologetics scene. You could check out Alvin Plantinga's stuff, but most of it basically amounts to "how can god not be real if our eyes aren't real" and is based around ideas that lead to sollipsism a lot more easily than they lead to "turns out this 2000-year-old book was RIGHT", as much as he avoids trying to admit it.
But really, no. A lot of kids who either want to spite reddit-atheists, or have recently fetishized christianity as a political device, end up looking up apologetics and coming across Craig. Yes, he "wins" his debates - by demanding both the first and last word, bombarding his opponent with far too many arguments to respond to properly in the allotted time, and then claiming victory for not being proven wrong to his own satisfaction, /v/irgin-style.
>>1369477
If you believe they are, then yes.
No, there really aren't, certainly not the stuff that WLC offers.
Then again, self-contemplation was never meant to be analyzed scientifically, which is something abrahamists never picked up on
>movies about the red baron: tons
>movies about the black devil: zero
and people say jews don't manipulate the media
USA manipulates the media. wheather they're jews or not.
>>1369133
>>movies about the red baron: tons
name 4
>>1369172
1927: A Richthofen-based character appears briefly in the World War I-epic Wings, directed by air combat veteran William A. Wellman.[2]
1930: The Red Baron was a character in the Howard Hughes film Hell's Angels.
1966: The Blue Max
1970: In the Blake Edwards movie Darling Lili, set in World War I and starring Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, the Red Baron is more accurately portrayed as quieter and more reserved than portrayed in The Blue Max (wherein the Baron comes across as rather pompous) and was played by actor Ingo Mogendorf.
1971: The Roger Corman movie, Von Richthofen and Brown, alternatively titled The Red Baron, starred John Phillip Law as Richthofen.[3]
1994: Revenge of the Red Baron; Mickey Rooney portrays a former World War I pilot haunted by a doll version of the Red Baron that flies a toy plane. Also stars Tobey Maguire and Laraine Newman.[4]
2005: Curse of the Were-Rabbit; in the antepenultimate scene of Aardman Studios' first feature-length film in the Wallace & Gromit franchise, canine antagonist Philip pursues canine protagonist Gromit on a fairgrounds. Gromit comes upon a ride called "Dog Fighters", enters it and flies out in a Sopwith Camel, but Philip follows close behind in Richtofen's Fokker Dr.I, somewhat similar to the setting of the Baron's final fight.
2008: The Red Baron a romanticized biopic, starring Matthias Schweighöfer as Richthofen.
2012: War of the Worlds: Goliath; Manfred Von Richthofen appears leading the steampunk ARES biplanes and triplanes against the invading Martian forces.
2015: The Peanuts Movie, created by Blue Sky Studios, features Richthofen's plane as both a toy and when Snoopy is creating his story.
What is the most swole historical culture?
>>1369110
First of all, you are rude. Why should anyone have to use an urban dictionary to translate your question?
Further, why should anyone respond to your question when you have provided no input yourself?
Baby seals
>>1369151
Welcome to 4chan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4YJAs6Cv9I
Is he right?
No. Zizek is never right. Regarding anything. Even his film theories are highly stupid.
>>1369034
My god
*sniffs*
Pure ideology
Yes, absolutely.
By acknowledging our faults, differenves and cultural stereotypes, we can distanco ourselves from notional pride built on hate and feeling of superiority. I am a Pole, and I embrace the stereotypes. Yeah, we drink a lot and we love to take pride in that. Yeah, we love to cheat and exploit the system. Yeah, we are from a backwater country where you can buy portraits of pope everywhere. Yeah, we quarrel a lot. Yeah, we are brave to the point of stupidity. But that what makes us, that's who we are. What are we supposed to do, revel in the failures of 1830, 1863, 1939 and 1945? Are we supposed to pretend that fall of communism in 1989 was a groundbreaking achievement? Are we supposed to put wings on our backs and act like it is 1683 again?
It is bullshit and you know it. Maybe Americans or Brits don't understand it, but the continuum that is Europe east of Elbe includes Germans, Poles, Czechs, Yugoslavians, Russians, etc. We fought a lot, we murdered eachother, but thanks to that, we understand ourselves. Czechs don't resent us for fucking them up in 1620, 1938 and 1968. I don't hold a grudge against Germans or Russians. But I love the folklore that comes with our differences. But when hard nationalsim comes, that tries to build national mythos on historical grudges and antagonism, when a nation starts to take itself too seriously, that is when bad things happen (see: Yugoslavia, Breakup of).
Oh, and coming up with fancy names for minorities is retarded. Gypsies call themselves Gypsies and our black MPs loved to be called by traditional name of Moor, instead of black.
Since people apparently enjoy discussing economics here, and it is a mostly history themed board, I propose this thought experiment.
Imagine, like Socrates did in Plato's Republic, a city's origin.
8000 years ago, two clans get together, there are 40-50 people, they settle and live in one place. Around them others are doing the same.
In this very pure, untainted, no ideology and no past history in meddling, in this vacuum-like laboratory environment, which economic system and how and why would you push to implement?
Now, in real life, you must consider that any big change hurts, the path from X to Y is often disastrous, and there is ideology getting in the way, people protesting whats best for them because they've learned to hate and fear it.
But in our aspiring town there is no such thing, and you have a clean sheet to draw what you feel is best.
Try to explain why your suggestion is good, and how it would scale over time as the city grows, foreigners arrive, there is war, there is innovation, famine, crisis, and so on.
Greek cities had a system where the wealthiest citizens were expected to pay publicly from their own pocket for civic expenses.
>>1368779
If there are so few people, 'economics' would not be the term for what they were doing together to get stuff done.
>>1368802
*citation needed
This is socialist propaganda. Greek city states had laissez faire mercantilism
>there are people on /his/ who unironically subscribe to the Great Man Theory
History is the story of interacting characters, some make more of an effect than others.
>>1368591
>Implying any of that supports the validity of the GMT
>>1368688
Great man theory is only rarely applicable?
Are labour unions a natural part of a free-market economy?
Organized labour is generally seen as an impediment to the free flow of goods and services, but that doesn't seem to be the case from a logical standpoint. If a union is constituted without state involvement and is non-coercive, in what way can it be said to be an intervention in the marketplace? It would seem to me that trade unions are a market force like any other, naturally driving up wages and conditions for workers. What is the argument for unionisation being in defiance of the open market?
Isn't is basically price-fixing?
Haven't seen any libertarians against unions desu
>>1368521
It just depends on the situation. Unions do tend to stifle freedom of choice just by their very nature. People aren't able to negotiate their own wages etc. But they're not necessarily a bad thing. Pretending that employers are inherently benign and you'll never have to negotiate hard is silly. The best way to negotiate is with backup. I think the reason unions get the reputation of being tied up with the state is due to public sector unions, corruption within them (specifically their historical ties with organized crime), and the fact that the state had to step in quite a few times to keep them from getting obliterated by industry leaders. They have problems but people who rail against unions are pretty naive. Kind of like people who have a hate boner for American "imperialism" or capitalism in general. They lack perspective and take for granted the relative comfort they have on account of those instotutions.
