PDA

View Full Version : Somalia



MrBungle
08-05-2011, 20:51
Could this be the first modern case of a whole nation starving to death completely?

More to come I bet...

Desertification ftw.

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 20:54
Anything in the news?

Lord Bulleteus
08-05-2011, 20:54
Could this be the first modern case of a whole nation starving to death completely?

More to come I bet...

Desertification ftw.

only the poor and unarmed will die the militias and other scum will live on

[LoD] EE
08-05-2011, 21:01
Could this be the first modern case of a whole nation starving to death completely?

More to come I bet...

Desertification ftw.

We should stop sending food and aid to countries like those. It does them no good. They dont learn the lessons they must learn. Starvation is the only way for them to learn. I have been saying it for many years now. End all foreign aid to all nations and let them figure out how to fix their problems, if they cant, they end.

Bainwalker
08-05-2011, 21:18
Mother nature seems to be playing the population control card. It sucks for those dying but as a species we are fucking the planet.

sc0r0wnz
08-05-2011, 21:20
EE;5094019']We should stop sending food and aid to countries like those. It does them no good. They dont learn the lessons they must learn. Starvation is the only way for them to learn. I have been saying it for many years now. End all foreign aid to all nations and let them figure out how to fix their problems, if they cant, they end.

This is the reason The Netherlands doesn't give plain help anymore, only structured help.

Or it ends up in the cyclus or retardness.

Lord Bulleteus
08-05-2011, 21:25
EE;5094019']We should stop sending food and aid to countries like those. It does them no good. They dont learn the lessons they must learn. Starvation is the only way for them to learn. I have been saying it for many years now. End all foreign aid to all nations and let them figure out how to fix their problems, if they cant, they end.

laws of nature? the strong survive the weak die?

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 21:31
Can someone link me to this supposed starvation? Not saying it can not happen but I need to know more.

88Chaz88
08-05-2011, 21:42
only the poor and unarmed will die the militias and other scum will live on

Libertarian Paradise!

shook
08-05-2011, 21:43
Mother nature seems to be playing the population control card. It sucks for those dying but as a species we are fucking the planet.

You have it so wrong, we are fucking ourselves. There are plenty of resources for everyone to do whatever they need. The planet is far too resilient, any thing we have done so far is short term damage only.

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 21:51
Libertarian Paradise!

There were like 10 years of no government and all indices of well being went up during that period. Nice try, insecure much?

doomahx
08-05-2011, 21:55
There were like 10 years of no government and all indices of well being went up during that period. Nice try, insecure much?

Wouldn't zero government be considered an anarchy though? Don't libertarians want limited government? Or did you mean limited government?

88Chaz88
08-05-2011, 21:56
There were like 10 years of no government and all indices of well being went up during that period. Nice try, insecure much?

What? All I said was it's a Libertarian paradise. Are you arguing this?

nizzie
08-05-2011, 21:59
EE;5094019']We should stop sending food and aid to countries like those. It does them no good. They dont learn the lessons they must learn. Starvation is the only way for them to learn. I have been saying it for many years now. End all foreign aid to all nations and let them figure out how to fix their problems, if they cant, they end.

And while doing so we need to end ALL exploitations and meddling in African affairs.

Just two examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmsJoaDiwZc&t=2m59s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2GoLo8UfSk

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 22:21
Wouldn't zero government be considered an anarchy though? Don't libertarians want limited government? Or did you mean limited government?

Libertarians would be both a minarchists and an anarchists.


What? All I said was it's a Libertarian paradise. Are you arguing this?

The fact that there is no government or a small weak government does not necessarily mean it would be libertarian paradise. There is a big difference between a collapsed government and a dismantled government. It would only be fair to compare Somalia to modern nations if they would have anarchy at least for as long as those nations had central state.

Apex Vertigo
08-05-2011, 22:26
Libertarians would be both a minarchists and an anarchists.



The fact that there is no government or a small weak government does not necessarily mean it would be libertarian paradise. There is a big difference between a collapsed government and a dismantled government. It would only be fair to compare Somalia to modern nations if they would have anarchy at least for as long as those nations had central state.


Lol, so you are saying Anarchy developes into something less chaotic and better over time? Anarchist have got to be some of the most retarded people on the planet.

How as there any difference between a "Dismantled Gov" and a "Collapsed Gov"? Both result in No Gov, both have the same implications as both will revert to tribe based warfare, ultimately.

StainlessSteelRat
08-05-2011, 22:37
How as there any difference between a "Dismantled Gov" and a "Collapsed Gov"? Both result in No Gov, both have the same implications as both will revert to tribe based warfare, ultimately.

Not necessarily. But you know that. You just think the odds are in favor of warfare which they may very well be. His point is that a collapsed gov't leaves a void most often filled by 'warfare'. A dismantled gov't will leave no such void.

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 22:38
Is Somalia tribe based warfare? Ofcourse not, they have warlords because they are fighting outside governments trying to instill a government. The outside governments being European Union and African Union. Somalia has been invaded and they are fighting back those troops.

Apex Vertigo
08-05-2011, 22:45
Not necessarily. But you know that. You just think the odds are in favor of warfare which they may very well be. His point is that a collapsed gov't leaves a void most often filled by 'warfare'. A dismantled gov't will leave no such void.

Yes it most certainly would... even if the dismantle is peaceful, which I suppose is the only difference between a collapse and a dismantled government, there would still be a power vacuum, there's absolutely nothing stopping it. Tell me, what is stopping that vacuum from occurring? The good will and good intentions of the people?

MrBungle
08-05-2011, 22:45
Mother nature seems to be playing the population control card. It sucks for those dying but as a species we are fucking the planet.

One in a billion years.

MrBungle
08-05-2011, 22:54
Im really digging this whole Ghost Nation btw.

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 23:03
Yes it most certainly would... even if the dismantle is peaceful, which I suppose is the only difference between a collapse and a dismantled government, there would still be a power vacuum, there's absolutely nothing stopping it. Tell me, what is stopping that vacuum from occurring? The good will and good intentions of the people?

Well government is basically monopoly on the use of force and dispute resolution. If a government collapses it means conditions are bad and people are hardly educated in the ways of non aggression.

However if government is being dismantled one can take some assumptions. First of all it would have a majority of people who want that. This would mean that there is ideological commitment to establishing dispute resolution agencies and security firms to ward off invasion from people who would want a government. It would also mean absence of 3rd world poverty and conflict. It also means that average person is rich enough to afford leisure time to be able to participate in this instead of working from morning till night and not knowing whats going on.

Apex Vertigo
08-05-2011, 23:17
Well government is basically monopoly on the use of force and dispute resolution. If a government collapses it means conditions are bad and people are hardly educated in the ways of non aggression.

However if government is being dismantled one can take some assumptions. First of all it would have a majority of people who want that. This would mean that there is ideological commitment to establishing dispute resolution agencies and security firms to ward off invasion from people who would want a government. It would also mean absence of 3rd world poverty and conflict. It also means that average person is rich enough to afford leisure time to be able to participate in this instead of working from morning till night and not knowing whats going on.

Sooo you're entire philosophy is based off the assumption that the new government-less population is 1. Entirely united to a society based purely on privatized securities, 2. An equally devote sect of the population could not possibly create a militia to install their own government, 3. Monopolies would not be created because in this society economies of scale don't exist? (Along with every other kind of market injustice plausible) 4. The population somehow escapes poverty completely, with no explanation as to why people who don't even have that leisure time now would be able to acquire that standard, and that standard is for some reason the status quo for everyone? And that is ignoring the possibility of a foreign invasion or all the problems that would obviously come from a private police force (haven't we seen the problems with privatized prisons enough to prove that a disciplinary organization based on profit ultimately fails at the job it was created to do in the first place?) Is that about right? Because that sounds more naive and based in a realm of fantasy with a complete lack of human understanding than a DF fanboi.

Silverhandorder
08-05-2011, 23:27
I gtg but feel free to PM with all the reason you think this can not work and I will give you my best arguments. I'll reply here on monday.

Reckun
08-05-2011, 23:44
http://www.dirtybutton.com/media/db286-grand-theft-somalia.jpg

MrBungle
08-06-2011, 00:00
http://www.dirtybutton.com/media/db286-grand-theft-somalia.jpg

Gotta be an eyetrick.

MrBungle
08-06-2011, 00:04
Sooo you're entire philosophy is based off the assumption that the new government-less population is 1. Entirely united to a society based purely on privatized securities, 2. An equally devote sect of the population could not possibly create a militia to install their own government, 3. Monopolies would not be created because in this society economies of scale don't exist? (Along with every other kind of market injustice plausible) 4. The population somehow escapes poverty completely, with no explanation as to why people who don't even have that leisure time now would be able to acquire that standard, and that standard is for some reason the status quo for everyone? And that is ignoring the possibility of a foreign invasion or all the problems that would obviously come from a private police force (haven't we seen the problems with privatized prisons enough to prove that a disciplinary organization based on profit ultimately fails at the job it was created to do in the first place?) Is that about right? Because that sounds more naive and based in a realm of fantasy with a complete lack of human understanding than a DF fanboi.

Just read this.

lol

Zakon
08-06-2011, 00:33
First you fuck up almost all the African countries there are (by abusing them and trying to show your might to the other world powers) and then when "all of a sudden" people are dieing you say: "Survival of the fittest y'know?" Which is partially true as the world nations fucked them all over at first and leave them to die now, which means they are weaker, but only because you invaded them and abused them from top to bottom.

Nobody cared that they were dieing when the proud white nations were sharing their lands like a big cake. It's like when you storm into someones house, take all u want and leave. When you notice that they can't survive on what they have left you give them abit and say "you guys are a bunch of incompetent losers, we shouldn't even be giving you anything, go rise and be a powerful nation like we did". Nevermind the fact that you became powerful by abusing them all.

Apex Vertigo
08-06-2011, 00:34
First you fuck up almost all the African countries there are (by abusing them and trying to show your might to the other world powers) and then when "all of a sudden" people are dieing you say: "Survival of the fittest y'know?" Which is partially true as the world nations fucked them all over at first and leave them to die now.

Well... it is survival of the fittest. They wouldn't have been in such a position to get fucked over by Europe had they been as advanced as they Euros.

MattMystrieo
08-06-2011, 00:41
Well... it is survival of the fittest. They wouldn't have been in such a position to get fucked over by Europe had they been as advanced as they Euros.

... So the reason native Africans didn't develop socially, politically, and milataristically exactly like Europe is because they wern't as "advanced"? It had nothing to do with to incredably different enviroment, social structure, etc? Tell me something when you live in a piece of land where you have to travel to find water for just 100 people how or mostly why would you set up a city? Why would a society devlelop cannons and guns when spears and bows do the job easily and there is no need to devlelop further?

Native Africans devloped differently to Europeans because their socities needed to, to survive the enviroment in which they lived. There is the old idea Eienstien could solve problems no one in the world had even thought of in front of a blackbored. But put him in the middle of the sahara in the 1800's and he's fucked in a day. Societies change and evolve on what they need. l2history+common sense...

Zakon
08-06-2011, 01:05
Their first "weakness" (while it cannot be called so) is that they lived in a very bad environment, with resources that weren't useful to their society, which then the good ol' white folk came in to steal and abuse. From there it only went downwards as everyone came to get a free piece of this awesome African cake.

Also, as MattMystrieo said, they were adapted to the environment they were living in, and you have to be pretty fucking strong to adapt to such a harsh environment. Their weakness also was that they, in that time, weren't as corrupt as the Europeans were, they weren't ready to fight an intern battle. Most tribes and other clan-like folks are really battle-born and ready to die for their country, but they aren't used to be infiltrated and corrupted from within. And so they lost. Not their fault that they aren't as sneaky and honorless as the Europeans.

MattMystrieo
08-06-2011, 01:12
Their first "weakness" (while it cannot be called so) is that they lived in a very bad environment, with resources that weren't useful to their society, which then the good ol' white folk came in to steal and abuse. From there it only went downwards as everyone came to get a free piece of this awesome African cake.

Not 100% accurate. Because you have to consider what society's were like before Europeans came. We competly changed there make up, before Europeans arrived society's in most of Africa (at least sub-Sahara) were spilt up into thousands of tribes, which were very small. Tribes were small and a lot of the time nomadic because that made best use of the enviroment, their society's devloped perfectly to suit their enviroment. Until Europeans came along and started wanted to set up cities, changing social make ups, etc. It changed the social structure to one identical to Europe which simply didn't work in Africa.

Zakon
08-06-2011, 01:17
I agree, what i mean is that their environment isn't fit for them to grow like the Europeans did, their environment forced the tribes to be more "simple" while such technological advancement wasn't really needed i think. They adapted to their environment and i think were happy about it, until all changed. As you said the Europeans switched their system to the European one, which simply didn't and i think couldn't work out in that situation.

Apex Vertigo
08-06-2011, 01:44
... So the reason native Africans didn't develop socially, politically, and milataristically exactly like Europe is because they wern't as "advanced"? It had nothing to do with to incredably different enviroment, social structure, etc? Tell me something when you live in a piece of land where you have to travel to find water for just 100 people how or mostly why would you set up a city? Why would a society devlelop cannons and guns when spears and bows do the job easily and there is no need to devlelop further?

Native Africans devloped differently to Europeans because their socities needed to, to survive the enviroment in which they lived. There is the old idea Eienstien could solve problems no one in the world had even thought of in front of a blackbored. But put him in the middle of the sahara in the 1800's and he's fucked in a day. Societies change and evolve on what they need. l2history+common sense...

Calm down kiddo, it was a half serious post anyways. Of course the environment and geography played important roles. My point, and only point, was that the Euros were the fittest for the modern world. Not genetically superior, just better at conquering, which at the end of the day is what mattered the most.

MattMystrieo
08-06-2011, 01:51
Calm down kiddo, it was a half serious post anyways. Of course the environment and geography played important roles. My point, and only point, was that the Euros were the fittest for the modern world. Not genetically superior, just better at conquering, which at the end of the day is what mattered the most.

Sorry dad. I did wonder if you were trolling when I replied but I thought I'd go for it anyroad, nm. And yes I can agree with your point there.

Ausei
08-06-2011, 01:55
All this blame on the white folk is retarded. They don't help themselves is the problem.

MattMystrieo
08-06-2011, 01:58
All this blame on the white folk is retarded. They don't help themselves is the problem.

Did you not read my orginal reply to Apex? I has something to do with colonisation, but not everything. "They don't help themselves" is just retarded.. I won't even reply.

There are numerous factors, but most importanatly of all is obviously just the enviroment. It hasn't rained so crops don't grow, simple. You really shouldn't feel the need to look and judge the world so politically, this has very little to do with political ideology of whether people should help themselves or whether governments should etc.

zato`1
08-06-2011, 02:22
stop sending them food, let them kill each other and starve to death. why we must feel concern for poor idiots who are literally a nation of retards is beyond me. if africa were white people and america were black (it almost is) africa wouldn't get any help at all, they'd be expected to be self-sustaining.

Apex Vertigo
08-06-2011, 02:32
stop sending them food, let them kill each other and starve to death. why we must feel concern for poor idiots who are literally a nation of retards is beyond me. if africa were white people and america were black (it almost is) africa wouldn't get any help at all, they'd be expected to be self-sustaining.

Now this is truly ignorant. We aren't even close to being black and you have absolutely no clue how they'd react in our shoes. They'd have a completely different history, probably just Euro history. The level of melanin in someone's skin doesn't change their personality at all.

zato`1
08-06-2011, 02:38
Now this is truly ignorant. We aren't even close to being black and you have absolutely no clue how they'd react in our shoes. They'd have a completely different history, probably just Euro history. The level of melanin in someone's skin doesn't change their personality at all.

oh right i forgot black people are just like white people in every single way, the only difference is the WHITE MAN is constantly getting the blacks down!

Apex Vertigo
08-06-2011, 02:41
oh right i forgot black people are just like white people in every single way, the only difference is the WHITE MAN is constantly getting the blacks down!

They are the same, the only thing that is different is culture and the only reason their culture is the way it is is because they are poor and they are poor because we brought them here as slaves for hundreds of years and then stunted their progress and forced them into impoverished conditions for the next 100. Things are getting better now but to point out a country in Africa or an event in the US and say "It's because of their skin color" is just extremely ignorant of the history of this country and the world in general. There is literally no one stupider than a racist.

zato`1
08-06-2011, 02:48
They are the same, the only thing that is different is culture and the only reason their culture is the way it is is because they are poor and they are poor because we brought them here as slaves for hundreds of years and then stunted their progress and forced them into impoverished conditions for the next 100. Things are getting better now but to point out a country in Africa or an event in the US and say "It's because of their skin color" is just extremely ignorant of the history of this country and the world in general. There is literally no one stupider than a racist.


you must be black because you're refusing to admit that black people are as guilty as white people for their position in the world.

i have figured it out, awesome.

you make me laugh out of pity. maybe when you can accept some responsibility then blacks will move up in the world, but thats not happening so i doubt it.

Apex Vertigo
08-06-2011, 02:54
you must be black because you're refusing to admit that black people are as guilty as white people for their position in the world.

i have figured it out, awesome.

you make me laugh out of pity. maybe when you can accept some responsibility then blacks will move up in the world, but thats not happening so i doubt it.

You must be a troll because you are being a troll.

nizzie
08-06-2011, 03:00
You must be a troll because you are being a troll.

I'm afraid he's j (http://i.qkme.me/eb6.jpg)ust very very stupid.

zato`1
08-06-2011, 03:03
You must be a troll because you are being a troll.

typical response

afraid to admit responsibility

blacks sold other blacks into slavery, white people didn't have a damn thing to do with that. the african kings had plenty of power and had more than enough soldiers to fight off the white people if they wished to.

they saw an opportunity and got greedy, sold their own people into slavery and blame it on whites because theyre too afraid to admit its their own fault they are where they are.

look at what happens when a black person gets an education and stops living like a ghettoblaster piece of trash in america- they succeed and get a job and have a fulfilling life. OMG! NO WAY!

with hard work and determination, you can fix your life situation. course when you're black and watch BET as your main source of entertainment you learn that the entire world is being forced to give you freebies under the guise of defeating racism, because to tell your lazy ass to get a job would be an insult so great you'd have to call jessie jackson to have a civil rights hoedown right there.

Zakon
08-06-2011, 03:06
But when you're living peacefully you don't all of a sudden sell you folk to some strangers now do you? That's why i said that they were corrupted from within, by those strangers their leaders sold them to. You can't say it was all their fault, when the Europeans came in and started cutting Africa in pieces.

zato`1
08-06-2011, 03:11
But when you're living peacefully you don't all of a sudden sell you folk to some strangers now do you? That's why i said that they were corrupted from within, by those strangers their leaders sold them to. You can't say it was all their fault, when the Europeans came in and started cutting Africa in pieces.

uhh yeah you do when you're a greedy sack of shit with no regard for the very people you're ruling

they weren't corrupted by white people, wtf? this is exactly the kind of shit im talking about. they fucked themselves through and through for the chance to make a quick buck off the peons that comprise their country with no regard to any future consequences.

you get what you deserve. if selling your people into slavery for some strangers gold is what you want to do then you should know those very people you're selling are going to be slaves forever even when theyre freed.

nizzie
08-06-2011, 03:19
uhh yeah you do when you're a greedy sack of shit with no regard for the very people you're ruling

Does not absolve the white slave traders of their guilt. Did you stop going to school as a teenager, what is wrong with you?

Zakon
08-06-2011, 03:24
If you sell people, it means there is someone on the receiving side right? Which means the others were gladly buying those people, which means they're as fucking bad as well, what is hard to grasp about this? If you are so greedy and want to sell you people to someone, but there is no one to sell them to, you don't sell them, as simple as that. I'm not saying they aren't wrong about selling, im saying that the white folk was convincing them to sell the people. Or did you think that the African kings were running around till they saw a white guy and said "Hey man, wanna buy our people?"

The Cannibal
08-06-2011, 03:33
If you sell people, it means there is someone on the receiving side right? Which means the others were gladly buying those people, which means they're as fucking bad as well, what is hard to grasp about this? If you are so greedy and want to sell you people to someone, but there is no one to sell them to, you don't sell them, as simple as that. I'm not saying they aren't wrong about selling, im saying that the white folk was convincing them to sell the people. Or did you think that the African kings were running around till they saw a white guy and said "Hey man, wanna buy our people?"

If slavery was legal, I'd buy a slave.

amiright?

lol

Zakon
08-06-2011, 03:37
That would be your right, but then you know what you are.

MrBungle
08-06-2011, 13:04
Well... it is survival of the fittest. They wouldn't have been in such a position to get fucked over by Europe had they been as advanced as they Euros.

You're such a dickweed.

Humans show to be the only species thinking this notion applies for each and every of its own individuals...

If it were up to me with some good connections and a good bit of cash to spare, I'd find out where you live and send you there to die like the rest of them, since it's aparently ok to think like that.

Dredgon
08-06-2011, 13:11
You're such a dickweed.

Humans show to be the only species who think this notion applies for each and every of its individuals.

If it were up to me and I had some good connections a good bit of cash to spare, I'd find out where you live and send you to die there like the rest of them, since that's aparently ok to think like that.

You mad pro?

bongloads
08-06-2011, 13:16
You must be a troll because you are being a troll.


Did you stop going to school as a teenager, what is wrong with you?

Both of these responses were good.

StainlessSteelRat
08-06-2011, 21:46
If you sell people, it means there is someone on the receiving side right? Which means the others were gladly buying those people, which means they're as fucking bad as well, what is hard to grasp about this? If you are so greedy and want to sell you people to someone, but there is no one to sell them to, you don't sell them, as simple as that. I'm not saying they aren't wrong about selling, im saying that the white folk was convincing them to sell the people. Or did you think that the African kings were running around till they saw a white guy and said "Hey man, wanna buy our people?"

You do realize that slavery existed before whitey came along, right?

MrBungle
08-06-2011, 21:57
You do realize that slavery existed before whitey came along, right?

That doesnt make it any more acceptable.

Zakon
08-06-2011, 23:04
You do realize that slavery existed before whitey came along, right?

Yes, but if they wouldn't have come and asked for slaves, they wouldn't have sold the people to them. So you think as long as something has already been done, means it's OK to do so again?

MrBungle
08-06-2011, 23:09
Yes, but if they wouldn't have come and asked for slaves, they wouldn't have sold the people to them. So you think as long as something has already been done, means it's OK to do so again?

Of course, since human nature's nothing but evil...

Zakon
08-06-2011, 23:19
You are probably indoctrinated that all men are evil, which isn't true. But ofcourse when you want to do evil things, it goes easier when you convince yourself that everyone does it anyway.

StainlessSteelRat
08-06-2011, 23:51
That doesnt make it any more acceptable.


Yes, but if they wouldn't have come and asked for slaves, they wouldn't have sold the people to them. So you think as long as something has already been done, means it's OK to do so again?

You implied that they only sold their fellow blacks b/c a buyer existed. I'm just pointing out that they were enslaving each other anyway. The presence of a new buyer on the block didn't create slaver as you implied.

Where did anything in my post give any indication of a moral justification? Twats.

Zakon
08-06-2011, 23:54
You implied that they only sold their fellow blacks b/c a buyer existed. I'm just pointing out that they were enslaving each other anyway. The presence of a new buyer on the block didn't create slaver as you implied.

Where did anything in my post give any indication of a moral justification? Twats.

There could or perhaps could not been other buyers at that time. What matters is the fact that those whiteys came and BOUGHT them. It's like stealing someones car which is always left open for anyone to grasp and saying 'yeah, someone else wouldve stolen it anyway'.

You call me a twat, how has that helped bring over your opinion or convince me of your truth?

Apex Vertigo
08-07-2011, 00:00
You're such a dickweed.

Humans show to be the only species thinking this notion applies for each and every of its own individuals...

If it were up to me with some good connections and a good bit of cash to spare, I'd find out where you live and send you there to die like the rest of them, since it's aparently ok to think like that.

And you're a pussy who gets pissy when someone doesn't play to the PC version of how the world works. I didn't say it was ok or morally just, just that this shit happens and there are reasons for it. So go suck a dick you fucking pussy, going to send threats to me like you could do a fucking thing you big fucking vagina.

EDIT: You don't need a lot of money to find a person on the internet and you it's fucking sad that you admit you'd only do something if you had money to pay people to do it for you. You'd think in your own e-thug verbal assault you'd at least PRETEND like you'd have some semblance of a pair of balls. Who is worse, the guy who doesn't start crying uncontrollably every time an injustice occurs at some point in history or the giant faggot that would kill someone for having opinions contrary to his own?

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 00:17
And you're a pussy who gets pissy when someone doesn't play to the PC version of how the world works. I didn't say it was ok or morally just, just that this shit happens and there are reasons for it. So go suck a dick you fucking pussy, going to send threats to me like you could do a fucking thing you big fucking vagina.

Wow, clearly struck a nerve there.

Sir, I recall you were the one to imply it was entirely their fault first.

So I took it as my responsibility to impose you to something cruel, which you obviously did not enjoy very much somewhere, depsite your e-peen.

Now take that pain and multiply it by 10 or 20, you probably still wouldn't come close to what these people are living right now, and hence should stop making any further utter bogus and borderline retarded clarifications on it.

We know how the world works, we see it everyday, thanks for reminding us how utter useless you feel in front of it.

PS: lol at your edit.

bongloads
08-07-2011, 00:21
And you're a pussy who gets pissy when someone doesn't play to the PC version of how the world works. I didn't say it was ok or morally just, just that this shit happens and there are reasons for it. So go suck a dick you fucking pussy, going to send threats to me like you could do a fucking thing you big fucking vagina.

EDIT: You don't need a lot of money to find a person on the internet and you it's fucking sad that you admit you'd only do something if you had money to pay people to do it for you. You'd think in your own e-thug verbal assault you'd at least PRETEND like you'd have some semblance of a pair of balls. Who is worse, the guy who doesn't start crying uncontrollably every time an injustice occurs at some point in history or the giant faggot that would kill someone for having opinions contrary to his own?

When you resort to a post like this, Bungle has won the debate.

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 00:30
Where did anything in my post give any indication of a moral justification? Twats.

Did you post in here expecting none?

Apex Vertigo
08-07-2011, 00:31
When you resort to a post like this, Bungle has won the debate.

If there was any sort of debate being had I might concede you that. This is simply one outlandish, anger filled post in response to another, but thanks for your input "Bongloads", I'll be sure to keep your opinion in high regards.

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 00:34
This is simply one outlandish, anger filled post in response to another,

Sure.

Keep fooling yourself also. Like nothing happened.

Apex Vertigo
08-07-2011, 00:36
Sure.

Keep fooling yourself also. Like nothing happened.

Lol? Is this a debate to you? You said you'd send me to die in Africa and I called you a pussy for it, is that really a win for you?

The fact is, if Africa had been for "Fit" to survive in this world where might reigns supreme they'd be in a better position, that apparently ruffled some of your feathers, go cry me a river.

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 00:42
Lol? Is this a debate to you? You said you'd send me to die in Africa and I called you a pussy for it, is that really a win for you?

The fact is, if Africa had been for "Fit" to survive in this world where might reigns supreme they'd be in a better position, that apparently ruffled some of your feathers, go cry me a river.

What ruffled me up was that you seemed to take the world for granted.

As you probably wouldn't treat your next of kin the same way, or do you?

Zakon
08-07-2011, 01:31
Lol? Is this a debate to you? You said you'd send me to die in Africa and I called you a pussy for it, is that really a win for you?

The fact is, if Africa had been for "Fit" to survive in this world where might reigns supreme they'd be in a better position, that apparently ruffled some of your feathers, go cry me a river.

If i go to someones house and murder him in his sleep, it means he wasnt fit enough to survive. Nevermind the fact that what i do is wicked and evil, he died, so he's weak right? If you catch someone in a bad moment, everyone can fall, but if it's done in such an honorless way, it doesnt say anything about his might.

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 01:49
If i go to someones house and murder him in his sleep, it means he wasnt fit enough to survive. Nevermind the fact that what i do is wicked and evil, he died, so he's weak right? If you catch someone in a bad moment, everyone can fall, but if it's done in such an honorless way, it doesnt say anything about his might.

Dont bring words like evil, wicked or honour into this, it's extremely potent firefuel.

Empathy was never an issue...

Apex Vertigo
08-07-2011, 01:50
If i go to someones house and murder him in his sleep, it means he wasnt fit enough to survive. Nevermind the fact that what i do is wicked and evil, he died, so he's weak right? If you catch someone in a bad moment, everyone can fall, but if it's done in such an honorless way, it doesnt say anything about his might.

Eeehh... different situation I'd say. That is an isolated event for one small sample. Even the a rodent could kill a man given the right circumstances. I'd say the phrase only applies when superior traits can obviously be identified and attribute directly to the outcome.

Apex Vertigo
08-07-2011, 01:52
What ruffled me up was that you seemed to take the world for granted.

As you probably wouldn't treat your next of kin the same way, or do you?

You should have read my response to the last guy that got pissed about what I said. It was barely even a serious post, as I already told him. I made a comment on a historical event, not condoning anyone's actions or blaming anyone for what happened, simply that survival of the fittest was a term that could be accurately used here. How ever, he was able to understand what I was saying after I explained that it was not said to be a dick or to belittle the situation, where as you either didn't read further than what you quoted and clearly read it with a tone I did not intend.

EDIT: It'd help if you'd read the context of who it was said to as well.

StainlessSteelRat
08-07-2011, 01:53
There could or perhaps could not been other buyers at that time. What matters is the fact that those whiteys came and BOUGHT them. It's like stealing someones car which is always left open for anyone to grasp and saying 'yeah, someone else wouldve stolen it anyway'.

You call me a twat, how has that helped bring over your opinion or convince me of your truth?

I called you a twat b/c you tried to imply that I believe slavery was justified when I gave no such moral qualification.

I called you a twat, and will again, b/c you pretend to ignore the fact that you blamed slavery on the existence of the white buyer when slavery existed before the white buyer ever showed up. Slavery is as old as prostitution. Tribes, cultures, nations, beliefs waged war on each other. Winners owned slaves, losers were slaves. These are simple facts. Twat. (<-this is me calling you a twat again ftr)

StainlessSteelRat
08-07-2011, 01:55
Did you post in here expecting none?

Learn English or quote better. This has nothing to do w/ my post.

Zakon
08-07-2011, 01:56
Dont bring words like evil, wicked or honour into this, it's extremely potent firefuel.

Empathy was never an issue, armchair intellectual pettiness was.

That's their right. Not gonna change myself because they are different.

And Apex; I could change my example to a small army of whiteys with better technology and equipment, invading another, more primitive society and totally subdue them. The point stands. If someone dominates another person (or a 1 country another) in a totally sneaky and backstabbing way, i dont think it indicates their might. I think it indicates that they are sneaky, backstabbing and wicked beings. Thats what you are if u do not dare to confront someone in a fair and open battle.

Zakon
08-07-2011, 02:00
I called you a twat b/c you tried to imply that I believe slavery was justified when I gave no such moral qualification.

I called you a twat, and will again, b/c you pretend to ignore the fact that you blamed slavery on the existence of the white buyer when slavery existed before the white buyer ever showed up. Slavery is as old as prostitution. Tribes, cultures, nations, beliefs waged war on each other. Winners owned slaves, losers were slaves. These are simple facts. Twat. (<-this is me calling you a twat again ftr)

Im not saying that there wouldnt be slavery if the white people wouldnt be there. What im saying is that in this specific case, if the whites wouldnt have bought them, perhaps nobody would, or perhaps someone else would buy but the results would be lesser or perhaps it wouldve been even worse. But it doesnt change the fact that they did it and it turned out this way. If another african king with the same primitive technology would buy those slaves, do you think it would have the same results? You can call me a twat all you want. I havent insulted you, because i do not believe in insulting people who i cant see and most likely will never meet. I prefer to use my words in a careful way.

Apex Vertigo
08-07-2011, 02:09
That's their right. Not gonna change myself because they are different.

And Apex; I could change my example to a small army of whiteys with better technology and equipment, invading another, more primitive society and totally subdue them. The point stands. If someone dominates another person (or a 1 country another) in a totally sneaky and backstabbing way, i dont think it indicates their might. I think it indicates that they are sneaky, backstabbing and wicked beings. Thats what you are if u do not dare to confront someone in a fair and open battle.

If they did it because their technology was better and it was technology their society produced then yes, survival of the fittest applies. And Colonization didn't happen over night, and I'd say sneakiness and underhandedness does count as survival of the fittest if that means the ability to win or manipulate events to your favor, sure. Who says negative moral traits aren't also traits of the fittest? And open combat is not the only way to test ones ability, they were able to do this with their minds first and foremost.

Although I would say you have a point with the first example, and the second example would be more accurate if the Europeans conquered Africa in a day through 1 simple act of betrayal. However, that was not the case as this took decades and was a direct result of tactics by the 'evil' Europeans (setting up countries that split groups in half and pitted them against other tribes of the region, for example) and their far superior weaponry and infrastructure. As a society, they were more fit to rule and conquer, just as we as a humans were more fit than the animals.

Zakon
08-07-2011, 02:13
While i hate things like sneakyness and backstabbing, i guess in western society it is an indicator of might, its just my way of seeing things that gets in the way when discussing societies that arent the same as my own.

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 02:18
You should have read my response to the last guy that got pissed about what I said. It was barely even a serious post, as I already told him. I made a comment on a historical event, not condoning anyone's actions or blaming anyone for what happened, simply that survival of the fittest was a term that could be accurately used here. How ever, he was able to understand what I was saying after I explained that it was not said to be a dick or to belittle the situation, where as you either didn't read further than what you quoted and clearly read it with a tone I did not intend.

EDIT: It'd help if you'd read the context of who it was said to as well.

Survival of the fittest, yea ok...

I read it as apathy, since you made no comment afterwards or stated any opinions about it.

Hence my e-thug call to check you out.

MrBungle
08-07-2011, 02:26
Learn English or quote better. This has nothing to do w/ my post.

Could be you've a problem reading between lines and piecing them together on your own. One should spell everything out for you, like a baby.

StainlessSteelRat
08-07-2011, 04:07
Im not saying that there wouldnt be slavery if the white people wouldnt be there. What im saying is that in this specific case, if the whites wouldnt have bought them, perhaps nobody would, or perhaps someone else would buy but the results would be lesser or perhaps it wouldve been even worse. But it doesnt change the fact that they did it and it turned out this way. If another african king with the same primitive technology would buy those slaves, do you think it would have the same results? You can call me a twat all you want. I havent insulted you, because i do not believe in insulting people who i cant see and most likely will never meet. I prefer to use my words in a careful way.

Don't put words in my mouth and I won't insult you either.


If you sell people, it means there is someone on the receiving side right? Which means the others were gladly buying those people, which means they're as fucking bad as well, what is hard to grasp about this? If you are so greedy and want to sell you people to someone, but there is no one to sell them to, you don't sell them, as simple as that. I'm not saying they aren't wrong about selling, im saying that the white folk was convincing them to sell the people. Or did you think that the African kings were running around till they saw a white guy and said "Hey man, wanna buy our people?"

Choose your words more carefully. You are changing your story.

You do realize, also, that your 'African kings' may also choose to keep the slaves they capture. It's not like the removing the option to sell them to someone/anyone means they wouldn't take slaves either.

StainlessSteelRat
08-07-2011, 04:08
Could be you've a problem reading between lines and piecing them together on your own. One should spell everything out for you, like a baby.

Or it could be your post was fucking dumb and didn't make any sense whether on or in-between the lines.

QingWhoseen
08-07-2011, 04:14
And while the forumfall trolls argue over whos right and whos wrong...Somalia is burning...

Eldest
08-07-2011, 04:15
I don't understand how they can just keep fucking and making babies that starve to death.

MrBungle
08-08-2011, 20:01
Or it could be your post was fucking dumb and didn't make any sense whether on or in-between the lines.

Nah, it's more like you're the only person I've met who pleasures himself with it.

Zakon
08-08-2011, 21:09
Don't put words in my mouth and I won't insult you either.



Choose your words more carefully. You are changing your story.

You do realize, also, that your 'African kings' may also choose to keep the slaves they capture. It's not like the removing the option to sell them to someone/anyone means they wouldn't take slaves either.

It doesn't matter wether they would keep those people enslaved for themselves, wether they would murder them all or send them to the moon. The point still stands: The whites came and bought their slaves, thats what matters. It's no use saying that something else would've happened to them, it all doesnt matter. What matters is what happened, and what happened is that they bought their slaves, which got incredible results.

StainlessSteelRat
08-08-2011, 21:32
But when you're living peacefully you don't all of a sudden sell you folk to some strangers now do you? That's why i said that they were corrupted from within, by those strangers their leaders sold them to. You can't say it was all their fault, when the Europeans came in and started cutting Africa in pieces.


If you sell people, it means there is someone on the receiving side right? Which means the others were gladly buying those people, which means they're as fucking bad as well, what is hard to grasp about this? If you are so greedy and want to sell you people to someone, but there is no one to sell them to, you don't sell them, as simple as that. I'm not saying they aren't wrong about selling, im saying that the white folk was convincing them to sell the people. Or did you think that the African kings were running around till they saw a white guy and said "Hey man, wanna buy our people?"


It doesn't matter wether they would keep those people enslaved for themselves, wether they would murder them all or send them to the moon. The point still stands: The whites came and bought their slaves, thats what matters. It's no use saying that something else would've happened to them, it all doesnt matter. What matters is what happened, and what happened is that they bought their slaves, which got incredible results.

Review your posts. It does matter based on what you were saying earlier in the thread. You were attempting to blame slavery on white people. That is categorically not the case.

What happened is blacks enslaved blacks and some were sold to whites. Whether the Euros showed up or not, blacks were still and would have still enslaved blacks. The slave trade began with and could not have existed without coastal black tribes enslaving inland blacks.

Weeking
08-08-2011, 21:32
I don't understand how they can just keep fucking and making babies that starve to death.

They don't have contraceptives I guess. Should probably give those away, especially condoms, instead since getting pregnant means you need more much food even if you have an abortion or don't feed the kid at all. Also starving hurts the effect of hormone contraceptives I think.

Though they're not starving as much as you'd think since the media focus on the worst cases and even healthy Somalians are skinny as fuck.

Zakon
08-08-2011, 21:50
Review your posts. It does matter based on what you were saying earlier in the thread. You were attempting to blame slavery on white people. That is categorically not the case.

What happened is blacks enslaved blacks and some were sold to whites. Whether the Euros showed up or not, blacks were still and would have still enslaved blacks. The slave trade began with and could not have existed without coastal black tribes enslaving inland blacks.

Whites were buying slaves, which makes them guilty, as simple as that. I'm saying that in that case, the fault was with the whites for buying them off the ones owning the slaves. Never did i say that i blamed the existance of slavery on white people. What i DID say is that in that specific case, it couldve turned out differently if the whites hadnt bought those slaves off them. The African countries were in state different than they were after the whites came.

It's the same as saying yeah someone was selling guns to people, but then another buyer shows up and buys a gun to then go on a killing spree. They were selling guns, but if they hadnt sold them to this particular guy, he wouldnt have killed the people. And its wrong to think that wether this specific guy would show up or not that SOMEONE would go on a killing spree. You cant say it because you dont know.

CorDox
08-08-2011, 22:22
EE;5094019']We should stop sending food and aid to countries like those. It does them no good. They dont learn the lessons they must learn. Starvation is the only way for them to learn. I have been saying it for many years now. End all foreign aid to all nations and let them figure out how to fix their problems, if they cant, they end.

Love how people never seem to get the general point of this. Such as why it does them no good.
Because they expect food to drop from the sky and forget how to get their own food after a while. Just looking to the sky with an open mouth waiting for a drop off and don't know what to do when it stops dropping.
The Aid they need is education on getting their own food. If caveman could do it, why can't they? We've got more knowledge to offer than caveman too. Simple matter of educating a few, and then letting them educate more and so on. Not accounting for local government/militias though.

Pretty simple concept, unless you actually want to control the population and make them dependent, in that case, good job!

CorDox
08-08-2011, 22:31
How did slavery become a topic in the thread? Whats it have to do with the base issue? nm, I see, one fool that should have made a new thread for people to poop in. Darkfall forums though, so doesn't really matter where the poop lands.

Nunz
08-08-2011, 22:37
I read an article the other day about how one country in Africa has a NGA of 1.2k american dollars. Their national export is mud. They also have a 99% illiteracy.


We don't do shit while were there to help. We build class rooms out of brick and cement that get 130 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. We don't try to learn and understand the indigenous population and we don't teach them to work with the resources they have at their disposal. Which is usually very little.


Whether we drop food or not isn't the issue. The issue is that no one gives a fuck about them.

Kasmos
08-08-2011, 22:56
There could or perhaps could not been other buyers at that time. What matters is the fact that those whiteys came and BOUGHT them. It's like stealing someones car which is always left open for anyone to grasp and saying 'yeah, someone else wouldve stolen it anyway'.

"Those whiteys"

Boy, I can't believe I missed this whole debate.

It doesn't make it right what "those whiteys" did or did not true, I believe his point was that slavery was around a long time before the European slave trade which is why many people put so much blame on "whitey".

The fact of the matter is that people of all races not only enslaved other races or cultures, but also in many instances enslaved their own. So I don't believe there is anymore or any less blame on any particular race or culture when it comes to slavery, but especially in the United States, it seems to be attributed to "whitey" as the main culprit as a few posters here point out.

Captain Kirk
08-08-2011, 23:07
EE;5094019']We should stop sending food and aid to countries like those. It does them no good. They dont learn the lessons they must learn. Starvation is the only way for them to learn. I have been saying it for many years now. End all foreign aid to all nations and let them figure out how to fix their problems, if they cant, they end.

Cant tell of trolling or not aware that starvation might become a reality in the Usa in a not so distant future.

Zakon
08-09-2011, 00:17
"Those whiteys"

Boy, I can't believe I missed this whole debate.

It doesn't make it right what "those whiteys" did or did not true, I believe his point was that slavery was around a long time before the European slave trade which is why many people put so much blame on "whitey".

The fact of the matter is that people of all races not only enslaved other races or cultures, but also in many instances enslaved their own. So I don't believe there is anymore or any less blame on any particular race or culture when it comes to slavery, but especially in the United States, it seems to be attributed to "whitey" as the main culprit as a few posters here point out.

Okay i'll try again. I NEVER said that the white folk started the slavetrading. All i said, and have repeated it for 20 times, is that they are guilty of trading slaves and if they hadn't done this, perhaps it wouldve turned out differently.
When i say that they were guilty of it, you guys say yeah but they were doing it to themselves anyway. What the hell does it have to do with anything i said?

Just because others did it, it means its not that bad that they did it too? Thats what i understand from your posts.

StainlessSteelRat
08-09-2011, 00:25
Whites were buying slaves, which makes them guilty, as simple as that. I'm saying that in that case, the fault was with the whites for buying them off the ones owning the slaves. Never did i say that i blamed the existance of slavery on white people. What i DID say is that in that specific case, it couldve turned out differently if the whites hadnt bought those slaves off them. The African countries were in state different than they were after the whites came.

It's the same as saying yeah someone was selling guns to people, but then another buyer shows up and buys a gun to then go on a killing spree. They were selling guns, but if they hadnt sold them to this particular guy, he wouldnt have killed the people. And its wrong to think that wether this specific guy would show up or not that SOMEONE would go on a killing spree. You cant say it because you dont know.

Bullshit, you blamed whitey for slavery. It's right there in bold.

And you still persist w/ "it could have been different". No shit. It would have been different but it would not have changed the fact that blacks were enslaving blacks in Africa before whitey showed up. Every ethnic group in history had slaves when they 'won' and became slaves when they 'lost'.

And your analogy is fucked up. In your analogy its OK to own slaves so long as you use them properly.

StainlessSteelRat
08-09-2011, 00:27
Just because others did it, it means its not that bad that they did it too? Thats what i understand from your posts.

That's b/c you are a dumbfuck. He (and I) are just presenting statements of fact. You are trying to lay blame and failing miserably.

Zakon
08-09-2011, 00:32
Bullshit, you blamed whitey for slavery. It's right there in bold.

And you still persist w/ "it could have been different". No shit. It would have been different but it would not have changed the fact that blacks were enslaving blacks in Africa before whitey showed up. Every ethnic group in history had slaves when they 'won' and became slaves when they 'lost'.

And your analogy is fucked up. In your analogy its OK to own slaves so long as you use them properly.

OFCOURSE THEY WERE GUILTY OF SLAVERY WHEN THEY BOUGHT THOSE SLAVES. Now where did i say they were the first ones to own slaves? They bought those slaves, they are guilty of slavery, as simple as that. And you didnt answer to what i ment with that analogy, instead you told me how it failed in another way, to which i agree because it was a bad analogy in the sense that you pointed out, but my analogy still stands. What are you trying to achieve by explaining to me how slavery works?

StainlessSteelRat
08-09-2011, 00:37
OFCOURSE THEY WERE GUILTY OF SLAVERY WHEN THEY BOUGHT THOSE SLAVES. Now where did i say they were the first ones to own slaves? They bought those slaves, they are guilty of slavery, as simple as that. And you didnt answer to what i ment with that analogy, instead you told me how it failed in another way, to which i agree because it was a bad analogy in the sense that you pointed out, but my analogy still stands. What are you trying to achieve by explaining to me how slavery works?

You blamed euros for slavery occurring. You didn't stop at saying they did something wrong. You blamed them for the actions of the black slavers as well. Again, 2 posts ago you claimed that things might have been different, that maybe they would not have enslaved each other blah blah blah bullshit on bullshit blah blah blah. It's in your own posts, you typed it.

Your analogy doesn't stand; it can't be wrong but be right 'in another sense'. It's not right in any sense, regardless.

Zakon
08-09-2011, 00:38
That's b/c you are a dumbfuck. He (and I) are just presenting statements of fact. You are trying to lay blame and failing miserably.

The oh so smart and technologically advanced Europeans came and ripped Africa to pieces, bought slaves and killed people. You and the other guy are saying they arent more or less to blame because others did it too. Did those others also use them too like Belgium did to Congo? Prosper on the fact that the African slaves were gathering resources for Belgium so that they could create other products, while people in Africa had no idea that it could be used for it. After which they came with even more firepower and started murdering people left and right. But its ok because other Africans enslaved their own kin.

Zakon
08-09-2011, 00:40
You blamed euros for slavery occurring. You didn't stop at saying they did something wrong. You blamed them for the actions of the black slavers as well. Again, 2 posts ago you claimed that things might have been different, that maybe they would not have enslaved each other blah blah blah bullshit on bullshit blah blah blah. It's in your own posts, you typed it.

Your analogy doesn't stand; it can't be wrong but be right 'in another sense'. It's not right in any sense, regardless.

If someone wants to buy a slave from another person, he is guilty of slavery. We dont know if he wouldve sold them. Perhaps he would grant them freedom or even pay for their work. WE DONT KNOW. But what we do know is that he DID buy them, he DID abuse them and he DID murder them. How can you deny that?

zato`1
08-09-2011, 00:55
If someone wants to buy a slave from another person, he is guilty of slavery. We dont know if he wouldve sold them. Perhaps he would grant them freedom or even pay for their work. WE DONT KNOW. But what we do know is that he DID buy them, he DID abuse them and he DID murder them. How can you deny that?

many more months to go before the trolling has any credibility at all

Zakon
08-09-2011, 01:07
Ok thanks.