LustfulAngel Posts

Let's see, let's first start off with Vietnam:

We didn't leave Vietnam worse off, we left Vietnam without accomplishing the goal. And the Vietnamese are certainly *suffering* for that. But irregardless of inept leadership they've seen economic production.

Now we'll go into the Middle East Problem in great detail:

First, this problem actually occurs towards the end of the Second World War. Jewish political gamesmanship allows for the Zionists(at first, a small radical faction which has quickly grown to be the greatest political power in Israel) to politically bargain for and invade Palestine(which was held under British Mandate)

America, which by now has been politically capitulated by the Socio-political-economic Zionist forces lent its hand and credibility to the Balfour Declaration, among other treaties which violated a former American stance of "Self Determinism"

Similarly to the political support for the "creation" of Israel(read: The rape and pilfering of Arabic villages), America actually once held very strong ties with Iran. So what happened with these strong ties? We installed the Shah of Iran, a more "pro"-globalist(though he appeared to have enacted some national legislation). But for the most part, seen as a despot and a tyrant the Shah was overthrown in 1979.

So there you have it, if you want to blame the "West" for Middle Eastern problems, blame our problem child and its political complications. This problem child was supposed to be the "beacon of democracy" in the Middle East.

It has been anything but such. It's started wars against its Arabic neighbors(then put the blame on them). Current Palestinian disposition is to such an extent that the very moment Palestinians were to get aid, the U.S. Senate blocked it! The ones who control aid? Israel, go figure.(Then they want the Palestinians to "pay back" that which belongs to them in the first place!)

And the amount of aid is paltry(at best) compared to the hundred of millions our child state is granted. And does it have to pay it back? Not necessarily.

Yes, independent...right **rolls eyes**


No one wants to start the wars of old, but the political capitulation of the American Nation must end. Neutrality from this one sided relationship would actually folster better relations in the Middle East. Israel would be forced to actually consider a Middle East with its Arabic neighbors as yes, neighbors!

Jerusalem should neither be in Israeli nor Palestinian conrol. Instead, it shall be an Independent Capital or the two sides should choose some other part of the nation for their capitals.

The origin of Jerusalem was to be a religious site, the only way for peace to be established in that area is for it to return and remain that way.




A recent case? Iran!

Israel: *Wahh* You're building nukes
Iran: No we're not and you have no subjective proof of this.
Israel: I say you are, so you are! U.S and Allies, sick em!(because despite millions in military aid and U.S. technology they apparently can't negotiate at the table or even defend its own country apparently.)

Yeah, I'm done. A growing minority of National Americans are done. Including a vast majority of Democrats who were rightfully upset at Netanyahu's postering during a U.S. Election! How can a foreign head of state interfere even remotely with the U.S. Process?






I already referenced the history of America's wars(at least the 19th century) and
most of the political contusing forces in those regions are the result of Americans not completing the task, or simply being unable to(see: Vietnam)

The Taliban took hold in Afghanistan and the Opium trade exploded. For all of our "assistance" in Pakistan, we hold about as much shaky ground with absolutely no way to reform those nationalities.

As much as you'd like to espouse nonsense that American "military dominance" is to blame for the world's poverty, that sadly isn't true. We've longed for these dependent 2nd and 3rd world nationalities to develop! They just can't!

No one would like these nationalities to develop more than I(or other first world political leaders). No one would like to see these cultural groups(and specifically, the individuals among them) to for once develop, have a sense of stability, respect and earning power more than I.

The current state of affairs is grossly unacceptable, where these nationalities and these despotic individuals have become leeches on the American Way of Life.(And in general, the European World)

The best thing for America, for Europe, for the World is to declare our neutrality
from these troubled areas and these troubled peoples. They're only degenerating
the world at large.

The End Game will be, the religiously-oriented Middle East will fulfill their own Self-Prophecy and burn themselves in a lake of fire. Then, after such a said war and a few decades later, the Middle East will finally modernize.

You state that "people like me" are hiding under the covers, allow me to reverse the charge. It's "people like you" who still cling to a false notion of "Multiculturalism"(without recognition of whether these cultures could even mesh together to begin with) who hide under the covers.

Look at your own Quebec in Canada.

The Quebec people are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Multiculturalism is such a blessing!


Multiculturalism is not "beautiful", it's an affront to every living Human Being. Including those minorities who love their culture so much as to enforce it on others.

Individuality will eventually lead to cooperation, which will eventually lead to a united world. But a forced collective(IE: Multiculturalism) is doomed to fail from the start.

You cannot have a "diverse yet inclusive" society.

The only reality of Multiculturalism would be those cultures and those people who can naturally coexist. Even those cultures which did not blend, through third party relations with cultures that it did blend with would eventually join the world.

You don't have to have A+B to equal C. You can have "A+ Partial B" to eventually equal C. Through cooperation, individual will and natural alliances is the ideal world.

Our current model is a blatant lie, a lie that you tell yourself so that you can sleep peacefully and look away from the "monster" known as reality.






Did I just get done saying our society was corrupted? I think I did. As such, to infer that the current state of affairs in America are even acceptable or even American in any way or shape or fashion is so false as to be misleading.

Yes, the things you state are the current state of affairs in the Homeland. Frankly, the Founders never intended nor did they desire for a plutocracy in the homeland. However, that's to their mistake of creating a Constitutional Republic(and that, the Republic wasn't affirmed in Law.) The only extent to which they did so, was the Supreme Court and the naivety that the Court would uphold Law.

And I think I've said countless times that Americans in general have politically neutered themselves. I've also said that these are the consequences: Rights being taken away under the guise of "National Security", being tracked, etc. Not only have we politically neutered ourselves but we can't even look outside of the box.

It's not that the third parties are unelectable, it's partially due to corruption in funding as you point out. But it's mostly because of such a centralized "political viewpoint"(insofar as is it political? Or mere incompetence to take the first choice available to you? I prefer to choose the latter in my political analysis. I believe Americans to be politically unintelligent.)

Americans in general tend to attach common denominators(such as "Freedom of speech", or "minority rights" or "conservatism") to political parties(or groups) for this reason(and this reason alone), an ignorant American voter will pick his/her "choice" of Democrat or Republican.

Of course, this same ignorant imbecile is going to be naturally disappointed irregardless of his/her choice. Because above all, the American was stupid enough to believe that either party represented any such ideal to begin with.

Actions speak to results, and the actions of either party doesn't represent the American People.

(See: The Gang of 8). Adoption isn't a wide spread practice(or an openly endorsed one) but we can bring in illegal aliens! The vast majority of Americans in some form, think of this as a good idea!

If Americans made the logical correlation between "More Illegals=less jobs for their children", the policy would naturally reverse. For my part, I'm not heartless and I understand the difficulties that would come with deporting all 11 million of them.

So I'll go with a split, an analysis of the illegals in the country and we'll cherry pick the most devoted, the most capable of the bunch. Say, 5-6 million at best. The other 5-6 million can go kick rocks for entering the country illegally!

If it's found that none of them are sufficiently capable of becoming a Nationalized American, then we'll deport them all. It'll just take a longer time then if it were a shorter number.

But as is the case with Globalization, I'm not sacrificing the jobs of my future children for someone who was neither born here, nor respects our laws and convictions. They should attempt to cultivate Mexico, and/or their independent lands(The Carribeans for example are a great place. They should continue working on it. They can make a heck of a country if they try)

(The Carribeanese people are the next largest illegal immigrants according to Government statistics. But it's paltry compared to the Mexicans. And heck, legalizing the Carribeanese would be incredibly simple an do able. Since we have proof they can cultivate something)









Except, among English Scholars and the American Public this is still an ongoing debate So much for a heartless and evil people that bombed civilians

In addition, it was after Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the U.S. officially took the position of Nuclear Non-proliferation. Treaties have been enacted world wide, mostly under U.S. Guidance.

We're committed to the idea that a nuclear weapon shouldn't be fired again, as the ones who fired the first and hopefully the last ones in Human History.

If you want me to call it Genocide, I'll call it Genocide. But we didn't know the impact of the nuclear weapon at the time. In fact, many military experts didn't even think the bomb would go off.







Do you like generalization? The KKK is dead.(Offically so anyway, mind you there may be a few hundred "supporters"). Skin heads and "Neo-Nazis" in my mind aren't even politically active. Nor did they understand the political concepts behind Hitler's Germany.

Far from a racial outlook, Hitler had a revolutionary(today, it'd be modern outlook). Unfortunately for the rest of the world, this outlook would be clouded by the social prejudice at the time. Born at a later point in history, Hitler would be a political genius and was dubbed as such up until 1936.

National Socialism, or Fascism is the ideal towards the solution of integrating Human Society. By recognizing Human Individualism, with a mutually collective will. You don't even have to call it National Socialism or Fascism.

Europe, in general has always strived for this unification of Human Souls.

I recognize the flaws in what occurred at the time, but I also recognize the greatest political machinery ever formulated in world history that once united all of Europe. It can unite the world, as long as it recognizes individual communities and their value.

Also, you're incorrect. the Founders were unabashedly Nationalist. Not to the Crown but to the English Colonies which they belonged too. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc. All great leaders throughout history were Nationalist.

Abraham Lincoln was Nationalist in spite of the Civil War and in fact integration with the South is proof of such. He could've just let the South off(which would have impoverished the South possibly for decades if not for all eternity).

Honest Abe strengthened and revitalized the Republic, making him one of our greatest commanders in chief ever. Thomas Jefferson spat to the British/International Elitists who demanded that we become serfs to their banking system.

To be a Nationalist, is to defend a Nation from a system of subjugation that has tried to enslave Humanity for as long as it existed.

Though because of the ineptitude of the current Washington Administration, difficulties exist but This alliance has lasted centuries(including several decades after WWII)

Today, Japan is a member of the U.N. Security Council, for the most part it has avowed from the type of barbarism that disgraces humanity. In my mind, as a Nationalist I believe Japan is playing too nicely according to the Treaty of San Francisco and its cooperation in this regard allows for North Korean/Chinese expansion in the region.

An independent(yet aligned Japan) would serve as a true buffer in Asia and at the same time, a uniting force. Japan is our current greatest ally in the world(contrary to the thoughtspeak of religiously oriented neo cons and equally duped Americans).

If Israel fell, hell if that entire Middle Eastern continent burned in flames, what would we lose? To the contrary, we should be in prime position to acquire oil on the cheap. But if Japan fell, militarized powers would once again sweep through Eurasia and bring a new era of war and colonialism. It's already happening with Chinese expansion towards Central Asia:

See This







Generally speaking, as outlined earlier in this thread there has been a concerted effort to cultivate the African regions on the part of America. Why has that failed? Partly, this is my Social Theory regarding life itself:

"Races" don't exist, but "Social Groups" do, and the African People are such a social group(we're all involved in Social Groups). These Social Groups are neither superior nor inferior to another. But they are different from each other.

These differences aren't negative, and in fact they can be positive. The important factor in relations between different nations and thereby different social groups of people is whether or not those social groups are actually compatible.

We're not so compatible with Africa(and the Africans), for that matter neither are native African-Americans all that interested in the African situation. However, Mexicans, Chinese, etc have shown an active interest in Africa and perhaps they themselves would be better equipped to cultivate Africa.

However, in my Social Theory I identify an even more important factor: I believe that a Nation-State or a community can only be self-cultivated. America was cultivated by our European Founding Fathers. I will address this specifically towards the end of your post(Namely, your diatribe that the french gave Americans our freedom. You can say we're not the best(obviously we can stand to improve), you can say we've violated international premise(though without America international premise at best would've stood on shaky grounds) but I will not permit you to even propose the absurdity that the French are the primary reason for American triumph in the revolutionary war.

The French gave crucial support(a blockade) in Virginia, but make no mistake that Americans fought through the trenches in New Jersey and held the Eastern Frontier.
With only 300 men, Americans fought British Soldiers and German Mercs. And it is with our determination, will and our eye on victory that we were able to do so.

Learn with your own two eyes, the resilience of a Nation State united under American Principles






The military is seen in the eyes of the American Public as more symbolic of the Nation State, rather than as an instrument of war(which, is well ironic). So while support of the U.S. Military is generally high, War as a principle isn't.

And I'd venture it's not so much opposition to war, as it is the reasoning for war, the logistics and cost of the war and whether or not it is truly righteous. Americans, historically have always been self-conscious regarding our image.

I said earlier that Americans have become introverted politically, one of the main consequences of this introversion is the perversion of the mission of the military. Namely, of national defense and not profiteering for the military-industrial-complex and its lobbyists.






At one point in the 50's, America did have one of the greatest manufacturing forces in the world. This manufacturing force, taking advantage of our enriched lands(Which, we really cannot access thanks to Greenpeace and other radical leftist Democrats who no doubt are "well meaning" but whose ignorance is appalling) as well as the sheer size of said lands.

The few politicized forces in the nation, are politicized insofar as social profits are concerned for certain groups, interests, etc and aren't interested in the well being or the prosperity of the Nation State. The very meaning of a "Global Economy" is to sacrifice.

Hence, the otherJacob proclaimed me to be a threat to this self-sacrificial system because I am utterly unwilling to sacrifice America any longer to a predatory system which hardly grants us as much as we put out.

America has also fallen, because we've fallen for the multi-cultural lie in much the same way Europe has. As noble as it might have been, as idealistic as it might have been... The simple reality is that the barbaric Middle Eastern/sub-African nationalities will simply never adhere to, respect or even acknowledge Western culture.

That's not to say those people cannot one day achieve something close(for them anyway) to Western civilization. That's not to say that trade with them isn't impossible(it just needs to be regulated, in terms of its cost, in terms of the benefits, etc.)

But it is to say that civilization, the moment when these warring factions stop committing genocide, getting their heads out of delusions of grandeur surrounding their religion, etc will not come from Western Assistance and probably won't come for quite some time.

Of course, there are several other reasons for the American Collapse, but the origin comes from a disastrous foreign policy. Not, necessarily of policing the world but rather a two faced error:

1: Geopolitical considerations of neither National Economic concerns, nor of territorial concerns or of any possible benefit. But to the benefit of the lobbyists who long for war.

2: The naivety and foolishness of believing in the multicultural lie. We may very well all be Humans, but our cultures hold significance in terms of our individual identities. The only way for a multicultural "world" to feasibly exist is ironically through individual application of cultural pride.

I intend to complete a Political Manifesto for my intentions as an American Nationalist in the heart of America. In my Manifesto, I'll go into greater detail over American Corruption, moral decay and geopolitical and social weakness.

But I shall repeat: Our Founders faced life or death, even before an official declaration of war. Branded traitors by the government they swore an oath to serve, the so-called government divided brothers and sisters of the same common language.

Do not dare say that our great revolution, the wonders of American achievement are due to other nations. They most certainly helped, but the revolution was the greatest act of self sacrifice in European History.

Actually, historically the U.S Public was against war before being dragged in it.

WWI: Woodrow Wilson brings the American People into the war as "the war to end all wars." Between this and the Federal Reserve, it's without question to any U.S Historian that Wilson was the worst president in U.S History.

WWII: Roosevelt pulls a Wilson, first in giving Lend-lease aid to Britain. As well as agitating Japan, this agitation would lead to the Pearl Harbor attacks which
then brought America into the war. Americans preached neutrality stronger here, then they did even a decade prior(WWI)

Vietnam: Nixon was the most corrupt U.S. President in America's history, forget Watergate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.

Iraq(Desert Storm and Part II from 2001-2012): This is actually a bipartisan deal(despite Democrats not wanting to owe up to that part). Mostly in response to the Rhwanda tragedy, which we didn't "intervene"(because we were too busy bombing Yugoslavia). Blue Dog "Democrats" didn't want to "risk" a Saddam with "chemical" weapons, with the pro-hawkish Bush and the Neo Cons in power it gave them the cover to go ahead with it.

The truth is, after initial resistance(up to Vietnam) and the sometimes climatic showdown that comes when the people express their views to the government came a development which the Founders feared: Americans became apathetic to war.

More accurately, Americans are apathetic to political existence altogether. I mean, if it's only going to result in bloodshed from time to time why bother? Americans valued peace over security, but only a politically aware populace can truly have both peace and security. Through applied knowledge and elected representatives who are qualified to heed 99% of America's wishes, not just 1%.

This is a basic detail of America's war history, the military-industrial-complex and its lobbyists have traditionally sabotaged a neutral nation. Because of the existence of lobbyists, the "international responsibility", etc. Americans simply decided to exercise their neutrality from politics itself, which was the wrong response.

We should have ever more resolutely stated our neutrality to the bitter end, and we should have fought for our rights to live, to work and to hold a strong national defense. To a small extent, we succeeded in removing the draft but the Selective Service(which all college students and HS Graduates are required to enlist in) exists for the sole purpose of the reenactment of the draft.

Is making blanket statements the only thing you're capable of? How does the E.U take away any rights? Germany is still Germany, Italy is still Italy. The E.U is an economic merger of European nations, no more or no less than that.


The E.U "violates" as many "rights" as any other national body that calls itself a country and has a group of inhabitants in it. Please refrain from even beginning to compare us in the future, my messages for you are meant strictly for you.

I'm an actual fascist, and there's nothing Guts has said which in any way is an endorsement of Fascism(IE: A centralized government model). The only shred of credibility in your claims is his support for the EU.

There's nothing wrong with the E.U as a model, it just lacks stability and sound economic laws. Germany's attempts of directing the E.U in the right direction is actually something that'll strengthen the E.U. A "Currency Exchange" policy for example, would allow for individual nationalities to use their own currencies instead of the Euro(which has constantly floundered).

Or at the very least, strengthening the Euro would revive the E.U's economic situation and allow it to counter the debt problem. To this end, I propose America as an European State. It was founded by European-Englishmen. Just as in times of the past, we English men are the lynchpin to all of Europe. Europe is our home.

By having a European-American merger, the Euro's strengthened significantly and the U.S. has an economic rebound.

All of your other claims of Guts "being in denial", etc are merely Red Herrings and in a political or social debate Red Herrings hold no standing. It shows either a lack of knowledge of A: Your opponent's views or B: The entire conversation.

Then there's the Marriage of Defense act, which specifies that a marriage between a man and a woman is a valid marriage, the U.N Charter likely holds the same viewpoint.

Even if marriages become inclusive, the LBGT community is such a minor part of the world that I believe it should be privatized. In this case, "Separate but equal" applies in a fair state of law.

I mean, it's a piece of paper signifying your relationship. How can that possibly be a "right" and even if it is a right just how significant is it?

From a romantic standpoint, pretty significant. But from a lawful standpoint? Not so much and given all of the complications of marriage I'd rather avoid the divorce courts.

I'll insert some political thought as an actual American in America: Heterosexual(ie: straight) marriages have a shorter and shorter time frame, divorce is rising and the costs of a marriage licence are expansive.

Then there's the Death tax, the estate tax, and married couples are taxed higher in general. Shall I go on?

How does it make them "less free"? I'll tell you what restricts freedom: A movement of some 9 million Americans(the LBGT movement) telling the rest of the country to put up and shut up. Why should 291 million Americans compromise their
hetrosexual society for some 9 million Americans?

Ideally, marriage should be privatized. If a gay or lesbian couple wants to get married, there should be a church or clergy out there that supports that. But for example, why indoctrinate the Catholic Church? If Catholics don't believe in Homosexuality isn't that their choice?

These movements aren't about "equality"(enshrined to them via the Bill of Rights as well as the Civil Rights act of the 1960's.) They're about the "special" rights of minorities.

Insofar as the state of affairs in America today, if the traitorous 'Gang of 8' approve of Amnesty for millions of illegals, Americans will finally be fed up of this anti-national approach to government. If not immediately at the moment, they'll be furious as they know that the drug cartel mafia expands throughout America, and taking our children's jobs in the process.



Except, that's not necessarily true. I just invoked the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights act. I'll also invoke the First Amendment, specifically outlining the separation of Church and State. Britain is a theocracy, the Founders dismissed it. An Atheist can run for and win the Presidency if his ideals are good. In fact, a growing number of people are atheists!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/atheism-rise-religiosity-decline-in-america_n_1777031.html

It just so happens America has a rich religious culture or rather, a history as it would. In the next few decades, an atheist will probably run for office.

America's religious background doesn't make it a religious state, nor is it required. It's just a tradition and a component to American public life.



I don't think there's a person, democrat or Republican(unless a few of the dying RINOS of the Bush Republicans want to continue shouting desperately into the abyss) support Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, it's a catch-22.

Release these dangerous terrorists, and there's a possibility they will go back to terrorist activities. Even those who formerly weren't terrorists, probably would look at terrorism in a different light considering how we tortured them.

If we were to close it, I'd like a careful and precise deportation policy, treating them as we would offenders in probation. Constantly under our watch.
If, after 5-10 years they've refrained from engaging in terrorist activities, our surveillance will cease.

Ironically, Obama hasn't really moved in this(or any steps). So blaming Bush doesn't work for Democrats. It's bipartian problem of incompetence in the U.S. Government in my opinion.

The European Union is inefficient, boggled with debt and much like Continental America, the truth is you cannot sufficiently merge the economies of Rome, Germany, France and England!

That said, as an American(and thereby an Englishman) I believe we Americans are Europeans in blood. If it were up to me, I'd join the European Union and make the dollar the currency of the Union. With American backing and security, the European Union can be stabilized. And in turn, the dollar would be strengthened against competing Asian currencies.

A win/win.

I voted for Ranma and Akane. It's not necessarily easy to like(on a platonic, let alone romantic level)someone who your drunk old pa's decide to just randomly pair you with for the hell of it(and expect you to keep that decision). The only leeway Ranma had was that he got to choose, sadly Akane didn't even have that lol.

But nevertheless, Ranma and Akane developed a bond that only those two could.

Old school classics:
In honor of Tofutehsurvivor: Char Aznable X Haman Karn. Hilariously, Char fought against Haman in both wars, yet in Char's Counterattack he decides to pretty much go through Haman's plans of having Humans inhabit space and become Spacenoids.

Reading Char's Deleted Affair is epic reading for any UC Gundam fan.

The fact that this and the Japanese poll go against Lesbianism is sexist discrimination I say!

I can name three unbelievable relationships that would lead a viewer to tears:

Aoi Nagisa X Shizuma Hanazono(Strawberry Panic).

Aaeru X Neviril(Simoun)

And finally, the queen of all Yuri relationships: Chikane X Himeko(Kannazuki no Miko)

Why is it a Human invention? To protect ourselves from the strong? Not necessarily, it's more like to protect society from Anarchy, Chaos and brutal violence and discrimination! Secondly, if you clicked my link you'd note that birth rates are actually decreasing! In America, in the next few decades we'll see millions of baby boomers die out. That's just America!

We're in a transition period, and it's a transition period we're currently poorly prepared for because we're so shortsighted we think we currently deal with an "overpopulation" problem.

We've also developed morality, to hold a high sense of character and self worth. Human Psychology and its development is a continuing progress of evolution, it's ironic to say this but Liberalism which holds that morality is flimsy actually is the philosophy that takes us back, not conservatism.

You'd have us return to an era of lynchings, killings and beatings. Law cannot be sanctified if life itself is viewed as a disposable commodity.

And yet, females seem to counter this process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)





Then there's this: http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/ Among natural diseases, among a whole host of other reasons for Human fatality. So, let me ask this: Why should we speed up the process?

Back in the 80's, your testimony was made about us being overpopulated. TheotherJacob already debunked you but allow me to do so.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ Science, it's a unique thing :).






Morality may not exist as a physical dimension, but it exists as something greater: The guidance of "our" consciousness. Because we can choose, we can choose to value life or to discard it.

As sad as it is to see many modern day citizens make the decision to discard life, I won't patronize their decision. However, I agree with Lelouch Vi Britannia.

"The only ones who can kill, are those who are prepared to be killed." For someone to throw away the sanctity of life, they should view their own lives just as worthless.

If a person disregards morality, but attempts to hold his own life as 'sacred' then that person to me is truly sickening. It's not "abnormal" in the sense that such sickening behavior has been part of our past.

Allow me to clarify: An Egg is the rough animal equivalent to the fetus(or hell even the Zygote). The bird, for its part chooses not to eat the egg. This is because the bird largely believes in the sanctity of its own life. The parenting birds don't even think of the possibility of "aborting" the child.

The parent views the surrogate child as an equal, if not actually superior to the extent that the child deserves and needs care in order to grow into a full fledged adult.

The abortionist, twists nature into its opposite course. Whereas natural selection deems a healthy child worthy of birth, the abortionist indiscriminately butchers new prospective human life.

It's a crime against Humanity, and the result will be undermanned families on a collective scale(this is already happening). As well as a crime against morality.

We may be conscious today, but our organism and the base of our bodies are no different from when we were nine months old. In other words, I'll make the philosophical argument that to support abortion, is to support murder.

Allow me to simplify: Unless there's some magical way we don't know, Humans are born through intercourse. When that process takes place lawfully, between two consenting people they generally should know(and hopefully in fact anticipate the 'consequences')

To "Abort" a fetus, is obviously to participate in murder. It's not merely a blob of cells, it is a bio organic lifeform that's attempting to materalize!

Let's draw a direct comparison, and make it so blatantly obvious even a pro choicer would concur: A bird guards its nest, filled with eggs. If an animal or a person were to try to take those eggs, the mother bird would do all it could to defend it.

I'll go even further: The act of Abortion is Infanticide! Its irrationality can only be justified in paux-supremacy. Supremacy that in my mind doesn't exist between two beings.

To support abortion, is to support discrimination of all kind. If we can discriminate against the origins of life, then life itself has no meaning and anyone living in this planet has no "inherent" rights or anything
at all.

Though to be fair, irregardless of government agency, mankind at one point had to research the human body and obviously had human subjects. How else could we study biology?

I disagree with Jacob's premise that either "All life is sacred or no life is sacred". Instead, I'll say this: "Life is sacred, to each individual."

In other words, the life of a dog is sacred to a dog. A life of a Human Being *should* be sacred to a Human. Proof of this is in the Animal Kingdom: Each species of animal values its life as sacred, and its prey as irrelevant.

As Humans, we domain over the Animal Kingdom(as well as Plants) thereby all other
lifeforms are irrelevant to us. You could argue(and in fact it is) a separate ecosystem from ours(that happens to be converged on a single planet)

Yet, it is actually because of their value as "food" that makes them sacred. Without a delicate balance between life and sacrifice, both of our ecosystems will dissipate.

Without plants, we won't have Co2 which allows us to breath oxygen and live. Without a certain protection of certain animals, we won't have clothing or food, we'll starve, freeze to death under winter conditions, etc.

This is actually along the lines of Kyoko Sakura from Madoka:

"Witches eat Humans, and we eat those Witches."

Witches, Humans and Familiars act in synergy to perpetuate the other's existence and it would disturb the "balance" to entirely eliminate one or the other.

The elimination of a few, in a generational process will eventually wipe out
a civilization. Just look at the Endangered Species list, they weren't endangered originally.

But they lost a few, who lost a few, who lost a few.

Abortion is immoral and wrong, not only from the perspective of the individual zygote who is being massacred by the arrogant "Human Being",
who is no superior only in his/her consciousness alone but from the survival standpoint of the Human Race.

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/node/782

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.single.html

You don't have to be political to see the hypocritical, arrogant and dangerously flawed thinking that'll put us in the same peril as China.

Food for thought: The Baby Boomers start retiring/dying off, their younger generation has been taught "Career> Family Life" And so forth it goes with a lesser generation than the last.

We are our own worst enemy

So there's only a difference in age? To me, there's no difference. You state that a zygote is a bunch of cells. But guess what? So are we.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm

We act as though as Adults that we have some genetic superiority to our offspring that gives us the right to cull and butcher them if we so choose. Well, I use the word "we" here loosely because I don't believe that premise(obviously, or I wouldn't oppose it)

There is no genetic superiority, the only "superiority" is that our parents happened not to be murderers and granted us our lives. The only superiority that the mother has, is that unlike her offspring she is conscious.

That is it, that is it...That is the only difference. It's funny that someone else posted about what if great men such as Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln were never born.

Well, 20-30 years after their respective revolutions, slavery and segregation were frowned on and rejected by society.

20-30 years from now, we'll recognize that abortion is just as abhorrent and barbaric as countless other Human Sins.

I've long argued the thesis that "Equality" doesn't exist. We're all men and women with individual unique talents, likes/dislikes, strengths/weaknesses. We're only equal in Birth and Death. In short, I hold the Darwinist theory to be true. That doesn't mean for the allowing of inequality, but "equality" exists as a common courtesy to others.

We're all "equal" in that we all pursue one form of happiness or another, theoretically we'd all like to be healthy, have healthy children and to be with the person we choose to be with.

So rather than instill a right within a group(whether that group is a majority or minority sect of society), general rights that can be exercised irregardless(IE: rights that will lead to the prosperity of Humanity) of religion, sexual orientation should be the ideal goal.

I said this in a relationships thread, but I'm not opposed to gay marriage, except for the fact that the vast majority of Americans are heterosexual. So, my solution: Privatize Marriage. If you find a church that supports gay marriage, good for you. But this way, you can exercise your right to happiness without flinging it around others who frankly disagree.

It's insulting to compare the recent philosophical and social debates with the Civil Rights Act(as some news anchors and otherwise ill informed Liberals have done). The Civil Rights Act established certain liberties to ALL Americans irregardless of race, sex or creed. Whether it's Abortion or Gay Marriage, it's the support for the minorities over the majority. In the case of Abortion, it's even more inherently bias'd as the child is executed without say. Because that child is deemed an "inferior species"

If one's happiness is to be childless, find a male who feels the same way and you can both exercise proper birth control. But don't exercise your moral superiority of knowledge to mean you have the right to butcher children.

All Humans must exercise self determinism, egalitarianism exists to a few central core principles(one of them being the sanctity of life) but the simple fact is, not everyone will agree and forcing them to agree results in conflict.

Which is why the Civil Rights Act hasn't ended discrimination per say, now both sides seek to discriminate against the other. And we have had a silent civil war brewing for quite a while, mostly played out through political votes.

Because we're not equal, there are groups of people who don't fit in with the vast majority of others. Should we continue to "tolerate" state of affairs while elevating emotions to the max?

From an Egalitarian standpoint, to centralize the world I always envisioned the following: Americans cultivating America, Africans cultivating Africa. Asians cultivating Asia, just as the Russians have cultivated the Caucasus.

Individuality is what will preserve and create a collective. A collective cannot first be had without Individual Will. Alliances are forged out of commonalities between Individuals, as these alliances are merged those who weren't originally a part of an Alliance with a nation in question happened to be on good terms with an allying Nation and a further connection occurs.

We've tried hard to centralize the world, but I now believe the world's centralization can only be had with the independence of every Nation. Before we can begin rapid trading as we've done, reducing our national deficits and being financially independent is of order. And that way, we won't even need to rapidly trade as a major source of Economic Goods.

Africa can only become a world power at Africa's hands, no matter how much Western assistance is given to that area if the Africans are uneducated and continue not to educate themselves that continent is doomed to perpetual colonization.

Singling out a single part of a statement to make an accusatory question is rather unfair, but I'll answer it anyway:

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

At best, 1/4th of the country had had same sex flings, the percentage is much lower for confirmed Gays/Lesbians/transsexuals.

Are they real relationships? For some yes, for some no. The utterly vast majority of Americans are heterosexual. Therefore the norm is between a man and a woman.

What I wrote regarding relationships certainly encompasses those relationships(I'm a bisexual). But even despite my bisexuality(and I admit I'm heavily biased towards women). I'm a supporter of DOMA. There's nothing more plutocratic than subjecting 75% of America to one's sexual views.

Wanna get married? Find a private church that supports that(good luck). Sexuality in general, keep it in the bed room. I don't give a damn, but the general public doesn't want to know. Even for hetrosexuals lol.

Opinions can't be wrong, until otherwise physically proven that they're wrong. That's why there's alot of opinions and few facts. Because facts are(typically) established through study(either scientific or by those who are 'experts') in their field. Sometimes, the theory is tested by general every day experiences and by every day people.

And to be sure, there are people who've used their established positions as "voices of authority" who've ordained opinions to be construed as facts, mostly either for their own gain(at worst) or at best, very naively they believe in their own opinions.

When I, for example believe in an egalitarian society, and the centralization of our economy. It's not that said societies have failed and in fact, the idea rose from the central failure of democracies. But those who are interested in upholding "democratic" values or in any ideological value will automatically deem "me"(or any other person upholding different values) as "wrong" or "incorrect"


http://www.silverlinings.co.nz/stories/albert-einstein-we-suspect-he/

Not that I compare myself to Einstein, but his life is proof that subjective opinion isn't fact until further review. If opinions haven't been reviewed yet then they can neither be true nor false.







And why aren't they right? Because people don't look at it that way? Divorce has remained constant, many early couples in fact show great disdain with their relationship and ironically enough it's not because of abuses.

But because of a lack of connection, either from a monetary standpoint or a general
standpoint. Its ironically from these seemingly "minor" differences that abusive relationships come to be in the first place.




I suppose I should clarify then: Most people have in general accepted behaviors, the way society moves, tends to move most individuals. However, beyond the front of every person there's also those unique characteristics that make me, me and you, you. As an example: A person from the city probably wouldn't fall for your country mom(Don't get me wrong, she's a wonderful person but as you can probably tell I'm not a very optimistic guy when it comes to "opposites attract")

Even if "Opposites" attract each other, there's certain factors of similar or agreeing emotions that brought the two together. Life, in of itself is about synergy and thereby it is about unity.

I fundamentally believe that it's not possible for two entirely different people(not "some differences" or "most", I mean a complete and utter difference) to join together in a successful union(whether it be relational, political or social)

Generally speaking, it's true that children do take from their parents(who else are they to take from after all) but I find that placing total responsibility on that side of the spectrum is either incorrect, or, if you were to place total responsibility on the parents then it would mean that free will either is non existent or has its limitations/weaknesses.



http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=8482

Well, free will is obviously existent but to be an egalitarian philosopher is to contend that free will, uninhibited is a weakness and that because free will cannot be uninhibited logic follows it must be limited in some scope.

Those who stay in abusive relationships, are ironically self imposing on their free will/choosing not to exercise it, almost always in response to the fact that if they did, they would be met with resistance.

The answer to this situation, is no different from what our parents told us: Stick up to the bullies, set your boundaries in the relationship. And ironically, it is to exercise self restraint when you could otherwise abuse the privileges of 'free will'.

When a person chooses not to express themselves, inhibiting their free will. You could argue they're not really in the relationship at all. In fact, that person is emotionally dead.

To me, a relationship is a union, when vows are broken and trust is violated then it's no longer a relationship. The two parties may be living in the same home, they may even call themselves lovers but the entire basis of the relationship was damaged.

Whether irreversibly or not, depends on the extent of abuse or violations depending on the law and then it depends on how strong a bond existed between the parties.




Of course and for logical reasons: You probably saw a lot of good things in her,
to you she may have been very beautiful. And a key point you make: It wasn't very long. This means on some emotional level, you had to validate the relationship at least to yourself.

Unfortunately, neither of you connected on an emotional level. What's crucial is to validate the relationship to each other. This is why an 'Interdependent' relationship is a paux relationship:

How can you validate the relationship if you don't communicate? If you don't test the limits to where either relational partner is/is not willing to go?

Hell, people should ask those questions before they even get into a relationship.
But because an interdependent person doesn't really care, the relationship isn't as
strong.

Don't get me wrong, we're still individuals, but our individuality is better served
by strengthening the romantic union. Because "us" means me and "you"

Hurting a woman, hurts me.(Heck, now more than ever with child support and a overtly biased "family court"). Her hurting me, will hopefully pose the same consequences.



You are literally correct, however the word in question "Interdependent" is a psychological term used to differ from a "codependent" relationship, which several in the medical field argue become abusive relationships.

The first mistake the medical field makes is a flawed "correlation" between abusive relationships and being codependent. A link I posted above, described above referred to abusers as people who look at others as 'objects'

A relationship with such a person is not possible, you are not relating to or with that person. Sure, yes, you're in the same room or home but that doesn't qualify it as a relationship.

The second mistake is the Interdependency itself. It argues that two separate people, leading two separate lives yet living together can be qualified as a relationship. And again, that's just not true. It's half assed at best.

It's true that people can have different likes, different interests, etc. The challenge and a beauty of a relationship is to blend those elements together like a sundae and have it come out delicious.

An 'interdependent' relationship is like putting a bunch of fruits together but not pressing the 'blend' button.

Me, personally, I have to and I want to find a person I can press the 'blend' button with. Love is nonexistent without taking the other person into account, without wanting to be with that person.

I cannot look at a prospective lover as a "thing" or as some life "partner" in the
literal sense who just happens to live around the house.

Mostly because I don't want to be looked at as some "thing" or as a mere "co worker" in the game of life.








You're right in that it'd be wrong to force the other to like what "you" like for your own self satisfaction. But as the other half of the relationship coin, to express support and to be able to give love and affection despite that difference. Hell, even trying it and surprisingly liking it.

A union between two people, puts an emphasis on the happiness on the other person.
The interdependent person is primarily focused on his or her own happiness

TLDR: The medical industry and I have a difference in interpretation.

Well, just the same for your 'opinions'. So, what's the point of the thread? There is none, so let this be the final post in it.

Enough of this utter farce, I only gave my interpretation on love, an interpretation that Loli opposed and quickly spiraled out of control. If you were so seriously intent on 'keeping the tips on', or keeping the thread on track then your focus would be on the main topic instead of me.

You can't even comprehend something that basic, yet you have the gall to say I don't understand anything.

A TLDR version of my argument is quite simple: Human Emotions are fleeting and diverse, what one person may consider a 'flaw' another person finds 'endearing'. I don't recognize a dynamic where one person seemingly abuses another. That is not a relationship per say, as much as it is the assimilation of the other person.

In other words, there's no such thing as an 'abusive relationship', because that would imply both parties abuse the other. There's just abuse, there is no relationship involved in it.

A relationship is a mutual agreement, when the agreement is broken or violated there is no relationship. If a woman is beaten by a man, we all agree she should get the fuck out of there.

Our english language is quite complicated and we ourselves complicate it by creating synonymous words with different meanings.

For example, interdependence. Which means the same thing as codependence, the only difference acknowledging the abusive factors in a codependent relationship.

Furthermore, taking abuse out of the equation. I don't believe a successful relationship can be had by a couple(a man and a woman) thinking independently of their own well being.

That's the romantic equivalent to the "Separate, but equal" false doctrine. Either you're in a relationship or you're not in one. Either your goals as a couple are mutual or not, and if you don't see eye to eye in general then it's probably a good time to sit down and wonder about the future of the relationship.

Then take it up with Loli, she was the one who brought it up among a list of "problems" either psychological or otherwise.




We surprisingly have something in common, because that's what pisses me off about you and your groupie here.