LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿 @LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club

@dave @Senator_Armstrong
Speak of the devil. In this thread you justify the use of genocide to counteract your own genocide. You only limit this to cases where your people are actively being killed. Well, as it turns out, I can name us place like that in real life today: South Africa.

White South Africans are targeted for racial violence routinely, making them actively killed. The government routinely threatens to "expropriate" their land "without compensation," and the people doing it sing "Kill The Boxer" as these demands hash out. When you combine these things, all racially motivated, you have an active extermination of Whites going on.

Which raises the following question: should South African Whites put down this active extermination with extreme prejudice? Your options are:

1) Yes, they absolutely should, because I, Dave, am internally consistent
2) No, in my system of thought, Whites uniquely lack the right to self defense on a racial scale (default if you do not answer)

Going to have to ask @LukeAlmighty and @alyx to forward the question to Dave since he blocked me.

Neet.

@s8n @alyx @Alex
I am starting to think, that @dave seriously never grew over the Harry Potter level of moral development.

@s8n @alyx @dave @Alex
This. Precisely and absolutely.

@Alex @alyx @dave
I know.
I think both attacks are justified, but also, that makes it PARAMOUNT to figgure things out, before I meet some antifa in the street.

@dave @alyx
A powerful organization

How many people do you actually think it takes to kill one fat nerd?

Man, you aren't just dellusional. You are living in the MCU at this point.

@dave @alyx
When I see an antifa guy on the street, I don't want to kill him.

But he thinks I am a nazi, and that I want to kill him. That makes him an active thread to ME.

And therefore, I AM actually justified to attacking him too, based on the fact, that he thinks, that I will attack him.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND IT?

@dave @alyx
Your thinking is so one-dimensional.

You said, the jews were right to commit a genocide. From there on, the danger was established.

Your examples are based on "one side attacking first", but that's retarded. Both sides know, that the other one can attack at any moment. Do you understand that concept? A Stand off?

@dave @alyx
Congratulations, you have just justified completelly why any average german was correct to support it.

According to you, it did became an "us or them" situation, where genocide of one group was inevitable.

@alyx @dave
I listen to him, because he sometimes manages to form an actual thought, instead of just reapeating the Leftie talking points at infinitum.

And that makes his thoughts, although most of the time retarded, at least interesting to listen to.

@ChristiJunior @dave
Yeah, that was the part, I was so happy for Dave to finally start defending.

@dave
Ok.
Either way, My point was, that when you have a high tesion between 2 groups, and both of them believe, that genociding the other is justified, you cannot just go: But this genocide was defensive.

Because that is a dumb excuse, that will be always used. "They wanted to do it, so I did it first as defense" is an excuse, not a justification.

@dave
That's a new one from you, but I'll take it.

@dave
Do you? 😄

@dave
But he didn't say it either way.
He said: I see one genocide as justified, but the 2nd one as immoral.

I see why you hate this point though :D

@dave
Oh, Hi Dave.
There are several ways of looking at it.
1) The old fassion war stance.
Meaning, that every war is amoral.
That obviously ain't his point.

Or, we can take the defense point.
Well, he didn't talk about defense there, did he? He said genocide. That means mass murdering, and if jews are genociding you under the flag of defense, that means you can defend against their "defense" justyfying the supposed original aggression.

Do you see the problem now?