If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid?
I literally just said I DID have a problem with it you fucking idiot. "If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been."
You should see the comments I've made regarding the ANC's use of that phrase explicitly, on several posts here.
Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons.
That's fucking stupid. The context of the event around the statement is what matters. You removing that context is what screws it up. It's no different from a Leftist saying you shouldn't defend yourself because the bible said: "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."; intentionally excluding the historical context that Jesus would have known he was going to be executed on the cross, and this was God's will, and fighting against the men who attacked him would have led his apostles to have been killed.
You contradict yourself. Blacks in South Africa are at war with the Boer. The midnight raids on farms with murder and rapes, and the new Apartheid laws being passed giving blacks preference over whites are proof of that. It’s revenge right? That’s how they see it. Like the jews killing their oppressors or the indians killing theirs, you said you would have no objections. I don’t recall the comments you’ve made about the ANC but it seems like you’re not being consistent here.
Leftists say a lot of things most of which are bullshit and nobody should take what they say at face value. That quote from Jesus is a lesson that needs no historical context. It’s saying we should give up violence. A wholesome lesson that would improve society today, yesterday, or tomorrow, if taken to heart.
My argument isn’t that the historical context of a statement or song or verse w/e should be ignored obviously it is important. But you cannot isolate it to that context. People read or hear things and they seek to understand it within the context of their lives. If one reads that “the tribe murdered it’s enemies and it was just” doesn’t the reader take to heart the lesson that “killing your enemies (whites) is right?”
Nope, still didn't contradict myself. You want a race war. Blacks in South Africa are a mixed bag because while many are recruited into National Socialism like the EFF, during the riots of a few years back, many black store owners were having to shoot and kill large lynchmobs of black Leftists, because you are refusing to Leftism outside of your own personal false dichotomy around race.
new Apartheid
It can't be new Apartheid because blacks are the majority. You just don't want to condemn racialism because you like racialism when races you like do it.
Like the jews killing their oppressors or the indians killing theirs, you said you would have no objections.
Nope, you're lying again. What was the first thing I pointed about someone else's excuses about the Talmud? Because remember, I'm not defending the Talmud, I'm defending OP from the claim that they never engaged in a detailed criticism of Fuentez. What I originally said, that the presenters said, was that you had a small, tribal, ethnically homogenous group. Literally: all the jews and only the jews fleeing Egypt at that moment. Specifically the ones apparently walking between two giant walls of water, and magically: there are no other jews in Egypt who were like "no I'm good". And within this shockingly convenient story about things that totally happened, is it okay to kill the specific soldiers who were attacking you since they weren't smited by God.
You wish I said "it's okay to kill your oppressor" because you want to have that argument with someone. I ain't him. The phrase itself has multiple problems: what oppression? Who is an oppressor? Why is killing acceptable and not alternatives? If killing is acceptable, then under what conditions, and for how long?
I am not a Leftist, and that phrase doesn't make sense because there is no legitimate moral rationalization for mass killing via abstraction.
Leftists say a lot of things most of which are bullshit and nobody should take what they say at face value. ... My argument isn’t that the historical context of a statement or song or verse w/e should be ignored obviously it is important. But you cannot isolate it to that context.
The whole fucking point of context is to make sure Leftists CAN'T do exactly that. The fact that Leftists are intentionally going to make bad faith arguments to post-hoc rationalize positions on moral frameworks they don't even believe in is exactly why you limit quotations to their context. The whole point behind a malicious quote is to imbue that quote with the authority of it's source, while being fully aware that the context of that quote intentionally strips that authority away.
A Christian that says it's wrong to joint the military and defend your country because of "turn the other cheek" is a shit christian and should be told that they are such. Similarly, a jew that says, "I have the right to kill gentiles because Talmud" is similarly a shit jew. And just to be clear, in both cases they are normally going to be Leftist atheist socialists trying to make excuses for their own behaviors, living to the principles, standards, and morals of no one.
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
I literally just said I DID have a problem with it you fucking idiot. "If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been."
You should see the comments I've made regarding the ANC's use of that phrase explicitly, on several posts here.
That's fucking stupid. The context of the event around the statement is what matters. You removing that context is what screws it up. It's no different from a Leftist saying you shouldn't defend yourself because the bible said: "Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."; intentionally excluding the historical context that Jesus would have known he was going to be executed on the cross, and this was God's will, and fighting against the men who attacked him would have led his apostles to have been killed.
Historical context is relevant.
You contradict yourself. Blacks in South Africa are at war with the Boer. The midnight raids on farms with murder and rapes, and the new Apartheid laws being passed giving blacks preference over whites are proof of that. It’s revenge right? That’s how they see it. Like the jews killing their oppressors or the indians killing theirs, you said you would have no objections. I don’t recall the comments you’ve made about the ANC but it seems like you’re not being consistent here.
Leftists say a lot of things most of which are bullshit and nobody should take what they say at face value. That quote from Jesus is a lesson that needs no historical context. It’s saying we should give up violence. A wholesome lesson that would improve society today, yesterday, or tomorrow, if taken to heart.
My argument isn’t that the historical context of a statement or song or verse w/e should be ignored obviously it is important. But you cannot isolate it to that context. People read or hear things and they seek to understand it within the context of their lives. If one reads that “the tribe murdered it’s enemies and it was just” doesn’t the reader take to heart the lesson that “killing your enemies (whites) is right?”
Nope, still didn't contradict myself. You want a race war. Blacks in South Africa are a mixed bag because while many are recruited into National Socialism like the EFF, during the riots of a few years back, many black store owners were having to shoot and kill large lynchmobs of black Leftists, because you are refusing to Leftism outside of your own personal false dichotomy around race.
It can't be new Apartheid because blacks are the majority. You just don't want to condemn racialism because you like racialism when races you like do it.
Nope, you're lying again. What was the first thing I pointed about someone else's excuses about the Talmud? Because remember, I'm not defending the Talmud, I'm defending OP from the claim that they never engaged in a detailed criticism of Fuentez. What I originally said, that the presenters said, was that you had a small, tribal, ethnically homogenous group. Literally: all the jews and only the jews fleeing Egypt at that moment. Specifically the ones apparently walking between two giant walls of water, and magically: there are no other jews in Egypt who were like "no I'm good". And within this shockingly convenient story about things that totally happened, is it okay to kill the specific soldiers who were attacking you since they weren't smited by God.
You wish I said "it's okay to kill your oppressor" because you want to have that argument with someone. I ain't him. The phrase itself has multiple problems: what oppression? Who is an oppressor? Why is killing acceptable and not alternatives? If killing is acceptable, then under what conditions, and for how long?
I am not a Leftist, and that phrase doesn't make sense because there is no legitimate moral rationalization for mass killing via abstraction.
The whole fucking point of context is to make sure Leftists CAN'T do exactly that. The fact that Leftists are intentionally going to make bad faith arguments to post-hoc rationalize positions on moral frameworks they don't even believe in is exactly why you limit quotations to their context. The whole point behind a malicious quote is to imbue that quote with the authority of it's source, while being fully aware that the context of that quote intentionally strips that authority away.
A Christian that says it's wrong to joint the military and defend your country because of "turn the other cheek" is a shit christian and should be told that they are such. Similarly, a jew that says, "I have the right to kill gentiles because Talmud" is similarly a shit jew. And just to be clear, in both cases they are normally going to be Leftist atheist socialists trying to make excuses for their own behaviors, living to the principles, standards, and morals of no one.