KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
You shouldn’t touch those things at all.
he was being sarcastic darth.
You shouldn’t touch those things at all.
They absolutely were socialists, just not the Marxist flavor.No he wasn't that's retarded. National Socialism only has socialism in the name because it was vogue, they were literally militant anti-socialists.
If Nazism counts as socialism so does every other ideology other than anarcho-capitalism. Having some aspects of a shared society is not what makes something socialism.
This case will be used to show how the Justice system is subverted by Nazis, so the Left needs to subvert it back."Journalists" mad, naturally.
Well,tose property produced what state decide to made.Nazism allowed for a lot of private owned stuff, even if the Nazis preferred big consolidated private companies they could control easier.
It was more like socialism for Germans and such, rather than full on communism.
Don't think you'll get through to ATP with facts. The man is, and I don't use this sort of term often, a raging Polack who wants Germany and Russia dismembered so that a Greater Poland can be established and rule over Central Europe. The man would have cheered and thrown a parade if the Morgenthau Plan had been enacted.
Makes the way that Germans and Germany was treated in the immediate aftermath of World War 2 make a lot more sense, doesn't it? In terms of the excesses and starvation of the average soldier and civilian suffered through.
Much more then the idea that the allies were simply just 'unprepared'. Also shows what sort of people FDR and Churchill were- not that I had much respect left for either after digging through history more. The Nazis were scum, but the allies weren't so clean either, even without the triple-damned Soviets.
This case will be used to show how the Justice system is subverted by Nazis, so the Left needs to subvert it back.
Optymist.But that is why i like you!This will of course backfire because you have an entire younger generation already pissed off who are taking notes.
Judge says it's okay for a woman to scar a man's face (nearly blinding him) for guessing her age wrong, and calls her a "dedicated, hardworking woman, who posed no risk to the public." Oh, the judge is also a woman, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
Judge says it's okay for a woman to scar a man's face (nearly blinding him) for guessing her age wrong, and calls her a "dedicated, hardworking woman, who posed no risk to the public." Oh, the judge is also a woman, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
A lot of people are saying that giving women this amount of freedom was a bad idea to the point of irresponsibility because they're like spoiled children who've ruined it for themselves.The next few years are really going to determine if women’s rights go back to the 1950’s…or 950’s.
(Note I have no idea what women’s rights were like back in the 950’s, beyond ‘almost certainly more restricted then the 1950’s’. The other reason I chose that year is that it has the same numbers as 950’s, minus the ‘1’. So, symmetry.)
A lot of people are saying that giving women this amount of freedom was a bad idea to the point of irresponsibility because they're like spoiled children who've ruined it for themselves.
I'm not saying I agree with this viewpoint; just what people have been saying.
How is that incompatible with the above?Well, I don't agree with that viewpoint. I just think that there needs to be accountability.
(Note I have no idea what women’s rights were like back in the 950’s, beyond ‘almost certainly more restricted then the 1950’s’. The other reason I chose that year is that it has the same numbers as 950’s, minus the ‘1’. So, symmetry.)
Well,dunno about other places,but womans in slavic and scandinavian societies had property ownership,and the same goes for christian countries - taking their property right was thing of reneissance,not medieval era.Very dependent on location.
The 950s was a period where women's rights in the Arab nations were marginally better than most of the world. They could technically own property, they had protections for if they became widows, and iirc they manner in which they could be punished was fairly tightly regulated (relatively). Most of it was dependent on having a male relative to manage certain things.
In the Isles? No, property ownership, and the widow's benefit usually came from the church. And I'm not sure if there were any laws on domestic abuse.
But yes. Overall, the status and rights of women in the 1950s was incredibly better than the 950s.
I don't agree with sending them back to the times where they were basically property obviously, but I can't deny that they do have a point in that women have been completely irresponsible, have zero accountability, act like spoiled children, and have basically fucked themselves over.Well, I don't agree with that viewpoint. I just think that there needs to be accountability.
'Women are wonderful' is not a universal cultural norm. It's very much a quirk of this particular era of modern western culture.The Women Are Wonderful Effect naturally means attempts at being fair just aren't going to work, and instead you need to go a bit further to make sure stuff works properly. Probably a reason why they were treated so terribly in the past, just to get any sort of reasonability out of them.
It's a cultural norm in the west at least, the fact other cultures might beat the shit out of their women doesn't change the fact the west is pussy-whipped.'Women are wonderful' is not a universal cultural norm. It's very much a quirk of this particular era of modern western culture.
Getting rid of this lionization of one gender over the other, rather than trying to counterbalance it in an artificial way, seems more productive to me.