I mean we do ban chemical weapons and those would be very useful against insurgents in places like Afghanistan with all the caves.
That's a misconception. Chemical weapons are generally agreed upon for bans because anything they do, nukes will generally do better, especially against a serious military, against which chemical weapons are more of an annoyance than superweapon.
They are mostly good for war crimes against civilians.
If not for nukes even western countries probably would not ban them as that would make them the best WMD.
This is about the historical practice. Modern Jews are for the most part normal assimilated people. They don’t favor their own group over others well not any more than other groups do.
This is about historical Christians and Jews. Free Stater was saying that the Christians were losers because they were mad at Jews charging them interest. But a Jew of that time would also be mad if they got charged interest. Most everyone back then thought it was evil.
Well for most the choice was not whether they will get a loan with interest or not, it was whether they will get any loan or not. People get mad over the latter option even now. Leftist people usually.
Christian’s unlike other religions have universal morality though so that means that evil actions aren’t ok even against outsiders.
Which further raises the question of why the hell did the historical Christian leaders allow Jews to practice it on Christians.
It's like saying murder is evil, and forbidding your own people from murdering each other or anyone else, but at the same time allowing some strangers to come and murder your people because their strange customs apparently allow them to murder your people. It's extremely nonsensical as an explanation.
I understand you think prohibition of usury is retarded but that’s not exactly what this is about. Also ironically free stater was the one who was being anti tribal by bashing on Christians for being angry when their interests were being harmed with exploitative interest rates. Because again Jews at that time would also have been angry if another group made them loans with interest.
Well no one would have forced either to take the loans, they can fuck off, as i said, historically the main alternative to a loan with interest for vast majority of people wasn't a free loan, it was screw you get your own money.
Also you also are a universalist, not the same as Christianity but western civilization is a heresy of Christianity as
@ATP would say that’s why even liberals are universalists.
I'm a nationalist, i don't get irrevocably offended at the mere suggestion of tribalism and want my country to practice some degree of it, that makes me a bad example of a universalist.
No you misunderstood what I said the foreign group is not doing something you oppose they are doing something you support. For example let’s say Russia wins the war in Ukraine but it was hurt bad and the communists come back into power and the new Soviet leader is angry at the west for how much damage they did. The new Russian leader is a true believer in communism he thinks it is the best system for helping the majority of people (he is wrong obviously) 🙄 but he loves his people and wants the best for them so they are unlucky and he will impose communism on them. Lucky for the west this leader hates your people and wants the worst for the common Pole, American, etc. so he actually supports capitalism for your nation. In fact his government frequently hinders and damages the socialist party in your nation and gives whatever support it can to your political party. Now obviously you think this guy is a retard but you are happy he is dumb. But wouldn’t you be a bit unnerved that he actually wants what he believes is worst for you? Most ideologues don’t act like that though it is logical.
No, i wouldn't, if it's not something i have doubts about in the first place. I won't start being sympathetic to aloha snackbaring head choppers just because Russia and China hate them, it's some brainbug coming from living in a 2 party political system too deeply, so people instinctively oppose what the other party supports no matter if it makes sense or not.
We all know the saying about tyranny sincerely done for benefit of its victims being the worst kind...
I generally don't see people from countries with 3-6 major parties in play trying to make such shallow arguments.
Unfortunately generally tyrants aren't decreeing great ideas, those are the domain of extremely rare creature called a "benevolent dictator".
I don’t think it was illegal in the sense the kings soldiers would come in and hang you most of the time, after all the Medici were a thing but instead that it was highly dishonorable and that if you did it and the church excommunicated you.
Which would get you in trouble with the government in cases of proper bans. Also Italians were some of pioneers in circumventing this ban.
Apparently in their specific case of time and place it was a bit of "wink wink nod nod" with it being illegal, but ineffectively punished, and the state tolerating it as such for the economic benefits.
en.wikipedia.org
banchi di pegno:
pawn shops, which catered to the lower classes, were excluded from the banking or more literally, the "money-changing" guild (
Arte del Cambio), and were allowed to charge up to 20% annually on loans they made which were secured by the borrower property. The pawnbrokers (a mix of Christians and Jews; exclusively Jewish after 1437
[55]) were socially ostracized since they openly violated the
Catholic Church's ban on
usury; as a consequence, they were actually illegal in Florence, but survived since the official penalty was a collective fine of 2000 florins each year, which when paid disallowed
[56] the imposition of any further punishments on them for the sin of usury; this law is generally characterized as really being a
license in disguise.
It's as if speeding was illegal, but you could get only 1 2000$ fine for it each year and that's it... Imagine how many people would do it.
Then you were socially shunned that could be a death sentence back then since there was no wellfare or social security besides the community so you were all alone. Jews did have a community so they could still have family and friends if they engaged in it.
Yeah but in this specific issue it's a self-defeating argument, if you can afford to be in the business of interest banking, you probably don't need welfare or social security, or community support for the matter, if anything the community will be coming to you to get your support.
Of course the mentioned Medici family didn't give a fuck because despite that they had such wealth and connections that most of those not ostracized would be jealous of them.
It's like trying to threaten a billionaire with taking away his unemployment benefits.
