HorrorMovieFans.com

Makes no never mind, whatever Lib/lib you are, I love you fucks.

We can remove the quote limit.

I see HMF is still strongly in favour of going off topic. My beautiful reparations point is now about some unfunny redhead finally making a funny photo. Oh well.

even chelsea clinton apparently called out kathy griffin. "This is vile and wrong. It is never okay to joke about killing a president." so, there's that.


and as for attacking those with a different view, similar to the thing with lauren southern, there is some crazy stupid shit going on about evergreen college's day of absence and a professor, bret weinstein being mobbed and shouted down for his view. ugh.

showa58taro wrote:I see HMF is still strongly in favour of going off topic. My beautiful reparations point is now about some unfunny redhead finally making a funny photo. Oh well.

i replied to you, but you didn't seem to want to continue with that. or else my post wasn't worth responding to. either way i tried.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I see HMF is still strongly in favour of going off topic. My beautiful reparations point is now about some unfunny redhead finally making a funny photo. Oh well.

i replied to you, but you didn't seem to want to continue with that. or else my post wasn't worth responding to. either way i tried.

Will have to look when on laptop. Must've missed.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I see HMF is still strongly in favour of going off topic. My beautiful reparations point is now about some unfunny redhead finally making a funny photo. Oh well.

i replied to you, but you didn't seem to want to continue with that. or else my post wasn't worth responding to. either way i tried.

Will have to look when on laptop. Must've missed.

it isn't that big of a deal. so no worries.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I see HMF is still strongly in favour of going off topic. My beautiful reparations point is now about some unfunny redhead finally making a funny photo. Oh well.

i replied to you, but you didn't seem to want to continue with that. or else my post wasn't worth responding to. either way i tried.

Will have to look when on laptop. Must've missed.

it isn't that big of a deal. so no worries.

Ohhh, no biggie!

Reign in Blood wrote:Makes no never mind, whatever Lib/lib you are, I love you fucks.

*toasts librarians, libertines and the noble libtard*

zombie wrote:i can't really agree in holding people responsible for the deeds of others, because they happen to have lived in the same area, or have some other similarity to you. if there is a decision made by a group to apologize or to pay reparation for harm done in the past, then that's cool. but i don't think expecting it or demanding it is fair. i didn't kill any indians. i didn't use anyone as slaves. don't put that guilt on to me, is my mindset.

that is not to say that we should ignore what was done in the past. it is important to learn and grow as a society / culture. don't repeat harm done in the past, but also don't force the blame onto people who are not responsible for it.

You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:i can't really agree in holding people responsible for the deeds of others, because they happen to have lived in the same area, or have some other similarity to you. if there is a decision made by a group to apologize or to pay reparation for harm done in the past, then that's cool. but i don't think expecting it or demanding it is fair. i didn't kill any indians. i didn't use anyone as slaves. don't put that guilt on to me, is my mindset.

that is not to say that we should ignore what was done in the past. it is important to learn and grow as a society / culture. don't repeat harm done in the past, but also don't force the blame onto people who are not responsible for it.

You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

How do you decide who benefited and who did not? Especially in the last few years, there are so many mixed race marriages, good luck trying to figure out where the white slave owner ancestry who owes reparations starts and the ancestor of a slave starts.

It is stupid and pointless guilt mongering by those who want to exploit it financially.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:i can't really agree in holding people responsible for the deeds of others, because they happen to have lived in the same area, or have some other similarity to you. if there is a decision made by a group to apologize or to pay reparation for harm done in the past, then that's cool. but i don't think expecting it or demanding it is fair. i didn't kill any indians. i didn't use anyone as slaves. don't put that guilt on to me, is my mindset.

that is not to say that we should ignore what was done in the past. it is important to learn and grow as a society / culture. don't repeat harm done in the past, but also don't force the blame onto people who are not responsible for it.

You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

How do you decide who benefited and who did not? Especially in the last few years, there are so many mixed race marriages, good luck trying to figure out where the white slave owner ancestry who owes reparations starts and the ancestor of a slave starts.

It is stupid and pointless guilt mongering by those who want to exploit it financially.

Kind of makes my point though, doesn't it. It's not about a specific guy who happens to be genetically white or mixed or black. It's about the biger picture than that.

Reparations also do not accrue to individuals generally. As an example, Russia paid Sweden reparations in the 1600s, but that didn't then go to Jan Svensson and his family. It went to the state to distribute as needed. In the case of the more recent atrocities, the values tend to accrue to groups or representative groups thereof that then get use of it. For example, in Togo, the British returned significant historical artifacts to the government and a cash sum for their restitution to be used to restore these or house them in a museum. but they didn't pay each Togolese person a sum of money for slavery.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:i can't really agree in holding people responsible for the deeds of others, because they happen to have lived in the same area, or have some other similarity to you. if there is a decision made by a group to apologize or to pay reparation for harm done in the past, then that's cool. but i don't think expecting it or demanding it is fair. i didn't kill any indians. i didn't use anyone as slaves. don't put that guilt on to me, is my mindset.

that is not to say that we should ignore what was done in the past. it is important to learn and grow as a society / culture. don't repeat harm done in the past, but also don't force the blame onto people who are not responsible for it.

You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

How do you decide who benefited and who did not? Especially in the last few years, there are so many mixed race marriages, good luck trying to figure out where the white slave owner ancestry who owes reparations starts and the ancestor of a slave starts.

It is stupid and pointless guilt mongering by those who want to exploit it financially.

Kind of makes my point though, doesn't it. It's not about a specific guy who happens to be genetically white or mixed or black. It's about the biger picture than that.

Reparations also do not accrue to individuals generally. As an example, Russia paid Sweden reparations in the 1600s, but that didn't then go to Jan Svensson and his family. It went to the state to distribute as needed. In the case of the more recent atrocities, the values tend to accrue to groups or representative groups thereof that then get use of it. For example, in Togo, the British returned significant historical artifacts to the government and a cash sum for their restitution to be used to restore these or house them in a museum. but they didn't pay each Togolese person a sum of money for slavery.

So my community can expect a check from Africa and then I will get some!

showa58taro wrote: You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

well, i did (and do) agree that these things should be acknowledged, so that we can learn and grow as a society. so that we don't repeat them in the future. we can look back on it, as a bad point that we can improve from. (or in some cases have moved from)

and i think that it gets tricky, when you try to determine if and how much our culture / society benefited in the current form, from slavery. and again, you're extending the sins of the father, to his great grandchildren. it's so far removed at this point, that i don't think you can fairly cast that blame.

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

well, i did (and do) agree that these things should be acknowledged, so that we can learn and grow as a society. so that we don't repeat them in the future. we can look back on it, as a bad point that we can improve from. (or in some cases have moved from)

and i think that it gets tricky, when you try to determine if and how much our culture / society benefited in the current form, from slavery. and again, you're extending the sins of the father, to his great grandchildren. it's so far removed at this point, that i don't think you can fairly cast that blame.

Is it fair to blame the US for atrocities in Vietnam?

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote: You didn't commit acts specifically, but you did benefit from the situation that created. I mean, we are effectively talking nation states or possibly federal groupings and their ascribed guilt or non-guilt, which is why any discussion revolves almost exclusively around the guilt of YOU as a person, but whether as a group, it should be acknowledged that something was done. its not really putting the guilt on you personally, but on the society in which you are part of but not singularly responsible for.

I think that is how it is meant to ground the past into a tangible institutional change that drives the discussion forward.

well, i did (and do) agree that these things should be acknowledged, so that we can learn and grow as a society. so that we don't repeat them in the future. we can look back on it, as a bad point that we can improve from. (or in some cases have moved from)

and i think that it gets tricky, when you try to determine if and how much our culture / society benefited in the current form, from slavery. and again, you're extending the sins of the father, to his great grandchildren. it's so far removed at this point, that i don't think you can fairly cast that blame.

Is it fair to blame the US for atrocities in Vietnam?

yeah. i think blame is fair. we should be able to own to that. expecting reparation for that blame though is something i don't feel like is so justified. but maybe during the 70s-80s, it would be fair.

Seems consistent. Can't really fault your logic on that one.

Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.

showa58taro wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:Should every country really take it on the chin for wartime atrocities? War is hell, afterall.

They did in the old days. Genuinely, the conclusion of most pre 1800s wars resulted in reparations being paid over. It was not that odd a concept, frankly.

From the winner?