Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #31 - lumpymandude (06/10/2012) [-]
First off, you let me know when we run out of food. Second, We're taking advice about how to stay alive from a person who lost most of the population of his people. so yeah...
#47 to #31 - ariusbrightwing (06/10/2012) [-]
To all the people who thumb this guy down, you might have a case of the mad.
#39 to #31 - vunguard (06/10/2012) [-]
Enjoy this, because you thoroughly deserve it. There are few things more tragic in the history of this world than the deaths of the Native Americans, possibly nothing. When Columbus found the Americas, there were around 15-20 million people on the continent. By the beginning of the 20th century there were well less than 500,000--and I'm pretty sure that's FAR too generous.
User avatar #107 to #39 - shitshitshit (06/10/2012) [-]
what about the concentration camps?
#94 to #39 - largenintimidating (06/10/2012) [-]
Except 90% of those 20 million people were wiped out by the most devastating plague ever, not by Europeans.
#43 to #39 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Communism is supposed to have killed around 60 million+ people.
User avatar #114 to #43 - yellowjack (06/11/2012) [-]
quit blaming a sociopolitical ideal on the fault of men. Men kill Men, an idea is just an idea. backing capitalism or communism is like taking the side of two arguing children.
0
#111 to #43 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #51 to #43 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
You can say the same thing for Capitalism, they just keep it a secret and find ways to blame it on other people.
#56 to #51 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Communism did it through famines and direct extermination. Capitalism did it through war which doesn't amount to anything near 60 million.

If you can disprove that, go ahead. People will always die in any society, but that's irrelevant. I'm not trying to start a ideological war but am simply pointing out that these people who called themselves "Communists" weren't true subscribers in the ideal of the commune
#98 to #56 - PlagueDoctor (06/10/2012) [-]
COMMUNISM didnt kill anybody! Bad power- and moneyhungry leaders with double standarts did!
Communism might aswell be one of the best things that has happened to our country, for a few years at least, BUT the leaders have ruined. IMHO communism, as well as democracy, will never be able to prevail because people are bad by default.
INB4 your country lolz???????? Im Russian.
User avatar #59 to #56 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
More people died, not though war in Capitalism, but through greed. Capitalism creates greed, greed makes people want to expand through imperialism, imperialism causes death.
#60 to #59 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Are you trying to say that the deaths associated with Communism wasn't a direct result of those same qualifications?

Millions died in Ukraine due to their food being taken away for, "the good of the common collective." They were arguably a victim of imperialistic colonization by the Soviet Union

I gave you an example, so you give me one. What's an example of greed in a capitalist society resulting in the deaths of millions of people, like in the Holodomor of Ukraine?


#95 to #60 - comradewinter ONLINE (06/10/2012) [-]
We can't find a direct cause to blame capitalism for, as it's simply the lack of a controlled economy.

Arguably, we can blame capitalism for starvation in Africa and other 3rd world countries, as there is a minor upper class with almost all the money in the country, and a major poor class with almost nothing. If the wealth was spread around the population, this wouldn't have been this much of a problem.
User avatar #68 to #60 - goblingang (06/10/2012) [-]
By definition, what you just described cannot be qualified as communism. In fact just about all of the Soviet reign and actions cannot be called communism.
User avatar #70 to #68 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Which is exactly what I pointed out. The EXPERIMENT of Communism was a failure and resulted in mass death. Does that make your case better or worse?
User avatar #62 to #60 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Same difference, except for the part when one is at it's full potential it kills people and the other doesn't.
#63 to #62 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
I don't have a clue what you have just said
User avatar #64 to #63 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
When Capitalism is at it's full potential it kills people, when Communism is, it doesn't.
#66 to #64 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Communism is an unrealistic ideology that can only be achieved via world order, for risk of the much more efficient capitalist outdoing the commune.

People working for the good of the whole is something that we only see in tribes. Once tribes get bigger, the natural human instinct of wanting to outdo the other comes in. I agree that this isn't good, and bad people will naturally get power, but this isn't something that revolutions can't solve.

User avatar #67 to #66 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Well then the revolution in Cuba did good than, and got rid of the "bad people", otherwise known as the Imperialistic Americans.
User avatar #69 to #67 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
That's all relative to what you believe. The problem with the modern world is that in order to be prosperous, you need to bow down to the imperialist. Cuba was much more wealthy as a hole before the revolution because they were financed by the Americans
User avatar #71 to #69 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Ok then. Another reason why I'm Socialist is because I can't stand the Government being run by the Church.
User avatar #73 to #71 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
I wouldn't say that would be the case near anywhere I live. In places where the Church is run by the government, a Theocracy, the Church plays an important role in uniting people.

Uniting people as the collective is the most important thing for the government to do. Unity is progress, isn't is? The Communists tried to replace this aspect of Eastern Europe, the role of the Church in uniting people, with the cult of personality for Lenin and Stalin. This type of approach could work when it comes to uniting people, or perhaps you could simply be tolerant of social-norms as they are really irrelevant. If the Communists were smart, they would have infiltrated the Church and used it to their advantage.

How do you think the Church is running your government? Where do you live?
User avatar #74 to #73 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Canada, by government I mean America's government, which affects the rest of the world.
#78 to #74 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
You think America's government is owned by the Church? This premise is completely false. The church and the believers of it are simply adherents to status quo, not the other way around.

There definitely is an elite, but the Church has nothing to do with it
User avatar #79 to #78 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Anyways, I'm too ******* tired to throw points back at each other. It's 4 a.m, gnight.
#80 to #79 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Press on, comrade! You were doing great!
User avatar #85 to #80 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Thread reached it's limits. All I can say is, you sure have a lot of Soviet pictures for an Anti-Socialist.
#87 to #85 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
There is a bit of Lenin in all of us
User avatar #81 to #80 - garymuthafuknoak (06/10/2012) [-]
Meh.
#82 to #81 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
For the collective!
#35 to #31 - mycatdreamsoflenin (06/10/2012) [-]
would really like to see how much would you endure if someone with a rifle would throw you, almost disarmed, out of your   
home without food and shoot you if you try to come back and say it's your home. Goddamnit guys.
would really like to see how much would you endure if someone with a rifle would throw you, almost disarmed, out of your
home without food and shoot you if you try to come back and say it's your home. Goddamnit guys.
#45 to #35 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
**byposted rolled a random image posted in comment #5503087 at FJ Pony Thread **   
You're making it seem like Native Americans were peaceful loving people. I'm not condoning what happened in the Americans, but Native Americans were known for being savages who killed as many White men as they could upon arrival. Perhaps this was called for, but it also called for the Europeans to be much more harsh on them    
   
The one thing you must learn in history is that there is never a "good vs evil." That is only for the masses
**byposted rolled a random image posted in comment #5503087 at FJ Pony Thread **
You're making it seem like Native Americans were peaceful loving people. I'm not condoning what happened in the Americans, but Native Americans were known for being savages who killed as many White men as they could upon arrival. Perhaps this was called for, but it also called for the Europeans to be much more harsh on them

The one thing you must learn in history is that there is never a "good vs evil." That is only for the masses
User avatar #48 to #45 - mycatdreamsoflenin (06/10/2012) [-]
I'm not making it seem like anything, stick to the fact that my post was a reply to another post. Sure as hell Natives
were nasty themselves and fought back, but this doesn't change the fact that they were in technological and, over
time, numerical disadvantage. It wasn't something they could really survive to without great losses, and Europeans
have never been really kind to colonies, they were conquering.
User avatar #52 to #48 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
But at the end of the day, the colonization of the Americas was a great thing for the world. It resulted in world trade and advancement which brought the world ahead a ton. And it all applies back to Natural Selection. The Europeans were stronger so they took out the Indians. There's nothing wrong with that
User avatar #83 to #52 - horsefear (06/10/2012) [-]
Wait, are you suggesting that the extermination of the Native Americans (because it was pretty much an exterminiation, possibly the most succesfull genocide ever) was a good thing? Because on their corpses the great America was founded? That would mean that the developement of culture and capital is more important to you than the lives of millions. If so, that would mean that you also support the Holocaust, the millions dead under the hands of communist reign (Stalin, Lenin, Mao & Pol Pot together is approximately 200 million) and every other war.
That is where you are correct, sadly, that murder, wars and genocide are profitable, but that does not justify them.

Secondly, genocide is not a part of natural selection. Natural selection focusses on the developement and survival of the individual.
User avatar #61 to #52 - mycatdreamsoflenin (06/10/2012) [-]
It's wrong now, with technological advances wars aren't useful anymore. They have never been actually, they
have always been an enormous waste of resources, lives and source of tremendous pain and infamities. It's
a side effect that they also propelled the strive for research and work, acutally putting people under inhuman
stress. But this is not the point at all, the original poster was basically whining about Natives not being able
to survive, when they just couldn't do it in the status quo they were in. Even a diplomatic solutions would
have meant extreme losses, not to mention the fact that you usually don't feel really diplomatic if someone
comes and tells you that you have to leave your home for him to use and go find a way to live somewhere
else, likely in a more inhospitable and less resourceful place.
User avatar #65 to #61 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
says the person with pubes as an avatar,

The Natives weren't knowledgeable enough to use these resources in a productive way. The much more advanced white people came and took them over, not through war for the most part, but indirect biological transfer of smallpox

War is inevitable on this earth. We are living in a VERY special period of time. It is like the era of peace the Roman empire went through. One day we will be back at square one, slaughtering eachother and raping eachother's women.
User avatar #72 to #65 - mycatdreamsoflenin (06/10/2012) [-]
What has my avatar to do with any of this I would like to know. It's not a pubis, it's a room with a lamp by the way.
And what should have I put as avatar, a portrait of Schopenhauer? Please.

I never said there won't be wars anymore, I said they are counterproductive. Honestly I can't see in the future
but I can look back at the past, and any war, at least in the first world, would mean a million steps back through
history. Iraq wars are an example. But you're still missing the point, I'm not saying that Natives were right and
pioneers were the bad guys, stick to the ******* fact that I was replying to the first poster: natives had no chance
and if it wasn't for the Europeans they would have pretty much survived. Also, yes, war never changes. That
doesn't mean that we can sit back and let it happen, though.
User avatar #76 to #72 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Pacifists will never succeed in the world for this fact: Human instinct.

It is natural for war to occur due to conflicting opinions. One day, when the world is united, this will not be the case. But do understand that for this process to occur would take thousands of years.

Take for example, a pacifist country which doesn't want to go to war. They don't spend money on the military and instead spend it on the good of the people. Unfortunately, they are quickly taken over by another country who views the benefits of their land as favorable for them.
User avatar #84 to #76 - mycatdreamsoflenin (06/10/2012) [-]
I find this hard enough to happen in modern Europe, for example. Imagine France had no army, do you really
think Spain, or England or Germany would try to invade? Having no army would be a cretin thing but I don't
think invasions would occur, mainly because wars are fought economically in the first world these days.
Contrast is "natural", modern wars are not and by the way nature doesn't need to be our guide in everything.
User avatar #32 to #31 - djaelxs (06/10/2012) [-]
Because european settlers gave them smallpox, killing alot of them. Go learn history, you dumb **** .
User avatar #42 to #32 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
It's not like it was used as a bio-weapon. The spread of smallpox was unintentional, like plagues usually are.
User avatar #44 to #42 - djaelxs (06/10/2012) [-]
No, Europeans intentionally gave Natives in Canada and in the States smallpox, to kill off their numbers. No one liked the natives then.
They would get Europeans to cough on blankets, and other stuff, and then give those blankets to the Natives, once the natives died out in a month or two, they'd grab the blankets, and give em to the next Native tribe.
#46 to #44 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
You can't actually believe this. Is this what they teach in schools? I know the media promotes this thesis, and it's absolutely false

Through what means did they spread the disease? It's a well documented fact that Europeans were naturally immune to smallpox while the natives weren't.
User avatar #50 to #46 - djaelxs (06/10/2012) [-]
which makes them carriers. Just because you have an immunity, doesn't mean you can't carry it. It's like Mosquito's with Malaria, they aren't affected by it, but they can spread it around.
User avatar #53 to #50 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
Despite being carriers, they weren't aware of what would happen/what they had. Are you trying to make White people guilty of what happened? Really, there's nothing to be guilty of. White occupation of America brought the world forward as a whole.
User avatar #55 to #53 - djaelxs (06/10/2012) [-]
Yes, it did, but it still killed alot of people. I'm honestly in favor of economic and Scientific development, but if it means slaughtering an entire race, then it's probably not the best choice.
User avatar #57 to #55 - byposted (06/10/2012) [-]
It is the way of progression, though. The weak die and the strong prosper, don't you agree?
User avatar #58 to #57 - djaelxs (06/10/2012) [-]
True.
 Friends (0)