Abolitionist hate thread

[Apustajan apustaja]

No, the point is to enslave niggers even more then the rag-heads do (really do all the things Islamists do), but using superior tropes and branding. That is how you Kiwi Christan.

I idea of limiting state control over individuals is liberal, and liberalism is icky. If they are being levied by white Calvinists, then the tax rate could be one hundred percent and it would still be good, because it isn't the actions themselves that are good or evil, but the vibes from who is committing them.

The soviet union in practice had 100% tax rate and no unemployment and the state provided for everyone, and the jews liked that a lot!

 

[BestUserName]

The soviet union in practice had 100% tax rate and no unemployment and the state provided for everyone, and the jews liked that a lot!

In practice, that was all lies propagated by the state media, was only ever able to fool smooth brained ideologues like Walter Duranty, and I thought it was the Jews undermining the Soviet Union all along? It doesn't matter anyway, because they could've still done all the same horrible crap they ended up doing anyway, if they had applied the Calvinist Christian veneer instead of the Bohemian Atheist one, they would be hailed as heroes by the Kiwi Farms Autistic Thunderdome.

 

[Staticness]

modern slavery is shit like in china where they use people from SEA to man their international fleet of fishing trawlers, and everything related to their suicide net industrial centres, or america companies importing the best experts from india and paying them next to nothing with the threat of deportation from their unsustainable prosperity hanging over their heads.

 

[Althalus]

As unpopular as this opinion may be in modern times, I don't think slavery itself is inherently bad, at least in the cases of the indentured-servitude models or the Roman-style models. Indentured servitude was voluntary, typically stipulated what type of work was expected, stipulated fair treatment, and the contract lasted for a few years, after which you could leave. Roman-style wasn't voluntary and treatment was hugely variable, but if slaves had children, the children usually weren't forced into slavery and could go live their own lives after coming of age. This is far more humane than the New World slavery practice of separating families when convenient for owners/buyers.

Also, in both of those instances, slavery typically wasn't race-based, it was not perpetuated by generations of families born into slavery, and ex-slaves weren't inherently a social underclass, unlike New World slavery.

The reason I don't think every single instance of "slavery" is bad is because certain classes of unemployed/underemployed people (i.e. gang members, drug junkies, drug dealers) do a lot of harm to themselves and society, and in general forcing the "lowest" of society to work would be better for them, and better for everyone else.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

This is one of the most deranged threads I've ever read. Nothing OP is saying makes any sense to me and I'm impressed by that.

 

[McMitch]

The call to reenact slavery, by dressing it up as an economic factor rather than a racial one, is on par with Communists believing they won’t be in the asbestos mines at gun-point. Additionally, racial-slavery was the last vestige of enslavement left in the US, since we forsook the Angloid yoke of debtors prisons. To enslave another is to make him unto an animal, without the justification of his own actions; an act that drives one further from God than towards, for God himself asks for conscious worship rather than simply forcing the issue.

 

[BestUserName]

The call to reenact slavery, by dressing it up as an economic factor rather than a racial one, is on par with Communists believing they won’t be in the asbestos mines at gun-point. Additionally, racial-slavery was the last vestige of enslavement left in the US, since we forsook the Angloid yoke of debtors prisons. To enslave another is to make him unto an animal, without the justification of his own actions; an act that drives one further from God than towards, for God himself asks for conscious worship rather than simply forcing the issue.

To not re-enact slavery is to imply that the Bible is not literally true, and therefore open to interpretation. Are you willing to undo all of that, just for some liberal backwash like "freedom"? Plus, you're really going against the Kiwifarms Autistic Thunderdome antipathy towards any concern that a law crated for the sole purpose of attacking some despised other could ever be used against "our team", as well as the consensus that anybody not a Calvinist lighter than a brown paper is "sub-human".

This is one of the most deranged threads I've ever read. Nothing OP is saying makes any sense to me and I'm impressed by that.

I'm just trying to make sense why niggers get to "reinterpret the Bible in light of historical context and new information" but not faggots, because to me, it makes none.

 

[TheNazgulKing]

Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Bible is necessary but not sufficient. Apostolic traditions read and study the Bible, but they think that using the Bible as your only guide to life and salvation can take you down some pretty stupid paths like "I couldn't stop watching porn, so I castrated myself. If thine eye offend thee... " or "we're living in the End Times, so we need to help Israel build the Third Temple."

We think that the Bible should be understood in light of traditional and modern interpretations from scholars. Many of those scholars disagree with each other on important points, but you can use that tension to reach a synthesis and better hone your understanding of challenging Biblical verses. There's a lot of room for inspiration and interpretation within that framework, but it keeps individuals from drawing spectacularly wrong conclusions

 

[BestUserName]

Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Bible is necessary but not sufficient. Apostolic traditions read and study the Bible, but they think that using the Bible as your only guide to life and salvation can take you down some pretty stupid paths like "I couldn't stop watching porn, so I castrated myself. If thine eye offend thee... " or "we're living in the End Times, so we need to help Israel build the Third Temple."

We think that the Bible should be understood in light of traditional and modern interpretations from scholars. Many of those scholars disagree with each other on important points, but you can use that tension to reach a synthesis and better hone your understanding of challenging Biblical verses. There's a lot of room for inspiration and interpretation within that framework, but it keeps individuals from drawing spectacularly wrong conclusions

I still don't know why this should apply to niggers but not faggots. What do they do to get all this leeway besides being hyper credulous?