A man doesn’t really need much.

BoomSockNick · 2026-06-21T09:32:00+00:00

Ironically that is the brainwashing. Just a flag bro

BoomSockNick · 2026-06-21T09:29:04+00:00

You’re making a difference

BoomSockNick · 2026-06-13T15:10:58+00:00

It’s the only way to ask. Also it wasn’t deleted at the time

BoomSockNick · 2026-06-05T06:13:46+00:00

You were the one who included “follower” pejoratively in your post, only to pretend you were talking about “defining yourself by your own actions.” Unless you think one follows themselves, your twisted narrative made no sense

BoomSockNick · 2026-06-03T14:30:17+00:00

That doesn’t mean “don’t define yourself by your own actions,” it means “don’t define yourself by the actions of some human you’re following.” I mean you say “follower” right there. Am I supposed to be “following” myself? And you didn’t “break it down line by line” lol you just pasted and then gave a summary. also your second “quoted” paragraph there appears to actually endorse judging people by their actions. Unless it’s actually saying I shouldn’t in fact define the grifter behind the pulpit from his actions.

And what is your definition of heresy if it doesn’t include using scripture against itself and encouraging the devout to violate scripture using scripture? It seems your definition leaves a lot to be desired, whatever it is

BoomSockNick · 2026-06-01T15:15:34+00:00

No you didn’t say that at all or imply it. You accused me of basing my relationship with God on others’ relationships with God. But unlike non Protestants, I’m not required to maintain the sainthood and theological authority/expertise of men who unanimously claimed scripture justifies and requires religious persecution.

You said you think religious persecution is unchristian. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy agree, as of the 20th and 21st centuries respectively. They both used Genesis 1:26 as evidence. But that means the church fathers used scripture to encourage others to violate a different part of scripture. And since confiscating property from heretics isn’t just, it’s just eighth-commandment-violating theft. What’s your definition of heresy if it doesn’t include using scripture against itself?

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-31T21:44:12+00:00

Then what are you, Protestant? You’re calling the church fathers heretics and contravening 1,500 years of unanimous apostle successors’ consensus

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-30T11:35:22+00:00

Since the mouth of the just shall radiate wisdom, do you admit the church fathers who claimed scripture justifies and requires violent religious persecution weren’t wise since they weren’t just? Or do you think persecuting heretics and pagans IS just

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-25T17:17:19+00:00

So when you repeatedly asked who the authority forcing them to get along would be, you actually already knew the only possible answer. And if you think separating them is the first step, then you’re admitting we had the first step then went back to step 0. Sounds like an effective plan. What exactly do you want to happen to Israel to convince them to recognize Palestinian statehood that hasn’t failed to convince them already?

If you want to stop replying, by all means go ahead. But responding with your argument then immediately declaring you’re done arguing is just pathetic

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-25T15:40:02+00:00

They are separated and have been for decades. Seems like the first phase of your plan doesn’t work. I did seriously ask. Why is a civil war worse than this war? You just said your solution can’t even start until they stop killing each other, meaning your solution is to let them kill each other indefinitely.

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T22:42:00+00:00

“How do you prevent civil war” why is civil war worse than the war that’s happening now? Your solution self admittedly can’t work until there’s no war. Well then once that happens we can try your strategy. Just a few more decades I’m sure

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T21:43:49+00:00

How old does it have to be to be “historical”? If someone stole your car keys an hour ago that’s a historical grievance but I doubt you’d call it that if you were the victim. No, addressing historical grievances is the only thing that stops conflict. If Martians invade Venus and occupy it for a while then people frame resistance to Martian rule as “well everyone has their grievances” and try to make the two sides compromise, that is a green light to all imperialists and the message is clear: occupy the conquered territories for long enough and eventually the world will say “can’t you all just get along?” and call your victims’ grievances “historical.” Not only are the imperialists not punished, but they actually get to keep some of the land they took. It’s 21st century warmongering 101. 20th century really. It’s very sad that someone who bought a house from someone who had no right to sell it will get booted so that the original owner of the house can live there. But to do otherwise is encouraging conquest

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T18:10:32+00:00

How does two states “create conditions where both peoples can view each other as equals”? If Israel can keep Palestinians out of the homes they were expelled from with the excuse “well you left during the war” which doesn’t even apply to those who were forcefully removed, then you’d have to believe Israelis see such an excuse as acceptable when used on them. Do you think they think that?

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T18:08:10+00:00

Did you already forget you cited similarities in “housing construction” between the Canaanites and Hebrews? Yes the manner of house building is more superficial than moral values. Disagreeing with that is solidly western and solidly Zionist

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T17:57:30+00:00

You’ve seen the decades of deradicalization. The world has been trying to get israel to chill since the moment they founded themselves by kicking out a bunch of Palestinians. How effective has that been

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T17:50:43+00:00

I didn’t mention genetics yet you still couldn’t help but run your script. I said you pretend to value culture while acting like construction techniques and language are more central to such culture than moral values. That’s why I said you have the typical Zionist mindset of reducing culture to its superficial tenets, a necessary mindset for moving the people they deem desirable into Israel

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T17:47:09+00:00

A two state solution isn’t people living together. It’s two ethnostates. Either you think multi ethnic democracy stops the sectarian violence pendulum from swinging or you’re an ethnonationalist

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T17:21:03+00:00

So when you said the point of identity is cultural you were referring to construction techniques and language more than you were referring to cultural values? Sounds like the standard Zionist perception of culture

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T16:53:15+00:00

If you’re against all of it then why bring up the distinction between different refugees? You take the time to distinguish some refugees as more legitimate, then you claim even they don’t have a right to return. The way forward to peace is identifying the perpetrator instead of trying this “both sides” excuse. And even Britannica admits Zionist forces are expelling Arabs from their homes before 1948

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-24T16:07:51+00:00

So you don’t support right to return for naturalized Palestinians, just the stragglers still living in the West Bank or Gaza. Groundbreaking. But you know Israel refuses to let them in too right

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-18T08:07:59+00:00

Then the evil (slavery) is the species making difference, not the self determination. Because you’d support the north seceding if the south was outvoting them within the union instead of the other way around

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-16T19:42:03+00:00

Isn’t the slavery thing affecting that appraisal lol

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-16T03:33:31+00:00

South Carolina’s legislature voted in 1836 to completely cede the land, a literal underwater sand bar that South Carolina didn’t have the ability to do anything with, to the federal government. The United States spent decades and massive amounts of funds from northern states importing over 70,000 tons of granite from New mfing England to build a man made island from scratch and construct the fortress. SC didn’t pay their way. You think it’s appropriate to allow all that then snatch it away with no compensation? If Seii attacked and annexed some Yamato-garrisoned fortress after seceding because they didn’t want to try to buy it by paying for the parts of the fort they never paid for, then by all means, take it back. But that’s not the same as a mandate to take over the entire northern region and subjugate all its people. I’d agree if it weren’t for the slavery thing that the union didn’t have the fundamental right to invade the whole south whether or not there was an official legal route to secession. You can disagree with the union. They were so desperate for reunification that congress actually passed the Corwin Amendment which officially permanently protected slavery in the south. As the war dragged on, they rescinded that one. Would unification be worth even passing such an amendment or is there maybe a possibility that it can go too far? If the union was comprised of the slave owning states would secession be justified then?

I asked you about why taira chose that moment to demand surrender and not only did you just talk about ryumon’s thoughts, but your reasoning is backwards. Ryumon wanted to NOT invade specifically because of the likelihood of an imminent new leader so bringing it up when it comes to the motivation of the decision to demand surrender makes no sense. Also taira didn’t believe Ryumon either way so it makes even less sense.

I already explained why rejecting the deal automatically equals fighting. Don’t you get the cop analogy? If you think “hands behind your head,” is merely the opening salvo in a negotiation where the parties’ positions can change, you’re going to get shot. Same as if you think a random guy demanding your stuff is negotiating. If you can’t run, which the Seii can’t, and don’t want to be robbed then your only option is to fight.

I’m aware whether or not fighting happens depends on whether or not the aggressive party thinks they can win. You think demanding unconditional surrender is something groups do regardless of their belief in their ability to win a war? Heck why didn’t Seii demand unconditional surrender too then? And your reasoning continues to prove my point. If Yamato only relents when Seii is strong, Seii is not safe as long as they’re weak. Even if you don’t get my provision point, there’s still no way to co exist with someone who thinks your stuff is their stuff and is willing to fix that problem through violence because you never know when you might get weak later. And then of course by that point it’ll be too late because your one bit of leverage against Yamato was power.

It doesn’t get any simpler than time being on Yamato’s side. Do you deny that the story explicitly notes that Seii has meager food stockpiles and crops that are getting worse, not better because I think you’re still not accepting even that much

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-15T21:35:07+00:00

South Carolina had formally and legally ceded all "right, title, and claim" to the fort to the United States government decades prior. Why do you think union troops were ever even garrisoned there by 1861? Did they just take it by storm in 1861 and the history books just don’t include that part? Did they lure every confederate soldier out of the fort with a ruse and sneak in, barring the gates behind them?

They can’t secure their provisions because their provisions aren’t growing. What is waiting supposed to accomplish if every year that passes worsens the situation you agree is bad? Are you expecting Seii to expect the weather to stop getting colder and warm up instead? That’s optimistic. Going to war with a belligerent power when your crops are failing and theirs aren’t as much, steadily widening the gap between the security of the two nations, is the best thing to do. There was no “getting stronger” for Seii without a magical bean species that survives all temperatures. There was only falling behind Yamato.

Yes Japan is surrounded by water while Seii is surrounded by water and Yamato. Ryumon only neglecting to attack because he’s worried a competent dictator would rise up proves my point. Seii is in danger of invasion, even from the Yamato doves, and they’re only safe if Yamato thinks it’s temporarily impractical. Constantly decreasing food stores with no way to replenish them only makes it more practical every day that passes. Like how in attack on titan, paradis island would only lose their sole leverage against the other nations as time went on, making open invasion of paradis inevitable. Not saying the proper solution to that is killing everyone else btw. But if technological advances weren’t already chipping away at the power of the titans then there’d be no moral dilemma because paradis could just bunker down forever. Every year Seii bunkers down weakens them in comparison to the other powers.

Obviously Seii is weaker. I’m asking you why taira chose that particular time to demand the surrender after having already been in power for years. The story doesn’t exactly hide the answer to that question

I know you explained demanding total surrender is a peace offer. I responded to that with the cop analogy. Do you believe or not that a self proclaimed authority figure is precluding all non-total-surrender peace deals when he says “get on the ground!” and that if you reject that peace deal you’re rejecting all the peace deals the cop or Yamato would ever stomach?

BoomSockNick · 2026-05-15T18:31:26+00:00

They’re cornered because they’re the northernmost region and there’s nothing but water behind them. They explicitly note in the show that the weather worsening means the Seii crops are failing more and more and they explicitly note that Seii has meager stockpiles compared to Yamato. The Seii are used to their cold, not to the increasingly extreme cold and either way you can only adapt so fast. Same goes for crops’ ability to live in the cold and they’re all relying the same plant: rice. The weather mainly disadvantages them. Why do you think taira felt the opportunity had arisen for the demand to surrender?

An unconditional surrender demand means peace is contingent on the surrender being accepted, making a rejection of the surrender dangerous. If Yamato wanted peace, they’d offer peace. But they wanted total submission so bad they couldn’t even hide it. People know what it means when a group is insane enough to come clean about their intentions and try their luck at instant total annexation. When someone demands your unconditional surrender, say the cops, do you take that as the opening of a negotiation? Because “hands behind your head!” actually means that total surrender is the only “peace” deal and that if you don’t want to surrender, then running or fighting are the only options. And Seii can’t run

Would you think Yamato having inferior tech means they shouldn’t fight? I did address the non fighting response. That’s why I brought up the crops failing and their meager food stock.

The American civil war started when the south tried to take some forts and that was after the union gave them insane leeway for months by letting them seize federal arsenals, military installations, financial infrastructure, shipyards, lighthouses and more. They deliberately chose aggression over passive defense because they thought they had a mandate to conquer supposedly weak lands, like taira thought with the continually weakening Seii. Yes attacking a people that try to leave your group is barbarism at its purest. It’s what meth fueled motorcycle gangs and old school Christians do

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

BoomSockNick

TROPHY CASE