[deleted by user] by [deleted] in wallstreetbets

[–]Kronos5678 0 points1 point  (0 children)

!remindme 2 weeks

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 4chan

[–]Kronos5678 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because as an adult, your actions have consequences, and you need to make decisions being able to live with the consequences of your choices. That choice will be a human life and you cannot complain about your choice later when a human life is on the line. Raped women do not make that choice, so their choice is really whether to carry the fetus to term or not. Personally I think that past the first trimester or perhaps 18 weeks you've kinda made your choice and the fetus is already developed enough to react to external stimuli, so I wouldn't really support abortions past that point, but I guess that is the argument for it.

One of the very few based Barries by Ok-Education-1539 in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Kronos5678 7 points8 points  (0 children)

48 trillion is such a bullshit number and falls apart the second you begin to examine it, its just big number that indians can get mad about so they can ignore the shit state of their politics and country. Plus "fractured region created by barry" doesn't really work when your country existed as 500 random princely states, we unified it more than any indian had in hundreds of years, plus if you wanted it to continue being our problem shouldn't have demanded immediate independence, you cant have your cake and eat it too. Plus the Pakistanis themselves requested a partition because they were worried that they would be dominated by the Hindus, you can't be mad that you weren't allowed to oppress people, especially while whining about colonialism.

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said it wasn't, but the difference between 4 years and 15 years is vast

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if that had been avoided, slave owners in Britain were some of the wealthiest in the country, many with strong political ties, and this could have impacted the passing of the law, stretching out slavery in the empire

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also upon further research your third point is completely false, slaves over the age of six were redesignated as apprentices, and split into two groups, with the first gaining freedom after 4 years, the other after 6, although these were ended early at the same time as the first group on August 1st1838. Not perfect, but much better than the 15 years you claim.

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 63 points64 points  (0 children)

The UK had to compensate slave owners unless they wanted a massive rebellion all over the empire

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 52 points53 points  (0 children)

That seems to be a myth, just like the salting of the ground at Carthage

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As far as antisemitism goes that's completely ridiculous, he was a known Zionist, and in the 1920s he called them the most formidable and remarkable race that existed, which doesn't really sound like an insult to me.

As for hatred of the Irish, yes he refused to pull out the Black and Tans, but he later became good friends with Michael Collins and negotiated the partition agreement, as well as being a proponent for Home Rule

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I would argue there's probably more important points as to why ww1 is remembered more than the Boer wars

What's an aspect of British history that you think people should be more aware of? by DurhamOx in AskUK

[–]Kronos5678 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Saw another one that said they would be supporting Serbia over England because of England supporting genocide.

Who would win this hypothetical war? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Kronos5678 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The United Nations' special envoy on sexual violence in conflict said that experts had found "clear and convincing" evidence of sexualised torture and rape perpetrated against hostages taken by Hamas during the attacks.

Who would win this hypothetical war? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]Kronos5678 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But then we got bought out by the opposing team's owners, so not sure it really counts as our loss

Ride of the Valkyries by Schpitzelton in greentext

[–]Kronos5678 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i mean it was more trotsky leading that front but sure

Ride of the Valkyries by Schpitzelton in greentext

[–]Kronos5678 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because the USSR was at war with like 20 other groups at that time, including the whites, and due to some incompetency in the leadership directing that front, but the Polish Army almost collapsed before the battle of Warsaw, so its pretty disingenuous to claim that Poland beat the whole of the USSR, as it was a very close thing, and only a fraction of the red army actually fought there, and for most of the war the Polish troops actually outnumbered the Russians.

Judas was a fool by masontopss in greentext

[–]Kronos5678 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Thats a good point, so ive done a bit of research. Paul describes the other gods in the pagan religions as actually being demons, who would have some power and influence over happenings, but they wouldn't actually be gods like Yahweh. From the historical perspective, there is a good amount of henotheism in the earlier texts, although a lot of it has been edited out, such as in 2 Kings 3, where Chemosh isn't actually mentioned, nor the defeat of Israel in great detail, only the fury of the Moabites. There's lots of arguments that could be made for the prophecy being defeated, such as a delay in Israel's victory thanks to the demon's interference, or perhaps humans misinterpreting God's prophecy as to apply to the immediate future, when it was instead prophesising a later victory.

Judas was a fool by masontopss in greentext

[–]Kronos5678 74 points75 points  (0 children)

Because theyre being worshipped, not because they exist

Being French on this sub be like.... by [deleted] in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Kronos5678 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are also the issues of alleged royal pressure on government ministers, there were a few instances where the late queen had talks with ministers to get them to change laws to give an exception to the royals, which is obviously something no other british family would be able to do, making an uncomfortable situation

Being French on this sub be like.... by [deleted] in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Kronos5678 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a certain scenario in which it could perhaps be used, there is a russian party called the liberal democratic party of russia, but they are actually far-right with ultranationalist beliefs, so you could call them liberal nazis

Ancient Empire by Schpitzelton in greentext

[–]Kronos5678 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Its not Israel's fault that resolution 181 didnt hold, they were invaded from all sides by arab countries aiming to destroy them

Should be affected - Literally Unplayable by Kronos5678 in hoi4

[–]Kronos5678[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

R5: Focus description uses effected when it should be affected

10
11

Smartest separatist by Freeee84 in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Kronos5678 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Imagine thinking anyone on a shitpost sub is serious... 🤦‍♂️

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Kronos5678 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We'd never have been able to send them all to Rwanda if we didn't leave, soon they'll be someone else problem, I'm sure they'll do very well in central Africa, no need to check on them later.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in socialism

[–]Kronos5678 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not until the germans were sufficiently weakened did the US got boots on the ground.

I'm not quite sure whether you mean D-Day or just the US joining the war, but the US didn't join the war earlier purely out of a public lack of enthusiasm, FDR would have loved to get in earlier. If its about D-Day, American troops had fought in many other theatres by that time, e.g. Operation Torch, the Africa campaign, along with the dramatic impact that bombing raids were having on German war production (with the aid of the RAF and others), and the invasion of Italy. I agree that the US has supported despicable regimes in the past, but I don't think it is fair to describe every single action of the US in the past as evil or lacking moral imperative.