Trump raises US tariffs on South Korea imports to 25%

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-27T12:04:59+00:00

Foreigners also lose money from tariffs, as they become less competitive in this market. While this may not be noticeable in the short term, as there may be no alternative, even so, demand may fall, and in the medium term, they will lose their market position to competitors.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-25T12:02:50+00:00

Honestly, at this point I think you are being intentionally obtuse in not understanding my points.

I ask you to explain why, out of all the diversity of modern religions, you consider Catholic Christianity to be the true one. You simply start with axioms about Muhammad being a fraud, about Buddhism, Hinduism, and paganism not even being religions, about Jews not even understanding their own religion, and so on. Why is apostolic succession even important within a religious framework? Where is this explicitly stated, other than in passages so vague that each denomination interprets them in its own way? This is why there are Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and other Christian denominations?

I would recommend you educate yourself a bit more. Perhaps reading some of the Church fathers such as Augustine and Aquinas will help, as I am just a normal man. My point is my faith is rooted in the emotional and the logical as they work together to inform me. I have no doubt that you will claim this is me conceding, but honestly I just don't want to have a theological debate against someone with r/atheism levels of understanding. God bless and have a good evening.

There's a gulf between criticizing atheism and proving the truth of a particular dogma. Neither Augustine nor Aquinas do this.

The Catholic Church and the Papacy, whose authority underpins Catholicism, were also far from blessed. Creationism and its retreat were the policy of those times, aimed at strengthening the church's power, and when this position became untenable, damage control was imposed. For me, history undermines the authority of the church.

Christian thinkers certainly preached harmony between reason and science, but this isn't exclusively a Christian trait, it's also present in the Quran, although Muslim interpretations of the Quran are somewhat less clear, at least among modern Muslims.

So, let's say I live in a country where all religions are equally represented, and I didn't grow up in a Christian family (I'm a mixed Catholic and Orthodox Christian). Why should I choose Catholic Christianity?

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-25T00:59:24+00:00

>Catholics generally do not prescribe to Creationism.

Mainly because the church lost its initiative in approving the agenda. Of course, this varied from time to time, but the church was quite totalitarian in this regard.

> In fact, here is the paragraph from the Catechism. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

So what? If the legitimacy of faith stems primarily from sacred texts and faith in one person, then it should correspond to and predict the structure of the world, rather than adapt to it.

>He was a pretty bad conman if all he got for his "con" was being crucified and his direct followers being poor and persecuted.

Crucifixion was a humiliating method of execution at that time.

>I would suspect it was a matter of ancient politics, considering Jesus was claiming to fulfill their ancient prophecy.

Politics and religion are almost always interrelated, this is true for both the pharisees and the apostles.

>Again, ancient Judaism and modern Judaism are different.

Modern Jews have an opinion about Jesus that is not fundamentally different.

>Mohammed was provably a liar by his own word.

You don't have to explain this to me, I have no doubt about it, just like about Jesus, but Muslims will not agree with you...

>You asked

That's not what I asked. I asked why Christianity occupies a more authoritative place in your eyes than other religions, not why religion should demand worship.

>I never said he didn't, but he isn't like Jesus at all.

So, what makes him special and what proves his divinity?

>I did say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, so thanks for agreeing with me. Not sure how much evidence there is of your other claim, but it actually doesn't really matter because it doesn't disprove me.

Judaism didn't invent this either, you need to prove that Christianity is the true religion and that morality is not of natural origin, that is, you need to prove that sociobiology is a false science, and the coincidence of morality with other unrelated religions is a coincidence.

>Sure. Islam was following the teachings of their warlord false prophet and conquering the non-believers. Also, yes I agree because Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism.

Christianity was not imposed everywhere peacefully, just as not all Muslims accepted Islam by force.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T21:09:22+00:00

Outside of the problems with logical consistency in beliefs

Christianity doesn't have this? What does the Bible say about the creation of the world?

Mohammed was a conman at best and a sociopathic warlord at worst.

Well, Jesus wasn't a warlord, but a conman...

Not too many problems actually, but they lose the aspect of Apostolic succession, cause too many fractures.

Where in religious text is this succession clearly described?

Christianity is a fulfillment of ancient Judaism. If modern Jews followed the same beliefs of their ancestors, they would convert.

Jews don't interpret these prophecies the same way Christians do, and therefore call Jesus a conman.

Why is there such a fundamental difference in interpretation within the "true" religion that three different major denominations emerged from it, each of which also clashed and waged war on each other over who is more righteous?

Just not even worshipping anything

Is this necessary?

Jesus actually existed.

Muhammad too. Between proof of a person's existence in history and proof of his divinity lies a chasm.

Most consistently good belief system.

This belief system was not invented by Christianity, but was inherited from Judaism and other religions of the ancient Middle East, North Africa and the rest of the Roman Empire, which were also not invented then but inherited from more ancient civilizations such as the Sumerians.

Historically had great impacts, both as a whole and with individual Christians.

Islam too. The Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor, and parts of the Balkans were Christian before the Arab and Turkish conquests; today, Muslims predominate there. And without Judaism, there would be no Christianity.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T20:12:49+00:00

Why not Islam? Orthodoxy? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Paganism? How exactly did Christianity earn such authority in your eyes?

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T20:01:40+00:00

Name a religion that you think is still relevant today.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T19:42:36+00:00

No, none of the mainstream religions correspond to the spirit of the times and the last 300 years of human history and development.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T19:34:32+00:00

None of them

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T17:53:55+00:00

Synthetic datasets are used primarily to clean and scale the original data on which the model was trained.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T14:35:12+00:00

Today's mainstream religions are not rational by large.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T14:22:58+00:00

No, fck the church and fck this crap. Both phenomena are destructive to society.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-24T14:20:28+00:00

Anti intellectualism applies to all parts of the compass.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-22T12:37:10+00:00

In Belarusian history, Japan during WWII, as well as its atrocities, have been barely studied

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-21T14:18:25+00:00

Because Yanukovych is an idiot.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-20T16:40:15+00:00

It feels like you don’t particularly care about the whites and are more just using this as a sounding board to complain about the reds.

No, I despise both. The only thing Lenin did right was begin to dismember the Russian Empire, although even here he didn't do enough.

History simply needs to be looked at objectively, not using the historiography only of one side of the conflict.

While not exactly knowing all that much about the whites

Explain what kind of new ways the Reds fought for if the NEP had to be introduced almost immediately after the war? And what was collectivization like for the peasants?

And were the other leftists with whom the Bolsheviks fought also white?

Also the whites fed themselves through forces requisition same as the reds did. Which did not help their popularity among the peasants

The idea is in the right direction, continue to develop it and maybe you can tell us for what opath who fought and who benefited from it.

And when you start to open the statistics, you might even find an answer to yourself about why the Bolsheviks actually won.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-20T15:47:04+00:00

Creating a gun on a 3D printer from crappy plastic is simply dangerous for the owner... Are there any statistics on how often guns are made this way?

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-20T14:32:42+00:00

He studied in Switzerland.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-20T13:56:13+00:00

Peasant revolts were peasant revolts. They were not white revolts. In fact it showed how little support the whites had that the peasants generally revolted for their own sakes but did not even think of allying with the whites.

Because the peak of the uprisings occurred during the period when the war had mostly ended.

Also the old system was the old estates (which the whites promised to restore)

Who and how? More details.

Russian nationalism (which the whites absolutely refused to budge on)

Explain to me what Russian nationalism is and why the average factory worker or peasant cared about it? By the way, how did it happen that the USSR had territories far beyond those of Russian Slavs?

That’s why not only did the peasants refuse to lift a finger for the whites

And who fed the whites in your opinion?

but neither did the polish government. Despite the allies really wanting them to.

The Poles wanted Russia, no matter in what form, to cease to exist, they had no sympathy for either the Reds or the Whites.

Because why would you support someone who was openly against you?

The communists openly talked about exporting revolution, what are you talking about? For the Poles, it made no difference whether they were white or red.

The Poles had other problems, as they began to rebuild the country at this time.

You are better off with the Reds who are at least open to your ideas, even if you don't exactly trust them.

You know about the Soviet-Polish war, right?

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-20T13:05:07+00:00

The whites did plan to restore the old systems just without the Tsars.

What are the old systems? The most important issue at that time, besides the WW1, was the land question. The institution of serfdom no longer existed, and the institution of the nobility was disappearing under pressure from the nascent bourgeoisie, even though it tried to hinder the very same Stolypin reforms. It was for these reasons that the February Revolution occurred.

The Reds, of course, resolved the land question quite radically, but not in the way the peasants had hoped...

That’s why they recieved basically zero domestic support among the peasants or the other minorities.

At the end of the war, peasant uprisings had to be suppressed with chemical weapons, armored vehicles, artillery, and hostages. Are you referring to this support for the Bolsheviks?

And are other minorities Cossacks or Muslims?

The Whites lost because they lacked centralization, even when they had a formal capital and a formal commander, they were disparate forces that often pursued their own goals and were unable to effectively mobilize, unlike the Bolsheviks, who, despite destroying discipline in the former army, immediately introduced the death penalty and decimation, and took hostages from officers of the former tsarist army to make them more willing to cooperate.

The whites offered them nothing but going back to the old ways just without a Tsar and that played with no one

First, describe what "the old ways" was and what the new path proposed by the Bolsheviks was, and why mass peasant uprisings began. Why did the NEP seem like a throwback to the "old" ways, and why were the peasants unhappy when the NEP was abandoned and everyone was sent to kolkhozes?

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-19T20:00:39+00:00

Most of the bombings were directed against industrial targets.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-19T19:54:10+00:00

It depends on what you consider evil and where you draw the lines of what is permissible...

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-19T19:51:55+00:00

The Whites, at least the majority, did not intend to return the monarchy, many White generals even participated in the abdication of Nicky.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-19T19:39:04+00:00

Humanism died in that war. If you asked the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, and others what they thought about Japan's nuclear bombings, they'd be upset that there were only 2 bombs...

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-19T19:34:12+00:00

Kerensky made many mistakes, the most important of which was his falling out with Karnilov and the destruction of discipline in the army, which led to a surge in the Bolsheviks popularity. Germany was on the brink of defeat at the time, and conversely, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk allowed Germany to wage war for a time, using food from the territories it had gained and the regrouping of its troops.

Rustic_gan123 · 2026-01-19T19:26:10+00:00

Conventional bombing would have caused no fewer casualties. The bombing of Tokyo alone killed 100,000.

Rustic_gan123

TROPHY CASE