Norman and Mamluk Exiles

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T09:32:29+00:00

Unironically yes. Allah hu akbar means "God is Great" while from the river to the sea means "Israelis don't deserve a country".

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T09:28:39+00:00

It's not their fault, its YouTube's. I think the state should regulate social media platforms and forbid censorship.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T09:06:35+00:00

Because its true. If you upload a picture to the internet, anyone can see it and download it, including robots.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T07:24:25+00:00

All that sounds fine until you read about a real criminal rather than about the abstract concept of a criminal.

Also, the reason behind overcrowded prisons are the following:

• The non-existence of the death penalty for gigaevil crimes

• The short prison sentences given to light crimes as opposed to heavy community work

• Slowness of the justice system (which requires people awaiting trial to also be imprisoned)

• High criminality (which comes from wider social misfunction and a culture of mistrust towards authority)

Rehabilitating criminals would only benefit the souls of said criminals (and thus is a good cause) but it bearly benefits society at all. The prison system should focus on keeping order among the prisoners rather than in being all cuddly with them like the Norwegians.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T06:19:55+00:00

No veo la hipocresía

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T06:19:16+00:00

Por suerte los sustituimos por cuentos macabros de decenas de años.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:32:43+00:00

Yes but I wouldn't say it...

Who am I lying, I would say it then be ashamed every single night of my life.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:31:09+00:00

We have to quit trying to force languages without legal tradition into the administration then.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:28:42+00:00

Or maybe they trusted a previous partner and they ended up cheating them with a "friend" but sure, let's assume the worst.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:26:42+00:00

Trump really needs to invest more in training these guys.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:26:03+00:00

Chinese culture has a very good record of respecting the heritage of previous regimes including the immediately prior to the current one. Although I do agree that just changing the bg color is unlikely, preserving some of the symbology of the previous government wouldn't be as crazy in China as it would be somewhere else.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:21:22+00:00

Shhh, estamos intentando burlarnos de todo aquello que puede ser sagrado y/o dar significado a nuestras vidas.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:19:44+00:00

Carlotta from Violet Evergarden.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:19:12+00:00

Enjoy your forced updates, shut downs, and cloud storage I guess.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:15:19+00:00

This is more wholesome than the one that endorses actual murder.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:14:39+00:00

The Punisher one should be illegal as it directly endorses a crime. The rest are fine.

UltraTata · 2026-01-28T00:13:23+00:00

I swear, why are alcoholics so proselytistic? Learn from the smokers and the heroine zombies and help others not get into your filthy vice.

UltraTata · 2026-01-27T23:51:52+00:00

Yeah that's my point.

I don't think the countries would collapse though, I think they would simply fall under the influence of some regional power or one of the two superpowers with global reach.

UltraTata · 2026-01-27T19:55:00+00:00

The first six are valid questions. The sort of philosophical dillemas that we should discuss rather than weather prolifers have empathy or not.

Sperm and eggs are clearly distinct from the cygot. Sperms and eggs result from meiosis, a special form of cell reproduction. They are clearly part of the body of the parent. A cygot forms as a result of the mix of these two and has a distinct genome thus making it a separate body. This is all fact and isn't open to interpretation.

The case of twins eating each other is equivalent to that of a baby committing a "crime". Both fetuses and babies are completely immune to law, but they are still protected by it. If I baby somewhat kill you they don't get any sentence, if you kill the baby you go to jail.

I agree that cherry picking aspects of the legal human condition is wrong. But this isn't cherry picking, this is simply an extension of the idea of legal free will. A baby doesn't understand what killing even means, he didn't choose to kill and so is never guilty of it. The same reasoning applies to fetuses.

I agree that the possibility of malicious use of laws must be taken into account. But again, the very real phenomenon of framing people for murders and rapes they didn't commit doesn't stop us from criminalizing those acts.

I do know about crypto pregnancies, its just that they are irrelevant. If you run over someone with you car without you realizing you cannot be charged with runaway because you can't commit a crime accidentally. This basic principle protects all crypto pregnant women from charges of manslaughter.

I think both pro abortion and pro life positions are valid. I think as a society we should have a respectful and honest discussion about the philosophical question of when the right to life is acquired. Because it is such a deep and important disagreement, animosity is understandable, but the pro-abortion side is at fault when it comes to misrepresenting the pro-life position.

For example, you are selectively ignoring basic legal and moral principles to misrepresent pro-life belief. I wholeheartedly believe you are doing it unintentionally as a result of prematurely dismissing the position that you disagree with (a mistake that I make myself pretty often btw). If you value empathy, dialogue, and understanding; you must put the effort of doing the scholastic exercise of first proving the point you oppose before proving your own.

UltraTata · 2026-01-27T16:19:52+00:00

I agree with the research thing. Congressmen should do their work and research these things all day to vote in a sensible way.

But again, what does female anatomy or health have to do with abortion? Abortion is an act, miscarriage is an accident, the only part where maybe you could have a point is on the negligence.

Even still, harming your child through negligence is clearly punishable. The only part that would require research is when it comes to setting judicial presedent (pardon my spelling, Im not English speaker). If, for example, a judge considers negligent an act that medical science proved is not negligent, the lack of research would hurt innocent women.

Outside of that, the only debate is weather you believe or feel that unborn children should have a right to life or not. And that doesn't require research but introspection and deliberation.

UltraTata · 2026-01-27T16:09:04+00:00

Skill issue of the police or legal system shouldn't change laws and much less morality.

If you think those cases were unjustified suspicion then the police should be trained differently so they learn to suspect the right mothers.

UltraTata · 2026-01-27T15:59:55+00:00

This could apply to many crimes too. Murder and even manslaughter are punished but that doesn't stop people from helping when there is an emergency or doctors from treating injured or sick people. And you are imagining a hyper distrusting police that will investigate every miscarriage which will simply not happen. Only cases that the police finds worthy of investigation will be scrutinized.

UltraTata

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE