A GOP Congressman Just Made An Argument For White Supremacy On Live TV

a reply to: neo96

So what has America been doing in the Middle East for the past 15+ years? Baking cakes?

War is war, nukes have not stifled it one bit. There have been numerous wars ever since we dropped those nukes, so how exactly has it stifled it in any way? Just because we don't or can't use them according to the Geneva Code doesn't take away the fact that war has and still does happen.

a reply to: onequestion

And apparently only 'white' people live in the west.

a reply to: Christosterone

1) Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, Pete Conrad, Charles Duke, James Irwin, Edgar Mitchell, Harrison Schmitt, David Scott, Alan Shepard, John Young

2) Depends on your definition of "splitting" - it was either Ernest Rutherford, or a joint effort of John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton.

So, if you are not arguing on the inherent deficiency or superiority of people based on their race, what is your argument?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Extended period... as in the past 15+ years by the greatest military power in the world? We aren't fighting a civil war in the Middle East.

Nukes don't stifle war, the fact that you're trying to argue that shows you are ignoring what has been going on ever since WW2.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: VivreLibre

Only white people are Christians

Except millions of black peoples who are also western Christians

Western society and liberal democracy was built by, and has been employed by, every race.

a reply to: liveandlearn

I'm assuming your post is sarcastic

You can pretend that we do not operate on a cultural/ tribal level and that there are clear differences in not only looks but in how we think and act (none better than any other other) as a general rule

Obviously there are Asian Indians who are better engineers than even most Germans and obviously there are German musicians who can rap as good as Tupac or Nas and so on and so forth
But when you examine collectively their contributions and cultures one can easily draw the same conclusion s

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Extended period... as in the past 15+ years by the greatest military power in the world? We aren't fighting a civil war in the Middle East.

Nukes don't stifle war, the fact that you're trying to argue that shows you are ignoring what has been going on ever since WW2.

It's called deterrence theory if you wish to look into it. You have been ignoring it, or falling for it, one or the other.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So why has America been a part of pretty much every major conflict since WW2? Our nukes don't seem to deter very many people.

Like I said, nukes have not stifled war. Wars are still happening just as much as they ever have and America has been at war for 15+ years now. Where is the deterrence theory in that?

a reply to: liveandlearn

Music medicine,inventions and blood.
THAT'S ALL they needed to contribute to be Americans.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Stifled war doesn't mean stopped war. I only made the point to perhaps convince you that we are not on a trajectory to extinction. You can disagree, but I'm not sure why you would.

Interesting discussion. I agree that many cultures have contributed to the development of mankind, but two advancements are paramount when we speak of the world we live in today. Those would be the internal combustion engine and the harnessing of electricity. Despite every advancement in history, without those two we would still be stuck in the early 1800s, technologically speaking. Stating that technology builds upon itself exponentially is really only accurate up until a certain point.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Deterrence theory is the idea that possessing nukes keeps your enemies from nuking you. It's kind of a circular argument; If there were no nuclear weapons, there would be no need for nukes as deterrence. And as 3NL1GHT3N3D1 has pointed out, they've done pretty much nothing to stop conventional warfare - and have, in fact, exacerbated it. How many proxy battles of the cold war were to keep one of the powers from gaining access to a strategic place to put their nuclear weapons? In fact wasn't that the main point of the cold war and most of its attendant conflicts?Would we have invaded Iraq were it not for those dire warnings of aluminum tubes, yellow cake uranium, and mushroom clouds over the US? Would Russia's maneuvering today be going on without NATO nuclear weapons being moved closer and closer? Would there be a nato ig not for the nuclear saber-rattling of the Warsaw Pact?

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: Christosterone

1) Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, Pete Conrad, Charles Duke, James Irwin, Edgar Mitchell, Harrison Schmitt, David Scott, Alan Shepard, John Young

2) Depends on your definition of "splitting" - it was either Ernest Rutherford, or a joint effort of John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton.

So, if you are not arguing on the inherent deficiency or superiority of people based on their race, what is your argument?

I understand that you, as a modern progressive, harbor an obsession with race and labeling people racist....or sexist...
I won't get in there why that's funny, but it is.…

I am making no argument...
I was stating the FACT that Western civilization, in the form of its apex creation, America, saw unprecedented scientific achievement heretonow unrealized in the hundreds of thousands of years we existed in different homo incarnations...

-Christosterone

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Ahh I theorized computer, combustion engine and the space race

But electricity is up there with the combustion engine

Computer and space travel are next

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But it hasn't stifled war, that's my point.

Timeline of United States military operations

Look at the number of conflicts the U.S. has been involved in ever since WW2.War has hardly been stifled.

Nukes have the ability to cause an extinction. Whether that will happen is up for debate, but the fact that they exist means the trajectory is there regardless.

a reply to: onequestion

They were made possible only because of the internal combustion engine and the harnessing of electricity

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: liveandlearn

I'm assuming your post is sarcastic

You can pretend that we do not operate on a cultural/ tribal level and that there are clear differences in not only looks but in how we think and act (none better than any other other) as a general rule

Obviously there are Asian Indians who are better engineers than even most Germans and obviously there are German musicians who can rap as good as Tupac or Nas and so on and so forth
But when you examine collectively their contributions and cultures one can easily draw the same conclusion s

I don't even know where you are coming from here. That comment was a confirmation of what you said...unless I read it wrong.

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Deterrence theory is the idea that possessing nukes keeps your enemies from nuking you. It's kind of a circular argument; If there were no nuclear weapons, there would be no need for nukes as deterrence. And as 3NL1GHT3N3D1 has pointed out, they've done pretty much nothing to stop conventional warfare - and have, in fact, exacerbated it. How many proxy battles of the cold war were to keep one of the powers from gaining access to a strategic place to put their nuclear weapons? In fact wasn't that the main point of the cold war and most of its attendant conflicts?Would we have invaded Iraq were it not for those dire warnings of aluminum tubes, yellow cake uranium, and mushroom clouds over the US? Would Russia's maneuvering today be going on without NATO nuclear weapons being moved closer and closer? Would there be a nato ig not for the nuclear saber-rattling of the Warsaw Pact?

Yes that is sort of the idea. But the point is, if there were no nukes, we would still be engaging in large scale warfare the likes of world war 1 and 2. Since the proliferation of nukes, there hasn't been such large-scale battles between nuclear countries.

a reply to: Christosterone

I'm not labeling anything, friend. I'm asking you about your outlook and positions. Your initial argument (and yes, you're making an argument) did indeed seem to imply that there was some intrinsic, indelible difference holding back Papuans and Liberians among others, from achieving what "Western Civilization" has.

As I noted earlier in this thread, technology is exponential. When it is accumulated in one place, it will grow faster than when it is dispersed. Empires are well-suited to this sort of accumulation. Thus powerful states will always be seats of technological progress (Which will contribute further to their power, obviously.)

And there's another question - is technology the sole criteria for which advancement of a society is to be judged?

originally posted by: onequestion

Please list a time period during human civilization where we have seen such a rapid advancement in technology as we have world wide in the last 100 years?

Yes, the Neolithic was arguably the most important leap in human history. There are other events that can compete, too, but like everything else it's debatable. In fact I doubt we can isolate it to one period in particular.

originally posted by: aethertek
Now back to your vaulted Western Culture, most of Europe was a disease ridden cesspool during the dark & middle ages under the supremacy of your glorious christianity, while the middle east & west Mediterranean where heights of civilization so spare us the AB blather.

K~

Europe wasn't like that during the Middle Ages. Monastic scholars made scientific advances that we'll always be indebted to. Science owes untold sums to Medieval monks and monasteries, among others. Likewise, the "Dark Ages" is a misnomer and a myth and no serious academic uses the term today. Seems you're a bit behind.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: onequestion

Oh yeah?

Please list a time period during human civilization where we have seen such a rapid advancement in technology as we have world wide in the last 100 years?

I'll be waiting.

The base fundamentals are what enabled us to progress and learn further through these things we call science, mathematics, and language. Each one of those are inherent behind each and every technological advancement the human race has made over these past 100+ years.

And it's that very reason why what this guy said makes him the least sharpest knife in the drawer.

Specify what you mean, what fundamentals you're talking about, otherwise this is meaningless.