Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3188. page

I don't either, I just make confident statements and stand back to let someone else argue my point for me, while the person I initially responded to generally thinks they're arguing with me.

It's how I learn more or less.

>>1445456
not a bad idea

>>1445436
Marxism: set of marx economic (ltov, declining trend of profit, etc.), historical (materialism), philosophical (dialectics) and sociological (class struggle) ideas
Capitalism: social system in which the means of production are owned by private individuals for production of commodities, then exchanged in a market
Socialism: worker ownership of the means of production, usually referred to as a step towards communism
That is my probably deficient summarized understanding at least.

Pretty much was hurr durr lets fight for tiny little islands

How else do you wage a war across the greatest expanse of water on the entire planet?

>what is the point in attacking your enemy
>what is the point in establishing a defensive perimeter
>what is the point in trying to destroy american supply lines
>what is the point in trying to prevent USN from reaching mainland japan
>what is the point in putting the world's 3rd largest navy into use
>what is the point of securing strategic assets such as port moresby which prevent the americans from reaching australia
If there was really no point into any of it, don't you think that the actual war fighting countries give so much importance to it?

like fairy tales and dream, nope

>>1441717
Spoken like a true redditor.

I tend to think the JFK assassination was a successful conspiracy, in the sense that there are people responsible for it whose names we will never be able to unequivocally link to it.

"The war is not over, millions are being killed. Europe is mad, the world is mad."

"Quid est"
-Ioannes the Lesser

>>1438178
Hey Dan

>>1435355
why arabs are not semmits?

>>1435434
genetically different

>>1435449
what about bebers, and egyptians?

24

Clean of what? I sure hope you don't mean war crimes.

>>1434456
Certainly cleaner than the RAF or the Red Army.

Because hes a gotdamn dirty gommie fug :DDD

Because communism hinders capitalism when it exists by decreasing the amount of pockets to exploit through trade. That's the core reason, anyway.

Heavy amount of propaganda in the US against communism. The average person's response to the concept is "it doesn't work", even though they don't understand what communism is exactly or how capitalism works.

I'm not a proponent of communism at all if I sound like one, I recognize capitalism as a good system for the people on top and that the point of the system is to fight to not be on the bottom. I'm just saying that people in the US are educated to believe that communism can't work and that it's evil, even though there are better arguments against capitalism having inherent flaws and questionable ethics.

>>1433936
because he is your god and sacred you socio fascist scum

>>1431639
>Also post your favourite precedent setting cases
Canada here, I'll start:
This was a Supreme Court ruling, so it's not civil law, but basically R v Feeney determined that police cannot enter a home without a search warrant, or without "hot pursuit". It's a pretty dumb case but basically a guy beat an elderly man to death with a crowbar, then robbed him.
An anonymous tip led the cops to this guys trailer. They kicked in his door, saw he was covered in blood, and arrested him. His lawyer then argued it was unreasonable search and seizure and the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the cops were not in hot pursuit when they entered his trailer, so that evidence collected i.e. him being covered in blood in his trailer, was inadmisable because police didn't have a warrant and had no reasonable reason to believe he would have fled before they could have obtained a warrant.
The guy was found guilty anyway based on other circumstantial evidence

>>1431639
Even absent Napoleon's institution of the Civil Code, I don't think Anglo style common law systems would have caught on elsewhere. The common law is, in the Burkean sense, a very conservative system, in the sense that it reflects the decisions of many centuries' worth of judges and cases, and for most of that history (practically all of it at the time of Napoleon) it reflected the customs and traditions which were specific to England. Even Scots law has some notable differences from the common law.

Common law conceptions of inheritance, contract law, and property rights would only seem appropriate to someone of English heritage, so exporting them to a place with a radically different set of traditions, customs and even geography would not have worked. Even in the US, some adjustments had to be made to the traditional common law to account for some doctrines that did not seem to work as well there as in England.

From a certain point of view, you could say that Islamic jurisprudence is similar to the common law: jurists decide questions of law under Sharia, and those decisions bind the faithful. Obviously this is a superficial comparison, and not being an expert in Islamic law, I can't comment further.

As for cases, McCulloch v. Maryland is a very significant US case. In English law, I always liked R v Dudley and Stephens for the proposition that just because you are shipwrecked and fearing death doesn't mean you can kill and cannibalize your shipmate.

>>1431752
>doesn't mean you can kill and cannibalize your shipmate.
Cannibalizing shipmates who were already dead was common practice desu. But yeah, the murder was pretty brutal.
In Canada we have common law, except Quebec has the Quebec Civil Code, because when Britain won the 7 year war and France ceded New France to Britain, the British let the French settlers there keep their language (French), their religion (Catholicism) and their law (Napoleonic Code)
So that's why we're stuck with Quebec.
One big difference between Quebec and other provinces, is that Quebec has a lot of consumer protection statutes, whereas in the rest of Canada consumer protection is based on shady precedents and is often a grey area. Quebec has strict laws about advertising to Children, First Nations and the Elderly, basically vulnerable groups. A lot more trades are regulated as well, such as travel agents and real estate agents.

In Ontario, where I'm from, most codified civil law is about real estate ownership, such as the Land Titles act and Condominium act. There's also the automobile insurance act, but that's based on a precedent. The court made a ruling based on "no fault insurance" and gave the Provincial government 6 months to come up with legislation to solve it.

sorry if I rambled.

Because god said it is?

some old jewish religious book said not to

Why masturbate when you can fuck the tight, virgin pussy of Jephthah's daughter's corpse?

>>1441555

THE DEVELOPMENT OF POWDERBASED WEAPONRY.

>>1441576

Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>implying generals ever actually fought among shit kicking peasant soldiers at the front and didn't always sit in a comfy base camp issuing orders

>>1440972
circa-Alinsky era

>>1440972
Because more money

>>1440972
1 9 8 0 ' s

He believed the US and UK were controlled by Jews.

>>1439390
/thread

he didn't want to exterminate most people he attacked, he wanted to liberate them

Only the gospels matter

You don't need to

Throughout most of history the majority of Christians were literate peasants who listened to the village priest when in came to matters of faith.
Thus, most common people never read the Bible and those who did were scholars, priests and nobility.
This remained so even when literacy was becoming widespread 100-150 years ago.

Because it's easy to demonize The Other, but it requires introspection to examine your own faults.
Similarly to how it is easy to automatically cast your own efforts as "righteous and defensive" regardless of the consequences.

You can't do anything about others, but you can change your own policies.

>>1434709
>Because it's easy to demonize The Other, but it requires introspection to examine your own faults.
Actually, it's easiest to adhere to whatever the culture of your time dictates as the most likely scapegoat, which, today, is western civilization. There's no deep moral thought required to blame yourself and call yourself wretched and to prostrate yourself against the earth: Christians have been told to do this for millenia, and the most thoughtless of them do so with ease.

The only reason it seems thoughtful is because deep down, you know there's an instinct for self-preservation and self-respect you're gleefully subverting by doing so. It's just Freudian antics to get back at mommy Nature. There's no more depth here than the conundrum of God being three people and yet one person all at the same time.

>>1434698

Noam Chomsky has said the United States is the best country in the world. One should hold ones own culture to the highest standards and criticize that which you actually have the power to change.

File: 1437362844932.jpg (1MB, 1247x848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1247x848px

>>1443905
you've only reached the first stage of edginess, go deeper and beyond your high school library's array of existential trash.

What makes you say that free will is impossible?

>>1443915
How do I become a supreme edgelord?