TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ha11ey Archive

View 0 posts and 14 comments by ha11ey on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

This was more specifically about the conquest of the new world okay yea, that makes sense to a degree. I would still disagree as many records indicate that the natives were prepared to help the europeans adjust. it does apply to Germany as well, since Hitler was only a leader of a party, and not the whole of German efforts in WWII isn't "it" the fight for base resources? I don't understand this sentence.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 12:52 AM
1

Why dont you learn about the genocide of the indigenous population? I did, and that's exactly it. Once all the parties involved are gone, history will be one of two things - the truth, or the people who did the bad shit were so ashamed that they tried to just hide it. The reality is that genocide is never okay, even in victory. Victors write the past, and the past dictates the present. Victors edit their children's education, but the actions of several generations ago do not dictate the present.…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 12:17 AM
1

I don't think the context you are talking about applies here. These people weren't fighting over water or base resources or anything like that. And I don't think you can apply it to Hitlers actions either.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/05/17 12:12 AM
1

It's funny you call me retarded when your the one that doesn't get it. After a long enough period of time, history gets written by normal people - not the victor. Anyone would look back on genocide and say what he was doing was wrong. There are several cases of this in China's history. Today your learned something. Write it in your diary, cause I'm not sure you can logic back to this in your own.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 03:12 PM
0

So the only reason Hitler's actions were wrong was because they lost the war? Lol that's retarded
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 04:40 AM
6

Well that isn't true lol
/r/PussyPassDenied06/05/17 04:37 AM
2

The thing is, the original context was about American soldiers who died, not the people the soldiers were killing. The first post was about how many of the soldiers had died. Then the top reply that got the "murder" convo started was I don't think I'd count a soldier killed by an adversary as murder. That kind of implies that the soldiers themselves are also murders. And maybe you are just diving off into the second sentence. But the context proved before is more heavily focused on how many Amer…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 07:54 PM
1

No, it wouldn't. O right, because every language has the same database of definitions and we just spell our words differently. It's not like the word could be different in different languages. That would be too complicated. lol Speaking about ships the word comes from Old Norse, opening a category of "slaying that is unjustified by Norse morals", as opposed to normal slaying. Not relevant. [jurisdiction] ..yes, it is. Jurisdiction in so far as who "should" be right does not matter. Jurisdiction …
/r/MensRights29/08/15 10:12 AM
1

Was the German court actually talking about the English use of the word "murder?" That would be extremely significant. in this context no speaker is actually referring to the paragraph defining murder in whatever jurisdiction, but the abstract concept of unjustified killing. Murder isn't defined by a jurisdiction and the abstract concept of unjustified killing does not tell us enough information to know if something is a murder. If you consider war per se unjustified, then that makes all killing…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 11:04 PM
3

Yes, who wins the superbowl is also random. I thought it was based on who won the game. If you played 10 superbowl games with the exact same teams would the same team win every time? I don't know. Could the number of wins by a certain team be predicted? No, because there are too many random factors involved. There are no random factors. Just too many factors for us to handle.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:45 PM
2

"Murder" and "legal killing" are the same thing. They are both homicide, but are legal opposites. It's randomly labeled one or the other depending on who wins. It's not random if it depends on who wins. You are talking non-sense. Is it random when we decide who gets the Super Bowl each year in America?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:29 PM
7

"Legal" has no meaning in war. It's all grey area. Of course it has meaning. It's basically what war is about.... the ability to control a region (which is typically done through the concept that we call "laws"). At no point in time does "legal" stuff need to be "ethical" stuff. Ethics don't come into this. The legal side is fairly black and white actually. Was it legal for US soldiers to shoot British soldiers in the Revolutionary War? No. So George Washington is an illegal murderer in Britian …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:06 PM
7

Murder is intent to take away a human life, right? No. Murder is unlawful homicide.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:32 PM
4

Well, I wouldn't call it murder because murder is, by definition, unlawful. If it is "approved," it is no longer murder. Calling it "approved murder" is kind of like calling it "legal illegal homicide."
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:32 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter