Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[lil devils x]

We don't really know how many people the Aztecs really sacrificed. Even modern historians disagree with each other about that a lot. But the majority of estimates are hundreads, thousands or even tens of thousands per year. Modern estimates, not just stuff the Spanish wrote about hundreads of years ago. That is also not just "executing criminals".

And yes, a lot of other cultures had human sacrifice as well. But i don't know any other region where it ever happened to that extend.

When they were pretty much in a war with every tribe in their region, the bodies should have been piling up. those were pretty heavily populated regions prior to the Spanish arriving. Actually, if you don't know any other that it happened to that extent, you need to revisit European history. The Aztecs had nothing on what happened there. People acting like all the dead there were sacrifices is part of the problem. They weren't.

 

[lil devils x]

Honestly, I've seen your posts in the last 3 pages and they constantly come back to how bad Europe was compared to America. I know Stropwaffle's comment kicked it off, but that's hardly what this discussion is about anymore, just as this thread is not about social security cuts anymore.

That IS the discussion, That and what Iron Contributed with the whole" Old world" comments. Of course Europe was more violent than the Americas, most of the tribes here didn't fight at all. When they did it was a pretty big deal, not this constant long, drawn out invasion like the vikings raiding Europe, the massacres of rome, the absurd back and forth between the British, french, spanish ect.. From an outside perspective, it looks like all Europe did was constantly try to kill one another and that isn't even getting into the whole people in their own Royal families trying to kill one another as well. It just looks like madness. Many of the tribes here lived peacefully for the most part. Minor squabble here and there, but nothing like that madness.

Stropwaffle's comment about it being human nature rather than social conditioning that causes the "violence against different" is based upon the social conditioning of the European nations who actually did this repeatedly rather than based on reviewing all cultures of the world.

Even the Aztecs were not violent due to " human nature", it was due to circumstances, and they didn't attack because something was different, they did so for personal gain.

 

[Agema]

When they were pretty much in a war with every tribe in their region, the bodies should have been piling up. those were pretty heavily populated regions prior to the Spanish arriving. Actually, if you don't know any other that it happened to that extent, you need to revisit European history. The Aztecs had nothing on what happened there. People acting like all the dead there were sacrifices is part of the problem. They weren't.

The Aztecs, it is believed, sacrificed several thousand people inaugurating the last iteration of the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan. It was reputed to be surrounded with a massive wall of skulls, which archaelogists have found evidence for. And there were at least thousands, if not tens of thousands of skulls in it.

The Aztecs had a very large army - hundreds of thousands of troops - which was well organised and warriors feature prominently in architectural evidence; they are well known to have violent subjugated a load of the neighbouring peoples. In fact, these other peoples formed the bulk of the army that defeated the Aztecs. That sort of thing is highly suggestive that they were at least as brutal as the Europeans ever were. Although the Aztecs were probably unusually violent by Mesoamerican standards.

 

[lil devils x]

The Aztecs, it is believed, sacrificed several thousand people inaugurating the last iteration of the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan. It was reputed to be surrounded with a massive wall of skulls, which archaelogists have found evidence for. And there were at least thousands, if not tens of thousands of skulls in it.

The Aztecs had a very large army - hundreds of thousands of troops - which was well organised and warriors feature prominently in architectural evidence; they are well known to have violent subjugated a load of the neighbouring peoples. In fact, these other peoples formed the bulk of the army that defeated the Aztecs. That sort of thing is highly suggestive that they were at least as brutal as the Europeans ever were. Although the Aztecs were probably unusually violent by Mesoamerican standards.

SO you are discussing the last ruler of the Aztecs specifically then? During that time, trade had ceased with North America. Of course all of this was unusual for all of the Americas not just Mesoamerica. From the way we were told, it was "like a world war" going on down there. It was the biggest thing that even happened in the history of the Americas outside of the European invasion. It was far from the norm.. anything but really. The skulls do not necessarily mean they were all sacrificed, I don't even think they had time to sacrifice that many with actual rituals..many died in that war from what we were told.

 

[Iron]

That IS the discussion, That and what Iron Contributed with the whole" Old world" comments. Of course Europe was more violent than the Americas, most of the tribes here didn't fight at all. When they did it was a pretty big deal, not this constant long, drawn out invasion like the vikings raiding Europe, the massacres of rome, the absurd back and forth between the British, french, spanish ect.. From an outside perspective, it looks like all Europe did was constantly try to kill one another and that isn't even getting into the whole people in their own Royal families trying to kill one another as well. It just looks like madness. Many of the tribes here lived peacefully for the most part. Minor squabble here and there, but nothing like that madness.

Stropwaffle's comment about it being human nature rather than social conditioning that causes the "violence against different" is based upon the social conditioning of the European nations who actually did this repeatedly rather than based on reviewing all cultures of the world.

Even the Aztecs were not violent due to " human nature", it was due to circumstances, and they didn't attack because something was different, they did so for personal gain.

What did you understand from my "Old World" comments that made you dislike it so?

 

[lil devils x]

What did you understand from my "Old World" comments that made you dislike it so?

You made it out like they somehow stopped doing this when they just changed the name and still murdered people just the same. They didn't call it sacrifice either. Aztec couldn't call it sacrifice when they didn't have a word for it. Not much different as far as I can tell.

 

[Iron]

You made it out like they somehow stopped doing this when they just changed the name and still murdered people just the same.

They did stop human sacrifice due to Christianity and Islam. They didn't change the name. It stopped.
A death penalty isn't human sacrifice for a deity. Communists killed plenty of people for their ideology, yet they had no gods.

 

[Satinavian]

SO you are discussing the last ruler of the Aztecs specifically then? Of course all of this was unusual for all of the Americas not just Mesoamerica. From the way we were told, it was "like a world war" going on down there. It was the biggest thing that even happened in the history of the Americas outside of the European invasion. It was far from the norm.. anything but really.

This is all about the Aztecs. Not about the people of Mesoamerica (which were on average much more peaceful and using human sacrifices far more sparingly). And it is even far less about all native Americans.

But it is not specifically about only their last ruler either.


But leaving your unwarranted glorification of native Americans above all other tribal cultures aside for a moment, where you are really wrong is your understanding of European history.

 

[lil devils x]

This is all about the Aztecs. Not about the people of Mesoamerica (which were on average much more peaceful and using human sacrifices far more sparingly). And it is even far less about all native Americans.

But it is not specifically about only their last ruler either.


But leaving your unwarranted glorification of native Americans above all other tribal cultures aside for a moment, where you are really wrong is your understanding of European history.

First of all, I am in no way saying Native Americans are above all tribal cultures. No where did I state or suggest that. I suggested that due to many native american tribes living in peace for thousands of years is evidence that it is not " human nature" to fight against anyone perceived as different. because also among these peaceful tribes, is the shared sentiment that differences are encouraged and celebrated.

Second, Are you trying to say that isn't what happened in Europe? Oh there is plenty going on in the middle of all that, but I was just trying to put the constant fighting going on there in as few words as possible. According to what Stropwaffle stated about European History, human nature was the reason why Europeans couldn't stop fighting what they perceived as different and that it is unnatural for people to not do so rather than the violence being a result of social conditioning. That is what this entire conversation was about here.

No this isn't " all about the Aztecs", THIS is the conversation it is about that this applies to. Stropwaffle started this discussion with his comment and everything stated thus far is from that context. That was what was being addressed here this entire time. People chiming in here and there to attempt to change it from that with their bits and pieces doesn't change the context in which it was intended.

 

[Buyetyen]

What does religion have to do with race? I simply put your admiration for islam in perspective. That you subsequently tried to assassinate my character with your perpetual 'racist' card just shows how morally bankrupt you are.

No, you put up a straw man as a way to attack me personally instead of engaging with my argument that the Medieval period was more than just Europe recovering from the fall of Rome. It is an objective fact that during that time period there were multiple civilizations who were doing extremely well for themselves. To say it doesn't count because those regions are no longer in the ascendant is just moving the goalposts. That you try to classify listing the facts of the Medieval period as my "admiration for Islam" only makes you look more xenophobic.

Bringing up the harshness of the law under the caliphates is a particularly dishonest deflection on your part because during the same time period in Europe the laws were frankly no better and sometimes worse. Christianity has perpetuated just as many atrocities in the name of God as Islam has in the name of the exact same god. If not more, just by virtue of having been around longer. The Spanish Inquisition alone puts the lie to your claims of Christian moral superiority to say nothing of the atrocities Europeans committed in the course of the Crusades up to and including mass slaughter of civilians and cannibalism. But you know that's beside the point. That was nothing more than a deflection.

Do you really expect me to reply to each and every one of your incoherent ramblings? I replied to the gist of it.

No, you just dishonestly cut out everything you couldn't snark at and personally attack me over. You have a shallow, ignorant reading of history that looks only at the West. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of the history of the rest of the world.

Once again, listen to Agema. He's got you figured out.

Immigration during the imperialist era is no longer relevant since all those people are long dead.

How convenient.

Infact you can argue this permissve attitude is what led to the segregation and failed integration of many of the ascendants of those original immigrants.

White supremacists and nativists often do argue that, yes. They're still fucking wrong.

It is no surprise either that immigrants that can adapt to the mores of the host country, like Asians and Indians, have no problem integrating into the houst country. It are only those with diametrically opposed values, indeed like muslims that have problems.

All this tells me is that you've never a met a Muslim immigrant. Also, you do know that Islam has a strong presence in Asia and the Indian subcontinent right? It's one of the major religions there. I live in Pittsburgh, bro. We get a lot of South Asian immigrants, which means a mix of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. I actually preferred interacting with them at my day jobs because they were far more polite and curious to learn in general.

Eastern Europe is familair with living under occupation and having their culture and homogeny violated so you bet they absolutely dread what is happening in Europe and the destabilizing effect mass immigration has on those societies.

You're making it very difficult for yourself to claim you aren't a nativist or a racist.

Don't the prisons and benefit system serve more than enough immigrants already?

And this makes it damn near impossible.

 

[stroopwafel]

No, if you actually read what started this conversation, it was the guy claiming it was in your human nature to want to kill everyone that was different and that European history proved it to be true. That we are fighting against Human nature to live together in peace.

Ehmm I never said that. I said human nature favors tribalism. You yourself do as well with your dismissal of European culture and glorification of your own.

 

[lil devils x]

Ehmm I never said that. I said human nature favors tribalism. You yourself do as well with your dismissal of European culture and glorification of your own.

Oh please, I haven;t even been discussing MY culture for a long while now. We have been stuck on whether or not the Aztecs were more Or less sadistic than the Europeans for a while now. The idea that you think the Aztecs are " my own" is part of the problem. You still think all "Native Americans are the same with minor differences" when that is like saying the Swedish people and the Himba are the same with minor differences.. You said and I quote:

Fact is people only have solidarity with their tribe and most importantly their next of kin. That is how humans have evolved.

The fact modern society dictates people to have solidarity with people they don't even know often at the expense of their own benefit makes this a purely theoretical exercise with strict limitations.

the population is simply too heterogenous so you will never find the solidarity needed for income redistribution. There needs to be a sentiment of mutual reciprocation. In Europe for example immigration and islam undermines this collective solidarity something that never even existed in the U.S. in the first place because it's a country build on immigration.

What we have seen since the industrial revolution is drastic technological changes that have fundamentally changed the way society functions but have not altered human nature because that is set in stone as it's the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. The stability of any society depends on the degree to which one is able to invest in their children and the rate of reproductive success that makes these investments worthwhile. That is why governments fear masses of young men with nothing to lose and why society wants to control female sexuality.

But it are exactly these constructs that academics theorize about without ever really addressing the deeper sentiments of human nature that simply rejects 'difference'. People reject it, nations reject it, the world rejects. It's 'us' vs 'them' regardless of who is us or them is. That's how it was, that's how it will always be.

Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023

Family is favoritism. Family creates inequality. Gee, maybe the likes of you that push this model contribute to "communists" wanting to abolish what they perceive as traditional family, then?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Yea some grade A BS there. Trying to tell me that isn't what you said. A Tribe can be multicultural, A tribe can be made up of different races, religions, backgrounds and histories and STILL BE A TRIBE. You claiming this nonsense is just that. It is nonsense and not true at all. We got into the whole you got this idea from European History when you went to justify this garbage..

 

[stroopwafel]

No, you put up a straw man as a way to attack me personally instead of engaging with my argument that the Medieval period was more than just Europe recovering from the fall of Rome. It is an objective fact that during that time period there were multiple civilizations who were doing extremely well for themselves. To say it doesn't count because those regions are no longer in the ascendant is just moving the goalposts. That you try to classify listing the facts of the Medieval period as my "admiration for Islam" only makes you look more xenophobic.

Again you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension. Europe and the Dark Ages was the example to prove how the Renaissance advanced European culture to the point Enlightenment made it the most prosperous and peaceful continent. You are the one stuck in the past in your desperate attempt to demonstrate how the Dark Ages weren't all that bad because the Inquisition wasn't more cruel than islam. That's a really high bar you set there one you also have to go centuries back in time for.

Nobody who isn't a muslim wants to move to an islamic country. Muslims want to come here because their own countries are undemocratic, oppressive hellholes. You have a nice day and continue to live in cuckoo land as you pretend those places weren't so bad 700 years ago.

Bringing up the harshness of the law under the caliphates is a particularly dishonest deflection on your part because during the same time period in Europe the laws were frankly no better and sometimes worse. Christianity has perpetuated just as many atrocities in the name of God as Islam has in the name of the exact same god. If not more, just by virtue of having been around longer. The Spanish Inquisition alone puts the lie to your claims of Christian moral superiority to say nothing of the atrocities Europeans committed in the course of the Crusades up to and including mass slaughter of civilians and cannibalism. But you know that's beside the point. That was nothing more than a deflection.

Christianity had it's dark episodes but these were left in the Dark Ages. For islamic countries it is still current practice. That is the difference you either fail or don't want to see.

No, you just dishonestly cut out everything you couldn't snark at and personally attack me over. You have a shallow, ignorant reading of history that looks only at the West. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance of the history of the rest of the world.

Once again, listen to Agema. He's got you figured out.



How convenient.



White supremacists and nativists often do argue that, yes. They're still fucking wrong.



All this tells me is that you've never a met a Muslim immigrant. Also, you do know that Islam has a strong presence in Asia and the Indian subcontinent right? It's one of the major religions there. I live in Pittsburgh, bro. We get a lot of South Asian immigrants, which means a mix of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. I actually preferred interacting with them at my day jobs because they were far more polite and curious to learn in general.



You're making it very difficult for yourself to claim you aren't a nativist or a racist.



And this makes it damn near impossible.

More half-assed attempts to discredit my points that only makes you look more stupid.

 

[Satinavian]

First of all, I am in no way saying Native Americans are above all tribal cultures. No where did I state or suggest that. I suggested that due to many native american tribes living in peace for thousands of years is evidence that it is not " human nature" to fight against anyone perceived as different. because also among these peaceful tribes, is the shared sentiment that differences are encouraged and celebrated.

It is not in human nature to fight against anyone different. It is a bit more difficult for xenophobia as it seems there are hormones that makes us distrust people we don't know. But even that does not naturally lead to fighting.

But "thousands of years in peace" ? First, i don't believe that one bit. Second, if it were true, then american tribes would have been extremely different from other tribes. Tribes all over the world tended to go to war quite frequently with only some very isolated cases as exception.

Second, Are you trying to say that isn't what happened in Europe? Oh there is plenty going on in the middle of all that, but I was just trying to put the constant fighting going on there in as few words as possible. According to what Stropwaffle stated about European History, human nature was the reason why Europeans couldn't stop fighting what they perceived as different and that it is unnatural for people to not do so rather than the violence being a result of social conditioning. That is what this entire conversation was about here.

Europe, esp. middle ages and rennaissance was mostly feudal and agrarian. Wars tended to be short and local. Armies tended to be small. Also people really liked to take prisoners for ransom.
Those times were not nearly as bloody as Hollywood makes them. In direct comparison between many tribal cultures and European medieval feudal cultures, citizens of the latter would generally be less likely to have died in war. That is not becauses tribes tended to have so much more wars. But because more of the tribal population took part in them.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I learn so much from these threads.

 

[stroopwafel]

Oh please, I haven;t even been discussing MY culture for a long while now. We have been stuck on whether or not the Aztecs were more Or less sadistic than the Europeans for a while now. The idea that you think the Aztecs are " my own" is part of the problem. You still think all "Native Americans are the same with minor differences" when that is like saying the Swedish people and the Himba are the same with minor differences.. You said and I quote:

The Germans, British and France live in different countries but still share the same principal values because there is common history. I don't know the nitty gritty of each indigenous American mountain tribe but here the dynamics are the same. There is a similarity that natives had with other tribes they didn't have with the Spanish or European settlers. Maybe one tribe did a rain dance for the moon god and another tribe prayed to the holy cow for fertility of the land. But there was still a commonality otherwise why glorify the entire collective of native tribes as superior and discredit the entirety of Europe as 'cruel and barbaric' as if it were one entity? Your example therefore makes zero sense and makes you slightly hypocritical as well.

 

[lil devils x]

It is not in human nature to fight against anyone different. It is a bit more difficult for xenophobia as it seems there are hormones that makes us distrust people we don't know. But even that does not naturally lead to fighting.

But "thousands of years in peace" ? First, i don't believe that one bit. Second, if it were true, then american tribes would have been extremely different from other tribes. Tribes all over the world tended to go to war quite frequently with only some very isolated cases as exception.

Europe, esp. middle ages and rennaissance was mostly feudal and agrarian. Wars tended to be short and local. Armies tended to be small. Also people really liked to take prisoners for ransom.
Those times were not nearly as bloody as Hollywood makes them. In direct comparison between many tribal cultures and European medieval feudal cultures, citizens of the latter would generally be less likely to have died in war.

Oh I agree, Fear of the unknown isn't the same as fighting against what is different as he suggested, that was why I was disagreeing with him.

Yes, we have had tribes here that have lived together in peace, that is actually what my tribe name means " peaceful ones" Our tribe occupies the single longest continuously occupied settlement in North America.

The Hopi – Peaceful Ones of the Southwest – Legends of America

The Hopi people have the longest authenticated history of occupation of a single area by any Native American tribe in the United States.

www.legendsofamerica.com

Our Tribe was the first to settle this region and when the Navajo came across the Bering strait we named them " Navajo" meaning newcomers and they have lived beside us in peace with minor squabbles as neighbors do since their arrival to their Americas. We have had many other tribes with their own histories, religions backgrounds and culture join us and live along side us and become one tribe over time, so depending on the " clan" within the overall tribe, you will have different religions and histories. Some kept their own names some just became known as Hopi as well. My clan was the first clan to settle here and came from the south and are related to the Mayans, and we share the same history. Most of the tribes in the US were peaceful tribes, the few warring ones make for good stories though since peaceful is often boring. To be Hopi is to agree to live in peace, a lifestyle choice agreeing to show respect for all things. The only ones who tried to make it anything else were the US government because they didn't know how to " deal" with what we actually are.

 

[Iron]

I learn so much from these threads.

They kind of sap my energy though

 

[lil devils x]

The Germans, British and France live in different countries but still share the same principal values because there is common history. I don't know the nitty gritty of each indigenous American mountain tribe but here the dynamics are the same. There is a similarity that natives had with other tribes they didn't have with the Spanish or European settlers. Maybe one tribe did a rain dance for the moon god and another tribe prayed to the holy cow for fertility of the land. But there was still a commonality otherwise why glorify the entire collective of native tribes as superior and discredit the entirety of Europe as 'cruel and barbaric' as if it were one entity? Your example therefore makes zero sense and makes you slightly hypocritical as well.

There were differences native Americans had with other tribes that we didn't have with Europeans as well. That doesn't somehow make it work any better or any worse. We lived in apartments, most tribes here didn't even believe in staying in one place. We had completely different lifestyles and beliefs. Europeans have more in common with each other than the Native American tribes do with one another. Comparing native american tribes to one another is like comparing people who live in cities to people who live in tents in forests to people who live on the water.. and all having different religions, lifestyles, ethnicity.. It really is that different.

People living in apartments have more common with people living in apartments than they do with people living in tents in the forest. LOL

Your idea that you have to be of one culture, religion, ethnicity, ect isn't remotely true.