Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux > #80143 > unrolled thread

After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux

Contents

  After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> - 2024-07-04 07:27 -0400
    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-07-04 12:43 +0100
    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-07-04 23:32 +0200
    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-07-05 08:49 +1000
      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-04 23:33 +0000
    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-07-05 23:28 -0400
    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer tinker123 <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2024-07-06 13:49 +0000
      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2024-07-07 00:47 +0000
      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-06 17:09 +0000
        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-06 18:29 +0100
        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-06 15:08 -0400
          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2024-08-06 20:23 +0100
            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-06 18:31 -0400
            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-03-28 20:43 +0000
        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-06 21:38 +0200
          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> - 2024-08-06 13:51 -0700
            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> - 2024-08-07 02:08 +0000
          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-06 18:48 -0400
            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-07 10:17 +0200
              Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-07 08:59 -0400
                Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2024-08-07 17:45 +0100
                  Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-07 13:58 -0400
                  Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> - 2024-08-07 11:15 -0700
                Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-07 19:46 +0200
                  Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-07 17:04 -0400
                    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-08 10:36 +0200
                      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-08 08:04 -0400
                        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-08 22:11 +0200
                          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-09 08:46 -0400
                            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-08-09 17:16 +0200
        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-08-06 20:46 +0000
          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-08-06 18:55 -0400
    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer TronNerd82 <tronnerd82@aol.com> - 2025-03-26 21:10 +0000
      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-26 19:48 -0400
        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-27 06:52 +0000
          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 07:34 +0000
            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-27 08:39 -0400
              Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 01:04 +0000
                Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-27 22:10 -0400
                  Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 05:42 +0000
                    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-28 08:35 -0400
                      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 08:41 -0400
                      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 20:29 +0000
                        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-28 17:34 -0400
                          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 23:51 +0000
                            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-28 22:08 -0400
                              Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 06:41 +0000
                                Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-29 07:59 -0400
                                  Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:23 +0000
                                    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-18 07:12 -0400
                                      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-19 11:04 +0100
                                        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-19 08:01 -0400
                                          Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-19 13:42 +0100
                              Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 06:57 +0000
                                Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-29 08:02 -0400
                                  Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 21:59 +0000
                                    Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-30 07:11 -0400
                                      Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:25 +0000
                                        Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-18 07:15 -0400
              Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-03-29 04:56 +0000
                Re: 🏳️‍🌈After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer🏳️‍🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmendenderer 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1>  - 2025-03-29 14:36 +0000
            Re: After NixOS, faggots attack Ladybird web browser developer Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-03-27 11:03 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#81196

On 2025-03-28 01:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:10:56 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Whether you will admit it or not, McCarthy was right. There _were_
>> Communists around every corner and they were indeed seeking not only to
>> take over Hollywood, but every other influential establishment in the
>> United States. They've clearly taken over academia and managed to
>> overwhelm Hollywood despite his efforts.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me. With all your talk of “liberty” and “freedom
> of expression”, that you could shut down your Communist Party, yet at the
> same time decide that the KKK were not such a big threat to society at
> all, just some kind of bunch of good ole boys having a bit of a lark,
> harmless fun or something bloody stupid like that.

I would shut down the Communist Party not because I don't respect 
freedom of expression but because their ideas have been proven to be 
destructive _to_ freedom throughout history. At best, Communists are 
grossly incompetent and will destroy their own economy and society; at 
worst, their utopia looks no different than the world portrayed in 
Nineteen Eighty-Four. Out of respect for freedom and the liberty of all 
people in society, I would have Communists hanged.

As for the KKK, they knew that introducing people of what is objectively 
a problematic race into their society would result in its fabric being 
destroyed. They terrified blacks to discourage them from entering their 
communities. We've since demonized them yet they turned out to be right. 
The more blacks there are in a place, the more crime there is. 
Additionally, the more there are in the education system, the worse the 
results. It's not a coincidence that at 13%, they are responsible for 
51% of crimes. It's not a coincidence that most of them have children 
when they are teenagers and that the fathers disappear once they are 
told that they produced a child. It's not a coincidence that most of 
them rely on welfare for survival and that the majority of the children 
will end up getting arrested at least once in their lives. Hate the KKK 
as much as you wish, but they saw it coming. That doesn't mean that I 
agree with their tactics though.

>> On 2025-03-27 9:04 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> Red has become the official colour of the US Republican Party these
>>> days.
>>>
>>> Coincidence? You be the judge.
>>
>> The Republicans aren't the ones encouraging people to rid themselves of
>> their genitalia through the teaching that "gender is a construct."
> 
> Sex is biology. Gender is not.

Sex and gender are the same thing no matter how much you Communists 
insist on obliterating definitions. Advocating for more than two genders 
simply discredits you on that topic and encourages people who are still 
acquainted with logic to filter your posts.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81197

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

>Out of respect for freedom and the liberty of all 
>people in society, I would have Communists hanged.


So, "all people" except for the ones you're hanging ...


>Sex and gender are the same thing no matter how much you Communists 
>insist on obliterating definitions. Advocating for more than two genders 
>simply discredits you on that topic and encourages people who are still 
>acquainted with logic to filter your posts.


Denial.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81199

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:35:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> As for the KKK, they knew that introducing people of what is
> objectively a problematic race into their society would result in
> its fabric being destroyed.

The black people didn’t ask to be taken to America, you know. It was the 
very people who became members of the KKK who forcibly took them there. 
And had no problem keeping them there, as long as they were slaves.

But as soon as the idea of living up to that “all men are created equal” 
clause in your founding documents, that you are supposed to be so proud 
of, came up, suddenly you began to see the consequences of your own 
actions as undesirable, without wanting to admit that it was your fault 
all along.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81201

On 2025-03-28 4:29 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:35:15 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> As for the KKK, they knew that introducing people of what is
>> objectively a problematic race into their society would result in
>> its fabric being destroyed.
> 
> The black people didn’t ask to be taken to America, you know. 

Meanwhile, they were given the option to return to Africa and didn't 
bother to take it because it's so much more fun to play the victim and 
whine about wi' peepo than build a nation.

> It was the
> very people who became members of the KKK who forcibly took them there.
> And had no problem keeping them there, as long as they were slaves.

No, it was primarily Muslims who enslaved them with the aid of their 
brothers within the continent. Islam is very clear that it is allowable 
for a Muslim to capture and own slaves, which is why they continue the 
practice to this day. While there were Christians who owned slaves, it 
should be noted that they were also the ones who liberated them 
eventually, often at the cost of their own lives. Did Muslims liberate 
their slaves? Did Jews? Meanwhile, when they were liberated, these same 
people refused to be returned to their continent because they knew what 
kind of a shithole it was and continues to be. The country of Liberia 
was created for them but they preferred to stay in America and 
supposedly be treated like dirt. No matter how much they bitch and moan, 
blacks know that they have a better life among whites than they do among 
their own.

> But as soon as the idea of living up to that “all men are created equal”
> clause in your founding documents, that you are supposed to be so proud
> of, came up, suddenly you began to see the consequences of your own
> actions as undesirable, without wanting to admit that it was your fault
> all along.

How is it _my_ fault? My ancestors were Polish and we never enslaved a 
single person. There were serfs, but we know very well how that system 
worked. Don't lay any blame on me or my people.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81204

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:34:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Meanwhile, they were given the option to return to Africa and didn't 
> bother to take it...

Because America is just as much their country as it is yours, by the same 
criterion of birthright.

> No, it was primarily Muslims who enslaved them with the aid of their
> brothers within the continent. Islam is very clear that it is allowable
> for a Muslim to capture and own slaves ...

None of your religions have anything bad to say about slavery. That 
includes Christianity. That’s why you were quite happy to be a part of the 
trade.

>> But as soon as the idea of living up to that “all men are created
>> equal” clause in your founding documents, that you are supposed to be
>> so proud of, came up, suddenly you began to see the consequences of
>> your own actions as undesirable, without wanting to admit that it was
>> your fault all along.
> 
> How is it _my_ fault?

The ideas you espouse are your fault.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81206

On 2025-03-28 7:51 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:34:08 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Meanwhile, they were given the option to return to Africa and didn't
>> bother to take it...
> 
> Because America is just as much their country as it is yours, by the same
> criterion of birthright.

Which should prompt them to make the best of their situation, and try to 
integrate society by being respectable human beings. Not only do they 
not try to integrate, they take pride in not doing so. Furthermore, they 
consume and produce content that destroys the fabric of society through 
indecency. That content encourages others like them to make rampant 
crime their contribution to society. If I had total power, I wouldn't 
invite such garbage people to resettle in Africa, I'd make it mandatory 
unless they change their idiotic behaviour.

>> No, it was primarily Muslims who enslaved them with the aid of their
>> brothers within the continent. Islam is very clear that it is allowable
>> for a Muslim to capture and own slaves ...
> 
> None of your religions have anything bad to say about slavery. That
> includes Christianity. That’s why you were quite happy to be a part of the
> trade.

Again, Poles played no part in slavery. As for Christianity not having 
anything bad to say about slavery, that is a lie. While it might 
encourage people who were slaves to obey their masters, it doesn't 
encourage the devout to go out and enslave people the way that the 
Muslim book does. It even encourages masters to treat their slaves 
justly. Don't forget Paul's letter to Philemon asking him to free his slave.

If you don't know what you are talking about, I would suggest that you 
refrain from making general statements.

>>> But as soon as the idea of living up to that “all men are created
>>> equal” clause in your founding documents, that you are supposed to be
>>> so proud of, came up, suddenly you began to see the consequences of
>>> your own actions as undesirable, without wanting to admit that it was
>>> your fault all along.
>>
>> How is it _my_ fault?
> 
> The ideas you espouse are your fault.

Forty-six years of experience with black people has shown me that not 
only are their positive contributions to society minimal, but they are 
not deserving of the same default respect I would afford to white 
people. They need to earn my respect because they are, by default, 
selfish, dishonest destructive. I don't care if you disagree with that. 
I won't ignore decades of empirical evidence because you don't find it 
fashionable.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81209

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> As for Christianity not having 
> anything bad to say about slavery, that is a lie. While it might 
> encourage people who were slaves to obey their masters, it doesn't 
> encourage the devout to go out and enslave people the way that the 
> Muslim book does.

And yet, that is exactly what the Christians went out and did, for 
centuries. With not a quibble, indeed, with the encouragement, of their 
moral leaders.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81211

On 2025-03-29 2:41 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> As for Christianity not having
>> anything bad to say about slavery, that is a lie. While it might
>> encourage people who were slaves to obey their masters, it doesn't
>> encourage the devout to go out and enslave people the way that the
>> Muslim book does.
> 
> And yet, that is exactly what the Christians went out and did, for
> centuries. With not a quibble, indeed, with the encouragement, of their
> moral leaders.

And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created 
by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores 
the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to 
murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.

Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it and neither did the Holy 
Bible which advocated against such a practice. You can blame individual 
Europeans and early Americans if you wish, but you have to take into 
consideration that Europeans abolished the practice and that early 
Americans died to do the same. Where is your blame of the Muslims and 
blacks who _continue_ to enslave and exploit people to this day?

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81411

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
> the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to
> murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.

But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the 
other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just 
as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that 
was the slave trade.

> Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it ...

But you claim to be covered by the same “Christian” brand. I don’t see you 
disavowing “Christianity” and setting up another brand that explicitly 
does not condone such activities in its core beliefs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81413

On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
>> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
>> the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to
>> murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
> 
> But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
> other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just
> as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
> was the slave trade.

People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity did 
not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying against 
the practice from the beginning and there are lots of excerpts in the 
New Testament saying as much. If people calling themselves Christians 
participated in the trade, that does not mean that the religion endorses 
it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses slavery and the practice continues 
in areas they control to this day.

>> Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it ...
> 
> But you claim to be covered by the same “Christian” brand. I don’t see you
> disavowing “Christianity” and setting up another brand that explicitly
> does not condone such activities in its core beliefs.

There is nothing to disavow. A religion cannot be held responsible for 
what people claiming to be its adherents do. The New Testament is clear 
in the idea that Christians should be rallying _against_ slavery.

Finally, your opinion of Christianity is of no interest to me.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81417

On 18/04/2025 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
>>> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
>>> the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not likely to
>>> murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
>>
>> But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
>> other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just
>> as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
>> was the slave trade.
> 
> People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity did 
> not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying against 
> the practice from the beginning and there are lots of excerpts in the 
> New Testament saying as much. If people calling themselves Christians 
> participated in the trade, that does not mean that the religion endorses 
> it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses slavery and the practice continues 
> in areas they control to this day.

Christianity was the religion of the slaves.
It promised they would be kings in the afterlife, so kept them happy slaves.

> 
>>> Once again, Poles had nothing to do with it ...
>>
>> But you claim to be covered by the same “Christian” brand. I don’t see 
>> you
>> disavowing “Christianity” and setting up another brand that explicitly
>> does not condone such activities in its core beliefs.
> 
> There is nothing to disavow. A religion cannot be held responsible for 
> what people claiming to be its adherents do. The New Testament is clear 
> in the idea that Christians should be rallying _against_ slavery.
> 
> Finally, your opinion of Christianity is of no interest to me.
> 

-- 
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out 
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81418

On 4/19/25 06:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/04/2025 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
>>>> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
>>>> the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not 
>>>> likely to
>>>> murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
>>>
>>> But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
>>> other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all just
>>> as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
>>> was the slave trade.
>>
>> People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity did 
>> not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying against 
>> the practice from the beginning and there are lots of excerpts in the 
>> New Testament saying as much. If people calling themselves Christians 
>> participated in the trade, that does not mean that the religion 
>> endorses it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses slavery and the 
>> practice continues in areas they control to this day.
> 
> Christianity was the religion of the slaves.
> It promised they would be kings in the afterlife, so kept them happy 
> slaves.

Which slaves are you referring to during Jesus's time and the successive 
centuries?

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81419

On 19/04/2025 13:01, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 4/19/25 06:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/04/2025 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 4/17/25 22:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:59:53 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And because Christians did it, taking advantage of a situation created
>>>>> by Muslims in the lands they conquered, everyone conveniently ignores
>>>>> the Islamic role in the Slave Trade because Christians are not 
>>>>> likely to
>>>>> murder the people complaining about them like Muslims would.
>>>>
>>>> But the followers of your religion claim to be morally superior to the
>>>> other lot, don’t they? Yet here you are admitting that they are all 
>>>> just
>>>> as bad, all quite happy to get their hands dirty in the moral mire that
>>>> was the slave trade.
>>>
>>> People have been enslaving one another for millennia. Christianity 
>>> did not create the problem. If anything, Christians were rallying 
>>> against the practice from the beginning and there are lots of 
>>> excerpts in the New Testament saying as much. If people calling 
>>> themselves Christians participated in the trade, that does not mean 
>>> that the religion endorses it. Meanwhile, Islam _fully_ endorses 
>>> slavery and the practice continues in areas they control to this day.
>>
>> Christianity was the religion of the slaves.
>> It promised they would be kings in the afterlife, so kept them happy 
>> slaves.
> 
> Which slaves are you referring to during Jesus's time and the successive 
> centuries?
> 
Roman (owned)  slaves largely, and Greek (owned) ones.
Did you actually not know this?


-- 
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over 
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that 
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81210

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Forty-six years of experience with black people has shown me that not
> only are their positive contributions to society minimal, but they are
> not deserving of the same default respect I would afford to white
> people.

Maybe they feel the same about you. Because when they do well, it can 
enrage you to such a degree that you feel the need to put them down again, 
using force and violence if need be.

<https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81212

On 2025-03-29 2:57 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Forty-six years of experience with black people has shown me that not
>> only are their positive contributions to society minimal, but they are
>> not deserving of the same default respect I would afford to white
>> people.
> 
> Maybe they feel the same about you. Because when they do well, it can
> enrage you to such a degree that you feel the need to put them down again,
> using force and violence if need be.
> 
> <https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/>

They do so well that they are living in the same ghettos they lived in 
decades ago and committing the crimes they did when they arrived. I live 
near them and see their projects regularly. Unlike whites and Asians who 
improve with each generation, blacks stagnate no matter how much time 
you give them to crawl out of the hole they dug for themselves.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81217

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:02:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-03-29 2:57 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> Forty-six years of experience with black people has shown me that not
>>> only are their positive contributions to society minimal, but they are
>>> not deserving of the same default respect I would afford to white
>>> people.
>> 
>> Maybe they feel the same about you. Because when they do well, it can
>> enrage you to such a degree that you feel the need to put them down
>> again, using force and violence if need be.
>> 
>> <https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/>
> 
> They do so well that they are living in the same ghettos they lived in
> decades ago ...

Completely ignoring the story of what happened when a bunch of black 
people actually succeeded in bettering themselves.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81219

On 2025-03-29 5:59 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:02:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-03-29 2:57 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forty-six years of experience with black people has shown me that not
>>>> only are their positive contributions to society minimal, but they are
>>>> not deserving of the same default respect I would afford to white
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> Maybe they feel the same about you. Because when they do well, it can
>>> enrage you to such a degree that you feel the need to put them down
>>> again, using force and violence if need be.
>>>
>>> <https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/>
>>
>> They do so well that they are living in the same ghettos they lived in
>> decades ago ...
> 
> Completely ignoring the story of what happened when a bunch of black
> people actually succeeded in bettering themselves.

I ignored it because this one time whites did something to blacks is 
overshadowed by the fact that blacks do this to white communities and 
even their own communities _daily_. I have no sympathy for them.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81412

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:11:43 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> I ignored it because this one time whites did something to blacks is
> overshadowed by the fact that blacks do this to white communities and
> even their own communities _daily_.

Interesting how you see yourself as part of “whites” when it suits you, 
but then separate yourself out as “Poles” when you feel the need to 
distance yourself from some of the actions perpetrated by “whites”.

Whites look down on other whites too, don’t they? Seems like the Anglos 
see themselves as on top, and other whites as somehow less “white”, and 
deserving of special derogatory terms to separate them out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81414

On 4/17/25 22:25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:11:43 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> I ignored it because this one time whites did something to blacks is
>> overshadowed by the fact that blacks do this to white communities and
>> even their own communities _daily_.
> 
> Interesting how you see yourself as part of “whites” when it suits you,
> but then separate yourself out as “Poles” when you feel the need to
> distance yourself from some of the actions perpetrated by “whites”.
> 
> Whites look down on other whites too, don’t they? Seems like the Anglos
> see themselves as on top, and other whites as somehow less “white”, and
> deserving of special derogatory terms to separate them out.

Poles became Catholics in 966. From that date, they did what Catholics 
were supposed to do. If you have examples of Poles participating in the 
slave trade, committing genocide or starting wars, you are welcome to 
provide them.

All true Poles are white but not all whites are Poles. Therefore, Poles 
should not be blamed for the actions of whites.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81207

On 2025-03-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-03-27 03:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:52:03 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 
>>> Engineering is about data, and facts. It has no political or moral
>>> content whatsoever.
>> 
>> Truly a statement worthy of Wernher von Braun.
>
> And one which causes the heads of progressives to explode. Let's be 
> reminded of Obama's brilliant words: "If you've got a business, you 
> didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

> You see, even if you created a business out of your garage and invested 
> your profits into hiring more people and eventually renting out some 
> property to grow the enterprise, the government should be credited with 
> its success as should random black or Hispanic people who never went 
> anywhere near your business.

I see that youe brain is apparentl too small handle paragaphs longer than 1
sentence easily so I'll be breif.

He was talking about roads and briges not "your" business.

Re-read the sentence from that speach that came before "If you've got a business" a few
times and think about it.

If that doesn't help, i'm sorry.  ignorance can be helped, but there's
no cure for stupidity.

-- 
 Jasen.
 🇺🇦 Слава Україні

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux

csiph-web