Tfw you realize you really CAN'T no nuffin

Most people dont bither to inform themselfs. And it is easier to just swallow the kool aid of the media than to read about it.

>denying people equal rights on the basis of skin colour is okay

/pol/logic everyone. I bet if it were someone denying whites the right to vote, you'd all flip your shit. Its funny how hypocritical you all are.

Black people could vote. They had to be educated before they cpuld vote,which is a smart thing to do.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Rhodesia

Says the guy who forges his opinion based on snippets from said media kool aid.
Do you realize Mugabe is an international pariah on the same level as Kim Jong Un in the eyes of our media?

Of course he's a kleptocratic incompetent moron who ran his shithole of a country into the ground, but it's just ridiculous to complain about the media and then post a collage of media headlines.

>on the basis of skin colour is okay
I agree, but that's not what happened in Rhodesia.

The EU is sending help to Mugabe. And all the data points out to Mugabe being a retard. The data pointed out that Rhodesia was doing fine and improving,and blacks were allowed to vote. Rhodesia was way less conservative than South Africa,and they werent sanction as hard as Rhodesia was

If only the UN gave Rhodesia a fucking chance.

I agree, no one can control what race they are, and it's stupid to place arbitrary restrictions upon them for that reason alone.
However, that isn't what happened in Rhodesia.
Even vitriolic "racists" Like Geroge Lincoln Rockwell observed and stated this fact.

...

i'm iraqi and i get really nostalgic over the period of the iran-iraq war, even though i was born right after it finished. I think I might be the reincarnation of a soldier who died in it.

But then again my dad served in it, and my mom was trained by the iraqi army in preparation to serve, and they both told me a lot of stories of their experiences when i was young, so that might be it.

Saddam did nothing wrong.

i just realised i only responded to your linked pic and not to what you said.

I don't know anything about rhodesia and feel ill-informed to comment. All I know is that I'm against racism because some fat italian bitch at my school was racist to me and I hated all fat women as a result.

Rhodesia was a pretty OK place, they were not "race haters" like there are in the United States; more of trying to build a solution to a state of two races, without destroying the culture of either.
80% of the population of Rhodesia was rural, and a large portion of that Tribal, completely independent of Rhodesian "white rule".

>cares about his people
>in between randomly dropping bombs on civilian neighbourhoods and carrying out airstrikes on hospitals

those bombs are american falseflag attacks.

Also he's making a final push to liberate aleppo and he's attacking Jabhat al-Nusra areas. Its not his fault Jabhat al-Nusra hide between civilians. In the long term it will save lives because liberating Aleppo will bring piece to the city and will cause less death than leaving it with the islamist rebels for years to come.

Its like ripping off a bandaid, you can do it quickly and end it causing a quick but short burst of pain, or do it slowly causing a prolonged pain.

Bashar al-Assad is a trained doctor. You cannot perform an operation without losing some blood, but the goal is to save the patients life.

youtu.be/tXkBZBx7FH0

>The EU is sending help to Mugabe
Famine relief, which has dubious effects on local economies to say the least. They do the same thing in North Korea.
Meanwhile Zimbabwe (and NK) was embargoed for fucking decades.
You're still not addressing the fact that you are quoting media headlines.

Assad is literally fighting to keep minority rule over his country

>le epic ruthless dictator did nothing wrong meme xD

>Bashar al-Assad is a trained doctor.
How many cities has he razed so far?

Bashar al-Assad is also a minority fighting for minority rule. He's an alawite. Very white by Syrian standards.
Just look at him.

Educated black men were not denied anything in Rhodesia.

The blockade started when he started to do crazy stuff,unlike Rhodesia,that had a pretty clear path. Mugabe is rogue because he has commited open genocide, and numbers speak for themselfs really. Famine,malnutrition,1/5 of the country with AIDs,an awful economic record and has created probably the biggest inflation in the history of mankinf

>America told me he bombed his own people
>and I believe America, who would never lie to me

No he's not, this is just a bullshit lie propagated by the west to aggravate Sunnis.

The west exaggerates sectarianism to cause divisions. Bashar al-Assad is alawite yes, but his entire government are basically Sunnis. His wife is Sunni, his vice president is sunni, his prime minister is sunni, his minister of defence is sunni, his chief of staff is sunni.

The whole idea of "alawites ruling the country" is a meme spread by the opposition and by american countries. Most Alawites are just rural farmers that live in the the northwest of the country and their living standards are actually below that of metropolitan areas like Damascus and Homs (before the war, obviously).

Syrians aren't as divided by religion as the west makes them out to be. Christians, Sunnis, Alawites, Shi'ites all support Bashar al-Assad. Its just a matter of Islamists wanting him out because they want Islamic rule and using "muh democracy" as a pretext.

And we have perfectly good excuses for containing North Korea as well.
You're still completely missing the point. I thought I had already made it abundantly clear:

>he believes race is only skin deep

>I bet if it were someone denying whites the right to vote, you'd all flip your shit
Yes. I care about white people more than I do about blacks.

"BUT THAT DOESN'T MATCH MY UNIVERSALIST VALUE SYSTEM AT ALL. THAT ISN'T LOGICAL. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO VALUE ALL RACES OF HUMAN THE SAME."

you don't even consciously realise that you have universalist values. Whenever you come across racial favoritism you have a knee-jerk reaction, you think that racial favoritism is "illogical" and that your universalism is "logical"

But, from a PURELY PRACTICAL standpoint, black rule is bad for blacks.

Do blacks have more freedom under white rule or black rule?

I'm asking a rhetorical question here. The answer is "Blacks have more freedom under white rule than under black rule"

Both in the sense of "positive freedom" and "negative freedom" (negative freedom being the kind of liberty libertarians talk about)

Positive freedom eg. under white rule things actually work. You can go to the hospital and get proper health care.

Negative freedom eg. you can start a business and not get shut down by some goon.

Syrians have been Greco-Roman for longer than anyone in Europe. Most Syrians are light skinned.

>le epic "if rulers were just nice life would be perfect" meme xD

It wouldn't matter if it wasn't skin-deep, giving everyone equal rights would still make sense.

Even if you could conclusively prove that people who are black are de facto retarded, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

Racists and /pol/tards in general use their pathetic naturalistic fallacy all the time, it's like they haven't read a book in their entire life.

you said:
>denying people equal rights on the basis of skin colour is okay
he said:
>he believes race is only skin deep

he was replying specifically to your implication that race = skin colour, not to your overall comment.

>use their pathetic naturalistic fallacy all the time
Who here was using the naturalistic fallacy?

I didn't say anything. I just came into the thread.

alright, well someone else said it then.

assad has overwhelming, even monolithic, support among the parts of syria that could still be called civilized and the syrian arab army would never have lasted this long if it didn't have sunnis in its ranks

he is not just the best option for the alawite minority, he is the best option for EVERY minority

Nah.

The last post there is mine, but I just saw this oneAnd felt a need to respond.

>Even if you could conclusively prove that people who are black are de facto retarded, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.
>Racists and /pol/tards in general use their pathetic naturalistic fallacy all the time

"blacks are retarded therefore they vote dumb therefore they should not be able to vote because it would lead to the implementation of bad policy"

that is NOT the naturalistic fallacy

What kind of right? If you mean negative ones I agree,but if you mean positive ones like voting would be pretty dumb. Letting a bunch of retards the ability to put a ruler would be fucking dangerous.

No. It's more like this:

>"Blacks are dumber than whites, look every study on the topic shows it, therefore they should have less rights than whites and asians" /pol/

Which IS a naturalistic fallacy.

How the hell is voting a positive right in a democracy? Voting literally IS democracy.

Positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. Basically everyone should be protected under the law,but letting retards vote is dangerous as hell,well democracy is dangerous as hell overall,as most people usually dont commit as much time as they should informing themselfs about economics or politics in general.

So what? The existence of stupid people does not have anything to do with what rights people should have in a society.

Moreover, if you don't like democracy, you can literally move to Saudi-Arabia or North-Korea, nobody is stopping you.

I actually use /pol/ occasionally.
No, you're totally misrepresenting their views.

They don't just say "blacks are dumb therefore blacks should have less rights"

They say
"blacks are dumb therefore they shouldn't be able to vote in a white country"
"blacks are dumb therefore blacks are better off ruled by whites"

there's a causal argument there

>How the hell is voting a positive right in a democracy? Voting literally IS democracy.
positive rights means "being given something, being given control of something" rather than "being left alone"
the boundary is blurry but being able to vote is being able to control the policy of the state, it is a positive right rather than a negative one

>there's a causal argument there

There is a fallacy there. Because the existence of physical facts doesn't give you an "ought", and will never ever do so, no matter how much a /pol/-tard will claim otherwise.

Voting is not a right. It is a priviledge,and as such it can be limited or expanded. Funny that you mention Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Would you rather be a worker in Saudi Arabia or Morocco,as a lower class person,having the median earning as your salary? Why dont you move to Morocco if you like democracy? So fucking dumb arguments

>blacks are dumb therefore blacks should have less rights [than whites]
>blacks are dumb therefore they shouldn't be able to vote [unlike whites]
It's literally the same.

you are a total mainstream hack
you have all these ASSUMED VALUES, you think they are obvious and that anyone who doesn't have these values is illogical

>The existence of stupid people does not have anything to do with what rights people should have in a society.
you keep repeating this as if we care about letting blacks vote
WE DON'T. You have ASSUMED this VALUE. You think it's totally obvious that you OUGHT to let people vote. Furthermore, it would lead to things that I don't like, so I don't want blacks to vote.

You've also missed the point. /pol/ doesn't say "dumb people should be restricted simply because they're dumb". There's a causal argument there. "dumb people should not be allowed to vote because they vote for bad policies"

> if you don't like democracy
I don't, again I think you have assumed that I value democracy
>you can literally move to Saudi-Arabia or North-Korea
But I like Muslim Arabs and Juche Koreans even less

if you like blacks so much why don't you move to the congo?

>Moreover, if you don't like democracy, you can literally move to Saudi-Arabia or North-Korea, nobody is stopping you.
this literally is not an argument. pure rhetoric.

Do you want to let children vote? Do you want to let convicted felons vote?
If not, then why not?

I never invoked "ought"
I said I don't want blacks to vote because blacks are dumb and vote for things I don't like.

Read what I wrote

You left out the part where I said "just"

They don't just say "blacks are dumb therefore blacks should have less rights"

They don't JUST say "blacks are dumb therefore blacks should have less rights"
as in there's a causal argument

should we allow mentally retarded people or children to vote?

If so, why?

>There are people who unironically support Ian Smith

I'll bet you want to shoot up a church

>should we allow mentally retarded people or children to vote?
We already allow them to serve :^)

Nice post here is a 100 trillion dolars tip

>get btfo
>f-fucking beta white supremacists you're just like the guy in this one picture!!!!1!!

Just because knowledge is an illusion doesn't mean immersion into illusion isn't possible. Immerse yourself you neurotic fuck.

You know mentally retarded people can vote in most countries, right? Just like old people and loonies? Granted, it seems many US states do have provisions to ban mentally unsound or illiterate people from voting, by court order. (This is the opposite of the Rhodesian policy of allowing only mentally sound educated blacks to vote.)

Children are always and quite officially second-class citizens. The insane, mentally retarded and the senile are de-facto second-class citizens, the oldest and most ignored innocent victims of oppression in our modern societies too drunk on their own enlightenment to question this.

The reason "liberals" are so desperate to prove that there are no racial differences in IQ and reasoning ability is because they have absolutely no argument against oppressing those with lower cognitive abilities or imperfect faculties of reasoning. Liberalism needs citizens to be equally rational, else the whole charade falls apart.

Meanwhile, /pol/sters like to single out blacks as unfit to govern themselves while ignoring that 99% of the population lacks the competence to run anything bigger than a grocery store, and pretend there is no injustice in banning only blacks from voting on account of their alleged racial mental retardation, instead of baning anyone from voting on account of their actual, measurable mental retardation. If you insist on screening by ancestry, why shouldn't the obviously dysgenic hillbillies and redneck white trash be subject to the same tests as ghetto blacks before being allowed to vote? Meanwhile, making a Igbo neurosurgeon pass a mental retardation test is just absurd and insulting.

>Bashar al-Assad is a nationalist ruler who genuinely cares about his people and is fighting against a conspiracy led by the west and Israel.

Ian Smith was way better than Bashar

>mentally retarded people can vote in most countries, right?

It is incoherent that they should be allowed to vote but not children, assuming they are about the same in terms of their capacity for reason.

Any system based on that incoherence will likewise be subject to the same property.

>why shouldn't the obviously dysgenic hillbillies and redneck white trash be subject to the same tests as ghetto blacks before being allowed to vote? Meanwhile, making a Igbo neurosurgeon pass a mental retardation test is just absurd and insulting.

I say there should be a test to determine who is qualified to vote.

Saddam was better than any other ruler in the past centuries

>It is incoherent that they should be allowed to vote but not children, assuming they are about the same in terms of their capacity for reason.

Not him, but not really, because the ability or right is not determined by humans capacity to reason.

Then why do we deny children and infants the right to vote?

Why don't we let the lower apes pull the lever, or dogs?

Voting is not a right is a priviledge. And a priviledge can be given by any arbitrary reason.

most of the people who say that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote aren't even for allowing all whites to vote, many of them are eugenics supporters

This is the most kool-aid comment I've seen so far

Reminder that I started this fucking thread as a joke about people who say human beings are incapable of knowledge. I didn't know that putting Bashar al-Assad as the image would turn it into a gigantic race war.

Pic related is me right now.

For cultural reasons.

>Voting is not a right

Yes it is.

>I say there should be a test to determine who is qualified to vote.
I agree, but keep in mind that according to surveys, a basic civics test would disqualify much of the American population from voting, given how many of them can't even answer the following questions correctly:
-Who was the first president of the United States?
-What are the three branches of government?
-How many senators are there?
-What freedoms are guaranteed in the First Amendment?
-On what day is Independence Day celebrated?

Another study found most Americans fail the citizenship tests typically given to immigrants.

Universal rights don't exist.

No it is not. Most ""rights"" are state given priviledges. Rights as such are few, and they exist outside of the state

Why do people who support the Rhodesian voting qualifications fail to realist that Rhodesia had two very markedly different standards of education for the Black and White populations were the amount spent of the Blacks were much much smaller then the ones for whites? So much to the point many black had to pa out of their own pockets and missionaries were forced to make up the huge difference. How about the fact that a simple labour school for Blacks that trained them in labour was closed down even despite it's success due to the government closing it because of pressure from the "muh Blacks can out compete us because they do it cheaper" crowd and union. Let alone ignoring the fact that the qualified minority can simply vote in measures that make the requirements stricter or exclude the growing Blacks who meet the qualifications and put in measures to disenfranchise them even further.

Hell Rhodesia if it had to spend the same amount of money on each child regardless of race would not be able to maintain it's "first world" standards for whites at all.

Imagine if to be on the voting role in modern Australia you have to own a house and be a citizen which coincidentally due to the fucked up markets and current situation only the rich Chinese and boomers/elderly who obtained those houses back when they were much cheaper can vote.

>most of the people who say that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote aren't even for allowing all whites to vote
See, the problem is that they argue that no blacks should be allowed to vote (or some blacks if demonstrably intelligent) but only some whites should be forbidden from voting (if demonstrably retarded or convicted felons.)
The IQ gap between blacks and whites in the US isn't even that large. Plenty of countries and immigrants are stupider than American blacks. No one argues that Puerto Ricans or Southeast Asians should lose their voting privileges.

>a basic civics test would disqualify much of the American population from voting

then disqualify them.

That said, why should the prerequisites be knowledge of civics?

Indeed, and judging by your image, I'll add that neither does right to rule nor duty to obey.

Rights certainly exist, universal ones do not. Right to rule certainly exists, it is in all of us, but only exerted by a few.
The duty to obey has nothing to do with this, sniviling revolutionary

Because if it's of other shit then that is super prone to abuse to exclude anybody to the interests of certain people.

>That said, why should the prerequisites be knowledge of civics?
History questions aside, it seems pretty important that the voters understand how the institutions of their country actually work. They vote without even understanding what a Vice President (or President) does.

it's amazing that so many people don't understand that the Legislative branch is the one that can actually amend the Constitution to do away with the other two branches.

So much Dinduism in one post.

>his entire government are basically Sunnis
His "entire government" are made up of a ruling caste of families loyal to Assad and his late father. The religion of these people are not what's important, all that matters is loyalty.

>Most Alawites are just rural farmers that live in the the northwest of the country
True, but irrelevant. Assad's sectarianism isn't motivated by Alawite supremacism, it's motivated by a desire to stay in power. When Assad wants to punish Sunnis, he uses Alawite officers or brigades. When Sunnis get angry at Alawites he uses this to blackmail Alawites into supporting him. There are plenty of Alawites who are unhappy with his rule also, as well as the "Shi'ification" being pushed by Iranian clerics.

>Syrians aren't as divided by religion as the west makes them out to be. Christians, Sunnis, Alawites, Shi'ites all support Bashar al-Assad.
That's oversimplified to the point of dishonesty.

>Its just a matter of Islamists wanting him out because they want Islamic rule and using "muh democracy" as a pretext.
More dishonesty.

Only if the state's allow them to, and they won't. A divided government is the only way for the American Republic to function.

>Only if the state's legislative branches allow them to

fixd

States can host an article 5 convention and do away with the constitution all together (^:

>the problem is that they argue that no blacks should be allowed to vote
Who's they?
The people who say that no blacks should be allowed to vote are people who want little to no blacks in their country. The blacks that they do want (eg maybe a black surgeon) they don't view as their countrymen.

Seriously though it's not just about IQ. IQ is a reason for blacks voting how they do.
If blacks voted how I wanted them to vote but had a 40IQ then I would want them to vote.
High IQ chinamen vote Democrat party, so I don't want Chinese people voting either.

>No one argues that Puerto Ricans or Southeast Asians
You sure about that?
Plenty of people don't want Puerto Ricans or Southeast Asians voting.
Myself included

>Blacks are bad because they vote for things I don't like *pouts like a bitch*.

Brah you are one faggy ass spoiled bitch.

>all of these uneducated racists
>Not being a racialist
youtu.be/FaCHBmGWcBc

>Blacks are bad because they vote for things I don't like *pouts like a bitch*.
Yeah I should have to pay for Laqueisha to pop out thousands of her spawn.

Black countries are really good and we should try to be more like them.

Yes and Republicans are so much better.
Both are pretty much the same shit on different sides of the same coin.

>Universal rights don't exist
>Right to rule certainly exists, it's in all of us

Nigger shut the fuck up, and go back to your hugbox on /pol/.

>blacks are dumb
>whites are smart
>all racial groups (which are massive and include extremely disparate genetic groups) are monolithic blocs

There are stupid "white" people. There are intelligent "black" people. That is justification enough for the elimination of racial discrimination.

What IQ is "good enough"? 100? That means we have to exclude 50% of our population. What's that, Billy, you scored a 99? You're a complete retard, no rights for you. And we are also assuming that the IQ test is a completely infallible and objective arbiter of intelligence that is administered and taken by flawed humans. Where exactly do we draw the line of "useless human being" beyond "I personally dislike this thing?"

translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https://deutsch.rt.com/international/38131-massenmorderin-hillary-clinton/&edit;-text=

sike nigga you thought