156 replies to this topic

[Mr. Hobo]

Nunc what country do you currently reside in

[Nunc]

America, why?

I'm originally Bulgarian though.

[redlion]

I don't like that he killed 20+ million Russian Christians, but he did industrialize Russia, bring Slavism and the Cyrillic script to the unwashed steppe hordes of the Kazakhs, Turkmens, etc., made the Red Army into a fearsome world power and catapulted the reputation of the Soviet Union from that of a regional pariah state to a superpower. Without him arguably, the Nazi German invasion would have toppled russia, which was in Lenin and Trotsky's time an agricultural, highly-divided nation. And Nazis would have probably killed slightly more than 20 million russians.

In addition he deported the Chechens, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars and other unfavourable groups to Siberia. So he was a strong and powerful statesman, and he benefitted his people, which is all I look for in a leader.

After all the ends justify the means.

I... can't tell if it's a troll? Or just some highly irrational fanboy? Or something not of this planet?

[Nunc]

I did state my history was likely rusty, thank you for your informative post on the history behind the invasion of Russia.

I don't think that it's fair to say that Hitler would have undoubtedly killed 30 million Russians... Especially considering, from the figures I can find, that his total murder number was only 12 million or so, with 6 million of those being jews. So considering all the other countries invaded only having ~6 million killed, I can't seem to understand how you can assume that he would have undoubtedly killed 30 million Russians.

To the Putin bit, my point is very clear. Your example is flawed. In America, Obama would be Dmitry Medvedev and Hillary Clinton would be Putin. Yes, Hillary Clinton does hold some power, I suppose.... but ultimately she is simply a diplomat. The president is the one in power. My point is that it is very clear to most of the world that Putin is truly still in power, but is not the official president due to term limits.

As far as me being dense? As much as I appreciate the attempted personal attack, I think it is you who is dense sir. Your utilitarian view is based strictly on the assumption that Hitler would've murdered more than the 20,000,000 people... A large assumption, in my eyes.... and even assuming that you simply believe in ends justifying means, then I suppose we disagree on principle. But even assuming that your imaginary figure is correct, I don't see how the murder of those 20,000,000 people was neccessary... I don't understand how Hitler's invasion of Russia has anything to do with Stalin's mass murders... and I think that the murder of so many people undoubtedly detracts from his leadership.

As far as the "egalitarian bullshit" making you sick? I can totally see your point. It's soooo sickening the thought of people being equal to one another as a basic principle... or perhaps giving a fuck about one another at all? Your lack of emotion towards your fellow man truly depresses me. I don't know what kind of a place humanity if that kind of belief system is practiced widespread in the future...

But hey... what do I know? I'm just some crazed hippie who gives a fuck about other peoples lives than my own. Right on for genocide if it makes us more militarily powerful in the short term. Because it certainly appears that in your world, genocide is tolerated if the "ends justify the means".

No problem, I'm an amateur historian myself.

Well, look at it this way- the outright genocide of the Jews started in 1941 and ended in 1945, costing 6 million lives. So 1.5 million dead per year, right? Well, if Hitler had conquered Russia earlier, because Russia would still be an agrarian, semi-feudalist state under Lenin or Trotsky, there would be a very little chance that the US would intervene, judging Hitler's new super-germany to be too powerful, which it would be with many tens of millions of Russian slave-laborers and a land link with Japan. Presumably German armys would facilitate the Japanese conquest of China. The new super-Axis would roughly straddle Eurasia, and quite possibly be powerful enough to take over the British middle east and India. And so this extremely powerful state would be stuck in a cold war of sorts with the US. There would be no '1945'; the holocaust and ethnic cleansing would never be ended. At least for 40 or 50 years would pass before Eurasia would succumb to revolt or internal dissent, and 40*1,500,000 is 60 million. Even if the new state lasted only 30 years, 30*1,500,000 = 45 million. So a lot more than 20 million dead, eh?

So what if Putin controls Russia? His party, United Russia, has 70% of the vote. Medvedev is a member of this party. Putin is its leader. So Putin does dictate Medvedev's actions indirectly. Nothing odd about that.

Look, 20 million dead and an industrialized Russia is far better than 30+ million dead and a Russia forever enslaved to Hitler's will. Capisce?

And you know, I love humans. But you have to agree that 20 million, being less than the alternative of 45+ million, is a more acceptable number of humans to die if the need calls for it. The lesser of two evils in a sense..

[redlion]

100% literacy rates are pretty common in civilised coutries

And friend, the Red Army did a lot more against germany than the commonly hailed 'mother winter', which is a far oversimplification.

Putin does hold true power in Russia, yes. Like Obama and the democratic party. I don't see your point... ?

If stalin hadn't killed 20 million, hitler would've done in 30 million. I don't want to call you dense, but you'd think if I explained it to you like 3 times you'd get it by now.

All this egalitarian bs is making me tired.

One hundred percent literacy rates aren't common at all, regardless of the arbitrary distinction 'civilized'.

And how can you say that Germany's failed invasion was dependent on the Red army when all they had to do was burn the fields as they passed through them and- keep the existing railways as they were? Your logic is flawed sir.

Putin holds the true power in russia, despite the fact that Medvedev is the elected head of state. Obama holds true power in the USA because he is the elected head of state. See the difference?

And your assumption about hitler is both hyperbolic and without basis in fact. The fact that you've repeated yourself does not make you any more correct. You've failed to clarify exactly how you came to that conclusion, and a silly conclusion it is. As Cody said, Hitler was actively trying to kill Slavs, Jews, and other 'undesirables' in central Europe, and he only achieved around 12 million casualties. Would his tactics suddenly have improved threefold had he conquered the Russians? I think not.

Get out.

[redlion]

No problem, I'm an amateur historian myself.

So what if Putin controls Russia? His party, United Russia, has 70% of the vote. Medvedev is a member of this party. Putin is its leader. So Putin does dictate Medvedev's actions indirectly. Nothing odd about that.

And you know, I love humans. But you have to agree that 20 million, being less than the alternative of 45+ million, is a more acceptable number of humans to die if the need calls for it. The lesser of two evils in a sense..

You're goddamn right, amateur. Historians don't make up opinions about what might have happened, they deal with what DID happen.

So basically, you don't have any facts to back up your assertions. Just the conjecture, the guess, really, that Germany and Japan would have killed sixty million people. I have so far seen no evidence to support your conjectures, which at this point I am forced to call vapid, fanboy bullshit. QED.

As far as Putin goes, you might want to google the phrase 'term limit' which is why Putin was forced to adopt his current position within the government. Term limits have been imposed in most countries to prevent dictators.

[Nunc]

Okey dokey. I'll post more tomorrow and try to rebuff thine arguments, but off to bed for today.

Happy new years, guys.

[redlion]

Okey dokey. I'll post more tomorrow and try to rebuff thine arguments, but off to bed for today.

Happy new years, guys.

I didn't mean for you to take this -

Get out.

so literally. I'd actually prefer if you stayed, right about now, to defend the shit you've spouted. You've put up waay to much fight to be just some stupid troll. Trolls usually know when to say 'gotcha!' which would have been five posts ago. I suspect you simply have nothing to say to our arguments.

There are only so many jews, you know?

Most importantly here, is that neither of us can accurately predict what would've happened without Stalin.

EDIT: redlion summarized pretty nicely for me, actually.

TY

I almost said the bit about running out of Jews, but I didn't phrase it nearly so nice as you did And the bit about Stalin... well, now you know why I don't argue with fanboys anymore. Simon was pretty bad about this, back in the day... before he found the books to back up his shitslinging, he was pretty fanboyish.

Edit: Who the hell +1'd this asshole for copping out of the debate? I get that not everyone is an insomniac like me (more likely he has a bedtime) but encouraging or even rewarding people for saying stupid shit and leaving without backing it up... well that's just criminal.

[Waser Lave]

It seems Nunc is now 0 for 2 in debates around here.

[Frizzle]

But you are making way too many assumptions about the way history would have played out! You are assuming the United States wouldn't have gotten involved... you are assuming that the Germany wouldn't have met further resistance... you are assuming that having all their troops spread out wouldn't have been a problem... and most importantly, you are assuming that this 1.5 million deaths per year would have been consistent. There are only so many jews, you know?

Most importantly here, is that neither of us can accurately predict what would've happened without Stalin. What we both do know is that Stalin is responsible for the murder of 20,000,000 people and that should not be condoned nor admired. Let's stick to the cold, harsh reality of the matter and not hypothetical situations involving serious war strategy and various diplomatic issues.

As far as the Putin thing, that still doesn't REALLY matter... Michael Steele is the head of the GOP in the United States, but if John McCain had won the election, he wouldn't be listening to Steele, because he is the PRESIDENT. He wouldn't take orders from someone with a rank lower than his own... and my real point is that I don't think many people believe that Putin only influences his decisions indirectly... it's a puppetshow and I think most of the world knows that...

EDIT: redlion summarized pretty nicely for me, actually.

It's a basic assumption based on the fact that ethnic genocide was a key feature in Hitler's, (well technically Eichmaan's) plans. With a population over 140 million now, and historically at the time over 100 million, it was be a fair guess to say that the Jew's wouldn't be the only one's marching to the death camps.

Also, I want to know where you're getting you're number of 20 million? (Also I like how you use it in numerical sense to make it seem like a larger number )

So far my research shows 700,000 dead in the Yehzov Regime.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Great_Purge
http://www.memo.ru/h...39/xronika.html
Life and Terror by Robert Conquest

2.5 million in the Ukraine Famines
http://www.ined.fr/f...raine/cdrom.htm

(Which to be fair where not a direct result of Stalin's orders to kill people, more like over-working those to death.)

Gulag deaths - 3 million

(After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.<sup>[85])

"</sup>Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression"

So, you're basically more than doubling the number of those killed. I'm not saying 9 million deaths are making it ok, but you're lying. 20 million is at best an over exaggaretion of every possible source. Also,
12 million people killed? There where only 6 million deaths in the concentration camps alone, and no. Not all 6 million were Jews, so again, do some more research.

You're goddamn right, amateur. Historians don't make up opinions about what might have happened, they deal with what DID happen.

So basically, you don't have any facts to back up your assertions. Just the conjecture, the guess, really, that Germany and Japan would have killed sixty million people. I have so far seen no evidence to support your conjectures, which at this point I am forced to call vapid, fanboy bullshit. QED.

As far as Putin goes, you might want to google the phrase 'term limit' which is why Putin was forced to adopt his current position within the government. Term limits have been imposed in most countries to prevent dictators.

Historians actually look into accurate reporting for future references. If you forget the past, you're doomed to repeat it in the future.


Couple of things = http://spreadsheets....DZEO9kVsuakgzMQ

UK - 99%
US - 99%
Russa - 99.5%
Bulgaria - 98.3%
Cuba - 99.8%

Seeing as no country has a 100% literacy rate and Cuba actually has the highest in the world according to 2009 stats.



And my political compass. Which isn't much of a surprise, but it does show I'm not as right wing as many people believe.

Edited by Frizzle, 02 January 2011 - 07:24 AM.

[Nunc]

It's a basic assumption based on the fact that ethnic genocide was a key feature in Hitler's, (well technically Eichmaan's) plans. With a population over 140 million now, and historically at the time over 100 million, it was be a fair guess to say that the Jew's wouldn't be the only one's marching to the death camps.

Also, I want to know where you're getting you're number of 20 million? (Also I like how you use it in numerical sense to make it seem like a larger number )

So far my research shows 700,000 dead in the Yehzov Regime.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Great_Purge
http://www.memo.ru/h...39/xronika.html
Life and Terror by Robert Conquest

2.5 million in the Ukraine Famines
http://www.ined.fr/f...raine/cdrom.htm

(Which to be fair where not a direct result of Stalin's orders to kill people, more like over-working those to death.)

Gulag deaths - 3 million

(After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.<sup>[85])

"</sup>Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression"

So, you're basically more than doubling the number of those killed. I'm not saying 9 million deaths are making it ok, but you're lying. 20 million is at best an over exaggaretion of every possible source. Also,
12 million people killed? There where only 6 million deaths in the concentration camps alone, and no. Not all 6 million were Jews, so again, do some more research.



Historians actually look into accurate reporting for future references. If you forget the past, you're doomed to repeat it in the future.


Couple of things = http://spreadsheets....DZEO9kVsuakgzMQ

UK - 99%
US - 99%
Russa - 99.5%
Bulgaria - 98.3%
Cuba - 99.8%

Seeing as no country has a 100% literacy rate and Cuba actually has the highest in the world according to 2009 stats.



And my political compass. Which isn't much of a surprise, but it does show I'm not as right wing as many people believe.

Wow, Frizzle, you got it perfectly right. You pretty much backed up my argument and made fools of the opposition; thank you!

See guys? It would've been this easy for me too had I given facts and did research and backed up my arguments.

Particularly this:

It's a basic assumption based on the fact that ethnic genocide was a key feature in Hitler's, (well technically Eichmaan's) plans. With a population over 140 million now, and historically at the time over 100 million, it was be a fair guess to say that the Jew's wouldn't be the only one's marching to the death camps.

That's perfectly correct- Hitler would've started pumping in Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, etcetera ceterisque into the death camps. And I don't believe an American intervention would've done anything.

So yeah, Mr. Frizzle, I support you perfectly and +repped you. Thanks!

[Sweeney]

Personally, I think the argument is still unsupported. Even if you successfully show that industrialisation of Russia, and the growth of the Red Army was key in the defense of Russia from the Nazis, you still have to show that the slaughter of millions of Russians was necessary for that to have occurred.

That would constitute a valid defense of "the ends justified the means", not the weak "but Hitler would have killed more of them though, maybe, perhaps" nonsense.

[Nunc]

Personally, I think the argument is still unsupported. Even if you successfully show that industrialisation of Russia, and the growth of the Red Army was key in the defense of Russia from the Nazis, you still have to show that the slaughter of millions of Russians was necessary for that to have occurred.That would constitute a valid defense of "the ends justified the means", not the weak "but Hitler would have killed more of them though, maybe, perhaps" nonsense

To succesfully institute such massive changes throughout Russia, a number of subversives and undesirables had to be removed. I'll go into detail:
"Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression"

So, of the 1.5 million executed, most were Kulaks (land-owning freemen), Cossacks (landed soldiery), capitalists, the bourgeois, and aristocrats- economic and social right-wingers that opposed Stalin's rule and resisted the industrialization and liberalization, and indeed, when the Germans came, many fought for the Nazis hoping to bring back the old order, particularly the cossacks, who were already a military caste- http://en.wikipedia....ossack_Division

The cossacks had helped the czar to oppress the workers' revolts and had grown rich and fat off the blood of the peasantry. The kulaks had attempted, although not aristocratic themselves, to establish more and more estates and in this fashion profit off the workers' misfortune. The capitalists had worked to oppress and subjugate the common folk in bids to make more and more money. Many were foreigners- germans, british, and jews. The bourgeois served under the aristocrats, as lackeys, and acted out their orders. The aristocrats were mostly of foreign extraction and, with lavish spending and wild abandon, drunk and partied Russia's wealth away. All of these people were detrimental to the survival of a peoples' state.

Those 5 million dead in the gulags were primarily intellectuals, reactionaries; the anti-communists. They were against the workers' state, seeking to bring about a weak western-style democracy. Needless to say they were very much detrimental to the future of the USSR, and had to have been removed. If you need proof that they were bad for Russia, just read up on Andrei Vlassov- an intellectual who defected to nazi Germany andled 100,000 men against Russia: http://en.wikipedia....i/Andrey_Vlasov

Of the 1.7 million who died in deportation, most were members of groups that had rebelled against the soviet state: the Kalmyks, Chechens, and Crimean Tatars, who fought for the Nazis; the Manchus, Estonians, and Buryats, who had attempted destruction of the soviet state; and various and sundry lesser groups, like the western Kyrgyz and Samarqandis who had participated in anti-soviet activites- thus reactionaries. Here's a source:
http://en.wikipedia....tations_of_1943
particularly the "in 1942, German forces uniquely found volunteers among the Kalmyks for the Kalmykian Voluntary Cavalry Corps, which killed many Soviet partisans" part. They weren't exactly innocent

And later most groups were rehabilitated and resettled, the Kalmyks in 1956, others at other times.

The million dead POWs and German civilians- well, that's war for you. People, random people die, not necessarily those who deserve it. The Nazis were far worse on soviet citizens, though, just sayin'.



Now, Cody, I don't think you really understand Hitler's racial theory- Jews, Russians, Polacks, Czechs, etc. were all Untermenschen- subhumans, undesirables; to be killed.

The einsatzgruppen wiped out russian villages, slew millions of russians, and burned entire towns as retaliation for partisan activities. For every 1 german soldier shot by Russian partisans, the einsatzgruppen were ordered to kill between 10 and 30 russians. Arguably the Germans hated russians more because the russians were actively at war with Germany, unlike the jews.

I very much believe that Hitler would have attempted nothing less than the entire destruction of the Russian race.

Indeed, all his writings suggest this. So your point is moot.

Edited by Nunc, 02 January 2011 - 12:13 PM.

[Nunc]

Hitler couldn't wipe out 30 million people in the 6 years that he controlled Poland- though he did try, and managed to kill about 1/6th of them. Still a huge number, many millions.


Yes, of course, Russians had signed a peace treaty with Germany. Except it was intended to be a non-aggression pact, which Germany, in its feckless aggression broke; here is an excerpt from Hitler's decleration of war on the Soviet union:

"During the night of June 17 to June 18 Russian patrolsagain penetrated into the Reich's territory and could only bedriven back after prolonged firing. This has brought us tothe hour when it is necessary for us to take steps againstthis plot devised by the Jewish Anglo-Saxon warmongers andequally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevist center in Moscow."
So he thought Russia to be ruled by jews. And what did he hate most? You got it.

In any case he considered the Russians every bit as subhuman as the jews, and in certain regions - the Crimea, the Balts, carpathian Ruthenia - he attempted to expunge and cleanse the Russians from his land. He would've done this to many more regions, had he had the time. All in all he was in control of western Russia for only 4 years (1941-1945) and he managed to kill 9 - 13 million russians- 2 or 3 million dead per year.

Soviet civilian war dead(1941–45)^[24][25]
Deaths caused by the result of direct, intentional actions of violence 7,420,379
Deaths of forced laborers in Germany 2,164,313
Deaths due to famine and disease in the occupied regions 4,100,000
Total 13,684,692

source: http://lib.ru/MEMUAR...txt#w02.htm-186

Personally, I just can't see how you don't realize that Hitler hated Russians with all his heart and would have killed many more than 20 million if he had had more time or faced a non-industrialized Russia.

Edited by Nunc, 02 January 2011 - 12:32 PM.

[Sweeney]

I'm not going to quote it all, but you've still not demonstrated that the massacre of millions was necessary for economic growth; only that the death of millions facilitated economic growth of one kind, in one particular instance.

I'll make it easy for you; you can't demonstrate that mass murder is a necessary component of industrialisation. Because it isn't.

[Nunc]

If he hadn't killed so many, Russia would've toppled in the face of the german invasion, being a still feudalist and agricultural state. Those 9 million dead were all members of groups that wanted to bring down the Soviet Union and worked hard against industrialization, because they profitted more from the old, traditional ways.Had they remained, industrialization would never have occurred, and quite likely the Russian civil war would have gone on past the 20s and into the 30s.

Did you know about that? All of these groups that Stalin expunged had fought against the soviet government in a brutal civil war from 1918-1925.

Edited by Nunc, 02 January 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[Nunc]

Okay, I'll summarize it for you:

1918-1925: Russian civil war, aristocrats, borugeois, and land-owners fight to keep up the old agricultural feudalist Russia, against the peasants and laborers who want a socialist people's state. Millions die on both sides, but the Red Army wins out.
1926-1936: Famine and drought grips Russia, thousands die because of natural disasters. Ukrainians and cossacks bear the brunt of it. Stalin orders explusion of aristocrats, capitalists, foreigners, soldiers of the White Army, certain rebellious minorities etc, etc because they pose a threat to the worker's state. He still fears a tsarist uprising. A few millions are killed or arrested. With the troublemakers gone, stalin rapidly industrializes russia with no major setbacks.
1936-1941: Stalin keeps making russia more and more powerful.
1941-1945: Nazis invade; even the newly strengthened soviet union has trouble beating back Germany.

Here's a note about the industrialization and related casualties:

"By early 1921 it became apparent to the Bolsheviks that forced requisitioning of grain had resulted in low agricultural production and widespread opposition. As a result, the decision was made by Lenin and the Politburo to try an alternative approach."^[16] The so-called New Economic Policy (NEP) was approved at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)^[17]

Everything except "the commanding heights", as Lenin put it, of the economy would be privatized. "The commanding heights" included foreign trade, heavy industry, communication and transport among others.^[16] The NEP encountered strong resistance within the Bolshevik party. Lenin had to persuade communist skeptics that "state capitalism" was a necessary step in achieving communism, while he himself harbored suspicions that the policy could be abused by private businessmen ("NEPmen").^[18]

As novelist Andrei Platonov, among others, noted, the improvements were immediate. Rationing cards and queues which had become hallmarks of war communism had disappeared. However, due to prolonged war, low harvests, and several natural disasters the Soviet economy was still in trouble, particularly its agricultural sector. In 1921 widespread famine broke out in the Volga-Ural region. The Soviet government changed its previous course and allowed international relief to come in from abroad, and established a special committee chaired by prominent communists and non-communists alike. Despite this, an estimated 5 million people died in the famine.^[19]"

You can see that stalin cared about his people, indeed natural disasters mostly served to bring about the famine.

"Starting in 1928, the five-year plans began building a heavy industrial base at once in an underdeveloped economy without waiting years for capital to accumulate through the expansion of light industry, and without reliance on external financing. The country now became industrialized at a hitherto unprecedented pace, surpassing Germany's pace of industrialization in the 19th century and Japan's earlier in the 20th century.After the reconstruction of the economy (in the wake of the destruction caused by the Russian Civil War) was completed, and after the initial plans of further industrialisation were fulfilled, the explosive growth slowed down, but still generally surpassed most of the other countries in terms of total material production (GNP)^{[citation needed]} until the period of Brezhnev stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s."

[Nunc]

Industrialized, powerful russia with 240 million people > feudalist, agricultural russia with 230 million

And I retook the test, to see if I'd get the same results:


Apparently so.

[Nunc]

It wouldn't have progressed naturally, because it wasn't a capitalist, laissez-faire state. There would have been no driving force to industrialize. Russia today would be like Sudan or Burma.

And 10 million people in a country of ~250 million people, if they're bad for the survival of the state, are expendable

[luvsmyncis]

So to you, killing 10 million people is okay as long as you move from agricultural society to industrialized society rapidly rather than the natural progression?

This is a person who has a batshit crazy numerical listing of world religions and lists Jews and Atheists tied for 12th place. So... I'm going to guess 'yes'. 

[Nunc]

You have essentially just proven my argument by showing that you are immoral and have a disregard for the value of a human life. Thus, it makes complete sense why you would admire Stalin.
---
I'm immoral?

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in morality. And with 7,000,000,000 humans alive on the earth, what is 10 million? One 700th of the world populace?

Ok, look. The goal of the Soviet Union was to bring about a workers' state. Just like the goal of America is to spread democracy. If a few people have to die to achieve the greater good, so what?

Not like there aren't millions more.

[Sweeney]

I'm immoral?

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in morality.

Don't say that like it's a logical conclusion, you imbecile.
Your atheism has nothing to do with your apparent psychosis.

[Nunc]

I do in life what will make me happy.

Whatever choice of action I want to take, I take.
I decide on the moment.

Thus I have no need for a rigid, unbending system of morals- those would only weigh me down.

I choose what to do not by society's expectations but by what will profit me most.

Capisce?

No need for outdated 'morals'

Edited by Nunc, 02 January 2011 - 02:23 PM.

[Sweeney]

I do in life what will make me happy.

Whatever choice of action I want to take, I take.
I decide on the moment.

Thus I have no need for a rigid, unbending system of morals- those would only weigh me down.

I choose what to do not by society's expectations but by what will profit me most.

Capisce?

No need for outdated 'morals'

You're either a genuine psychopath, or a 12 year old boy who has watched to many mature movies.

I'm going to go for the latter, though. You don't seem to have developed the capability for deception that most psychopaths demonstrate.

[Nunc]

I'm actually not a psycopath- I've taken the test; apparently I haven't mastered the whole 'complete lack of empathy' thing yet (I feel empathy for other Europeans and Slavs in particular) nor the 'get reationships quickly and also abandon them quickly' or whatever, I get into a few and I stick with them for the most part. I'm pretty good at deception, though you wouldn't know IRL- I can lie very well and undetectably.

Edited by Nunc, 02 January 2011 - 02:40 PM.