soj.ooO
BETA
The social discussion platform
Home
Pochas
Channels
Videos
Log in
Sign up
Sign up
Home
Pochas
Channels
Videos
Log in
Sign up
Parent Post: Difference between a great man, and a 'hero'............
·
In Reply To
H
hyokkim
·
7/11/2025, 6:00:16 PM
·
permalink
''But just to exhaust the possibilities of what you mean, are you specifically saying that being nice to women and dumb animals is a bad thing?'' I had already said: ''Now, I believe great man should try to be nice to women and dumb animals, so long as it doesn't detract from higher purpose. Unfortunately, some great men are not nice to women and dumb animals even when it would not have detracted from the higher purpose they were pursuing.'' - Hyok Kim '' is a demonstrative quality in someone who is actually a "great man".'' Not necessarily. ''I feel you are speaking more about the commie propaganda itself other than the idea that we should not be kind to others, and so with that in mind, I agree that in modern writing the "hero" always has to respect all women, champion all minorities, rescue all the retards etc etc, and all of these ideas come from the "we are all the same" mentality that there is no difference between men and women and the rest of the drivel, this is their idea of kindness and not what kindness actually is.'' Man, you're reading my mind, but it goes a little more than that. '' Even though it is not necessary, asking consent(in any situation that requires it) is a kindness and being kind to dumb animals goes without saying, even though these are things used in their propaganda, it is still a good thing to be kind, and not being a rapist is being kind.'' I agree with your sentiment. However, I don't think it has little relevance to being a great man. Plus, I would not ask for consent from worthless people if I were strong enough, and they were not useful enough; I would not be kind to dumb animals that are nasty, such as these. https://www.foxnews.com/us/deputies-watched-dogs-eating-rib-cage-of-virginia-woman-22-during-mauling-sheriff-says https://www.foxnews.com/us/dogs-fatally-mauled-tennessee-toddlers-injured-mom-never-violent-friend-says '' it is still a good thing to be kind, and not being a rapist is being kind.'' Nomadic tribes had no problem raping the women of the enemy tribes after defeating them, who had raped their women before. ''There is a difference between the whole "consent" thing and rape, the whole idea of consent( in relation between a man and a woman) is just feminist propaganda and is entirely manufactured, if a woman wants you to fuck them, you wont need to get their consent. But this gets defined as rape in todays world, ...'' Why I stick to prostitutes; virtually impossible to accuse me of rape. ''There is no good reason to rape someone, ever, the only reason is and always will be personal gratification and that is not a great reason, it is the antithesis of what greatness is, if you have to rape women, then women don't want you, how can a man that women don't want be a great man?'' Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and Stalin had had no problem ordering/allowing mass rapes. Women don't decide what makes a great man; they can recognize/accept a great man, or refuse to recognize a great man. Great man is defined by his accomplishment at the end; he does not need a great reason to commit mass murder/rapes. ''This is not an example of greatness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_the_Sabine_women'' But, without it, Rome could not have become a great nation: It was necessary. ''It is the same for people who order the mass murder of those who don't agree they live in utopia,....'' It depends on the nature of utopia. ''the men who fought and died for their homes and ideals are far greater than the dumb animals who killed them and the cowards who ordered them'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC) ''People who also abuse animals for no reason don't deserve to have sentience and should be hanged.'' I don't believe in abusing animals, period, other than nasty dogs. However, who would hang Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Stalin if they had decided to abuse animals for no reason. ''Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Stalin, were following no higher purpose other than their own wants and desires, there were no "bigger fish to fry", that is not greatness it is selfishness.'' Great men have the right to be selfish, so long as they are able. ''He is kind to women and dumb animals but they still get a bitch slap or put down when it's deserved, ....'' Sometimes a little too much for my taste. ''he rarely if ever gets consent(for anything) and is not a rapist, and serves king and country, which on face value is a noble cause, truly a great man if he was real.'' Great men have committed rapes, and ordered mass rapes on occasion. Great men do not serve anyone other than himself ultimately, in the end. British monarchy at the time of James Bond was no longer fit to be served by even your great men. It outlived its usefulness. Besides, you forget about Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Save
Cancel
4
bumps
Share
kumir_al-stabya
·
7/11/2025, 6:29:44 PM
·
permalink
What do you identify as great in those people you listed in your own opinion.
Save
Cancel
2
bumps
Share
H
hyokkim
·
7/12/2025, 7:00:13 AM
·
permalink
''Heaven grew weary of the excessive pride and luxury of China... I am from the Barbaric North. I wear the same clothing and eat the same food as the cowherds and horse-herders. We make the same sacrifices and we share.. our riches. I look upon the nation as a new-born child and I care for my soldiers as though they were my brothers.'' ''A leader can never be happy until his people are happy.'' ''I hate luxury. I exercise moderation…It will be easy to forget your vision and purpose one you have fine clothes, fast horses and beautiful women. \[In which case\], you will be no better than a slave, and you will surely lose everything.'' ''If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.'' Genghis Kahn had faced the loss of his father at an early age, betrayal after betrayal, from his own family, multiple times, from his best childhood friend, from his mentor, and yet managed to survive and triumph, and fought against empires with more men, wealth than his, and still managed to win victory after victory. Alexander the Great had managed to defeat an empire many times his size, with a coalition that was not exactly cohesive, plus without secure logistics that even Genghis would never face. He makes Napoleon look like a joke in comparison. Stalin had faced many life/death situations in his younger days and eventually managed to come to power even after Lenin's hostility. He knew how to play politics, better than any, to overcome even Lenin's overt hostility. He also knew how to prioritize what matters in strategic sense, over what would be tactical missteps. Most people do not know how to prioritize; they just do what they think what public want to hear, instead of what really matters.
Save
Cancel
1
bump
Share
Signature
Loading…
Verify locally
Close
