Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What you think of this pic?

marcusmoon
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 4:57:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

Actually both were similar and hateful people.
And the Vikings had no mercy for anyone. They picked on weaker people. Sounds like cowars to me. Romans and Nazis had more cojones than Vikings or KKK. And I'm suprised you like the Vikings. Normally I'd expect people who like the Vikings to like Klan ideals as well.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 4:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

Oh my God, you too? A kindegartener knows that the KKK didn't come from the Confederate states of America. It came from the USA. Get your facts straight. Tennessee almost was Union. And the county from which the KKK was spawned voted to be in the Union. Confederates did not create the KKK. George Carlin was right, I swear. Plus slavery came under an English, not Scots-Irish flag.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 5:07:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

OK I think I get what you first said. Basically this is the reason. The KKK was not a country. The Vikings were a country and an empire, so obviously they did different things, but if you look at the fact that they terrorized people they conquered, it means that if they were home they would've gone KKK on people that disagreed with them. Denmark and Sweden went on to form vicious Klan organizations, and to be violent imperialist powers. They would even treat Norway like garbage.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not

By celebrating the Vikings, you are celebrating the same type of thing that the KKK did. I'd believe you if you said the Celts were true warriors, not the Vikings. The Vikings were an evil bunch.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:59:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:54:12 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not

By celebrating the Vikings, you are celebrating the same type of thing that the KKK did. I'd believe you if you said the Celts were true warriors, not the Vikings. The Vikings were an evil bunch.

definition of warrior

a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

synonyms: fighter soldier serviceman combatant mercernary

warrior has nothing to do with good or evil you idiot.

Vikings were very brave and very experienced fighters. They had a all in never say die attitude. They didn't care about the losses they just kept fighting. Also they were indifferent merciless killers. they didn't care who they attacked they just did. They were true warriors.

Good or evil thats purely subjective, nothing more, nothing less
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:59:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:54:12 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not

By celebrating the Vikings, you are celebrating the same type of thing that the KKK did. I'd believe you if you said the Celts were true warriors, not the Vikings. The Vikings were an evil bunch.

definition of warrior

a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

synonyms: fighter soldier serviceman combatant mercernary

warrior has nothing to do with good or evil you idiot.

Vikings were very brave and very experienced fighters. They had a all in never say die attitude. They didn't care about the losses they just kept fighting. Also they were indifferent merciless killers. they didn't care who they attacked they just did. They were true warriors.

Good or evil thats purely subjective, nothing more, nothing less

Well yeah they were warriors if that's what you're saying, but they did the same evil things the Klan did. They pillaged, attacked, murdered. At least the Celts had a culture of peace. Something neither two had. And God don't even get me started on the Anglo-Saxons.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:03:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:59:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:54:12 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not

By celebrating the Vikings, you are celebrating the same type of thing that the KKK did. I'd believe you if you said the Celts were true warriors, not the Vikings. The Vikings were an evil bunch.

definition of warrior

a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

synonyms: fighter soldier serviceman combatant mercernary

warrior has nothing to do with good or evil you idiot.

Vikings were very brave and very experienced fighters. They had a all in never say die attitude. They didn't care about the losses they just kept fighting. Also they were indifferent merciless killers. they didn't care who they attacked they just did. They were true warriors.

Good or evil thats purely subjective, nothing more, nothing less

Well obviously the KKK weren't soldiers or warriors. They weren't a wartime group. They were a civilian group terrorizing people who disagreed with them. I guarantee you that when the Vikings weren't in other countries doing what they did, in their own country they were doing what the Klan did.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:03:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:01:28 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:59:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:54:12 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not

By celebrating the Vikings, you are celebrating the same type of thing that the KKK did. I'd believe you if you said the Celts were true warriors, not the Vikings. The Vikings were an evil bunch.

definition of warrior

a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

synonyms: fighter soldier serviceman combatant mercernary

warrior has nothing to do with good or evil you idiot.

Vikings were very brave and very experienced fighters. They had a all in never say die attitude. They didn't care about the losses they just kept fighting. Also they were indifferent merciless killers. they didn't care who they attacked they just did. They were true warriors.

Good or evil thats purely subjective, nothing more, nothing less

Well yeah they were warriors if that's what you're saying, but they did the same evil things the Klan did. They pillaged, attacked, murdered. At least the Celts had a culture of peace. Something neither two had. And God don't even get me started on the Anglo-Saxons.

technically the grammatically and historically correct form of the bolded sentence would be "the klan did some of the same things as the vikings
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:05:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:03:52 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:01:28 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:59:11 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:54:12 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:43:13 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 6:05:54 PM, Adam2 wrote:
At 12/4/2013 1:29:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 11/27/2013 3:37:30 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
At 11/24/2013 11:19:21 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
there is one major difference, the former plunder their enemies, the latter plunder their own people.

Actually, the main difference was that the Vikings actually conquered before they terrorized. The KKK sprang from the vanquished and reconstructed Confederate States of America. Vikings were winners, but the Clansmen were a bunch of losers throwing impotent tantrums in secret (another difference) about losing.

Moreover, Vikings liked battle and winning glory by fighting worthy adversaries, but the Clan sought out weak and unarmed individuals to terrorize. They always have avoided anything like a good fight. The Vikings were adventurous, but the Clan are a bunch of provincial wussies.

I really think the comparison is unfairly flattering to the KKK and its members.

There's a bunch of stuff wrong with this. The Vikings plundered first and then they settled in, but they didn't really "conquer" in the traditional sense, they were all about the loot. They also weren't such noble people, where they brutalized women and children, and thought nothing about bashing a baby's head against a wall, and laughing about it. One of their favorite targets were the monasteries of western Europe, and England in particular, because they tended to have gold and never were a threat in fighting back. The Vikings were a brutal and amoral people who actually held much of Europe back durring the dark ages.

Any comparison to the KKK is lost on me. The KKK was and is an indiginous group of people who are white supremists, and target people who are different in race, religion, and politics.

Well aren't the KKK descended from the Vikings?

maybe some of them but definitely not all of them. but i will build on one thing the vikings were true warriors the kkk were not

By celebrating the Vikings, you are celebrating the same type of thing that the KKK did. I'd believe you if you said the Celts were true warriors, not the Vikings. The Vikings were an evil bunch.

definition of warrior

a brave or experienced soldier or fighter.

synonyms: fighter soldier serviceman combatant mercernary

warrior has nothing to do with good or evil you idiot.

Vikings were very brave and very experienced fighters. They had a all in never say die attitude. They didn't care about the losses they just kept fighting. Also they were indifferent merciless killers. they didn't care who they attacked they just did. They were true warriors.

Good or evil thats purely subjective, nothing more, nothing less

Well yeah they were warriors if that's what you're saying, but they did the same evil things the Klan did. They pillaged, attacked, murdered. At least the Celts had a culture of peace. Something neither two had. And God don't even get me started on the Anglo-Saxons.

technically the grammatically and historically correct form of the bolded sentence would be "the klan did some of the same things as the vikings

Well yeah. Because obviously they weren't a country terrorizing another (Vikings). They were civilian groups terrorizing blacks, but I will say that Vikings at home did what the KKK did.
kawaii_crazy
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 9:44:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2013 5:33:22 PM, Adam2 wrote:
http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net...

true
"Being called weird is like being called Limited Edition. Meaning you're something people don't see that often." -Ashley Purdy

Please help raise money for a Christmas gift for airmax (although he is Jewish, as YYW pointed out). He is in desperate need of a new laptop, and he has done so much for this site; he certainly deserves one. :)
http://www.debate.org...
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2014 3:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
well, this certainly does not belong in the funny section
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
kawaii_crazy
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 12:00:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
ha. pic is so true.
"Being called weird is like being called Limited Edition. Meaning you're something people don't see that often." -Ashley Purdy

Please help raise money for a Christmas gift for airmax (although he is Jewish, as YYW pointed out). He is in desperate need of a new laptop, and he has done so much for this site; he certainly deserves one. :)
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:39:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
History repeating itself

http://downtrend.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:26:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:53:41 AM, KingDebater wrote:
I don't understand that.

What he means is that both vikings and KKK terrorized ppl.
STALIN
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:26:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/2/2014 3:19:02 PM, yay842 wrote:
well, this certainly does not belong in the funny section

Sigh. Poor sense of humor, as always.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 7:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, the first problem is that the KKK was originally founded in the 1800s, not the 1900s.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
AskVaughan
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 7:38:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2013 5:33:22 PM, Adam2 wrote:
http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net...

My opinion is that that picture was edited by someone with tunnel vision. If anything the KKK is probably one of the most irrelevant examples they could have used. I mean the colonists were more spot on in the genocide department with the help of Christopher Columbus (who was a pirate and couldn't afford the powdered wig they portray him in.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 7:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No idea what the means
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite