/lit/ - Literature

File: 25 KB, 273x300, italy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 23 17:43:32 2011 No.2275014 [Reply] [Original]

Currently writing/latest story ideas thread?

Been having a writers block for the last month until this morning. Basic story line is an alternate history where in the 50s, a new pope is elected with heavy Soviet influence in Italy. The new pope sparks reforms, integrating the Holy See into Italy which then becomes the People's Republic of Rome. The Catholic church becomes a very political leftist entity. Haven't finished my outlining, but it'll include major conflicts with the other catholic nations and of course infighting within Rome.

Anonymous Fri Dec 23 18:42:31 2011 No.2275115 [DELETED]

heres my candy-ass idea. A guy who had an abusive childhood assinates high profile racists across the united states. Eventually he questions the hypocrisy of it, and that kind of junk. If I wasn't 15 and inexperienced, it might not be bad. But I can't pace it properly, and I dont have a plan....

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 18:42:32 2011 No.2275117 >>2275115 I'm reporting you for rule violations.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 18:44:31 2011 No.2275122 lolwut>>2275117

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 18:46:31 2011 No.2275124 >>2275122 You're 15. This is in violation of global rules.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 18:54:31 2011 No.2275140 A guy with dissociative identity disorder who is falling in love with himself. One of his personalities is a transvestite and the other one thinks that he's his room-mate who he never sees. It's better when I explain it properly, I swear.

Jackpot !!CaSBHxbw8pz Fri Dec 23 18:58:31 2011 No.2275147

op your idea sucks. The USSR was secular, and Eastern Orthodox before that. How the hell would they gain any influence over a pope? And as far as religious institutions, the Church has been traditionally very leftist. You clearly don't know shit about shit.

Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:00:32 2011 No.2275152

>>2275147
Its obvious that they couldn't take religion away from everyone. They would control the catholic people using the church.

Also
>Catholic church
>traditionally leftist
yes, in recent years it has been more liberal, however it hasn't been that way for long

Jackpot !!CaSBHxbw8pz Fri Dec 23 19:03:32 2011 No.2275157

>>2275152

My point is that Russians aren't Catholic to begin with, they're Russian Orthodox. Meaning that the Russian govt has zero leverage over the Vatican. They don't even have a Cardinal in Russia. And if by recent years you mean since the beginning o the modern era then yea, I agree.

Do more research please, you're only going to embarrass yourself with this idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:07:32 2011 No.2275164 >>2275157 The Soviet Union during its peak was one of the strongest nations in the world. I'm pretty sure they could corrupt a papal conclave and influence the government of Italy around the time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:08:32 2011 No.2275165 >>2275140 That actually sounds kind of interesting ...

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:09:31 2011 No.2275169 >>2275164 They could. But why would they?

Jackpot !!CaSBHxbw8pz Fri Dec 23 19:10:32 2011 No.2275170

>>2275164

Not in the 50's they weren't. The USSR was barely holding on by a thread after WWII and losing tens of millions of soldiers. And Italy fell to the allies and was not behind the Iron Curtain, so any attempt at influencing them would have been countered by the U.S. and England as part of their containment policy.

And let's not even get into how stupid it would be for a secular and ATHEIST government to attempt to gain more power through religion.

Again, please do more research on this. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:18:32 2011 No.2275180

>>2275014
>implying the Soviets would have any influence within Italy
>implying the Pope and the Catholic Church as a whole didn't heavily oppose Soviet doctrine, which advocates the FUCKING ABOLISHMENT OF RELIGION
>implying the Vatican would suddenly turn leftist overnight after centuries of rejecting and suppressing liberal ideas
>implying you have any grasp of political or social realities

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:19:32 2011 No.2275181 So we're not actually going to discuss our ideas in this thread?

>>	Jackpot !!CaSBHxbw8pz Fri Dec 23 19:25:31 2011 No.2275195 >>2275181 I would, but the only idea I have right now is a series of vignettes about some of the crazy shit that people did during the black death in Europe when nobody expected to survive and society started to unravel.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:27:32 2011 No.2275199 If you're going to do it, you need a way to kill of Stalin. He's your big brick in the way. Then make up or have some other person rise to power that extends an olive branch to italy. You catch more flies with honey.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 19:37:32 2011 No.2275213 >>2275195 So work on that. Elaborate. That's what this thread is for.

Jackpot !!CaSBHxbw8pz Fri Dec 23 19:49:25 2011 No.2275232

>>2275213

Ok well, with the population falling so drastically there was a serious lack of labor and lots of nobility had trouble controlling their peasants, which created a sense of anarchy as feudalism stopped working for a while. At the same time, the church and plenty of local leaders across Europe actually legalized rape. The purpose of this was to both increase the birth rate and keep the peasants fighting amongst themselves so as to not challenge anybodies power. There were also brothels where you could go and fight a man to death after having sex and getting drunk. Some people gave away all their wealth because they thought they were going to die and wanted to get into heaven, while others lost their faith and went around robbing and murdering people. If an entire household became infected, the other villagers would brick up their house while they were still alive. With rape legal, there was a lot of that going on in the street, but sometimes it was consensual and orgies would break out at random. And when the whole thing finally ended, there was such a surplus in developed land and resources that it became possible for lots of people to move up in class that otherwise would have remained poor. Sometimes people literally just walked onto an abandoned farm and claimed it as their own and nobody would stop them because everyone that had claim to it died off.

Basically, shit was cray and I think you could write some great stories based on that period. I'd want to ground it more in facts though, so I'd need to do some research before I do any writing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 22:03:28 2011 No.2275571 If you think the soviets were leftist, you got problems son

Anonymous Fri Dec 23 23:47:39 2011 No.2275747

You should examine real history more carefully and realize all the intrigue with the Catholic Church started in earnest with the Jesuits.
They of course now run the world and have anyone trying to figure that out getting stuck at the Jew banker thing. lol, its pure genius, your story sounds a little whacked out, but Bolshevism was classic Jesuit work to destroy the Orthodox Czars.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 23 23:50:38 2011 No.2275751 Religion is intrinsically right-wing.

>>	▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9.23Wow. Sat Dec 24 00:02:32 2011 No.2275770 >a new pope is elected with heavy Soviet influence DERP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 01:29:30 2011 No.2275928 Just have Italy vote the Communists in, they only lost the election because of tens of millions of dollars of support for the opposing party and the threat of losing all development dollars from America.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Sat Dec 24 03:09:41 2011 No.2276062
File: 356 KB, 1024x768, rome-italy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I don't feel so bad about the ideas I have now. Thanks OP. Here lemme try to help

>>2275014
1. Communism is inherently anti-religious, so this would have to be a far softer form.
2. In 1950s Italy, I don't think the Pope had that much power to change the political balance.
There should be an anti-Mussolini figure included to make this transition more believable. This spiritual Marxism would probably have more sway with the Cuban revolution, or maybe cause (Catholic)worldwide rifts for revolutionary movements.

I think you need a book about 1950s Italy. All I know is they were relatively poor, having just lost in WWII five, ten years ago.

>>2275140
Brad Pitt and Edward Norton want to star in your picture son. Norton wants to play the TS.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 03:46:41 2011 No.2276100 Perhaps you could put in a world where the Western and Eastern Church never split? In my mind seems more plausible

>>	Stagolee, Hand of the King !0Pey/QLK3E Sat Dec 24 03:49:41 2011 No.2276103 >>2275751 >Religion is intrinsically right-wing. that's not true, a lot of liberals are atheists the two are practically synonymous

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 03:59:41 2011 No.2276117 >>2276103 >>2275751 Right wing politics and religion are only really married in post 40s American politics. And then we're talking about cultish, fundamentalist religion.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 03:59:41 2011 No.2276119

>>2275928

This. There were plenty of leftists who were not "soviet influenced" and the post-WWII leftists in Italy were quite popular, which is why America spent so much money making sure they didn't actually win any political power. It's perfectly plausible to have a story in which they decided to somehow high-jack the papacy in a bid to win over nationalist Italians. Not likely or even historically accurate at all, but plausible, which is good enough for a story.

I liked the OP's idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:01:42 2011 No.2276121 >>2275571 I'm a leftist and the soviets were leftist. Of course they were fucking leftist you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:04:41 2011 No.2276126 >>2276121 The Soviets were on the right of the communists. There was a strong anarcho-communist opposition to the soviets on the left.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:06:42 2011 No.2276129 >>2276126 That doesn't make the Soviet's "not leftist" though. The Leninists and Stalinists were anti-capitalist. That means they were leftists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:10:42 2011 No.2276133 >>2276129 >implying left and right aren't relative That's why left and right are such good metaphors. Also, while the idea of soviets was left, the actual politics within the USSR under Stalin was a strong right.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:26:41 2011 No.2276143

>>2276133

No, no it wasn't. What was right-wing at all about Stalin's policies? I feel as if you are simply calling anything you don't like "right-wing".

Right-wing: private property, free markets, liberalism

Left-wing: common property, democratic control of the means of production

Sure Stalinist policies were not democratic, but they were still socialist. Not a form of socialism that has any legitimacy today (except among a certain subset of Russian conservatives), but still an example of socialism.

If you want to be a honest leftist, don't try to white-wash over socialist history. Don't apologize for it, but don't try to hide it either. Otherwise you're no different from the idiots today who look at the US and say shit like "oohh but this isn't REAL capitalism!".

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:27:42 2011 No.2276145 File: 38 KB, 251x257, 1324298285517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2276143 6/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:30:41 2011 No.2276147 >>2276145 oh I get it, you're just some college hipster "socialist" who just wants a way to be edgy, and doesn't actually give a shit about politics, history, or economics. cool bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:34:41 2011 No.2276151 >>2276143 >No, no it wasn't. What was right-wing at all about Stalin's policies? I feel as if you are simply calling anything you don't like "right-wing". You're the kind of idiot who thinks environmental conservation is left wing.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:38:41 2011 No.2276153

>>2276151

Conservation is not a economic position, it is a moral one, therefore it has no place on the right-left scale.

If you believed that conservation was so important that all land ownership must be brought into common in order to protect it from development or resource extraction, and that resources can only be extracted democratically, then yes, that would be a left-wing position.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:42:41 2011 No.2276157 >>2276153 For example, Greenpeace isn't left-wing. Deep Green Resistance is left-wing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:45:42 2011 No.2276159 >>2276153 Oh I see the problem: >doesn't know about political left/right >thinks there is only economic left/right You're a bona fide dunce. Hopefully I've given you enough insight now so that you can read the papers without your head hurting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:48:41 2011 No.2276160 >>2276159 >thinks politics and economics can be separated It's funny that you think you know you're shit, but you are actually so clueless that you don't even get I'm trying to help you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:55:42 2011 No.2276174 >>2276160 Uh, nearly every media source will characterize itself politically and economically left and right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 04:58:41 2011 No.2276181 >>2276174 You're the kind of idiot who thinks The New York Times and MSNBC are left-wing, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:01:41 2011 No.2276186 >>2276174 Please explain how you can be politically right but economically left. And if you say Hitler I swear to god I will spank you.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:03:41 2011 No.2276189

What OP should take away from all this political mud slinging is that if you get your book written it has an audience.

My only suggestion for OP is do some VERY in depth study of what happened around those times. Read and watch everything you can about what was going on and what lead up to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:05:42 2011 No.2276193 File: 56 KB, 500x672, 62923.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Political left to right would be Libertarian/Authoritarian, and economic would be communist/capitalist, am i right (or am i right)?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:11:42 2011 No.2276198 Yo fags, take this shit to /pol/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:15:42 2011 No.2276203 >>2276198 fuck that libertarian-ridden shithole

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:19:42 2011 No.2276211

>>2276186
In the UK, read the Times; politically centrist, economically right. Compare to the Guardian who are politically centrist but economically left.

>>2276153
>If you believed that conservation was so important that all land ownership must be brought into common in order to protect it from development or resource extraction, and that resources can only be extracted democratically, then yes, that would be a left-wing position.
The concepts of ownership and property are extremely complex and don't really have any bearing on being left and right in themselves. They're simply by-products or manifestations of some other ideological wossnames. Democratic resource management is a hallmark of the right too. You'd know this if you were familiar with the Austian or Chicago schools.

So, no, that's not a left wing position. It might be left, but it's almost certainly right.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:35:41 2011 No.2276235

>>2276211
>The concepts of ownership and property are extremely complex and don't really have any bearing on being left and right in themselves. They're simply by-products or manifestations of some other ideological wossnames.

I'm going to bed so all I'm going to say is this: of course I recognize that those concepts are complex, but my position is that you have it backwards; those concepts are not the by-product of ideology, ideology is the by-product of those concepts.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:42:41 2011 No.2276238

>>2276211
>The Times
>Centrist
Fuck off anon. They actually ran columns saying 'democracy proponents should welcome the Murdoch BskyB takeover', jesus.

If you're in the UK you want to buy Private Eye, The Week and two other broadsheets of your choosing, either FT/Grauniad/Times/Bindependent. The bindie actually has good coverage, just a tendency to run LOOK AT THE POOR PANDAS front covers, and have some nauseatingly shite opinion pieces.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:47:41 2011 No.2276245

>>2276235
While in some cases it's a chicken-egg situation, there is always ideology behind everything (there is always an ideology that has created some concept of ownership). Ownership is always something that develops from other things, case in point:
>If you believed that conservation was so important that all land ownership must be brought into common in order to protect it from development
Ownership is instrumental to conservation. You can not give an example of ownership which disproves this. On the other hand, there are ideologies that eschew the idea of ownership itself (some interpretations of Taoism and Buddhism for example) i.e. ideology exists without ownership.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:52:42 2011 No.2276252 >>2276238 >FT >good It's sometimes good, but recently more bad than good. Also, the Times is politically centrist, 'democracy proponents should welcome the Murdoch BskyB takeover' is an economic argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:53:41 2011 No.2276255 >>2276252 > 'democracy proponents should welcome the Murdoch BskyB takeover' is an economic argument. Are you retarded? You're telling me that ownership of the media isn't a political issue? sheeeeeeeeeeeit, nigger.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:57:42 2011 No.2276263 File: 1.62 MB, 766x1000, eg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2276252 >ownership of the corporation which aims to control the largest share of material the voting public rely on as 'use' >not a political issue dat false dichotomy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 05:58:42 2011 No.2276267 >>2276263 *that's "news", not "use".

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:03:41 2011 No.2276283

>>2276255
Nearly all issues in a newspaper will have a political component, but the key act in that headline is:
>Murdoch BskyB takeover
It's a takeover, a primarily economic act. Just because the word democracy pops up doesn't mean they're not using an economic argument. However, compare how gender issues are treated between papers: in the Times and the Guardian, third wave feminism is accepted (more or less), then look at the Sun. See a difference?

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:08:41 2011 No.2276288

>>2276267
>That false dichotomy
Anon, which idiot told you that politics and economics are separate things and are in clear, distinct boxes? They aren't, in almost every instance. I like how you dismissed the content of my posts regarding media ownership as 'democracy popping up', though, good work.

>>	>>>/pol/ >>>/pol/ Sat Dec 24 06:10:42 2011 No.2276290 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:22:41 2011 No.2276311

>>2276288
>implying they are things
Arbitrary demarcations, but it is beneficial to think of them as categories. Otherwise you can end up sloppily pretending they're the same.
> I like how you dismissed the content of my posts regarding media ownership as 'democracy popping up', though, good work.
You misunderstand. Your opinion is worthless. Democracy is a term used in many different narratives, not only political. It's one of Friedman's primary topics (an economist) in Capitalism and Freedom.
>inb4 argument that Friedman must be a political scientist and have nothing to do with economics

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:26:41 2011 No.2276316

>>2276311
Oh dear lord, we've got a fucking nutter on our hands.
>You misunderstand. Your opinion is worthless
Either you're trolling or you're a straight-up degenerate retard.
Also
> It's one of Friedman's primary topics (an economist) in Capitalism and Freedom.
>Freedom
Zing, politics right there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:30:42 2011 No.2276325 >>2276316 >Freedom >Politics Bitches don't know about the state of nature

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:31:41 2011 No.2276328 >>2276325 Oh boy. The state of nature is key to Hobbes' liberal politics. Did you go to school? This is politics 101. Captcha: student eadrivi

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:32:41 2011 No.2276331 >>2276325 .... What does the 'nasty, brutish and short' state of nature have to do with your assertions re 'economics is clearly and wholly separate from politics' drivel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:33:41 2011 No.2276336 >>2276331 Where's the post that says that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:34:41 2011 No.2276338 >>2276336 See >>2276325

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:35:42 2011 No.2276340

>>2276238
immigrant to the UK here.

I haven't sampled all of the news here, and most of what I have to say about the UK is bad, but the Private Eye is a fucking glorious magazine, it's a gem among all of the complete shit the British media spews out.

Being politically / economically interested I also read the FT and the Sunday Times (for the glossy bits yay.)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:36:42 2011 No.2276343 >>2276340 Private Eye is probably the best piece of printed media in the world. I went to 'Private Eye at 50' at the National Theatre a few weeks ago, fucking amazing. Funniest thing I've ever seen live, and it was only £5.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:36:42 2011 No.2276344 >>2276328 State of nature is a part of the Hobbesian political narrative. The state of nature itself is apolitical, but contains a concept of freedom. So freedom isn't necessarily political.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:37:41 2011 No.2276348 >>2276331 That doesn't say 'economics is clearly and wholly separate from politics'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:38:41 2011 No.2276350 >>2276344 I'm pretty sure those three sentences make little to no sense. Politics means the governance of human affairs; to allow and to advocate people being 'free' (in this instance, to kick the shit out of eachother) is an inherently political act.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:41:42 2011 No.2276355 >>2276350 >Politics means the governance of human affairs It doesn't. Even if it did, the state of nature is pre-governance, and so is inherently not political.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:41:42 2011 No.2276357 >>2276343 I know, Whenever I read the PE I always think "Every country should have this!", I haven't read anything quite like it anywhere else in the world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:43:41 2011 No.2276360 >>2276355 'No/limited governance' still comes under a subheading of 'governance', dipshit. You're telling me anarchism isn't political either?

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:48:42 2011 No.2276369

>>2276360
>'No/limited governance' still comes under a subheading of 'governance', dipshit. You're telling me anarchism isn't political either?
>No/limited governance
>anarchism
These things are not the state of nature. You've got a hole in your understanding somewhere.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 06:51:42 2011 No.2276372

>>2276369
The state of nature is that of mankind prior to governance (ie, Hobbes' imagining of it). Pretty sure you've no idea what you're talking about buddy. Unless you're trying to be like a Marxist and claim your views are purely scientific I suppose.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:00:41 2011 No.2276386

>>2276372
>The state of nature is that of mankind prior to governance
>>2276355
>state of nature is pre-governance

>come to a lit board
>can't even read

It's simple: pre governance is not the same as anarchism or no/limited government. It's also not to do with "mankind", but societies...

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:02:41 2011 No.2276387 >>state of nature is pre-governance There is no such thing as 'pre governance'. 'No governance' is, in itself, a type of governance. Lord, the people I end up dealing with on this board..

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:11:33 2011 No.2276393 >>2276387 >'No governance' is, in itself, a type of governance. Ideologically charged statement if ever I heard one. >There is no such thing as 'pre governance' Why? Aside from that you'd rather there wasn't.

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:14:33 2011 No.2276394

>>2276393
>Ideologically charged statement if ever I heard one.
Do tell me what my ideology is then, squire. I'm dying to know. If anyone in this thread is spouting ideological bollocks, it's you.
>Why? Aside from that you'd rather there wasn't.
Because even in an anarchical society there are still conventions by which individuals conduct themselves. Fuck, wild animals have some sorts of governance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KasJjuuaCiM

Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:25:33 2011 No.2276400

>>2276394
Your ideology is clearly "everything must have governance".
>Fuck, wild animals have some sorts of governance.
Imposing human values on animals? So passée.
>Because even in an anarchical society there are still conventions by which individuals conduct themselves.
I'll go out on a limb and try and work out what you're trying to say; that natural laws are a form of governance. They're not, unless you think nature is the government. This presents more problems than you'd think (see Natural Contract, Serres).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:31:33 2011 No.2276405 >>2276400 >Observable behaviour as 'values' >Humans as 'non animals' >'Natural laws' >'Observations as ideology' I've met a lot of fucking idiots, squire, but few quite as pretentious as you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:34:33 2011 No.2276407 >>2276400 >Humans >Not animals It's like I'm back in Catholic School!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:46:33 2011 No.2276414 >>2276407 >>2276405 Animals is usually shorthand for non-human animals. Like animal rights. Such pedantry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:48:33 2011 No.2276415 >>2276414 Maybe for deluded simpletons such as yourself. I prefer to inhabit reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:51:33 2011 No.2276416 >>2276415 In reality, the animal part of animal rights means non human animals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:54:33 2011 No.2276419 >>2276416 Actually the idea is that all animals have equal rights, and the rights that apply to humans should apply to all other animals. Jesus christ you are dumb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:54:33 2011 No.2276420 Does anyone else really love the word "animal"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 07:55:34 2011 No.2276421 >>2276420 Yes, comes from the latin for 'soul' iirc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:00:33 2011 No.2276423 >>2276419 >Actually the idea is that all animals have equal rights While I'd like the Loony party's cat to have suffrage as much as anyone, unfortunately equal rights for animals is not on the agenda.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:03:33 2011 No.2276425 >>2276423 What in fuck are you raving about? fuck this, you must be trolling. I'm out of here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:19:33 2011 No.2276429 >>2276425 Suffrage means the right to run for office or to vote. I think Nero had a horse in the senate, didn't he? It's like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:21:33 2011 No.2276431 >>2276429 What do human rights have to do with voting?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:23:33 2011 No.2276432 >>2276431 It's article 21.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:24:33 2011 No.2276433 >>2276432 Sorry, forgot that we're all Americans.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:26:33 2011 No.2276435 >>2276433 >Universal Declaration of Human Rights >Universal >Americans

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:27:34 2011 No.2276438 >>2276421 I think I came across that reading Plato years back, but until now had completely forgotten. Thanks, Anon!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:28:34 2011 No.2276440 >>2276435 >UDOHR oh boy. So how many states do you know that allow all human citizens to vote?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:31:33 2011 No.2276441 >>2276440 Don't confuse practice with ideals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:33:33 2011 No.2276443 >>2276441 You had no problem doing that in >>2276429

>>	hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs Sat Dec 24 08:35:34 2011 No.2276445 File: 1.90 MB, 310x233, 1324451827596.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:37:34 2011 No.2276446 >>2276443 Don't follow. Nero did have a horse in the senate.

>>	hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs Sat Dec 24 08:39:33 2011 No.2276450 File: 1.72 MB, 150x112, 1324457004245.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:40:33 2011 No.2276451 >>2276446 That was caligula, dipshit. And the story's probably bollocks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:40:33 2011 No.2276452 Also thank goodness some attention whoring tripfags have turned up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:41:33 2011 No.2276453 >>2276451 If the story's bollocks, how do you know it wasn't Nero?

>>	hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs Sat Dec 24 08:44:34 2011 No.2276455 File: 1.66 MB, 225x153, 1324487920595.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 24 08:45:34 2011 No.2276456 >This thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQEeTTHOgTQ

>>	hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs Sat Dec 24 08:47:33 2011 No.2276459 File: 1.67 MB, 443x222, 1324481902698.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]