Thread 106558889

Truth Nuke

>>106558889 (OP)
Good.

>>106558903
This. Everybody should be a miserable, shut-in loser with no prospects like me.

Any other gen z tradies here making money hand over fist? So glad I skipped college.

>>106558950
What trade should I get into? Muh welding sounds like a meme but idk who knows

>>106558889 (OP)
How many of them will get re-hired once the gAIy bubble bursts and da investors and CEO's realize a million power consuming Nvidia racks doesn't = Cybergod/Skynet? Thank goodness I choose better future prospects like flipping burgers over a griddle for fat white women and kept tech shit as little more than one of my hobbies.

>>106559026
Even if AI bursts, these jobs will all be offshored. No more US developers or even western europe developers except for PhD level stuff. Everything else will be India, philippines and other shitholes.

>>106558982
>welding
>get skin cancer
>work with dipshit boomers all day
>who will berate you if you wear gloves or long sleeves to avoid skin cancer
>make half of what they claim you will make
this applies to all trades though. there is a reason they are shilled relentlessly here, on all boards. the trades meme started on /pol/ and that's all you need to know.

>>106559026
>How many of them will get re-hired once the gAIy bubble bursts and da investors and CEO's realize a million power consuming Nvidia racks doesn't = Cybergod/Skynet?
Way fewer than you think. The golden age of tech jobs is over and not coming back, people are cheering on the AI bubble bursting but none of you seem to grasp what that means for the future, not just of the tech sector. They will recoup their losses, just like 2020, just like 2008, just like 2000, just like...

>>106559089
>trades meme started by curryniggers larping as saviours of the white race
Yeah you really don't need to know anything else.

>>106559063
where can I see more of urban elf?

>>106559063
He needs to find a wife and pump 10 White Elf babies into her.
>>106559089
Not really a /pol/ meme, more like a boomer meme. Lot's of boomers on /pol/ though (the rest being various browns). I just want a job that pays enough to live in a studio apartment in a non black neighborhood. Don't really care what the job is or how much it pays beyond that.

>>106559063
this pic makes me depressed.

The current white collar job market is hard to navigate, but I can't also just go into blue collar work because I legitimately have some very bad fine motor skills that I've been trying to work on for most of my life. Tried to be a printer technician, can't even do that without fucking up and got fired for it. It wasn't a knowledge check, it was a practical check. I hated it.

>>106559134
Honestly thinking of taking a job as an ICE mexican deporter they are hiring rn. They do have a physical test though I think

>>106559134
In a better life I would've gotten into the military. Hopefully war breaks out next year, maybe then something interesting will happen.

>>106558889 (OP)
most of those "tech" jobs are literally fake anyways, why makes people think that web shit is labour intensive?

>>106559180
True I think we should bring back imperialism and take over some countries. Maybe Greenland and Canada and some African countries.

>>106559063
>>106559113
White people refuse to allow their white mmaalllesss to fuck young virgin white girls and keep them as slave brides. They call this "paedophillia", and cite their Lord: jesus christ the castrator who said "chop off men's genitals, dick and balls, for heaven (matthew 19, greek)" "millstone pedos" "I defeated YHWH, who is satan".

They want their male young to work for free.

>>106559063
>>106559113
White people refuse to allow their white mmaalllesss to fuck young virgin white girls and keep them as slave brides. They call this "paedophillia", and cite their Lord: jesus christ the castrator who said "chop off men's genitals, dick and balls, for heaven (matthew 19, greek)" "millstone pedos" "I defeated YHWH, who is satan".

They want their male young to work for free.

>aislop thumbnail
>grifter engagement bait video
Not technology.

>>106559063
>>106559113
White people refuse to allow their white mmaalllesss to fuck young virgin white girls and keep them as slave brides. They call this "paedophillia", and cite their Lord: jesus christ the castrator who said "chop off men's genitals, dick and balls, for heaven (matthew 19, greek)" "millstone pedos" "I defeated YHWH, who is satan".

They want their male young to work for free

>>106559264
Idk why you posted this three times but the bible says you can buy a bride from her father at any age so I'm going with that not what some literal who hippy cuck said. Reject all additions to the bible.

>>106559264
>>106559299
Also circumcision only applies to jews, Mudslimes should not practice it and neither should american Whites.

>>106559299
>>Idk why you posted this three times but the bible says you can buy a bride from her father at any age
Correct.
YHWH explicitly allows child brides
>so I'm going with that not what some literal who hippy cuck said. Reject all additions to the bible.
White people say YHWH is ("a murderer and liar from the begining") satan, and that they abrogated his law with the blood of Jesus Christ.
And Christ is the Law.
And by Christ "we" are freed from the law.
So males must be slaughtered for liking young girls.
Women can do as they please (no stone woman), men are to have their dick and balls chopped off: or they should: for heaven (matthew 19 greek), and it's just a grace that "we" allow mmaallleess to have dick and balls for reproduction purpouses ONLY. Any man that looks at a woman, however, must have his eyes plucked out! --Jesus.

etc.

>>106559299
>Idk why you posted this three times
Constant, constant, errors from 4chan.
Probably shadow bans.
If I try to post once, I'll be waiting an hour.
So if I open 8 tabs and post.
1 might go through.

Maybe.

>>106559327
>YHWH
Hello, Mike. I see you're often searching the archives for active conversations to jump into. That is very homosexual of you.

Sincerely, your #1 hater.

>>106559299
>buy a bride from her father at any age so
Yes.
<----------
And if they don't want to sell and refuse to sell to anyone: they can be taken.

White police won't let you marry young girls though.
And the world is full of them.
One of those white police is called "america"
another is called "russia"
another is called "germany"
another is called "scandanavia"

All deny white "mmaalless" their own girls of their own clans.

This thread is a pretty good demonstration of why zoomers are unemployable

>>106559334
Sorry, Zoomer, I have no enemies.

>>106559354
>This thread is a pretty good demonstration of why zoomers are unemployable
They're employable as a "#1 hater"
Not sure what that costs.
Probably about as much as an opensource programmer.

>>106559358
You can continue believing that. It might prove beneficial for me and the others.

Sincerely, your #1 hater.

>>106559334
I clicked on it because it had a sad anime girl sorta (AI tho).
Stayed for the cute hand drawn anime elf girl.

You wouldn't understand, since you strongly support "LadyHavoc", and don't remember LordHavoc in his programming prime (you weren't alive then)

>>106559373
If you're such an enemy: list your deeds.
As I said: I have no enemies.

>>106559373
I have no enemies, Zoomer faggot.

>>106559334
>Hello, Mike. I see you're often searching the archives for active conversations to jump into. That is very homosexual of you.

Notice that the Zoomer thinks it's wrong to look on /g/'s catalouge for "active conversations to jump into".

That using the website as intended is "wrong"

>>106559375
>I clicked on it because it had a sad anime girl sorta (AI tho).
I don't believe it. I will see you in the next thread, Mike.

Sincerely your #1 hater.

>>106559327
>stone woman
How do stone men factor into this?

>>106559351
>And if they don't want to sell and refuse to sell to anyone: they can be taken.
This is an incorrect reading. It is assumed here that the girl would want to be taken as a wife for the money given as she loses much of her value once she is no longer a virgin. But if her father or the girl does not want to take that deal he can still reject it for her.
>All deny white "mmaalless" their own girls of their own clans.
I have no idea what you are saying here but if you are saying White people should go extinct you should kill yourself now

>>106559436
>But if her father or the girl does not want to take that deal he can still reject it for her.
No he cannot.
That doesn't exist in Devaim 22 verse 28.
It is about raping female children.
You're adding shit to it because you're a white person. Hence the faggotry and woman-choice.

The hebrew here says "tahpahs": which means to take: as to take a city. It means forceful rape.

There is no mention of any mitigations, save for if the girl is allready given to someone.

This is not the "seduction" (laphath, (im spelling it wrong)) law in Numbers, which you are claiming right here.

Liar.

>>106559436
You are lying.
<-------
Says nothing about "father can reject", nor "girl want's or doesn't want"

You are SIMPLY

__LYING__\

FUCK YOU CHRISTIAN WHITE __FAGGOT__

>>106559063
>>106559113
White people refuse to allow their white mmaalllesss to fuck young virgin white girls and keep them as slave brides. They call this "paedophillia", and cite their Lord: jesus christ the castrator who said "chop off men's genitals, dick and balls, for heaven (matthew 19, greek)" "millstone pedos" "I defeated YHWH, who is satan".

They want their male young to work for free.

>>106559063
>>106559113
White people refuse to allow their white mmaalllesss to fuck young virgin white girls and keep them as slave brides. They call this "paedophillia", and cite their Lord: jesus christ the castrator who said "chop off men's genitals, dick and balls, for heaven (matthew 19, greek)" "millstone pedos" "I defeated YHWH, who is satan".

They want their male young to work for free.

>>106559517
>>106559526
Now I see you are a brown subhuman schizo who is incapable of reading or having enough intelligent thought to understand divine words. In fact you couldn't even understand my own words which if you read them again you would understand that your your assertions do not even contradict my claims. But I have no interest in speaking with a lifeless brown person, the same way I would not speak seriously to an LLM or a dog. You should consider it an act of immense kindness that I spoke to you at all and perhaps in 100 years maybe you would understand half a percent of it.

>>106559614
>Now I see you are a brown subhuman
No I am not.
> schizo
"Someone who disagrees with you", gotcha
> who is incapable of reading
I can read just fine, and step through hebrew, greek, and latin just fine
> or having enough intelligent thought
I'm a programmer and a licensed New York attorney.
>to understand divine words.
They mean what they say. Not what you ADD. Devarim says "do not step to the left or the right". You, instead of reading YHWH's words, read it, don't like it, and then add your own stipulations that are not in that law.
>In fact you couldn't even understand my own words
I understood them fine. You are wrong.
> which if you read them again you would
You claim that Devarim 22 verse 28 allows the father to prevent the rapist from keeping the girl. It does not.
>understand that your your assertions do not even contradict my claims.
You believe in protestant-style construction. You take a piece of a law from numbers, regarding seduction, then split a piece of it off, and declare that a general principael ("fathers can deny the man"), then you apply that piece, from that seperate law in numbers, to this other law in Devarim, which is dealing with the rape of virgin unbetrothed girl children (tahpahs: to take a city: rape, forcible rape, not "may I fuck you" seduction)
>But I have no interest in speaking with a lifeless brown person,
I'm Irish/Swiss-German-Polish. I have blue eyes, I do not tan: I burn. I don't care if I "burn in hell" for reading and liking YHWH's actual law.
>the same way I would not speak seriously to an LLM or a dog.
My veins are Cyan.
> You should consider it an act of immense kindness that I spoke to you at all
Lying and bullshiting about YHWH's law, adding what is not there, denying what is, is kindness?
> and perhaps in 100 years maybe you would understand half a percent of it.
You understand your law because you made it up in your head.
I read YHWH's law and like it: because he's a rapist of girls; asarehissoliders

>>106559614
What colour are my eyes
<------------

>>106558889 (OP)
Would plap the purple one

>>106558889 (OP)
>Indian fearmongering astroturf thread
>with AI slop youtube thumbnail
Could you have concocted some worse shit to post, you retarded animal? They sent you to 4chan's slowest board because you're gonna get fired yourself, you horrid street shitter.

>>106559695
>latin
Completely irrelevant for reading the bible.
>>In fact you couldn't even understand my own words
>I understood them fine. You are wrong.
>You claim that Devarim 22 verse 28 allows the father to prevent the rapist from keeping the girl. It does not.
You have now changed your assertion. You said
>Says nothing about "father can reject", nor "girl want's or doesn't want"
But I never said that the girl can reject it. I said the father can reject it for her. Which is true. The word "תפש" does not imply legal ownership. The correct word for that would be "קח" as in 24 5. "תפש" implies nothing as to being legally married. It just describes an action. The father is the one who owns his daughter and can sell her as a slave or a servant. Just like in a general case of stealing, the original owner has a right to ask for it back instead of being compensated financially. The entire purpose of this sentence is to tell us the value of the daughter and that he cannot divorce her as he must now take care of her as her husband (as defined elsewhere). If it was just a simple case of marriage, it would not be the case that he could not divorce her ("send her away"). That he marries her is a punishment to him, it is not a requirement on the father.

>>106559699
aryan kang

>>106560169
>>106560605
Again you are wrong:

The transfer happens by fiat.
Not by the decision of the father, (civil transfer)
but by operation of the text of the law:
When the man , and girl, are found,
and the man has raped her,
and she is not betrothed;
The girl becomes the man's woman.
He may not send her away.

No exceptions.

>>106560169
>>106560605
Again you are wrong:

The transfer happens by fiat.
Not by the decision of the father, (civil transfer)
but by operation of the text of the law:
When the man , and girl, are found,
and the man has raped her,
and she is not betrothed;
The girl becomes the man's woman.
He may not send her away.

No exceptions.

>>106560169
>>>In fact you couldn't even understand my own words
>>I understood them fine. You are wrong.
>>You claim that Devarim 22 verse 28 allows the father to prevent the rapist from keeping the girl. It does not.
>You have now changed your assertion. You said
Wrong. You are in favor of the girl's will being enacted.
Weather her will is enacted through the tool that is the father; or directly; it is the same in it's essential terms.
>>Says nothing about "father can reject", nor "girl want's or doesn't want"
>But I never said that the girl can reject it. I said the father can reject it for her. Which is true.
Distinction without a difference, as you indicated that "if the girl doesn't like the rapist man, the father will reject this"
(this is not a quote from your exact words: but from your heart: what you ment by those words).

> The correct word for that would be "קח" as in 24 5. "תפש" implies nothing as to being legally married.
There is no "legal marraige" in the first 5 books of YHWH's law.
There is only man, woman, girl. The man is the ba'al, and the adoni. The woman and the girl are simply women and girls.
Ruled over by a ba'al.

> That he marries her is a punishment to him, it is not a requirement on the father.
Yes it is a requirement.
You have added that "it is a punishment".
It is not a punishment. YOU have added that.

>Just like in a general case of stealing, the original owner has a right to ask for it back instead of being compensated financially.
Wrong; that is not in the text and is something you are adding.
The text says the girl becomes the woman of the man.
He shall not send her away because he raped her.
There was no contract made; just fait accompli.
He made his choice already.
He is now the Ba'al of the girl child, and pays the 50 pieces of silver.

>>106560169
>>>In fact you couldn't even understand my own words
>>I understood them fine. You are wrong.
>>You claim that Devarim 22 verse 28 allows the father to prevent the rapist from keeping the girl. It does not.
>You have now changed your assertion. You said
Wrong. You are in favor of the girl's will being enacted.
Weather her will is enacted through the tool that is the father; or directly; it is the same in it's essential terms.
>>Says nothing about "father can reject", nor "girl want's or doesn't want"
>But I never said that the girl can reject it. I said the father can reject it for her. Which is true.
Distinction without a difference, as you indicated that "if the girl doesn't like the rapist man, the father will reject this"
(this is not a quote from your exact words: but from your heart: what you ment by those words).

> The correct word for that would be "קח" as in 24 5. "תפש" implies nothing as to being legally married.
There is no "legal marraige" in the first 5 books of YHWH's law.
There is only man, woman, girl. The man is the ba'al, and the adoni. The woman and the girl are simply women and girls.
Ruled over by a ba'al.

> That he marries her is a punishment to him, it is not a requirement on the father.
Yes it is a requirement.
You have added that "it is a punishment".
It is not a punishment. YOU have added that.

>Just like in a general case of stealing, the original owner has a right to ask for it back instead of being compensated financially.
Wrong; that is not in the text and is something you are adding.
The text says the girl becomes the woman of the man.
He shall not send her away because he raped her.
There was no contract made; just fait accompli.
He made his choice already.
He is now the Ba'al of the girl child, and pays the 50 pieces of silver.

>>106561132
Wrong. It is a civil transfer. Marriage itself is a civil transfer and that is how it is presented in the general case. Under your interpretation she would become his wife at the moment he rapes her. But the sentence says that when he is found she becomes his wife. That is unreasonable to interpret as caused by a direct result of his action rather than a general monetary case, which this basically is just with some added stipulations as so defined. And again the language used is wrong which you haven't addressed. See also the language in 24 1 and 22 13
>>106561174
>Weather her will is enacted through the tool that is the father; or directly; it is the same in it's essential terms.
If a girl asks her father to buy her a bottle of water and he does it, did she buy it? Did she own it before the father gave it to her?
>Distinction without a difference
See above.
>if the girl doesn't like the rapist man, the father will reject this
I did not say this. He certainly may but he is under no legal obligation to do so
>but from your heart: what you ment by those words
I think this is actually the case by you. You want what you think is correct to be the case rather than what the simple reading implies
>There is no "legal marraige" in the first 5 books of YHWH's law.
There is, Otherwise divorce makes no sense. See 24 1. It is the idea of marriage not being essentially a monetary activity that is an invention.
>It is not a punishment. YOU have added that.
See 22 13-19, specifically 18 and 19, where it is clear that this is a punishment. And the same language is used here. See also the usage of "ענה."
>Wrong; that is not in the text and is something you are adding.
The sentence is referring to the common case of what the father will decide rather than a commandant. see also "and" vs. "then."
>There was no contract made; just fait accompli.
See above: "Under your interpretation ..."

To recap: /g/ christian faggot, essentially argues (in construction) that Devarim 22 verse 28 is abrogated

"Because"
"some word indicates this is not a legal marraige!"

The counterpoint is:
That there is NO "legal marraige" in YHWH's law.

There is simply man, woman, girl, ba'al, adoni.
The man is the ba'al, the adoni.
The women and girls are simply women and girls with a ba'al.

White people are fags.

>>106561322
???
>White people are fags.
So you are a brown person and tricked me into responding by posting a White person and saying it was you. That is pathetic. Or you are a schizo.
>/g/ christian faggot
I do not believe in the new testament.
I won't respond further as you hate White people and I won't entertain an evil person with more responses.

>>106559103
>>trades meme started by curryniggers larping as saviours of the white race
>Yeah you really don't need to know anything else.
this is a jeet demoralizing you
>just let all the jeets take all the jobs, contracts and do a bad job
i will never stop hating you people irl and online

>>106558950
this board isn't for plumbers
how about you condescend somewhere else?