"Bad times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create bad times." Do you agree?

[Zodiac10]

Yes

No

A total of 96 votes were cast: 18 girls and 78 guys. See detailed results

Updates

+1 y

Why do you agree or disagree?

[SaskiaBlueRaySoul]

oi, as much as i cannot dispute any of the above, i can equally reverse it to a female and a tonne more views.. my teenage son and daughter in an end of this current world scenario would be the ones most likely to have the mental capacity to evolve and create with others of their generation the new systems that will save the survivors... i could create a habitat, cook and heal at best... could i create and develop tech for a different future? we equally and all have a role to play, now and for the future, how about how awesome men and boys and women and girls are? how we compliment each other, how we are designed by nature to create a perfect balance... thats who we are fundamentally... xx

[akihon]

Bit of a non seceture really because end of world scenario would most likely mean technology is useless and you'd be the one who could survive not them as habitats and healing would be far more important than a website.
As for applying the post to women not so much. It's usually women who rely on men to do the fighting and dying.

[AddictofLove]

Females are designed to give birth and trick people into caring about them. there's no perfect balance.

[kira992]

Absolutely! One of the wisest quotes. Props to whoever said that.

[shimmeryns]

So its a vicious cycle then

[Zodiac10]

Sounds like it

[shimmeryns]

Well I agree with it

[Exterminatore]

Generally speaking trials produce character in individuals. It’s not that it’s good or bad times that are at fault here it’s the feminization and pussification of America combined with week morals and liberalism that have created the need for safe spaces and other lame ideas.

I guess in a general sense I agree with you but most people from today couldn’t handle life a mere 70 years ago. We could have another would war and most of these so called men would still be sucking on their mammas titties. Hell, were in a state of war against radical Islam right now and I still don’t know why recruiters don’t have so many volunteers they have to turn people away.

[Exterminatore]

Love your meme by the way.

[Zodiac10]

thank u 👍

[Deathraider]

After WW1, there was a lost generation because so many young men died. The survivors are traumatized, with some, especially in Germany, feeling rage that they have to pay huge reparations. The country Germany undergo Inflation which made their money worthless. Money was cheaper to light up then wood. These war veterans in Italy and Germany would eventually join a fascist group, kickstarting World War 2. The idea of war being a heroic fight like the old days was something shown wrong during WW1. War doesn't craft good men. They craft broken men.

[Zodiac10]

And then Germany conquered half the world.

[Stripes99]

Then after the great depression the US helped defeat them.

[Exterminatore]

@deathrider

I don’t agree.

[Exterminatore]

@Zodiac10

They nearly conquered the whole world. Had they not chosen to fight a 2 front war... again... they probably would have succeeded. That was due to fascism, which is different than Nazism, although the Nazis were certainly fascists, not all fascists are Nazis, and I personally am a fascist but dislike Nazi doctrine, particularly racism and genocide. That said we need fascism in this country. We’re fat and bloated on liberty and a life of ease as our society focuses on base ideals rather than higher ones. Admittedly I love the concept of liberty, but liberty without restraint breeds the weak people and degenerates we see today. SJW and hipsters are the direct result of too much liberty. This country needs fascism.

[Deathraider]

@Exterminatore Oh please. Germany had no chance of winning looking at the fact. It needed oil and couldn't get any. Besides, Germany is trying to fight a two front war. And the Soviet Union was willing to two people at the German to stop them, so it's unlikely Germany could stop Russia.

The war was already lost the moment Hitler didn't listen to Britain and France and invaded Poland.

[Exterminatore]

To get that oil the Germans came 1 city block away from taking Stalingrad. If they’d taken Stalin grad they would have advanced south towards the Bulkans and seized they oil they wanted.

Germany was crushing Russia. They had no more guns or bullets and their T34 tanks were crap compared to the German 1 and 2 Panzers.

The Germans also crushed France and divided it in half. They installed a puppet government in the south called Vichy France. So like France really was much of a threat.

Do you know history sir? Lol.

[Deathraider]

@Exterminatore The thing is that Stalin had moved his factories back when Hitler was invading earlier, and it was Hitler's 6th army that needed to do an encircling tactic. But without support, this actually bought Stalin enough time to send in reinforcements to tackle Hitler's 6th army, thus securing victory for Russia.

Actually Hitler had not anticipated how long it would take to fight Russia. Even if the Germans took over Moscow, the Russians would've likely destroyed eventhing in Moscow. They would be willing to destroy Moscow to prevent the Germans from securing victory.

Germany made a lot of enemies during the war. Britain, the Us, not to mention the resistance forces from within. Besides, the U boats the Germans had became less of a threat when Alan Turing cracked the enigma code. The Germans were no where near to developing an atomic bomb as we later found out, unlike the United States.

So do you, sir, know history?

[Exterminatore]

Nothing you said changes anything.

Also Britain was in rubble due to the V1 and V2 rockets.

My original point was is Germany had not fought a 2 front war, they would probably have taken the world over. Look what they did to Russia with roughly only half their military.

[Deathraider]

@Exterminatore Well actually Hitler was attacking civilian target, just as Churchill planned, allowing him to, in the long run, gain air superiority.

[Zodiac10]

Shit I was reading and I accidentally deleted your response Exterminatore. I apologize. I agree with you by the way @Exterminatore

[Exterminatore]

@Zodiac10

No biggie.

[Zodiac10]

The only reason England gained any superiority in the war was because the U. S. entered it.

[Exterminatore]

@Zodiac10

Correct. France and Britain were pretty well on the ropes before we entered the war and the U. S. is really the only country to successfully fight a 2 front war in either of the world wars and possibly ever.

[Deathraider]

@Exterminatore The Germans had a plan to invade Britain. Gain air superiority first, then send in ships. The thing is that the German tried to gain air superiority, but Britain managed to buy enough time to prepare plans, and air superiority fell into Britain's support. The German couldn't have taken Britain.

Many people say Germany could've sent in troops to take Britain before attacking the Soviet Union, but it wouldn't be that simple. Besides, the United States didn't need to enter in order for Britain to gain air superiority. If we made it so Hitler did not intend to fight the Soviet, that would A. Fundamentally change the nature of the war, thus we would no longer be talking about WW2, and B. German and Russian were going to fight inevitably. If Hitler didn't surprise attack Stalin, Stalin would've made the first move. So even if Hitler decided to move more of his forces and focus on Britain, Stalin would've came in and crush Germany.

Basic moral of the story, Hitler was fighting pretty much an impossible war.

[Exterminatore]

@Deathraider

Can’t agree, sorry. The fact Germany nearly crushed the Russians single handedly implies otherwise and they did crush France single handedly. There’s not much distance between France and Britain. The Normans had no trouble crushing the Anglo Saxons in 1066.

[Deathraider]

@Exterminatore Britain has the most superior navy ever since the end of the war of Spanish succession. So the likelihood German could stage a successful attack against Britain's naval might is very very slim.

[Exterminatore]

It would have been a tough fight and yeah you’re right about Britain’s naval prowess.

[Stripes99]

But the Germans still would’ve defeated Britian.

[Exterminatore]

I think so.

[Stripes99]

@deathraider why you always disagreeing with Zodiac?

[Deathraider]

@Stripes99 I don't disagree with his points because it's him. I don't think the Germans could have won, given their position. They made a lot of enemies.

[Anonymous]

That is 100% true, and the good times the US has experienced in recent decades has created two generation of weak men (and women), which has manifested as extreme liberalism and SJW victim mentality where "isms" are viewed as far worse in the minds of SJWs than war and famine were in the minds of our strong, resilient forefathers.

Americans today are used to having most of their needs met, so their focus is on the minutia that our ancestors didn't have the luxury of worrying about because they had bigger fish to fry.

But somehow the weak SJWs of today feel like the fish they are trying to fry are bigger than things like WWII, the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, so we have riots for months and burn down our cities.

[Soremain]

If this is true, it means you can never praise the strong for being strong, you can never blame the weak for being weak, but you blame the strong for making weak and thank the weak for making strong. Also you blame the good for bad and thank the bad for good. Or you can just shut up and have a peace of mind because it's never ending cycle.

Of course I agree. It's the most simple and obvious thing there is. You can't have good without bad. But do I walk the talk? I can't honestly say I do.

[Celtero]

We do live in an age of luxury... but I dunno if that saying rings true today... The times we live in isn't going to create strong men... All the weak men will die out, and be replaced the strong ones.

[SketchForger]

Isn't peace the ideal though? Even if it IS unrealistic?

[Zodiac10]

Can peace last forever?

[SketchForger]

Well it haven't been achieved... We aren't in a world war, but we are far from a peaceful time.

[Zodiac10]

true that my friend.

[Girther10]

No, I don’t agree. Some strong men are created by good times, which can also create weak men. Good times, bad times, both create both strong and weak men.

[DanoMR98]

Vehemently disagree.

It is totally ahistorical. It is also reactionary as fuck.

[monkeynutts]

Very different times, what your saying is in some ways very correct, I'm trying not to get involved with that crap.

[Grond21]

The historical record is evidence enough that this is true

[Under_Maps_OF_twigs]

I agree with 3 of the 4 statements but not statemen 3 so I voted no.

I think saying god times create weak men is not true because there are times where things are good and strong men are able to appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Wow thats the most valuable post ever seen in here.

[Zodiac10]

And I found it on a youtube comment.

[Opinion Owner]

Appreciate your behaviour by giving the credit to actual owner

[Zodiac10]

Yes sir

[FictionalCharcter]

It’s life. The world and people change

[tartaarsaus]

Disagreed m

[Zodiac10]

why?

[TohhhruAi]

“Volunteered
Lol those mofos were drafted

[goaded]

Exactly. Also: "*Certain* death"?

I met someone who had a friend on the spot on D-Day. He'd told him that it was amazing; one morning, he looked out and the sea was covered with ships.

[name_is_eric]

That is exactly how it goes.

[grega239]

Indeed...

Who's ready for war...

[BronzedAdonis]

no..

[Zodiac10]

why is that?

[9teen]

True.

[JimboGB]

NEVER has there been a truer statement.

[ImpressiveUsername]

Abso-fucking-lutely.

[esotericstory]

Yes I like this meme.

[Stripes99]

Correct