Christcucks will defend this

Christcucks will defend this

Aussies will defend this

yeah just let me real quick draw some boundaries around all the white folks

The fact people exist?
Or something else?

:(

What's the problem with that?
You write like a nigger.
Ethnic diversity.

As long as all of them are civilized, educated, believe in Christian values, are conservative/traditional and do not race mix, I'm fine with them.

better than being an auscuck

Be more specific. So far: you've said that we need to defend that other ethnicities exist?

Or are you trying to say within a white nation?

Ethnically diverse, but culturally monogamous (preferably christian values) beats ethnically pure, but multicultural/degenerate every time.

No, I said Christcucks defend ethnic diversity.
What values do you like from Christianity? You're basically saying, by the way, that you're fine with non-whites as long as they act white. It doesn't work that way.

Why are Americans and Canadians so retarded? Christianity and ethnic diversity are Jewish tools for the destruction of the white race.

You're still not being clear about which 'ethnic diversity' you're speaking of?

In general, or multiculturalism/multi-ethnicity within a nation?

I see no problem with multiple ethnicities. I see multiculturalism as an evil. I see massive, forced ethnic diversity within an otherwise homogeneous nation to be genocide.

Next?

Ethnic diversity within a given state. You can't have multiculturalism or multiple ethnicities in a nation because a nation is defined by its race and culture.
>I see no problem with multiple ethnicities
No wonder your country is the way it is.

Australia talking shit about leafs is like a whore shit talking a prostitute.

Canada and Australia have nothing besides heritage in common. Even then, Canada is busy destroying that heritage.

I see no problem with multiple ethnicities. Not within a homogeneous nation. As in, for their existence.

This country is a shithole because of atheists and liberals. Sorry.

kill yourself chang

Homogenous nation is a tautology. If you accept multiple ethnicities in a state you are part of the problem, not just fedoras and capitalists.

Changs are less degenerate than your average white 20 something.

pol be like
>white power, race war now

But you don't realize (((they))) already subverted white youth beyond salvation generations ago.

Not really. There are some nations that are, by nature, not homogeneous. Like Nepal, Malaysia and India. South Africa is a shithole, but could have been okay.

>be like
Your broken English gives you away, chink.

Those are states, not nations.

go home chink

>Your broken English gives you away
That's how your average white speak these days m8

Don't you know? Canada is a post-nationalist country. I am home.

>That's how your average white speak these days
In Canada, maybe.
>m8
Canadians and Americans should never say that.

States together form a nation.
My country is made of Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish, Cornish, and so on states. Together, it makes up of the United Kingdom. I don't see how your argument would hold up.

Or are you using another definition?

...this has to be b8

Nation, from the Latin natio, meaning people, or race, connected by geography and culture.
I don't know where you got that definition of nation. From your arse, I imagine.

Learn what natio means.

Never !
Anons think christians like jews and all tha yada yada.
>Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
>Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
>Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
To hell with these kikes man real christians stand against the antichrist , these pseudo christians can burn in everlasting fire as far as i care.

Nation and state are often synonyms in use. That's why we have words like "nation state" as opposed to "city state".

Either way, your butthurt comment doesn't change that there are non-homogeneous groups that can survive. It doesn't mean we should force multi-ethnicity onto people though.

I think he's just drunk and unhappy; most likely, he's searching for some meaning in his life. I've seen this a lot with "atheists" who have a hole in their lives and want it filled with spirituality, but their pride gets in the way, so they find weird and small shit to bitch about.

ITT: Chirst cuks on full damage control

>being Swedish unironically

So you think your poor understanding of what a nation state is opposes my argument from the origin of the word? A nation state and a city state are only related in that they are both states. A nation state is a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as common descent, whereas a city state is a state formed of the territory of a city.

>what is an etymological fallacy
Ok kid.

Still, you've not proven anything wrong. You're just upset. So, let's get down to the real question: who hurt you?

So how am I wrong? How has the word nation been changed? Pointing out an argumentative fallacy neither proves me wrong nor proves you right. The fallacy is merely that the etymology of a word is not always consistent with current usage of the word, but that is not the case for nation.

But it is. You're literally making a big deal out of nothing and still haven't pointed out how it would be wrong, either.

So, c'mon: who hurt you? Were you taken to church and didn't like it as a child? Are you from a single-parent household? Let's get to the root of the problem.

Why can't you accept that you were wrong about the definition of nation?

Because it's not how it's frequently used in daily speech, which is why I asked if you were using another definition. Stop being childish and answer the question as I'm getting bored of this.

It is how it is used. You probably just misunderstood it.
I don't have to answer your off topic questions.

Nah, it's not.

>I don't have to answer your off topic questions
So you're refusing to get to the point and are playing semantics. You'd rather waste time than actually speak of anything in particular, especially when your argument has been disproved.

Ok. I'm out. I've wasted enough time with an angry stranger who isn't even willing to help themselves.

It is.

Your "point" is vague and off topic. If you want to play psychoanalyst go back to plebbit.