• Seattle lawmakers vote to change name of Columbus Day holiday
    212 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kyle902;46170473]Do you support traditional marriage?[/QUOTE] I don't support the Christian form of marriage if that's what you are talking about.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170465]Me pointing out that interracial marriage was banned by law was part of the message that the definition of marriage had been slipping for years. If you want to call me a homophobic, then go ahead. But I have nothing against homosexuals. The same goes for blacks/asians/whoever. The OP asked for non religious arguments against homosexuality so I gave him one.[/QUOTE] No all you have we're opinions. Badly worded ones at that.
[QUOTE=J!NX;46170488]The definition of marriage isn't defined by anyone so idk how it could be slipping really it sounds like you're very vaguely saying that marriage shouldn't be interracial but I can't tell, maybe you didn't type it wrong? who knows?[/QUOTE] No it's regulated by the law. That's why you can't marry children. But this is a history thread so we should keep it related.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170490]I don't support the Christian form of marriage if that's what you are talking about.[/QUOTE] Well then, praytell, why did you bring it up
[QUOTE=Grimhound;46170385][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson_Day[/url][/QUOTE] What I like about Leif Erikson Day is that it comes before Columbus Day and almost no one knows about it, much like Leif Erikson came before Columbus and almost no one knows about him.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170495]No it's regulated by the law. That's why you can't marry children. But this is a history thread so we should keep it related.[/QUOTE] Wow you're such a damned hypocrite. "Let's discuss my literary habits that are in no way related to this debate, HEY GET ON TOPIC!!!!!"
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46170491]No all you have we're opinions. Badly worded ones at that.[/QUOTE] Evidently not true. Badly worded, maybe, but I was arguing with 5 people at once. But I used science and history to help support my points.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170495]No it's regulated by the law. That's why you can't marry children. But this is a history thread so we should keep it related.[/QUOTE] Actually the reason why you can't marry children is because marriage entails a legal contract and you have to be of age in order to provide legal consent.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;46170508]Wow you're such a damned hypocrite. "Let's discuss my literary habits that are in no way related to this debate, HEY GET ON TOPIC!!!!!"[/QUOTE] Look they brought that up. You brought up the thing about reading. Me mentioning the book I'm reading was to emphasize that I am credible in this field.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170514]. But I used science and history to help support my points.[/QUOTE] As opposed to using voodoo and witchcraft?
That's retarded.
[QUOTE=Paramud;46170523]Actually the reason why you can't marry children is because marriage entails a legal contract and you have to be of age in order to provide legal consent.[/QUOTE] DING DING Which is regulated by law.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;46170525]As opposed to using voodoo and witchcraft?[/QUOTE] If I can conjure up a bigger dick, I'm good.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170524]Look they brought that up. You brought up the thing about reading. So you're the one going off-topic.[/QUOTE] No you're the one who tried to pull a blatant appeal to authority (of yourself of all people) thereby bringing up your reading habits. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46170530]DING DING Which is regulated by law.[/QUOTE] Implying the law for marrying children is the same everywhere. You can also get married at 17 in some parts of the US with parental consent.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;46170534]No you're the one who tried to pull a blatant appeal to authority (of yourself of all people) thereby bringing up your reading habits. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] Implying the law for marrying children is the same everywhere. You can also get married at 17 in some parts of the US with parental consent.[/QUOTE] I only pulled that because someone criticized my knowledge of this field. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. Also, that's still 16 years that you can't get married during because of our laws. But let's talk history, not marriage. My opinions on marriage have nothing to do with this thread. Neither do my opinions on marijuana, or race, or Assad. So I don't know why people keep linking to these threads that I posted in. If anything they are derailing this thread, and not me by bringing up my reading habits.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170551]I only pulled that because someone criticized my knowledge of this field. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. Also, that's still 16 years that you can't get married during because of our laws. But let's talk history, not marriage. My opinions on marriage have nothing to do with this thread. Neither do my opinions on marijuana, or race, or Assad. So I don't know why people keep linking to these threads that I posted in. If anything they are derailing this thread.[/QUOTE] Let's talk history? Alright. You are defending a position that is being rejected by the american people, both in the US and in the rest of american countries. And all the arguments you have offered have failed to defend your position. It's a fact that the Columbian Exchange only benefited Europe in the short, medium and long term. Any benefits claimed to have been brought to the Americas, like technology and medical science, came long after the conquerors destroyed cultures, enslaved people and condemned entire societies to servitude. It's a fact that, until the Columbian Exchange, the Americas had never experienced such a massive social and cultural loss. It's a fact that most of the deaths suffered by the american natives were product of disease, malnutrition (Brought by the destruction of the local productio and distribution systems) and slavery.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170551]I only pulled that because someone criticized my knowledge of this field. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.[/quote] No you did it because you wanted to flaunt your supposed intellect. Else you wouldn't have brought up the whole "Hey guise I'm reading 'Genghis Khan', you know the dude not related to European colonialism at all so I brought it up to flaunt my intellectual erection?"
[QUOTE=Pokeman493;46170447]I don't remember everything in exact detail, but PLEASE tell me this does not mean that everything that I learned in that anthropology class was complete bullshit, I don't want to have to just now be finding out that it was a waste of a class. I'd rather take a class where what is being taught actually means something.[/QUOTE] There's no real reason for the sarcastic tone. But essentially the deathknell for African empires was neocolonialism which ran for some 40 years prior to ww1. Prior to essentially having a need to find huge economic benefits from Africa, investment was minimal, colonies barely existing and overall Europe didn't care about it terribly much. Once neocol started you had a fairly quick scramble into Africa, which when you don't count Ethiopia was pretty quick in part due to there being essentially no one to contest it. Prior to that, you had the Ottoman's as some of the biggest "imperials" who happened to be middle eastern. Hell Ethiopia is a good example of an African power that maintained itself fairly well in spite of colonisation efforts and crashed after a civil war. So, I'm at times miffed about claims how everything bad in Africa is Europe's fault. Quite a lot is of course, but quite a lot of stuff either isn't or is due to releasing control far too quick.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170514]Evidently not true. Badly worded, maybe, but I was arguing with 5 people at once. But I used science and history to help support my points.[/QUOTE] no. you used your view of those things. you argued because 40% of psychiatric doctors thought homosexuality could be considered a mental disorder, in a time frame where it was much easier to discriminate, was proof it was. You argued that because it doesn't fit a traditional view, it's a degredation of the definition. Well, that doesn't make any sense because words and concepts can't degrade. They change. They all do. So, it changing with the times is more of it, you know, doing what all words, and concepts do. Change. So arguing a historical view of something as being the default view of it is baseless and not an argument from a purely rational standpoint as it had no default to begin with. You think a lot of yourself. Humility is a worthless trait amirite
[QUOTE=T553412;46170571]Let's talk history? Alright. You are defending a position that is being rejected by the american people, both in the US and in the rest of american countries. And all the arguments you have offered have failed to defend your position.[/QUOTE] You are asserting this and assuming it's true. I have talked to people born in Africa and they all tell me that they prefer their modern like over what it would have been without Europeans. One of my history teachers was from Eritrea, and he made this quite clear. [QUOTE=Kyle902;46170572]No you did it because you wanted to flaunt your supposed intellect. Else you wouldn't have brought up the whole "Hey guise I'm reading 'Genghis Khan', you know the dude not related to European colonialism at all so I brought it up to flaunt my intellectual erection?"[/QUOTE] No I was defending myself and making myself look credible which I believe I am. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46170584]no. you used your view of those things. you argued because 40% of psychiatric doctors thought homosexuality could be considered a mental disorder, in a time frame where it was much easier to discriminate, was proof it was. You argued that because it doesn't fit a traditional view, it's a degredation of the definition. Well, that doesn't make any sense because words and concepts can't degrade. They change. They all do. So, it changing with the times is more of it, you know, doing what all words, and concepts do. Change. So arguing a historical view of something as being the default view of it is baseless and not an argument from a purely rational standpoint as it had no default to begin with. You think a lot of yourself. Humility is a worthless trait amirite[/QUOTE] Reread my arguments and get on track.
Yes inherently evil white Europeans ruined everything forever, especially for the coloured.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46170580]There's no real reason for the sarcastic tone[/QUOTE] I apologize for coming off as sarcastic, but it was a serious question and I did not intend to come off as a sarcastic douchebag with my statement. EDIT: Edited the original post to change the bit that I just noticed gave it the sarcastic tone. Not sure if it was really necessary, but I didn't want to leave it if it was being taken the wrong way.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170596]You are asserting this and assuming it's true. I have talked to people born in Africa and they all tell me that they prefer their modern like over what it would have been without Europeans. One of my history teachers was from Eritrea, and he made this quite clear.[/QUOTE] It's downright stupid and idiotic to believe that there would never be contact between Europe and the rest of the world. [B]However[/B], they handled [B]terribly[/B] the cultural exchange. And it doesn't helps that many issues affecting the developing world can be traced back to the era of European domination. [B]- Edit -[/B] There's no question that the current standards of living are utopic to the standards of four or five centuries ago. But the question is, how many blood was shed to achieve this progress? [B]Too. Fucking. Much[/B]
This thread has been my favourite read on Facepunch in a really long time.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170551]I only pulled that because someone criticized my knowledge of this field. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. Also, that's still 16 years that you can't get married during because of our laws. But let's talk history, not marriage. My opinions on marriage have nothing to do with this thread. Neither do my opinions on marijuana, or race, or Assad. So I don't know why people keep linking to these threads that I posted in. If anything they are derailing this thread, and not me by bringing up my reading habits.[/QUOTE] no it's just hard to take you seriously in any of those threads, not because you espouse fringe opinions, but because of the way you do it, the hostility you bring on your side and the flawed implementation of arguments you employ. I'll clarify on that. Your argumentative style is a blend of wiki linking, and arguments from tradition. Now arguments from tradition aren't inherently bad, but they're not inherently right either. Tradition in this case is status quo, say the status quo of marriage, or the status quo on marijuana. Both times you argue from a point of tradition, using "this is how it was before, and wasn't before better?" mindset which is less than a strong argument because it uses a circular foundation to apply it's logic. You used an argument that "Marriage protects children" but it never has, so I don't know how you even came to use that argument. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46170596]You are asserting this and assuming it's true. I have talked to people born in Africa and they all tell me that they prefer their modern like over what it would have been without Europeans. One of my history teachers was from Eritrea, and he made this quite clear. [/QUOTE] Can you see the future or alternate realities? Because that's what you need to see what you say you see here. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46170596] Reread my arguments and get on track.[/QUOTE] what fucking arguments man, you don't respond to criticism anyways so you're not doing much but trolling.
[QUOTE=T553412;46170617]It's downright stupid and idiotic to believe that there would never be contact between Europe and the rest of the world. [B]However[/B], they handled [B]terribly[/B] the cultural exchange. And it doesn't helps that many issues affecting the developing world can be traced back to the era of European domination.[/QUOTE] Obviously there would have been contact. I just don't believe that these nations would have developed by the use of trade/globalization only.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;46170620]This thread has been my favourite read on Facepunch in a really long time.[/QUOTE] It's quite the read.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46170635]Obviously there would have been contact. I just don't believe that these nations would have developed by the use of trade/globalization only.[/QUOTE] So you claim that the deaths of millions was necessary to achieve progress? That there wasn't an alternative to military conquest at the hands of criminals? (Yes, the spanish [B]did[/B] send criminals on their early ships)
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46170623]no it's just hard to take you seriously in any of those threads, not because you espouse fringe opinions, but because of the way you do it, the hostility you bring on your side and the flawed implementation of arguments you employ. I'll clarify on that. Your argumentative style is a blend of wiki linking, and arguments from tradition. Now arguments from tradition aren't inherently bad, but they're not inherently right either. Tradition in this case is status quo, say the status quo of marriage, or the status quo on marijuana. Both times you argue from a point of tradition, using "this is how it was before, and wasn't before better?" mindset which is less than a strong argument because it uses a circular foundation to apply it's logic. You used an argument that "Marriage protects children" but it never has, so I don't know how you even came to use that argument. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] Can you see the future or alternate realities? Because that's what you need to see what you say you see here. [editline]6th October 2014[/editline] what fucking arguments man, you don't respond to criticism anyways so you're not doing much but trolling.[/QUOTE] Marriage laws do protect children. They didn't so much in the middle ages. But they certainly do now. There were still people marrying children in the United States less than two hundred years ago. As for the alternate/future realities. We have examples to look at. Liberia is a good one. Why are they such a shithole nation? Europeans did not colonize Liberia.
[QUOTE=T553412;46170652]So you claim that the deaths of millions was necessary to achieve progress? That there wasn't an alternative to military conquest at the hands of criminals? (Yes, the spanish [B]did[/B] send criminals on their early ships)[/QUOTE] What are you referring to?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.