Symmetry wrote:What makes you think I don't accept England's role in the slave trade?
You obsession with slavery in America.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
Your bigotry provides all the reason I need. You have plenty history of slavery and racism in your own country to spend time obsessing over the history of foreign countries. If you truly accepted your own country's role in it, you wouldn't be so busy worrying about the history of other foreign countries that your country brought slavery to/enslaved. I mean look at this right here, you come back after months, and your opening thread is about slavery in America 250 years ago. If you accepted responsibility for you own country, if you saw the log in your own eye, you wouldn't be obsessing over the splinter in other people's.
You provide plenty of good reason.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Symmetry wrote:What makes you think I don't accept England's role in the slave trade?
You obsession with slavery in America.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
You have plenty history of slavery and racism in your own country to spend time obsessing over the history of foreign countries. If you truly accepted your own country's role in it, you wouldn't be so busy worrying about the history of other foreign countries that your country brought slavery to/enslaved. I mean look at this right here, you come back after months, and your opening thread is about slavery in America 250 years ago.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:What makes you think I don't accept England's role in the slave trade?
You obsession with slavery in America.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
You have plenty history of slavery and racism in your own country to spend time obsessing over the history of foreign countries. If you truly accepted your own country's role in it, you wouldn't be so busy worrying about the history of other foreign countries that your country brought slavery to/enslaved. I mean look at this right here, you come back after months, and your opening thread is about slavery in America 250 years ago.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
You said you don't accept it in so many words. If you are saying that's not a good reason, then you are basically calling yourself a liar. Because I also know, from what you said in the past, you support NAMBLA, the North American man boy love association. And if you really do accept it, then you are admitting you are a hypocrite.
Perfect example: It would be like me making a thread criticizing Britain for using drones to kill civilians. See how ya are?
Symmetry wrote:What makes you think I don't accept England's role in the slave trade?
You obsession with slavery in America.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
You have plenty history of slavery and racism in your own country to spend time obsessing over the history of foreign countries. If you truly accepted your own country's role in it, you wouldn't be so busy worrying about the history of other foreign countries that your country brought slavery to/enslaved. I mean look at this right here, you come back after months, and your opening thread is about slavery in America 250 years ago.
So, essentially, you have no good reason at all to assume I don't accept it.
You said you don't accept it in so many words. If you are saying that's not a good reason, then you are basically calling yourself a liar. Because I also know, from what you said in the past, you support NAMBLA, the North American man boy love association.
I accept my country's role in it, just not your account of it. Can you accept that your country was founded by a slave-trader, a paedophile and a rapist?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
#1: What is my account of slavery in your country? #2: Any educated person knows my country was not founded by a single person.
It's obvious now you haven't lost your talent for putting your foot in your mouth, but let's see if you are still the dodge king, or if you actually respond to #1
Phatscotty wrote:#1: What is my account of slavery in your country? #2: Any educated person knows my country was not founded by a single person.
It's obvious now you haven't lost your talent for putting your foot in your mouth, but let's see if you are still the dodge king, or if you actually respond to #1
So your two questions to me are #1 What is Phatscotty's opinion if it's not the one about England founding slavery in the Americas mentioned earlier? #2 [Not a question]
Huh. I suspect this will be long and fruitful.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
2dimes wrote:Tried to watch the Movie. Wife had a fit eventually hyperventilating. I might need to PM ha3 about it.
I kind of hope you're referring to 12 Years a Slave with this post. Scotty has seen only a handful of movies- Wall Street 2, some stuff based off of Ayn Rand, and some Batman flicks.
I think he saw 300 too.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history. Look it up,a significant proportion of the Africans taken to the New World were already slaves,the British and others found it easier to buy them for a pittance from local chiefs and resell them for an enormous profit,than go to the bother of capturing them.Arab traders had been trading in African slaves for centuries prior to this. Slavery is nearly as old as humankind sadly.
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history. Look it up,a significant proportion of the Africans taken to the New World were already slaves,the British and others found it easier to buy them for a pittance from local chiefs and resell them for an enormous profit,than go to the bother of capturing them.Arab traders had been trading in African slaves for centuries prior to this. Slavery is nearly as old as humankind sadly.
Plus, I'm not denying the UK's role in the slave trade, but I'm primarily a historian of the 16th and 17th centuries. England wasn't a major colonial power in that period. 18th, 19th Centuries, then he'd have some reasonable arguments, England simply didn't have the geopolitical power in the early days of the "New World". There's no moral supremacy in this- likely it would have happened if it could have been done, but it wasn't.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history. Look it up,a significant proportion of the Africans taken to the New World were already slaves,the British and others found it easier to buy them for a pittance from local chiefs and resell them for an enormous profit,than go to the bother of capturing them.Arab traders had been trading in African slaves for centuries prior to this. Slavery is nearly as old as humankind sadly.
Not to mention that thousands of mediterranean european were taken to north african to become slaves after a few pillages. There s been dozens of thousands of white slaves serving arabic masters during centuries. Like the brits invented an exportable concept...
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history. Look it up,a significant proportion of the Africans taken to the New World were already slaves,the British and others found it easier to buy them for a pittance from local chiefs and resell them for an enormous profit,than go to the bother of capturing them.Arab traders had been trading in African slaves for centuries prior to this. Slavery is nearly as old as humankind sadly.
Not to mention that thousands of mediterranean european were taken to north african to become slaves after a few pillages. There s been dozens of thousands of white slaves serving arabic masters during centuries. Like the brits invented an exportable concept...
I think Scotty may have read the KJV Bible and just assumed that Brits came up with the whole idea off the top of their heads because it's in English.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history.
No, actually I used 3 separate words to indicate different levels at different places. You have to look at what I said, and show me where I said "England introduced slavery to Asia/Africa" I didn't say it. But, you completely ignore the word institutionalized, which England most certainly did institutionalize slavery in India and Asia. Why would you pick and choose words like that, or maybe it is asking too much for you to put the correct adjective with the correct continent. England most certainly introduced slavery in North America.
I didn't make anything up, you are just trying too hard.
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history.
No, actually I used 3 separate words to indicate different levels at different places. I don't have to look into history, you have to look at what I said, and show we where I said "England introduced slavery to Asia/Africa" I didn't say it. But, you completely ignore the word institutionalized, which England most certainly did in India. England most certainly introduced slavery in America. I didn't make anything up, you are just trying too hard.
Chang definitely had you on this. You should consider admitting that you were wrong.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:I do wonder if the author of the OP realizes it was his own country that introduced and implemented and institutionalized slavery in the New World, as well as in India, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Nice tactics though Symm, really taps into and manipulates the emotions. Couldn't be more ignorant or hypocritical though.
It was also his own country that abolished it before the US did.
only when they had the rest of the world enslaved first.
The UK introduced Slavery to Africa...and Asia???You were actually winning this argument until you started making shit up and then denying revising history.
No, actually I used 3 separate words to indicate different levels at different places. I don't have to look into history, you have to look at what I said, and show we where I said "England introduced slavery to Asia/Africa" I didn't say it. But, you completely ignore the word institutionalized, which England most certainly did in India. England most certainly introduced slavery in America. I didn't make anything up, you are just trying too hard.
Chang definitely had you on this.
no, he just picked one of three words to use and alter the statement, something you are quite good at yourself.
chang is cool, he will admit. when talking about Africa and Asia, the words that fits was "institutionalize". I did lump them all together, but you really do have to make an effort to ignore institutionalize and just go with introduce.
Like that scores a point or something Symm? Oh yeah, like as if your country's history of institutionalizing slavery is somehow better than your country's history of introducing slavery? Pretty sure the your country's institution of slavery is about as bad as it gets. Imagine how many 9 year old Indian girls and Asian girls got slobbered all over by your countrymen soldiers?
And you go on and on like Jefferson was a rapist. So when your King picked a young woman out of the crowd and said "bring her to me" like as if the girl would say no and your King would be like uh okay then. You are a hypocrite, and not a very clever one at that.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phatscotty wrote:Like your opinion even matter to anyone! LOL
OK, that was kind of a weird reply. I sense a degree of hostility. Out of interest is there a situation where you consider a man having sex with a 14 year old girl kept as a slave in his house to be something other than rape and paedophilia?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
