The Official "RIU History" Thread

[NoDrama]

Tuck that thumb in, PRIVATE!!

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't hate science at all, I'm a big fan. However, I tend to scoff at junk science that relies on computer models predicting dire outcomes decades/centuries from now. Especially when it revolves around and wraps itself with the warm and fuzzy agenda of Eco-Loons and proposes solutions that just happen to be the same anti fossil fuel industry caterwauling that we've heard forever. But, I'm sure that's just a big 'ol coinkydink.

Well, fuck me running. Professor BigLibNobody says right wingers are bad, libs good. Get me my lobotomy and my tights, I'm switching over to the other side.

tell us again about how the conclusion of 34 national academies of science is a hoax and a conspiracy perpetrated to give you tax breaks on energy efficient appliances.

 

[NoDrama]

nope, the number one reason they listed when seceding was slavery.

your historical revisionism is tiresome.

So plantation owners just liked to keep slaves as pets then? Had nothing to do with money?

 

[UncleBuck]

So plantation owners just liked to keep slaves as pets then? Had nothing to do with money?

take it up with the dead guys who penned "slavery" as their very first reason for seceding.

 

[Padawanbater2]

more perverted wikiwisdom.

you may not be aware (of anything really...) but any asshole can edit wikipedia to giver it any slant he wishes.

So now you shift focus to disagreement with the definitions of words...?

What's stopping you from going on wikipedia and changing 'liberalism' to exactly what you said it was; authoritarianism?

I mean, if any asshole can just go and change everything...


Stay on track.. right wing politics is much more aligned with authoritarianism, and any idiot should still be able to tell you the difference. Like I said, your talking points sound good to people who don't really know much, but to those who do they simply lack substance. You get them from the right wing who cater to their constituents, and differences in levels of education are no surprise to anyone. This is why people like you and Muyloco hate academia and science and condemn anyone who disagrees with your prefabricated opinions "leftists/liberal eco-loons/authoritarian/etc."

Then you bitch about ad-hominems

LOL

 

[NoDrama]

take it up with the dead guys who penned "slavery" as their very first reason for seceding.

Citation required.

 

[UncleBuck]

Citation required.

are you doubting known history, or just plain ignorant of it?

 

[Kush Knight]

and here we go again.

i have tio justify my opinion or im "one of THEM", and if i dont accept your bullshit story, im being mean.

leftism is authoritarianism, pure and simple, blaming it on "conservatives" and "the right wing" is just ad hom.

You are really god damn annoying and clearly spouting something someone else said, verbatim.
This is a debate on politics (instead of a history thread)
Justify it like in any normal debate, so that we can then judge the same info accurately ourselves.

The very definition of being conservative infers that no matter how many times people "prove" you wrong, no matter what evidence is provided, its not proof to you. Its sort of similar to preaching "People will try to prove you wrong about God, but thats just a test to see if you have faith. God is real no matter what people say." Liberalism, infers accepting things as they are, meaning if you prove me wrong without a doubt, then my opinion will change or evolve so that hopefully its based on what is TRUE. Authoritarian styles aim to force a way of thinking on someone.

Just watch the ken ham vs bill nye debate, and then justify how someone can say they will never change their opinion no matter what evidence to prove otherwise?

more perverted wikiwisdom.

you may not be aware (of anything really...) but any asshole can edit wikipedia to giver it any slant he wishes.

omfg. srsly. i have a bad headache now. thats like saying 2+2 isn't 4 because a 4 year old got a 100% on a test, and answered with fish......... Theres mods, admins, and 100s of people re-editing those, but whats youre damn perfect definitions? Huh? Anyone who reads this thread will realize you have not made a single (real) debatable point.

You fucking lost man. We arent forcing jack shit. We made a point with justification, you disagreed, stated a point, and got extremely defensive when asked the reasoning behind the opinion. Everything you said was hypocritical in nature, and felt like talking to a wall. Im out you uneducated brainwashed twat. Stop forcibly spewing your opinions without a justification. You'll just misinform the ignorant.

 

[NoDrama]

are you doubting known history, or just plain ignorant of it?

Couldn't find one single citation to prove your claim eh?

 

[UncleBuck]

Couldn't find one single citation to prove your claim eh?

no, i just want to know if you are attempting to deny known history, or if you are plainly ignorant of it.

 

[NoDrama]

The very definition of being conservative infers that no matter how many times people "prove" you wrong, no matter what evidence is provided, its not proof to you. Its sort of similar to preaching "People will try to prove you wrong about God, but thats just a test to see if you have faith. God is real no matter what people say." Liberalism, infers accepting things as they are, meaning if you prove me wrong without a doubt, then my opinion will change or evolve so that hopefully its based on what is TRUE. Authoritarian styles aim to force a way of thinking on someone.

Webster's dictionary ( and all others) called and wanted you to know that your definitions are wrong.
Authoritarianism can go both ways, liberal or conservative, none hold domain over it exclusively.

 

[NoDrama]

no, i just want to know if you are attempting to deny known history, or if you are plainly ignorant of it.

So you definitely couldn't find anything eh?

 

[UncleBuck]

So you definitely couldn't find anything eh?

no, i have it in my photobucket and have posted it many times before, so i want to know if you are dumb or lying.

 

[Dr Kynes]

So now you shift focus to disagreement with the definitions of words...?

What's stopping you from going on wikipedia and changing 'liberalism' to exactly what you said it was; authoritarianism?

I mean, if any asshole can just go and change everything...

Stay on track.. right wing politics is much more aligned with authoritarianism, and any idiot should still be able to tell you the difference. Like I said, your talking points sound good to people who don't really know much, but to those who do they simply lack substance. You get them from the right wing who cater to their constituents, and differences in levels of education are no surprise to anyone. This is why people like you and Muyloco hate academia and science and condemn anyone who disagrees with your prefabricated opinions "leftists/liberal eco-loons/authoritarian/etc."

Then you bitch about ad-hominems

LOL

you demanding somebody "stay on track" thats rich.

leftism is domination, it demands all accept their decrees or be labeled.

and you swing that labelmaker wildly.

every argument with you invariably descends into endless "No U!!" and ad hom, because you are a lackwit, a dolt, a fool.

ad hom is NOT proof of anything, and yet thats your only recourse when anyone cites a study which doesnt toe your party line.

see this very thread for numerous examples.

 

[Kush Knight]

Webster's dictionary ( and all others) called and wanted you to know that your definitions are wrong.
Authoritarianism can go both ways, liberal or conservative, none hold domain over it exclusively.

how are they wrong? They aren't definitions, but implied statements derived from the definition. If you can "correct" them, feel free. I agree 100% Authoritarianism can go both ways, its basically just a belief in forcing an opinion. I had Authoritarian parents.

 

[NoDrama]

no, i have it in my photobucket and have posted it many times before, so i want to know if you are dumb or lying.

You said that they (whoever that is) wrote that slavery was the reason they seceded.
Written record and you can't find any evidence? Not a single one?
Are you sure they wrote that? Perhaps you are just assuming what some history book told you?

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are really god damn annoying and clearly spouting something someone else said, verbatim.
This is a debate on politics (instead of a history thread)
Justify it like in any normal debate, so that we can then judge the same info accurately ourselves.

The very definition of being conservative infers that no matter how many times people "prove" you wrong, no matter what evidence is provided, its not proof to you. Its sort of similar to preaching "People will try to prove you wrong about God, but thats just a test to see if you have faith. God is real no matter what people say." Liberalism, infers accepting things as they are, meaning if you prove me wrong without a doubt, then my opinion will change or evolve so that hopefully its based on what is TRUE. Authoritarian styles aim to force a way of thinking on someone.

Just watch the ken ham vs bill nye debate, and then justify how someone can say they will never change their opinion no matter what evidence to prove otherwise?





omfg. srsly. i have a bad headache now. thats like saying 2+2 isn't 4 because a 4 year old got a 100% on a test, and answered with fish......... Theres mods, admins, and 100s of people re-editing those, but whats youre damn perfect definitions? Huh? Anyone who reads this thread will realize you have not made a single (real) debatable point.

You fucking lost man. We arent forcing jack shit. We made a point with justification, you disagreed, stated a point, and got extremely defensive when asked the reasoning behind the opinion. Everything you said was hypocritical in nature, and felt like talking to a wall. Im out you uneducated brainwashed twat. Stop forcibly spewing your opinions without a justification. You'll just misinform the ignorant.

 

[UncleBuck]

you demanding somebody "stay on track" thats rich.

leftism is domination, it demands all accept their decrees or be labeled.

and you swing that labelmaker wildly.

every argument with you invariably descends into endless "No U!!" and ad hom, because you are a lackwit, a dolt, a fool.

ad hom is NOT proof of anything, and yet thats your only recourse when anyone cites a study which doesnt toe your party line.

see this very thread for numerous examples.

i guess kynes doesn't have anything justifying his opinion then.

poor little white nationalist.

@Kush Knight do you know who phillipe rushton is?

 

[UncleBuck]

You said that they (whoever that is) wrote that slavery was the reason they seceded.
Written record and you can't find any evidence? Not a single one?
Are you sure they wrote that? Perhaps you are just assuming what some history book told you?

so i'm gonna go with you know they exist, and you are just trying to revise history. that makes you a liar, which is even worse than being dumb.

 

[Kush Knight]

@Dr Kynes

You nitpick the smallest thing to say the whole argument is wrong. There is no true debating with you. Your arguments are chalk-full of multiple types of fallacies.