Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Solonoid

Pages: 1 ... 332333334 335336 ... 449
9991
Septagon / Re: Option to add semi-transparent rainbow flags...
« on: June 30, 2015, 03:48:14 PM »
Only if there cash be a an option to add a semi transparent confederate flag.
Do it yourself, you entitled welfare queen.
To all of my avatars?

I don't think so.

9992
The Flood / Re: Arky/Nexus/Slash
« on: June 30, 2015, 02:12:06 PM »
I'm, uh, gonna need the sauce on that.

You know.

For science.

9993
Gaming / Re: Halo 5's not having split screen
« on: June 30, 2015, 01:57:46 PM »
I have a 24" I use for playing games at friends' houses. >.>
oh yeah this too, but usually I only whip it out when there are more than two of us.

9994
Gaming / Re: Halo 5's not having split screen
« on: June 30, 2015, 01:56:24 PM »
Didn't you just turn 15?


You shouldn't be playing Halo.
I was playing Halo when I was like 8!

because i was hardcore
Yeah, I played Halo for the first time when I was four, and started playing a lot of it when I was seven.

And I am one of the guys that plays split screen with my friends online, but not the autistic asshole that uses a mic and talks to his buddies over chat and forces everyone to listen.

By I figured I would use this opportunity to bring up a PS4 commercial where a man was playing destiny on the couch with his wife and they were both holding controllers and at the end of the match they stood up and hugged.

I was like "wot" "but no splitscreen tho"

9995
The Flood / Re: What would you call this hairstyle?
« on: June 30, 2015, 01:34:18 PM »
Spock/10 burns yo

9996
The Flood / Cheat probably thought we forgot
« on: June 30, 2015, 01:18:55 PM »
Hows that anime board coming?

9997
The Flood / Re: you know who we still need to join this site?
« on: June 30, 2015, 01:14:38 PM »
we need yorkie

and spartan ken


... im half serious about ken
I wouldn't mind Ken being around.

9998
The Flood / Re: you know who we still need to join this site?
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:34:04 PM »
we need charlie back
I actually agree with PSU.

Charlie is one of the highest quality posters to have ever used this site.

9999
The Flood / Re: Who loves cheerios?
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:24:24 PM »
Mini Wheats mastur race
go home filthy gaijin

OT: Lynn loves cheerios 🍛

10000
The Flood / Re: Your daily routine
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:18:24 PM »
I try to avoid routine as much as I can.
They say life goes by faster when you fall into a routine.
It really does.

On a routine it's like, just x more days.
Without one I get a lot more done every day.

10001
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:14:14 PM »
Americans were terrorists in the revolutionary days.
They really were, the sons of liberty were the DEFINITION of a terrorist organization.

I'm not saying that they were being treated fairly, but their problems were greatly exaggerated.

10002
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:11:50 PM »
So explain to me why the only books that WE have ever read are all revisionist history, but that you yourself - in your enlightened state - have managed to get to the truth of it all.
The vast majority all history is revisionist, and its unlikely we'll ever get to the bottom of all of it.

But a lot of work has gone into correcting many biased accounts of history, and the civil war is probably one of the most studied.

A lot like correction of American revisionism of their revolution, it's all free information you can access online or at your local library.
Could you give me some links to these corrections? I'd like to see them.
If I had been actively looking this up while posting all of this, I would definitely link you, but I'm on my phone right now and it would be more trouble for me to do all of your research for you than its really worth.

But I've been citing most of this from memory of the last time I did research on the subject, for the same argument with someone else.

If you don't want to take my word for it, which is completely understandable, google is always open to you.

10003
The Flood / Re: I got new headphones for the computer.
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:06:15 PM »
That's so petty, I don't care then if what upsets you is tantamount to nothing at all.
You literally took an extra 2.5 seconds to add the image and derail your own thread.

Could you imagine if every weeb thread had an anime >mfw that was totally unrelated to the post at the end?

That's what your avatar is for.

10004
The Flood / Re: Just got some pussy.
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:01:50 PM »
why is he in a cage >.>
It's a cat carrier, I'm taking him to the airport.

10005
The Flood / Re: I got new headphones for the computer.
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:00:54 PM »
See this is exactly what I'm taking about.

The was almost nothing wrong with this post until you linked the cringe image at the end.

10006
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 30, 2015, 11:57:48 AM »
So explain to me why the only books that WE have ever read are all revisionist history, but that you yourself - in your enlightened state - have managed to get to the truth of it all.
The vast majority all history is revisionist, and its unlikely we'll ever get to the bottom of all of it.

But a lot of work has gone into correcting many biased accounts of history, and the civil war is probably one of the most studied.

A lot like correction of American revisionism of their revolution, it's all free information you can access online or at your local library.

10007
The Flood / Just got some pussy.
« on: June 30, 2015, 11:34:58 AM »

Check out this cat that I just met!

His name is Elvis and he has heterochromia.

He is ze Desu kitty.

10008
The Flood / Re: I didn't know they actually existed
« on: June 30, 2015, 11:32:33 AM »
What am I looking at.

10009
The Flood / Re: pussy, money, weed
« on: June 30, 2015, 11:28:30 AM »
Ah, the trifecta of life.

10010
The Flood / Re: Your daily routine
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:56:28 AM »
I don't have one, because I don't live in 24 hour cycles.

I think usually I get about six hours of sleep during various parts of the day split between three days, and on the fourth day I sleep shit fifteen hours.

What happens in between is always different.

10011
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:49:40 AM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.
You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.
That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.
You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.

The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.
I didn't say any of that.

You're just terrible at paying attention.
Explain how one long winded and apologetic post trying to justify "fuck you, don't take my right to own slaves" translates to me not paying attention.
That's uh... The reason they were long winded.

Because I spent the last day explaining and a half explaining exactly why slavery was not the underlying cause of southern secession.

10012
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:35:14 AM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.
You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.
That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.
You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.

The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.
I didn't say any of that.

You're just terrible at paying attention.

10013
The Flood / Re: Custom Title Quest Part 1
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:30:27 AM »
I don't fucking care just post quietly until you get it like Byrne did.
lol you used to be cool, I missed the moment when you became such a shitbird

I'll post quietly when you do, other that than that, Mr Shitposter, if you don't care, you don't have to post in my thread
I don't like this forum fox bullshit or pretty much the way you went from ebin funposting on b.net to cringeworthy self obsession in sep7.

10014
The Flood / Re: Did I go overkill on the router I got?
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:27:48 AM »
There's a cap to how good your internet can really be right now, but in five years when everybody else's router sucks fuck and they'll have replaced it yours will still be good.

10015
The Flood / Re: Passed my second year in Uni, yay
« on: June 30, 2015, 10:01:24 AM »
Ew, only normies go to college and watch gurren.
Spoiler
Congrats man.

10016
Septagon / Re: Option to add semi-transparent rainbow flags...
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:58:50 AM »
Only if there cash be a an option to add a semi transparent confederate flag.

10017
Septagon / If Mendy is allowedto have it...
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:56:25 AM »
Why isn't fruit considered and ambassador?

I'm pretty sure he's an admin on bungle.

And with the incredibly high status of mods on b.net, shouldn't Foman have it too?

10018
The Flood / Re: Custom Title Quest Part 1
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:53:09 AM »
I don't fucking care just post quietly until you get it like Byrne did.

10019
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:49:56 AM »
The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.
You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.
I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.
Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.
What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.
Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.
It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?
Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.
So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.
That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.

10020
Serious / Re: Walmart refuses to make a Confederate flag cake. . .
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:09:58 PM »
Everyone

just

shut up


and come inside


ITS BED TIME
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Pages: 1 ... 332333334 335336 ... 449