Inquirer wrote an entire paragraph of hot air and got contradicted in a single sentence.
What? Which sentence?
I saw him put forth actual history, and then you spit out some random white dudes in response. He's being a historian, you aren't.What you saw was a counter point you haven't been able to refute.
Could you... quote the one sentence victory for me?
I think you imagined it.My concern over you have a convenient memory: validated. Here.
Okay it's as I thought, you didn't win in one sentence and you're showboating a fake victory towards yourself to reaffirm your faith.
You literally think "I disagree, the white renaissance was pretty bitch'n" is winning in one sentence, what?
It's an implied claim that what was happening during the Renaissance is superior to the matters happening in Asia. Inq hasn't disagreed yet, you have, you raised counter points which were shot down. If you have any other arguments against the Renaissance not being the innovative culutural golden age for its time, Im all ears. It would be a better use of time.
But instead I'm here, having to break down one line into baby food and re explain the obvious context because you're sperging out over its simple structure. I really don't care if you don't like how it's phrased, I care that the points are solid and that it's supported by history.
You did all of this in one sentence?
No. I'm giving a brief recollection of where the topic went to help you see where you are lost. I then cite a bit from his quote I responded to.
I wouldn't play on the "your opponent has bad memory" card too much, lest someone play it back towards you (
the "No U" wouldn't be pretty for your case more than many, trust me). This is me asking for clarification to see if I can understand the apparent absurdity of your current stance. You're at this point exaggerating and conflating the weight of things, again, as more of a measure of bolstering one's faith instead of one's mind.
I'll take it as a cope that your insult of me having a shoddy memory backfired on you. Once again, I don't care about your psychological reads of me. They aren't relevant to the subject matter. If i'm exaggerating bring up which source cited, if im conflating show me on with what historical incident. These smoke and mirror ad hominems mean literally nothing.
Sure enough your clarifications show me that I'm not imagining as much as I'd hoped in relation to your arguments and their current style, but I expect to need more clarification down the line so that I stop mistakenly giving your points more credit than they're apparent worth.
No. I don't need to clarify anything to someone who's ignorant to the subject matter. You've spent pages huffing and puffing my single sentence point was invalid because you literally didn't understand it. The responsibility to be well versed and pick up context on the subject of debate is in your hands. The claim was Europeans were behind 800 years ago, I provided a counter solid counter example. All that was needed.
You aren't the first White Supremeist I've spoken with, and to their credit they were able to make points that leave the room to question reality and the formation of beliefs, but that's not what your display is doing here. You aren't being a Historian here, you're merely peppering your rhetoric with some Pop History you found somewhere as some sort of gatekeeping practice, and when people do a better job you accuse them of "powdered wigs" and other similar nonsense.
Man, that really took the wind out of my sails. You found white supremacist that was more eloquent and liked you the way Inq's post sounded more than mine?
I'm here whenever you want to discredit the Renaissance or put a coexisting period of innovation above it.
You listed an era and a bunch of names, but didn't go into what any of them did. You were just like: "Well, these rando white dudes were in an Age of Enlightenment, so I win. Why people be so guilty about sayin' how the white folk are history's winners?"
You're just really ignorant of history, I even specifically picked that bunch because they're well known. I gave you real sources that contradicted the target time period Inq claimed Europeans were "far behind" and you're denying them for everything other than their validity. You reek of bias.
You still refuse to elaborate on the list of names you gave, again, likely because it'd make your point fall apart. Listing "Columbus" screams "I need as many names as possible."
It's almost like, the historical figures I listed are associated with innovation. And it's almost like, it'd be autistically overkill to start naming them off left and right when Inq hasn't even responded on the matter. The time to delve into achievements is if he list Asian innovators of his own and we compare their works.
My point stands right still, regardless if it isn't in your preferred structure. Again, bring up counter examples if you actually want to debate this instead of grasping straws. Im sure your fingers hurt.
Now, instead of doing gatekeeping practices to pat yourself on the back, why don't you describe their achievements so that we can have an actual debate? I mean, I'm sure you've done the research on them, and it wouldn't be that hard for you to give us your take, right?
Come on, show off your History skills and feed me with that spoon, I want to judge your content for it's flavor instead of some rushed summary that no Historian would take seriously if left as is.
He named 4 inventions, I named some of the biggest pioneers in history. It's an adequate back and forth. You just have autism.
As far as the spoon, you found out when we debated over this. Again this memory.
