Search results

(The black and white fallacy comes into play by asserting because Kentucky's government, under military duress, sided with the Union, it was Union. When in fact 40 thousand troops fought for the south, it did not abolish slavery during the war and a host of other factors.

...

..

..

I can't give you attention, but you can argue with yourself. God knows you've left enough logical fallacies, hypocritical statements and dumb assessments to keep it up forever.

Some epic schadenfreude right there.

Hodj, I'm talking to a grown up now. You've gotten your attention, that's all I can give you for today.

Funny enough, in the Dixie and Southern statistics test, Florida and Texas scored low. Mainly because of how the Dixie boom affected them (Or didn't.) and their history in the slave trade and because Yankees chose those two locations to carpet bag to more prevalently, while skipping over the...

It's like....I'm psychic.

LOL, look at him chasing that tail. So now it's because all states benefited from Slavery that the abolition in New York 23 years earlier than Kentucky's strengthening of Slave laws makes them equal in how they handled slavery. Jesus, Hodj. Is this the next level you're going to reduce it down...

So you admit you kept them in bondage, while supplying troops and supplies to both sides. Okay. Just asking, because... I wonder if New York didn't free their slaves, while fighting on both fucking sides, until after the war. Oh no, they did in 1827. 23 Years before Kentucky enacted one of...

You said you "let them go" (Left). You allowed them to go. But the reality is a large portion were not "allowed" go legally, or by the will of the people who owned them. A large amount escaped, and bravely trekked through a racist culture in order to fight for their freedom. After which, once...

Again, 24 THOUSAND slaves were freed in Louisiana right in New Orleans. 20,000 Tennessee slaves were freed, 17000 from Mississippi. None of the bullshit you're posting is indicative of people from Kentucky freeing their slaves. All it's indicative of is that the economically aligned north...

Oh, well Louisiana "donated" more, 24500 actually. I guess they "donated" them because they were northern too? Oh wait, no. The slaves fled the south in large numbers to join the North. In fact, more colored troops came from Southern states than Northern. Because of what I said, when war broke...

When your furiously Wiking to try and keep up with me, include whole quotes. Kentucky did not outlaw slavery during the Civil War, as Maryland and Missouri did. Nevertheless, about 75% of slaves in Kentucky were freed orescapedto Union lines during the war. Kentuckies slaves, unlike most...

He knows, it's one quote tag not in place but it's his post so he knows where it ends. This is what he does when someone uses his own citations to refute him. It's what he learned in his sparring against Dumar. Call the source irrelevant, ask for citations, distract and ad-hominem. It's honestly...

Don't you see how that makes your "fact" absolutely fucking irrelevant? I mean, you HAVE to see that, don't you? RIGHT?

That is apparent to everyone else right? Because it's been like his only argument for the last 2 pages and now he's saying he didn't say it. It's amazing. At this point he's just trying to save face because it's not in his nature to concede. I actually feel sorry enough for him that I think I'm...

The SFP polling data was in the pictures linked. Reed's essay provided the other pictures. (He's got a whole serious of books on Southern Identity and the metrics used to identify it.) At this point, you're not even reading posts, you're literally just attempting to use the arguments that let...

I've cited whole fucking papers, you god damn moron. John Shelton Reed was literally in the god damn post.

Well, I think that's it. Being Southern is decided by whether or not you rebelled. But any other civil wars have had no effect on who the people were. Hodj won't answer this obvious illogical conundrum in his argument, because the answer proves how arbitrary a standard of allegiance is. But...

And lol at straw manning sociological studies, with ample statistical evidence, as phrenology. False equivalence and a really bad and desperate one.

Were the Romans in the Roman civil war less Roman because they sided against other Romans? Answer. Now.

Appealing to arbitrary designations of economic loyalty isn't going to change present and apparent, verifiable facts. Sorry.

You're asking me to cite the Roman civil wars? Really? The French Revolution? Your reductionism isn't going to play here. I've provided you with multiple studies and multiple statistically relevant facts. And then given examples of how fallacious and stupid your argument is. Asking to "cite"...

As Ary said, and I said in my post, because allegiance to a side is completely arbitrary. The descendents of Augustus were still Romans despite overthrowing the Roman senate. People of the same background can fight against each other. It's happened throughout history, multiple times. Your...

Because your historical fact doesn't make any sense in the context of other historical facts, logic or reason? Revolutions and civil wars happen all the time among thesamecultural region. When the Romans fought each other, were the leaders somehowNOTRoman during their wars? Were the French...

By the way, for those who missed it, this is what Hodj calls "biscuit and gravy" consumption. So lets begin. What makes someone, Southern. Well, how about the prevalence of a common religion? Namely, Southern Baptist? How about attraction to southern accents, and "southern" cuisine? A...

Supposedly, yes. All the actors in a sex scene performed the actual sexual act. Apparently there won't be any question once you see the movie, because he's actually shooting penetration and all.

Epic (2013)

You watched deadwood lite and not deadwood? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, Deadwood is one of those shows I can totally see someone not enjoying due to the theme, setting, language and a host of other factors that give it a specific taste. But really can't imagine someone who enjoyed Hell on...

heh, I haven't played any Bioshock because I've been waiting for this day. My patience has paid off!

From what I recall, it's an okay game, but it's release was terrible--like beyond just buggy/bad, it was just a shit pile that was barely functional. Kind of like SoTS2 (SOTS2 though had been polished up pretty nice since then though.)

Yes, it would make him go from about even with Hulk in terms of power, to being able to stomp him without breaking a sweat (Zues vs Hulk had Zues bitch slapping Hulk around, and Zues/Odin are even--Odin also fought Thanos to a stand still solo, after he owned Thor/). There is a huge difference...

It seems like, again from an outsiders perspective, that the clash between raid guilds is coming to a head--hopefully they will enforce rotations for the same reason SoE enforced them on some servers, because it cuts down on customer service time. If guilds display the ability to be in a tier...

Yeah, that sounds retarded. What's better, the axe where Zombies can grab you and fuck you? Or the Shotgun you can sit on a roof and kill them with? Hmmmm.

Either Deadwood, or Rome. I'd go with Deadwood because the pacing was slightly better and the narrative was a little less jumbled. But both shows managed to not only introduce the characters, but also set the tone for them and began the entire season arc all within the first episode. But the...

Yeah. I was looking at what Korra said about the balance shifting. I was wondering if maybe some kind of "darkness" would grow out of the harmony between Spirits and Humans, as kind of a rebirth--and maybe Korra would learn why Wan just didn't cleanse/destroy Vatu.

Same here. I hate overt romanticism that plays up everything Spiritual/Natural>>>>Technology. I like a more nuanced approach to that question; where one thing isn't the answer, rather like with most things, there has to be a balance. Avatar has been pretty good about drawing those kind of...