Confederate flag, racist or heritage?

[Ouroboros]

No fan fic. I can make an argument based on the objective facts.

CT said that he didn't know what Proud Boys meant to me but that they weren't all white.

1. Him not knowing how I mean Proud Boys is the admission of ignorance.

Still not ignorance because there can be no state of antithetical knowledge when dealing with what another person thinks.

2. He did guess right though. I don't mean Proud Boys to exclusively mean white guys. I use it as an amusing euphemism for the emotionally and constitutionally soft. For the people who feel the need to pretend and make believe.

And none of that definition is anything but your self-aggrandizing fantasy.

It's not make believe that I get to explain to you what I mean when I use the term proud boy. That's how that works. You making up what I mean is fantasy and make believe.

Make believe is you pretending that CT was ignorant or that you made any kind of reasonable response to him, or anyone else.

Are you trying to do math here?

I didn't have zero reasons for critiquing him, I don't even know what that means. I'm ignorant to what you're trying to express there. I critiqued his post based on my reasons just as you critique posts for your own. I dont get to tell you that you have no reason to do the things you do. Your reasons for the things you do are for you to explain, provided you arent feeling meek about it.

If I were to try to tell you that you had zero reason to critique me that would be nothing more than frail pretending. You're an independent life form capable of expressing your own motivations, no?

But frail pretending is all that you do, so your example is non-sequitur. You're completely incompetent at debate and only imagine scoring points by changing the game, just like Calvinball.

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't say he wasnt worth engaging in. You just pretending that. What I said was that arguments made from ignorance had no value to me. I in fact continued to engage with them.

He didn't make any arguments from ignorance. That was just your false logic on display, and saying that his POV had "no value to you" is just the same as saying "you're not worth engaging with." What you are currently pretending to have engaged with is your cocked-up fake representation of what he said.

I didn't stigmatize him as not being worth engaging in. I pointed and laughed at him for admitting ignorance and then pretending at me. That is a form of engagement.

Nope, it's deflection and continues to make you look foolish.

I know what I don't know means. Are you having trouble sussing it's meaning out?

I know you change terms whenever you feel like it, so nothing you claim to "know" has any value to anyone but you.

Prove it. Make your best case.

More sealioning from you.

Where have I done so? Show your work.

It's still in my sig.

I dont care about slaver wallets. Did the constitution? Did it list it as a reason slave states could secede?

If the Constitution doesn't forbid secession, the Federal government has no power to retaliate against it. You're just in favor of the Northern power-grab because you think it was of advantage to Black people. Maybe you could even make that argument coherently if you weren't producing so much self-flattering famfic.

I don't care about it but this is about what you're claiming to care about. Do you get to make determinations about the boundaries of the constitution yourself or is there a political body that rules on such things?

I'm speaking of the history of the political bodies that contended over who held the reins of power. I don't what single political body you might be fantasizing about.

Do you have anything else to support your argument other than the phrase everyone knows?

What I know is that all opinions, feelings and desires are equally subjective. Fundamentally. Nothing in nature elevates one set of opinions, desires or feelings, objectively over another.

And what you think you know remains no more than your interpretation, not an objective fact. If you believed in objectivity, you would have quoted Crunchtime correctly.

 

[Ouroboros]

Like what? Can you be more specific than "stuff"?

Already done so and still not paying attention to your sealioning.

Who is forcing you to make arguments based on assumptions?


My knowledge comes from education and being born into the culture.

I didn't say anyone forced me to do anything, so this is a wilder deflection than most of the ones you concoct.

You're free to define tyranny for us according to you any way you like. All I see you doing is crying because I define all acts of slavery as tyrannical and what I said is that I don't idolize slavers or slaver culture and that's not what I'm going here. What I'm doing is comparing how one culture treated women to another.

Nope, you're giving one culture a pass because it makes you feel good about yourself since you identify with said culture.

My argument was actually about if the constitution allows for States to secede. If you want to make the case that it did over hurt wallets then be my guest. I'm happy to hear it.

The Fugitive Slave Clause existed in the Constitution to protect a right to property across state lines. The North violated that, so the South was within its rights to dissolve the compact. Your predictable response that you don't care about slavers' right to property is just another deflection, after you put forth the false conclusion that Southerners were somehow unjustified to expect Northerners to abide by the same contract the latter used to justify keeping the South within the Union. More of your Calvinball rules.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well that's because you're not a Master. If you were you'd know how effortlessly the naturally talented go through life.

Enjoy your fanfic, but don't complain when people call you "Mary Sue."

Fundamentally, what you feel is justified is a matter of your opinion. That isnt fan fiction. Fan fiction is about you pretending on behalf of someone else. To me, owning people as property isn't just. Maybe it is to you. I don't know. Thats for you to say when you're not being meek about it. The South certainly thought they were just in seceding in order to protect slavery as institution but I don't give a shit how slavers feel any more than I do rapists. Again, your mileage may vary whenever you get brave enough to share your own opinion on what you feel is just. Do you think slavers are justified in acting to preserve slavery? If so I'm going to need a deeper explanation on just what justice means to you because me and you wouldn't be describing the same thing.

I've already given my opinions several times and I justify them in terms of history. You justify yours in terms of what makes you feel good about yourself, and that makes your opinions fan fiction. You are absolutely pretending that you have answers that you do not possess and trying to misrepresent my opinions is just another part of your fantasy. I agree that you don't know anything about what I view as justice but I don't critique you for not knowing that as you critiqued Crunchtime. I do however critique your pattern of mendacity so that I know it's impossible to discuss that topic with you, so we may as well stick with the ones in progress.

The inconsistency is in crying about violations to constitutional commitments and then violating those commitments themselves by abandoning the Union illegally. I don't care about the Constitution but if you're going to pretend to then I'm going to need you to pretend all the way otherwise I'm going to call you on your bullshit.

Your pretense is not just that you don't care about the states' rights of slave states, because you've falsely tried to argue that they were inconsistent on their own terms. Once you did that, you violated your own terms. Calvinball again.

Again this isn't what fan fiction is. At least not to me. Expressing your own feelings on matters is just giving your opinion. Fan Fic is when you pretend about someone else.

That's another of your Calvinball definitions. Go look up "Mary Sue" and see if whatever definition you find concerns what the fanfic writer pretends about someone else. That's just like your fake meaning for "frail," inconsistent and illogical.

Nothing at all is new with you including you being so confident about this and me not even caring to remember how wrong you are until we're 100 posts deep in to your folly.

As I said in a previous post, I believe you tell the truth about giving your posts no thought. So that's one truth-telling you can take pride in, sort of.

But I did do so and before you started having a fit about it..... so now what?

See previous post, You changed the context, and I will continue to show this because it amuses me to show your failures at debate.

 

[Tigerace117]

Only in your world are all the things that happened after the Civil War the fault of the South. Comedy gold as always.

Gee dude, no amount of desperate flailing can change the Slaver South’s actions, no matter how frantically you try and deny them.

 

[Tigerace117]

More cereal box garbage. The North's efforts to marginalize the South-- not to oppose slavery, but to gain political power-- date back to the 1820s, long before the period when rival slave and free factions fought over Kentucky's status in the 1860s. But please keep placing your ignorance of history on display.

The South’s fervent belief slavery was a moral good and decades long effort to force it onto both the North and conquer as much land as possible to continue its spread is not something any amount of Lost Causer whining can change.

The South never actually believed in “state’s rights” as it’s routinely trampling all over them in the name of defending slavery shows quite clearly.

 

[Master Debator]

Even for you, this is a mendacious assertion. You used the words "to you," but it was not in the context Crunchtime had provided. You were using "to you" to assert that CT was ignorant about general facts, rather than simply not being able to read your mind, even though you claim you think that's impossible:

Then you didn't look at that post closely enough.

I wasnt referring to my use of "to you", I was referring to the fact that I quoted CT, in his full context, including his use of "to you".

This whole narrative you invented of me trying to change his context has fallen apart. It was some amusing fan fiction though.

That's a new level of mendacity for you. But I do believe you when you say you barely think about your posts. It's just that you don't think about them when you make them any more than afterward.


I agree with whoever first called you the Master Deflector, and I don't plan to apprentice in your "art."


Other way around: CT couldn't know what you mean by "Proud Boy" until you explained it to him.

No shit. ‍♂ That is actually my point. He is inherently ignorant about my meaning until I explain it to him.

CT cited at least one fact that contradicted your earlier fulminations, but you didn't deal with that, you immediately tried to frame CT as ignorant and left off the phrase "to you" in its proper context.

Except I didnt leave off his phrase "to you" the second time I quoted him.

Go back and read post #569 again and don't just thirstly focus on my words, look at the words I quoted from CT. Let's see if you can admit you see the words "to you" there.

Your lapse is still leaving out the words "to you" in the proper context.

Except I clearly didn't before you started all this performative complaining.

Not "imagine," "Deduce," from the evidence provided by your desperate mendacity.

Nope, for the reasons shown above.

Find it for yourself. I already reprinted the segment of 569 that you declined to bother with, for obvious reasons.

You reprinted my segment, you didn't reprint the the part I quoted from CT which contains his "to you".

Still not ignorance because there can be no state of antithetical knowledge when dealing with what another person thinks.

Having no knowledge about a subject is exactly what ignorance is.

Ignorance:

The state or fact of being ignorant: lack of knowledge, education or awareness.

And none of that definition is anything but your self-aggrandizing fantasy.

Self aggrandizing? Are you suggesting I'm the author and owner of Merriam Webster?

Make believe is you pretending that CT was ignorant or that you made any kind of reasonable response to him, or anyone else.

You yourself just admitted that there can be no state of antithetical knowledge of what another person thinks and lack of knowledge is a state of ignorance.

But frail pretending is all that you do, so your example is non-sequitur. You're completely incompetent at debate and only imagine scoring points by changing the game, just like Calvinball.

Says the guy who pretended I left out CT's "to you", I didn't, and who thinks linking to Merriam Webster is self aggrandizing defintion....

He didn't make any arguments from ignorance. That was just your false logic on display, and saying that his POV had "no value to you" is just the same as saying "you're not worth engaging with." What you are currently pretending to have engaged with is your cocked-up fake representation of what he said.

Those aren't nearly the same thing to me.

One is a critique of the value of opinions made from ignorance and the other is an oxymoron.

Nope, it's deflection and continues to make you look foolish.

I know you change terms whenever you feel like it, so nothing you claim to "know" has any value to anyone but you.

More sealioning from you.

It's still in my sig.

That's so ****ing funny! I had completely forgotten about that.

Ahhh.... God I have to catch my breath..... genuinely, thank you for reminding me you did that.

 

[Master Debator]

If the Constitution doesn't forbid secession, the Federal government has no power to retaliate against it.

And that's the problem with your argument. It's not really an argument at all. Its a thought experiment for some fantasy alt world. In this world that IF has been settled. The States had no right to secession but Lincoln did have Constitutional authority to put down any rebellion, which is what he and the federal government saw the secessionist movement as.

You're just in favor of the Northern power-grab because you think it was of advantage to Black people. Maybe you could even make that argument coherently if you weren't producing so much self-flattering famfic.

I do love when you try to pretend what my thoughts and feelings are. It always makes for amusing fan fiction.

I look at the civil war as a wonderful period of white slaver on white slaver violence. Kind of like this Charlie Kirk assassination. White wing on white wing violence is something I'll always support.

The resulting restructuring of white supremacist society, not so much.

I'm speaking of the history of the political bodies that contended over who held the reins of power. I don't what single political body you might be fantasizing about.

What? I'm referring to the Supreme Court, that's who ultimately settles questions regarding constitutionality. I have no idea what you're trying to be amusingly coy about.

And what you think you know remains no more than your interpretation, not an objective fact. If you believed in objectivity, you would have quoted Crunchtime correctly.

Correctly? Do you imagine that to be some objective standard? You could say, objectively, that I didn't quote him fully, the first time. But I quoted him fully the second, objectively speaking.

Already done so and still not paying attention to your sealioning.

All you've done is amuse me by crying that I didn't quote Cruntime... correctly.... .... tell me more about your feelings....

I didn't say anyone forced me to do anything, so this is a wilder deflection than most of the ones you concoct.

So you're choosing ignorance? Willfully?

Nope, you're giving one culture a pass because it makes you feel good about yourself since you identify with said culture.

Can you quote me where I say one culture gets a pass or anything approaching such a sentiment?

The Fugitive Slave Clause existed in the Constitution to protect a right to property across state lines. The North violated that, so the South was within its rights to dissolve the compact.

Not according to the Supreme Court. If we're not talking about legal rights, which they didn't have, what rights are you referring to?

Your predictable response that you don't care about slavers' right to property is just another deflection, after you put forth the false conclusion that Southerners were somehow unjustified to expect Northerners to abide by the same contract the latter used to justify keeping the South within the Union. More of your Calvinball rules.

It wasnt any sort of deflection. In fact I was confirming your own statement that I don't care about slaver rights or wallets or whatever. I was confirming for you that indeed I don't.

Enjoy your fanfic, but don't complain when people call you "Mary Sue."


I've already given my opinions several times and I justify them in terms of history.

I'm not familiar with this argument. Care to share it again or point me in the direction of where you shared it previously? I'd love to read it.....

 

[Master Debator]

You justify yours in terms of what makes you feel good about yourself, and that makes your opinions fan fiction.

What? Kind of seems like you're just making fan fiction synonymous with opinion. In that case, and? Everyone's opinions are based on what they feel is better, but that said I really would love to read your attempt to cower behind history.

You are absolutely pretending that you have answers that you do not possess and trying to misrepresent my opinions is just another part of your fantasy. I agree that you don't know anything about what I view as justice but I don't critique you for not knowing that as you critiqued Crunchtime.

I wouldn't care if you did. What exactly would you be critiquing me on? I'd happily and willingly admit my own ignorance to how you view justice. That is knowledge I do not currently possess. To be honest, this whole time I haven't been able to wrap my head around the compulsion to deny this basic fact but I have enjoyed it.

I do however critique your pattern of mendacity so that I know it's impossible to discuss that topic with you, so we may as well stick with the ones in progress.

Its only impossible if you're unwilling to try. I can't promise you you'll enjoy the conversation as much as I will but one is certainly possible.

Your pretense is not just that you don't care about the states' rights of slave states, because you've falsely tried to argue that they were inconsistent on their own terms. Once you did that, you violated your own terms. Calvinball again.

What? I don't know what this means. Explain it further. What does me not caring about the rights of slavers have to do with whether or not the States were inconsistent in their support of States rights over federalism? Those are two seperate issues.

That's another of your Calvinball definitions.

I don't even remember what calvinball is, let me look it up again.....ok... .... what rules? What are you even talking about? Did I give you a set of board game rules at some point?

Go look up "Mary Sue"

ok....

and see if whatever definition you find concerns what the fanfic writer pretends about someone else.

Why would I need to? Fan fiction is inherently pretend and make believe. That's what that is....

That's just like your fake meaning for "frail," inconsistent and illogical.

What? You really are just making opinion and fan fiction synonymous aren't you?

This entire time this is what you thought it was?

Ok.... to go back to where you started, a Mary Sue is a fictional character with perfect qualities. Frail is simply my opinion of you. You're not a fictional character are you?

As I said in a previous post, I believe you tell the truth about giving your posts no thought. So that's one truth-telling you can take pride in, sort of.

See previous post, You changed the context, and I will continue to show this because it amuses me to show your failures at debate.

I really wish you could understand just how much that amuses me considering that I actually didn't.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you dont know what a real Proud Boy is how do you know they're not all white? Is starting from a place of ignorance and then speaking as an authority representative of higher education to you?

That's funny.

Since MD is trying to backpedal and rewrite his old post to Crunchtime to suit his fanfic, here's what MD said in full when responding to CT saying "I don't know what a Proud Boy is to you but they're not all white."

Not even other Mad Libs will join MD as he saws off the branch he's sitting on. Leaving out the words "to you" is a clear attribution of general ignorance to CT about the topic under discussion, that of Proud Boys. CT didn't even come close to admitting general ignorance of the topic, he corrected MD's unclear statements. MD resented that and claimed that CT was "starting from a place of ignorance," which is an example of the CRT grifter calling the Proud Boy Black.

 

[Master Debator]

Since MD is trying to backpedal and rewrite his old post to Crunchtime to suit his fanfic, here's what MD said in full when responding to CT saying "I don't know what a Proud Boy is to you but they're not all white."

Not even other Mad Libs will join MD as he saws off the branch he's sitting on. Leaving out the words "to you" is a clear attribution of general ignorance to CT about the topic under discussion, that of Proud Boys. CT didn't even come close to admitting general ignorance of the topic, he corrected MD's unclear statements. MD resented that and claimed that CT was "starting from a place of ignorance," which is an example of the CRT grifter calling the Proud Boy Black.

So you are going to be too frail to acknowledge that I didnt leave out Crunchtimes quote, in full, in post #569 before you started all this performative complaining?

Please tell me its still in your signature too....

Also I guess you're going to be meek and not share with me this fascinating view of justice you have where slavers being robbed of their slaves is an injustice but slaves being robbed of the product of their labor isn't. I was really curious to see how you were going manage that hilarious bit of incongruity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then you didn't look at that post closely enough.

I wasnt referring to my use of "to you", I was referring to the fact that I quoted CT, in his full context, including his use of "to you".

Nope, I quoted you in full in post 1235 and you omitted Crunchtime's use of "to you" in your paraphrase of his words, and then you made up a ridiculous accusation as if he had admitted ignorance, which he did not. Not having read your response to my last post to you, I can only imagine the contortions you'll go through trying to justify your fakery.

This whole narrative you invented of me trying to change his context has fallen apart. It was some amusing fan fiction though.

I'm sure your fanfic hasn't reached its funniest heights yet. I am SO glad I found the one post that proves your absolute indifference to objective fact. That makes up for all the boredom of your other posts.

No shit. ‍♂ That is actually my point. He is inherently ignorant about my meaning until I explain it to him.

Still your fanfic.

Except I didnt leave off his phrase "to you" the second time I quoted him.

Go back and read post #569 again and don't just thirstly focus on my words, look at the words I quoted from CT. Let's see if you can admit you see the words "to you" there.

You completely changed the context because your posts cannot be anything but dishonest.

Except I clearly didn't before you started all this performative complaining.

Still nothing performative about pointing out your falsehoods.

You reprinted my segment, you didn't reprint the the part I quoted from CT which contains his "to you".

And now I've shown your full quote, in which you falsified what the poster wrote to make yourself feel good.

nHaving no knowledge about a subject is exactly what ignorance is.

Ignorance:

The state or fact of being ignorant: lack of knowledge, education or awareness.

Self aggrandizing? Are you suggesting I'm the author and owner of Merriam Webster?

Your misinterpretation of the definition remains hilarious.

You yourself just admitted that there can be no state of antithetical knowledge of what another person thinks and lack of knowledge is a state of ignorance.

No, you misunderstood my term. I do not know what you think and you do not know what I think. And because neither of us can know what the other thinks, so neither of us s "ignorant" because neither of us can have direct antithetical knowledge of one another's thoughts. You can, as I've pointed out, articulate what you claim to think, but that's not the same, and in the CT exchange you didn't do that anyway, you just went off on tangents. Crunchtime read your incoherent rant on what a Proud Boy was and said, "I don't know what a Proud Boy is to you" before informing you of a factor you hadn't considered. But not only did you not provide a consistent definition, you accused him of ignorance for not knowing how to read your mind, which was nonsense.

Ignorance in the way you used it is only a slam if the person addressed has the capacity for antithetical knowledge. For instance, you don't know anything about the Civil War conflicts over the Fugitive Slave Laws, so you are ignorant of that subject. But you could do some reading and gain knowledge. Since you probably will not, you will remain ignorant.

Says the guy who pretended I left out CT's "to you", I didn't, and who thinks linking to Merriam Webster is self aggrandizing defintion....

Those aren't nearly the same thing to me.

One is a critique of the value of opinions made from ignorance and the other is an oxymoron.

I know you define things however you please to shore up your fragile (and I mean that in the REAL way) fanfic,

That's so ****ing funny! I had completely forgotten about that.

Ahhh.... God I have to catch my breath..... genuinely, thank you for reminding me you did that.

Yep, same old same old-- you get proven wrong and you fake hilarity to get out of it. Talk about "performative!"

 

[Ouroboros]

And that's the problem with your argument. It's not really an argument at all. Its a thought experiment for some fantasy alt world. In this world that IF has been settled. The States had no right to secession but Lincoln did have Constitutional authority to put down any rebellion, which is what he and the federal government saw the secessionist movement as.

The only way the issue would have been settled would have been if the Constitution had been amended to explicitly state that no state had the power to secede. Lincoln used un-Constitutional force to settle the issue, and later the SCOTUS rubber-stamped things to suit the new dispensation. Thus, for many moderns who know what Lincoln was doing-- and who don't buy the garbage that anything he did was to free slaves-- the Confederate flag signifies "fighting the power," as much as any rap song.

I do love when you try to pretend what my thoughts and feelings are. It always makes for amusing fan fiction.

It's easy to deduce garbage from its smell.

I look at the civil war as a wonderful period of white slaver on white slaver violence. Kind of like this Charlie Kirk assassination. White wing on white wing violence is something I'll always support.

Thanks for supporting Crunchtime's allegation that you just indiscriminately hate on whites, even those that might do you a good turn.

I assume that when you call Kirk's killer "white wing," you are subscribing to the Mad Lib drivel that Robinson is Maga. I hope that lie comforts you as the killer's Lefty status ruins the Dems in the midterms.

The resulting restructuring of white supremacist society, not so much.

And a little thing called emancipation. I know, I know, doesn't matter to you, it's just one of the white man's laws.

What? I'm referring to the Supreme Court, that's who ultimately settles questions regarding constitutionality. I have no idea what you're trying to be amusingly coy about.

See above.

Correctly? Do you imagine that to be some objective standard? You could say, objectively, that I didn't quote him fully, the first time. But I quoted him fully the second, objectively speaking.

Objectively, you switched things around to suit your fanfic. But I begin to see that you literally cannot perceive the difference.

All you've done is amuse me by crying that I didn't quote Cruntime... correctly.... .... tell me more about your feelings....

Now you're just becoming pathetic.

So you're choosing ignorance? Willfully?

I'm completely knowledgeable that I didn't say anyone forced me to do anything. That's your fanfic.

Can you quote me where I say one culture gets a pass or anything approaching such a sentiment?

You bag on the US for all its sins and then drivel about some tribe that gave the upper-class women some rights, though you didn't deny that most African tribes practiced slavery. That's your pass.

Not according to the Supreme Court. If we're not talking about legal rights, which they didn't have, what rights are you referring to?

See the passage about using amendments to settle a Constitutional matter.

It wasnt any sort of deflection. In fact I was confirming your own statement that I don't care about slaver rights or wallets or whatever. I was confirming for you that indeed I don't.

And that's your Calvinball rulebook in action.

I'm not familiar with this argument. Care to share it again or point me in the direction of where you shared it previously? I'd love to read it.....

Sealioning again. Yawn.

 

[Ouroboros]

What? Kind of seems like you're just making fan fiction synonymous with opinion. In that case, and? Everyone's opinions are based on what they feel is better, but that said I really would love to read your attempt to cower behind history.

You resent history because it doesn't support your fanfic. That's okay, your escapism is probably the only thing that gets you through things.

I wouldn't care if you did. What exactly would you be critiquing me on? I'd happily and willingly admit my own ignorance to how you view justice. That is knowledge I do not currently possess. To be honest, this whole time I haven't been able to wrap my head around the compulsion to deny this basic fact but I have enjoyed it.

I have critiqued you repeatedly on the ethics of changing the context of CT's remarks and am happy to keep doing so. Your attempts to shift the argument to your vague, self-interested concept of "justice" are just pitiable.

Its only impossible if you're unwilling to try. I can't promise you you'll enjoy the conversation as much as I will but one is certainly possible.

The facts that you have lied before and will continue to lie are your promise of the impossibilty of honest debate. As another poster recently commented to you, you don't even know what debate is.

What? I don't know what this means. Explain it further. What does me not caring about the rights of slavers have to do with whether or not the States were inconsistent in their support of States rights over federalism? Those are two seperate issues.

No, the issues relate because you claim to disregard the force of the law when you feel like it, so you trying to pit one system of law against another is completely hypocritical.

I don't even remember what calvinball is, let me look it up again.....ok... .... what rules? What are you even talking about? Did I give you a set of board game rules at some point?

ok....

You can look up Calvinball as readily as Mary Sue. Unlike you, I don't make up definitions for common words, and when I have a specialized use for a term, I make clear the logic behind it. That is, to anyone who knows logic.

Why would I need to? Fan fiction is inherently pretend and make believe. That's what that is....

What? You really are just making opinion and fan fiction synonymous aren't you?

YOUR opinion is synonymous with fan fiction, yes,

This entire time this is what you thought it was?

Ok.... to go back to where you started, a Mary Sue is a fictional character with perfect qualities. Frail is simply my opinion of you. You're not a fictional character are you?

I really wish you could understand just how much that amuses me considering that I actually didn't.

Even your username is a Mary Sue. And yes, you told a lie and will continue doing so.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you are going to be too frail to acknowledge that I didnt leave out Crunchtimes quote, in full, in post #569 before you started all this performative complaining?

Please tell me its still in your signature too....

Also I guess you're going to be meek and not share with me this fascinating view of justice you have where slavers being robbed of their slaves is an injustice but slaves being robbed of the product of their labor isn't. I was really curious to see how you were going manage that hilarious bit of incongruity.

Once again, simply using the words "to you" in a different part of your response does not count as fairly reproducing what the poster said. Such desperate backpedaling.

No, I don't give two wet farts about your contrived question. But it is funny seeing you stumbling over yourself in an equally desperate attempt to steer the exchange to some topic you think you can win.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gee dude, no amount of desperate flailing can change the Slaver South’s actions, no matter how frantically you try and deny them.

Still didn't deny anything. That's all you. I guess all the Indians that got moved to Oklahoma post-Civil War must have gone of their own accord, since you don't think the Union put them there-- right?

 

[Tigerace117]

Still didn't deny anything. That's all you. I guess all the Indians that got moved to Oklahoma post-Civil War must have gone of their own accord, since you don't think the Union put them there-- right?

Still blindly flailing in hopes of whitewashing the Slaver South’s actions I see. As we’ve already established, the Trail of Tears was the result of the Slaver South in the first place.

 

[Ouroboros]

The South’s fervent belief slavery was a moral good and decades long effort to force it onto both the North and conquer as much land as possible to continue its spread is not something any amount of Lost Causer whining can change.

The South never actually believed in “state’s rights” as it’s routinely trampling all over them in the name of defending slavery shows quite clearly.

What, no fierce backpedaling to claim no such Northern chicanery existed? I guess they didn't cover the Talmadge Amendment on your cereal boxes.

 

[Ouroboros]

Still blindly flailing in hopes of whitewashing the Slaver South’s actions I see. As we’ve already established, the Trail of Tears was the result of the Slaver South in the first place.

Right, and the Union did nothing to any Indians after the war-- right?

 

[Pepperdoodle]

To those who lean Left, it's racist.
To those who lean Right, it's heritage.
Like some other flags through the years that some see as a problem and others don't.
However it is for anyone, have your opinion on any flag, but also be tolerant enough to allow other to disagree.
Some getting bent out of shape over any flag is just childish.

 

[Tigerace117]

What, no fierce backpedaling to claim no such Northern chicanery existed? I guess they didn't cover the Talmadge Amendment on your cereal boxes.

Aww, more pathetic Lost Cause flailing and inability to face up to the fact screeching “but the North” doesn’t excuse the fact the South tried to force slavery on Kansas at gunpoint.

Crying about the Talmadge Amendment is hilarious given the North simply voted for it and didn’t send death squads into Missouri to murder anyone in support of slavery….

Unlike the South’s actions in Kansas.

 

[Tigerace117]

Right, and the Union did nothing to any Indians after the war-- right?

The Slaver South was fully complicit in anything “after the war”, in case you hadn’t noticed.

 

[panic buyer]

The flag is a symbol of slavery and a reminder of a dark period in time.
Now that the US has an openly racist government it is inflammarory.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

However it is for anyone, have your opinion on any flag, but also be tolerant enough to allow other to disagree.

On ANY flag?
So we should be tolerant enough about this flag?

BUT.................I didn't mean THAT. I really didn't mean THAT when I said "have your opinion on any flag, but also be tolerant."

 

[Master Debator]

Nope, I quoted you in full in post 1235 and you omitted Crunchtime's use of "to you" in your paraphrase of his words, and then you made up a ridiculous accusation as if he had admitted ignorance, which he did not. Not having read your response to my last post to you, I can only imagine the contortions you'll go through trying to justify your fakery.

So you admit you're relying on your imagination here? Is post #1235 < or > #569? If you can manage that simple math problem maybe you'll be able to come to terms with the objective fact that I quoted Crunchtime in the full context of "to you" before your performative complaining.

I'm sure your fanfic hasn't reached its funniest heights yet. I am SO glad I found the one post that proves your absolute indifference to objective fact. That makes up for all the boredom of your other posts.

What indifference to objective fact? You have yet to produce even one example.

Still your fanfic.

You completely changed the context because your posts cannot be anything but dishonest.

I kept the context in post #569. Why would I do that if my aim was dishonesty? In fact post #569 is an exchange about his admission of ignorance about my meaning.

Still nothing performative about pointing out your falsehoods.

Then actually point to one rather than one you admit to imagining like you do above.

And now I've shown your full quote, in which you falsified what the poster wrote to make yourself feel good.

That would be against board rules and I haven't been reprimanded for it. Can you explain the discrepancy between reality and your argument?

Your misinterpretation of the definition remains hilarious.

Do you have an argument to make this case or just a claim that we didnt all see the definition say lack of knowledge was ignorance?

No, you misunderstood my term. I do not know what you think and you do not know what I think. And because neither of us can know what the other thinks, so neither of us s "ignorant" because neither of us can have direct antithetical knowledge of one another's thoughts.

Not having knowledge about a subject is what ignorance is. Go back and read the definition. Maybe that will help.....

You can, as I've pointed out, articulate what you claim to think, but that's not the same, and in the CT exchange you didn't do that anyway, you just went off on tangents. Crunchtime read your incoherent rant on what a Proud Boy was and said, "I don't know what a Proud Boy is to you" before informing you of a factor you hadn't considered. But not only did you not provide a consistent definition, you accused him of ignorance for not knowing how to read your mind, which was nonsense.

What is the phrase "I dont know" conveying to you? Knowledge or ignorance? I didn't force him to admit ignorance and then attempt to inform me on something he admitted ignorance about.

Ignorance in the way you used it is only a slam if the person addressed has the capacity for antithetical knowledge.

Who said it was a slam? I didnt mean it as an insult, I admitted my own ignorance a few times in this thread, I meant it merely as a statement of objective fact.

For instance, you don't know anything about the Civil War conflicts over the Fugitive Slave Laws, so you are ignorant of that subject. But you could do some reading and gain knowledge. Since you probably will not, you will remain ignorant.

So you admit ignorance comes before knowledge. Isn't that how it always works? The only thing you're born knowing how to do, reflexively, are the things your body does automatically like see wavelengths of light and hear sound. Everything else in life you're ignorant about until you learn about it. Including what other people mean.