Gays Thread.

[Bakes]

*sigh* you distrust my position, fine, but I don't tink his work is seminal. The response by the forum is completely over the top - accusing me of X and Y. All I said is that I don't consider it seminal, and you're coming out with this? And you're tolerant?

All you said is that you don't consider it seminal but your "attitude" in putting forth that position has been entirely dismissive of the scholarship, and further comments reveal your subconscious anti-colonial bias.  Put another way, you dismissed Capitalism and Slavery out of hand without having any real basis for dismissing it.  You still haven't put forth any substantive argument against it... you keep offering your irrelevant subjective take on the issue "I don't think it's seminal".  Irrelevant because it is subjective, irrelevant because it is a distinctly minority opinion in academia.  It is doubly irrelevant because your "subjective" opinion was arrived at without so much as reading the work or otherwise inform yourself so that you could independently formulate a basis for your subjective opinion.  You can't offer bullshit and then complain that people are not later tolerant of the same.

[Tiresais]

Bakes you made a statement about French and Spanish plantations being inefficient - do you have any evidence for that claim?

Maybe we're crossing wires here because I have already stated that slavery was essential to the rise of Great Britain, the difference is that I understand that the question is still in contention in the literature.

As I pointed out previously, it was who gained these profits, no the profits themselves that determined the path of Britain's development in my opinion, simply because the profit itself from the colonies was not high enough to matter in terms of gross national investment. Whilst Britain could wrest teh seas from Spain it still had The Netherlands to contend with - they were a major threat to British shipping into the 1700s, which necessitated massive expenditure to maintain the world's largest fleet. This was a major burden for teh nation's coffers, not to mention the stationing of troops across the world who need to be supplied and maintained. Maintaining the colonies was in short very costly to the British Exchequer, further limiting the profits of slavery and colonialism to the state.

Could you please provide evidence for your positions - I took/take the question seriously so I've provided ample evidence and references for my position - could you do the same please?

Come nah man... go back and properly read what I posted.  I said the France and Spain weren't very efficient at extracting profits from the plantations in the colonies... is it NOT Mercantilism we're talking about?  I made no comment on the efficiency of the colonial plantations themselves.  British mercantilism was by far more ruthlessly efficient at reducing the profit margins generated by the plantations, in large part because Britain had naval superiority such that it could enforce embargoes against trade with rival European nations.  The French and Spanish didn't have quite the same scale of production coming out of the colonies, and lacking the ability to enforce reciprocal trade embargoes against the British, couldn't prevent their Antillean colonies from trading with the British, in the same manner that the British could.

I'd be interested in your sources for this - where did you get the info? You make a number of assertions here - not "...quite the same scale of production..." and "Britain... was by far more ruthlessly efficient at reducing the profit margins..."  that I'd like to know the source of. On the broader argument , this also doesn't counter my point that, as far as teh evidence currently shows, the amount of profit from the colonies wasn't enough on its own to have kick-started the Industrial Revolution - I strongly recommend Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson's 2005 work on "The rise of Europe: Atlantic trade, institutional change and economic growth." on this topic - it's really interesting to say the least and articulates the arguments better than I could. Again my contention is that the profit from the colonies wasn't enough, and that it mattered because it promoted certain social, cultural, political and legal norms that fostered development. These were essential to the IR and most likely wouldn't have happened without the colonies and slavery.

[Tiresais]

*sigh* you distrust my position, fine, but I don't tink his work is seminal. The response by the forum is completely over the top - accusing me of X and Y. All I said is that I don't consider it seminal, and you're coming out with this? And you're tolerant?

All you said is that you don't consider it seminal but your "attitude" in putting forth that position has been entirely dismissive of the scholarship, and further comments reveal your subconscious anti-colonial bias.  Put another way, you dismissed Capitalism and Slavery out of hand without having any real basis for dismissing it.  You still haven't put forth any substantive argument against it... you keep offering your irrelevant subjective take on the issue "I don't think it's seminal".  Irrelevant because it is subjective, irrelevant because it is a distinctly minority opinion in academia.  It is doubly irrelevant because your "subjective" opinion was arrived at without so much as reading the work or otherwise inform yourself so that you could independently formulate a basis for your subjective opinion.  You can't offer bullshit and then complain that people are not later tolerant of the same.

I said it was important but not seminal! Again you lack comprehension and it's grating. Read my posts! I have an anti-colonial bias? Yes I disagree with colonialism vehemently, although I think you meant pro-imperialist? If so, you're utterly wrong, and again if you had read my posts you'd know that. I have absolutely NOT dismissed his scholarship - otherwise I wouldn't be reading it!

Just take the damn time to read my posts or shut up, you're showing your ignorance.

[pecan]

I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.

So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!

I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.

Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. 

If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! 

You serious? are your sensibilities so offended you have time to look for reasons for and to demand an apology?

As I said if you cannot bring the quote of me saying I reacted violently to an unwanted sexual advance from a gay person then it proves that you are a liar or have reading comprehension difficulties.
Now which is it as you seem unable to bring the quote?! 

LOL, are you backing off on the apology demand?

I said I was done with the homosexual debate, but I am being dragged back into it with a 24 warning no less.

Here is where you stated that you had been subject to unwanted sexual attentions. (I used the word “victim” to describe you as that is an appropriate word to describe the target of sexual assaults or the targets of unwanted sexual attentions)

... To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.

In my post, the one to which you are objecting, I stated “I think that they both responded …. ”. I did not categorically state that you reacted with violence. And why did I say “I think”?  -  because I was left with an impression that reacting violently was viewed by you as an appropriate response. At the time, I  did not make an effort to find the quote. So, with your demand for an apology, I went looking for it.

This is what I found as the basis for my comment - your response to Congo.  You replied with three beer mugs – count ‘em, three.  That was the cue that led me to concluded that you condone putting “chrome” to somebody head. That planted the "violent response" seed and that is why I wrote "I think ...".

Steups @SocaPro.... When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple  and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and  he became very professional.  This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.

You are correct in stating that you never explicitly stated that you responded with the threat of violence or with violence. In that I was mistaken. Nevertheless, you seem to condone the threat of violence if not violence to the tune of 3 beer mugs raised in a toast. If my conclusion is wrong, then delete that 3-beer mug post and stop accusing me of lying.

And don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology.

Your obsession with the Gay Agenda - I mean, you even made the effort go all the way back to page 4 of this 14 page thread to re-read it, your repeated insistence on how you feel about homosexuals; the  number of threads you initiate on the topic and the number of anti-gay videos you post, are bewildering.

You keep talking about not having  "... an interest in socializing with Gay work colleagues outside work ..." What does that have to do with anything unless of course you honestly think that gay socializing is all about bulling each other in the arse. Are you so insecure in your sexuality that you have to keep repeating that to yourself that homosexuality is wrong? Like a mantra?

People socialize because they have non-sexual things in common such as: work, hobbies, sports, friendship, theatre, festivals, food, parties, etc. You think that homosexuals don't do these things too, with their gay and non-gay friends? Your distorted sense of what homosexuals do in their private time is astounding.

Show me where I lied - not misspoke or misquoted or misinterpreted, but where I deliberately, knowingly  lied. In fact, I too demand an apology - from you. I want you to apologize for accusing me of making heterophobic lies because three beer mugs is not a lack of reading comprehension. But unlike you, 48 hours will suffice. Ah, what the hell, I'll give you a week. But then again, I don't expect anything from you.


steups ...

BTW, Bakes "accused" you of watching too much gay porn.  You going to demand an apology from him too? because he was obviously lying as well.

I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.

Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.

Let's examine this circular piece of logic... according to YOU, you alone determine your "rights", not a court, not a government, not an authority... you alone determine.  So you find homosexual intercourse "naturally disgusting" so by extension anybody who participates in it, or who asserts their right to... are violating your "rights." 

That piece of specious logic (being charitable here) aside, you claim that homosexual sex is being promoted in schools and being "pushed in your face."  Like FF say... whey de hell you does be hanging out?  In all my born years I never witness homosexual sex.  Nobody never push nutten in my face... not even on de internet.  Sounds like you does be watching gay porn den feel conflicted about it.

The only apology you will get from me is for the length of this post,

steups squared

[Bakes]

I said it was important but not seminal! Again you lack comprehension and it's grating. Read my posts! I have an anti-colonial bias? Yes I disagree with colonialism vehemently, although I think you meant pro-imperialist? If so, you're utterly wrong, and again if you had read my posts you'd know that. I have absolutely NOT dismissed his scholarship - otherwise I wouldn't be reading it!

Just take the damn time to read my posts or shut up, you're showing your ignorance.

I lack comprehension, look fellah haul yuh f**king mudder c**t eh?  Whole f**king thread yuh only reciting ah pack a f**kery and I've been doing my best to not insult and this is how you want to respond to me?  You are rightfully being derided as the jackass that you are, since you've joined the forum you've proved yourself to be a master of making bombastic and unsubstantiated positions.  The only f**king reason you're reading Williams now is because it's been made painfully obvious even to an inbred like you that you don't know what the f**k you're talking about.  Your head's so far up your ass that you've taken the bullshit you're spewing as fact, polluted by your own ignorance as you are.

[Tiresais]

I said it was important but not seminal! Again you lack comprehension and it's grating. Read my posts! I have an anti-colonial bias? Yes I disagree with colonialism vehemently, although I think you meant pro-imperialist? If so, you're utterly wrong, and again if you had read my posts you'd know that. I have absolutely NOT dismissed his scholarship - otherwise I wouldn't be reading it!

Just take the damn time to read my posts or shut up, you're showing your ignorance.

I lack comprehension, look fellah haul yuh f**king mudder c**t eh?  Whole f**king thread yuh only reciting ah pack a f**kery and I've been doing my best to not insult and this is how you want to respond to me?  You are rightfully being derided as the jackass that you are, since you've joined the forum you've proved yourself to be a master of making bombastic and unsubstantiated positions.  The only f**king reason you're reading Williams now is because it's been made painfully obvious even to an inbred like you that you don't know what the f**k you're talking about.  Your head's so far up your ass that you've taken the bullshit you're spewing as fact, polluted by your own ignorance as you are.

Touched a nerve? You've made a bunch of claims without any evidence, whilst I spend way too much time laying out my arguments in detail and with evidence. But of course I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? Go calm down and come back when you're more civil please.

[Socapro]

I only just spotted the highlighted paragraph above with an accusation from Pecan that included my name.

So Mr Pecan please bring the quote and show me where I ever said that I was a victim of unwanted sexual attention from a homo originally disguised as benign socialization and responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender?!

I've never been violent or have threatened violence against a Gay person in all my life not that it may not happen in the future if I am ever put in a position where I am left with no choice in order to defend myself from physical abuse or assault.

Some of you fellas are either dangerous liars or lack English comprehension skills. 

If Pecan is unable to bring the quote of me saying I was violent or threatened violence against a homo who made unwanted sexual advances then I expect an apology posted in this thread for his heterophobic lies within the next 24 hours. The clock is ticking! 

You serious? are your sensibilities so offended you have time to look for reasons for and to demand an apology?

As I said if you cannot bring the quote of me saying I reacted violently to an unwanted sexual advance from a gay person then it proves that you are a liar or have reading comprehension difficulties.
Now which is it as you seem unable to bring the quote?! 

LOL, are you backing off on the apology demand?

I said I was done with the homosexual debate, but I am being dragged back into it with a 24 warning no less.

Here is where you stated that you had been subject to unwanted sexual attentions. (I used the word “victim” to describe you as that is an appropriate word to describe the target of sexual assaults or the targets of unwanted sexual attentions)

... To question 2. yes I have been asked on a couple of occasions in the past. Once was when I went to the house of a male friend who I did not realise was gay. I of course left immediately when I realised why I was invited round to his house.
Sadly within a year of that incident he died and his family never revealed exactly what he died of but my strong suspicion based upon his sexual life style was that he died of aids.

In my post, the one to which you are objecting, I stated “I think that they both responded …. ”. I did not categorically state that you reacted with violence. And why did I say “I think”?  -  because I was left with an impression that reacting violently was viewed by you as an appropriate response. At the time, I  did not make an effort to find the quote. So, with your demand for an apology, I went looking for it.

This is what I found as the basis for my comment - your response to Congo.  You replied with three beer mugs – count ‘em, three.  That was the cue that led me to concluded that you condone putting “chrome” to somebody head. That planted the "violent response" seed and that is why I wrote "I think ...".

Steups @SocaPro.... When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me. Say what, I went and pick up a carload, roll back for him. Put some chrome to his temple  and told him that if he even think about trying any thing like that again, I would put his head on a stick. After that homie had very little to do with me and  he became very professional.  This after threatening to penalise me academically etc. I never outed him to anyone, he continued living his life with his smokescreens and all. That is most people's position, live and let live. Just don't come around me with that nastiness.

You are correct in stating that you never explicitly stated that you responded with the threat of violence or with violence. In that I was mistaken. Nevertheless, you seem to condone the threat of violence if not violence to the tune of 3 beer mugs raised in a toast. If my conclusion is wrong, then delete that 3-beer mug post and stop accusing me of lying.

And don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology.

Your obsession with the Gay Agenda - I mean, you even made the effort go all the way back to page 4 of this 14 page thread to re-read it, your repeated insistence on how you feel about homosexuals; the  number of threads you initiate on the topic and the number of anti-gay videos you post, are bewildering.

You keep talking about not having  "... an interest in socializing with Gay work colleagues outside work ..." What does that have to do with anything unless of course you honestly think that gay socializing is all about bulling each other in the arse. Are you so insecure in your sexuality that you have to keep repeating that to yourself that homosexuality is wrong? Like a mantra?

People socialize because they have non-sexual things in common such as: work, hobbies, sports, friendship, theatre, festivals, food, parties, etc. You think that homosexuals don't do these things too, with their gay and non-gay friends? Your distorted sense of what homosexuals do in their private time is astounding.

Show me where I lied - not misspoke or misquoted or misinterpreted, but where I deliberately, knowingly  lied. In fact, I too demand an apology - from you. I want you to apologize for accusing me of making heterophobic lies because three beer mugs is not a lack of reading comprehension. But unlike you, 48 hours will suffice. Ah, what the hell, I'll give you a week. But then again, I don't expect anything from you.


steups ...

BTW, Bakes "accused" you of watching too much gay porn.  You going to demand an apology from him too? because he was obviously lying as well.

I already stated my view that I have no problem with Gays once they don't try to promote the perverted sexual act that they regularly engage in as natural and healthy to the general public. It becomes my business if it is pushed in my face at every turn and also if they try to promote the homosexual act as natural and healthy to children in our schools and against the wishes of the majority of parents.

Pushing something in my face that I find naturally disgusting is against my rights as a human being to not have to be exposed to it, its as simple as that. I have no problem once it is not pushed in my face on daily basis.

Let's examine this circular piece of logic... according to YOU, you alone determine your "rights", not a court, not a government, not an authority... you alone determine.  So you find homosexual intercourse "naturally disgusting" so by extension anybody who participates in it, or who asserts their right to... are violating your "rights." 

That piece of specious logic (being charitable here) aside, you claim that homosexual sex is being promoted in schools and being "pushed in your face."  Like FF say... whey de hell you does be hanging out?  In all my born years I never witness homosexual sex.  Nobody never push nutten in my face... not even on de internet.  Sounds like you does be watching gay porn den feel conflicted about it.

The only apology you will get from me is for the length of this post,

steups squared

What a long-winded reply just to try to disguise the fact that I proved that you were lying!
And you don't have to apologize for your lie which suits me fine as it only confirms that you did it deliberately but at least you weren't allowed to get away with your yap yap BS!

And btw I gave 3 cheers to Congos's post because he said that he was threatened with violence:

"When I confronted him about it, homeboy try to get violent with me."

and he responded in kind which he was fully entitled to do as far as I am concerned as it is called self-defence and self-preservation in my book.

A good lesson I learnt many many years ago is that folks will only try to take advantage of you in life if they believe you would just sit there and take it and won't retaliate. So if you threaten me with violence then as far as I am concerned I am fully entitled to threaten you back. We need more mutual respect in this world.

If you paid attention to that Shadow song I posted the other day about "Human Rights" in this very thread then you would have fully understood why I gave 3 cheers to Congo's post but that does not mean that I condone violence against Gays.
However as you seem to find it difficult to engage those brain cells of yours sometimes, I can see why you would take me saying cheers to Congo's post as sanctioning violence against Gays. To spell it out for you what I sanction is a human's right to self-defense but maybe you are not smart enough to understand that so here is the Shadow song again to explain, hope you take a better listen this time. 

Shadow - Human Rights (1979)
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/pLI2oqm8LVs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/pLI2oqm8LVs</a>

[Bakes]

Touched a nerve? You've made a bunch of claims without any evidence, whilst I spend way too much time laying out my arguments in detail and with evidence. But of course I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? Go calm down and come back when you're more civil please.

Your intellectual arms are infinitely too short to touch anything on my end so don't flatter yourself.  If anything I'm disappointed with myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt when others arrived at the conclusion much earlier to treat you with the contempt you so rightly deserve.  You are an assclown of the highest order and henceforth will be ignored as such.

[Ramgoat]

So I guess it's settled then - you are a racist.

Having resources  like iron , coal and oil does not lead to industrialization . Cheap labor  does and what is cheaper labor  than slavery?

100% wrong - if cheap labour leads to industrialisation then all you would need is an abundance of labour. How can you make steel without coal and iron exactly? Where's your proof for this?

When one thinks of slavery they only think about plantations and agriculture and not on the peripheral factors like the financial and insurance industry that facilitated this evil practice ,

Then you think to narrowly sir. Barclays got rich off the slave trade, and a number of the institutions taken for granted today find their roots in the evil practice of slavery. Slavery is more than simply owning human beings - it's the whole infrastructure and social system engineered around extracting wealth out of expendable and transferable human beings. To limit your analysis to the plantation is to miss the wood for the trees.

The wealth generated by  by these other industries allowed for the exploitation of the natural resources , but it all  began   on the backs of slaves..

Yes and no, as I pointed out in my points. It wasn't the money, but who got the money that was the critical factor.

If only the possessions of natural resources led to industrialization then  Africa would have been the richest continent ,

Well no, because firstly the resources you're thinking of weren't exploitable by the locals without the appropriate technology and capital, all of which was centred in Eurasia. This delves into a deeper question as to why Africa did not develop on the same path or speed as Europe and Asia, which is a complex question to say the least. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" has one particular thesis on this - namely that the geological and ecosystem factors alone favoured Eurasia over Africa and Latin America. I'd recommend that as a read if you're really interested in this question, which has some interesting hypotheses.

  Europe was basically a backward continent and it only became rich after the discovery of the western hemisphere...

Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective"). Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.

this combined with the inherently evil genocidal nature of the white man  who mostly eradicated the the natives in their brutal exploitation of them and when they were done    began their rape of Africa  .

White men are inherently evil? They have a genocidal nature? This is such disgusting racism that it barely warrants a response, but I shall. You sir are a racist, and I think less of you for it.

They brought all the proceeds back to Europe and that is how they became rich and industrialized

As I've pointed out, in England's case the expropriation form the colonies was simply not enough to matter on its own, it mattered in an indirect sense, which is much more important in explaining their rise than the monetary value of the goods themselves. Do you have any evidence for your position?

Their evil nature was of such  that after the slaves were  freed that they opened the floodgates to   European immigration in America  especially for skilled tradesman because the whiteman in America could hardly turn a screw ... all the skilled trades were done by slaves and so further depriving the blackman.

More racism and unsubstantiated claims. European migration to America was already extraordinarily high before emancipation, so that point is plainly wrong. Where is your evidence for the claim about "all the skilled trades were done by slaves"? Where do you get your racist rants from? White men could hardly turn a screw? America was specifically targeting highly-skilled migrants from Europe, as the majority were unskilled workers from the poorer parts of Europe (Southern Italy and Ireland especially). However, the people who put them to work were clearly skilled - American Industrialisation was mostly home-grown in the sense that either the inventions and/or the implementation of the capital required was done by Americans.

All this talk about economic theories and the path to industrialization is all bullshit ... was done on the exploitation of African slaves and other indigenous peoples like in India . Indonesia as in the case of the dutch

Yes all this talk about reasoned evidence is bullshit, so you can make racist rants against white people. How about you remove your head from your arse and actually consider the fact that we're all human beings. Slavery is a blight on the history of the European powers, and that demands an understanding of how it came to be. Claiming that skin pigmentation caused it is a disservice to an important question.

In trying to dissect  my   points  you comes across being disingenuous at best .
 When I  stated that the peripheral industries like Insurance and Banking were all  parts parcels of the slave trade , you claimed that I think narrowly  as if I   was   was not aware of this fact.  You gave the example of Barclay but  I can also add the Lehman Bros and Aetna Insurance   to the mix .
 Another fallacy that  you stated was that North Western Europe surpassed  China's GDP  sometime in 1400 AD
  Up until the eighteen century , China and India controlled half the world's GDP and dont quote some Eurocentric economic historian  to try and refute this fact

[Ramgoat]

 Also don't ask me for any evidence regarding my posts , it is not my job to  enlighten you . Go and look for the evidence yourself

[pecan]

What a long reply just to try to disguise the fact that I proved that you were lying!

And you don't have to apologize for your lie which suits me fine as it only confirms that you did it deliberately but at least you weren't allowed to get away with your yap yap BS!

No disguises Socapro - I did not lie and was willing to let your accusation pass - but you insisted.

I explained the genesis of my comment and correctly concluded that your 3-mug salute condoned his response.  My operative phrase was "I think ..."

You Shadow post was done on March 22, more than a week after my post that you are now taking objection to. Not relevant to your defense of your accusation. A poor deflection at best.

But it is your prerogative to ignore my explanation and continue to insist that I am a liar.

If that makes you feel superior then all the power to you.

[Socapro]

What a long reply just to try to disguise the fact that I proved that you were lying!

And you don't have to apologize for your lie which suits me fine as it only confirms that you did it deliberately but at least you weren't allowed to get away with your yap yap BS!

No disguises Socapro - I did not lie and was willing to let your accusation pass - but you insisted.

I explained the genesis of my comment and correctly concluded that your 3-mug salute condoned his response.  My operative phrase was "I think ..."

You Shadow post was done on March 22, more than a week after my post that you are now taking objection to. Not relevant to your defense of your accusation. A poor deflection at best.

But it is your prerogative to ignore my explanation and continue to insist that I am a liar.

If that makes you feel superior then all the power to you.

As I already explained I am not one for threatening violence against Gays or anyone else but I am all for folks having the right to defend themselves in kind if threatened with violence.
If you were smart enough you would have worked that out and not be viewing my cheers to Congo's post about defending himself against violence as me advocating violence against Gays.
My cheers to Congo's post would have been the same if the initial person who threatened him with the violence to which he reacted was a straight person. I don't discriminate when it comes to a human's right to self-defense.

The Shadow song I posted was just to emphasize my position on "Human Rights" but you should have been able to logically work it out even if I did not post the Shadow song and so the date I posted the song should really be irrelevant to your ability to use your common sense.

[ribbit]

Look, I raising a point of order here. Flex, Tallman, E-man really this thread supposed to be about Museveni. I heard an address from de interfaith community in Kampala praising de President for this law. I come to this thread and find page after page of unrelated banter most of which originating from Tiresais who supposed to be a moderator on the other board and should know better. What de hell?! Seriously, can all de slavery and colonialism stuff be moved out?

[Toppa]

Look, I raising a point of order here. Flex, Tallman, E-man really this thread supposed to be about Museveni. I heard an address from de interfaith community in Kampala praising de President for this law. I come to this thread and find page after page of unrelated banter most of which originating from Tiresais who supposed to be a moderator on the other board and should know better. What de hell?! Seriously, can all de slavery and colonialism stuff be moved out?

Why? Threads often branch out into other areas.

[Tiresais]

Touched a nerve? You've made a bunch of claims without any evidence, whilst I spend way too much time laying out my arguments in detail and with evidence. But of course I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about? Go calm down and come back when you're more civil please.

Your intellectual arms are infinitely too short to touch anything on my end so don't flatter yourself.  If anything I'm disappointed with myself for giving you the benefit of the doubt when others arrived at the conclusion much earlier to treat you with the contempt you so rightly deserve.  You are an assclown of the highest order and henceforth will be ignored as such.

You make points but don't justify yourself - you're throwing out opinions without justification. You betray your ignorance sir - when you go away and read some of the relevant material hopefully you can come back with some relevant points to discuss.

[Tiresais]

In trying to dissect  my   points  you comes across being disingenuous at best .
 When I  stated that the peripheral industries like Insurance and Banking were all  parts parcels of the slave trade , you claimed that I think narrowly  as if I   was   was not aware of this fact.  You gave the example of Barclay but  I can also add the Lehman Bros and Aetna Insurance   to the mix .
 Another fallacy that  you stated was that North Western Europe surpassed  China's GDP  sometime in 1400 AD
  Up until the eighteen century , China and India controlled half the world's GDP and dont quote some Eurocentric economic historian  to try and refute this fact

I responded to your post point-by-point - how is that disingenuous? I'm giving you the undeserved respect of a proper reply.

No I said they developed past China. China's GDP is higher than Britains but do you think China is more developed? There are a number of ways to measure development, in history we focus on two more objective methods - GDP per capita and wage rates. The former is estimated to have overtook China in 1400 by Maddison. Exact timing isn't possible this far back in history, but certainly befor 1500 GDP per capita was higher in Europe than in China. The latter was roughly the same time for NW Europe - wage rates are a good indication because of the Malthusian trap I've mentioned earlier - it's a constant of world history that any growth, however tiny, in GDP per capita was typically eaten up with increased population growth, only rising when a "positive check" (Malthus' rather weird phrase, including famines, plagues and wars) lowered the population. NW Europe were the first countries to break this trap - managing to maintain rising GDP per capita incomes alongside increases in population, and this slow process started around 1400.

Here's a Google search of Maddison's work - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=maddison+gdp+per+capita&rlz=1C1ASUM_enGB476GB476&oq=maddison+gdp+per+capita&aqs=chrome..69i57.5055j1j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

The first search result was set up by his academic colleagues after his death in 2010 that talks about and updates his work. The second result is an excel file with the data if you're interested in it. On a purely GDP level, "India" (of course at the time it wasn't unified) was above China for a while as it had a higher population. No one is trying to refute that they held that much GDP - hell Maddison is likely the author of the figures you're quoting!

[Tiresais]

Also don't ask me for any evidence regarding my posts , it is not my job to  enlighten you . Go and look for the evidence yourself

Bullshit. If you make a claim then back it up. If I tell you that Unicorns exist, and then tell you "don't as me for evidence, it's not my job to enlighten you" you should do exactly what I'm doing - call out your bullshit.

[Tiresais]

Look, I raising a point of order here. Flex, Tallman, E-man really this thread supposed to be about Museveni. I heard an address from de interfaith community in Kampala praising de President for this law. I come to this thread and find page after page of unrelated banter most of which originating from Tiresais who supposed to be a moderator on the other board and should know better. What de hell?! Seriously, can all de slavery and colonialism stuff be moved out?

Agreed Ribbit - we should move this discussion out of this forum. If I had mod powers I would have done

[pecan]

As I already explained I am not one for threatening violence against Gays or anyone else but I am all for folks having the right to defend themselves in kind if threatened with violence.
If you were smart enough you would have worked that out and not be viewing my cheers to Congo's post about defending himself against violence as me advocating violence against Gays.
My cheers to Congo's post would have been the same if the initial person who threatened him with the violence to which he reacted was a straight person. I don't discriminate when it comes to a human's right to self-defense.

The Shadow song I posted was just to emphasize my position on "Human Rights" but you should have been able to logically work it out even if I did not post the Shadow song and so the date I posted the song should really be irrelevant to your ability to use your common sense.

Please point me to my post in which I stated that you advocate violence against gays absent of self defense? to that I will apologize if I am wrong.

You accuse me of lying. I did not.
Now you accuse me of stating that you advocate violence against gays. I did not.

[Socapro]

As I already explained I am not one for threatening violence against Gays or anyone else but I am all for folks having the right to defend themselves in kind if threatened with violence.
If you were smart enough you would have worked that out and not be viewing my cheers to Congo's post about defending himself against violence as me advocating violence against Gays.
My cheers to Congo's post would have been the same if the initial person who threatened him with the violence to which he reacted was a straight person. I don't discriminate when it comes to a human's right to self-defense.

The Shadow song I posted was just to emphasize my position on "Human Rights" but you should have been able to logically work it out even if I did not post the Shadow song and so the date I posted the song should really be irrelevant to your ability to use your common sense.

Please point me to my post in which I stated that you advocate violence against gays absent of self defense? to that I will apologize if I am wrong.

You accuse me of lying. I did not.
Now you accuse me of stating that you advocate violence against gays. I did not.

I see you are trying to play clever and dumb at the same time but anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying in post below so I decided to make my position crystal clear to you and to everyone else least I be falsely accused of being homophobic by the gullible ones reading your post and taking it as gospel.

Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.

I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.

Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.

And btw, when I was approached I did not view it as being victimized as you term it as I am not a fan of playing the victim card at every opportunity. I simply said I was not that way inclined and therefore was not interested and took myself away. Simple.
The only way I would have viewed myself as being victimized is if the perpetrator was in a position of power and insisted on making future advances even after I made my position clear that I was not interested.

[asylumseeker]

Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.

I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.

Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.

Ah not sure that "victimized" is ah word that covers the landscape. How about "offended"? How about "angered"?

[pecan]

Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.

I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.

Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.

Ah not sure that "victimized" is ah word that covers the landscape. How about "offended"? How about "angered"?

Recall in my original post, I inserted the phrase "(my words)" as it related to the use of the word "victim".

http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61701.msg887693#msg887693

I chose the word "victim" because I felt that it described anyone who was the target of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. And there are many proponents of the use of that word as a tool to underscore the seriousness of sexual harassment and assault.

I have to agree with Socapro as it is an overused word. Congo was physically assaulted - so he was a victim of an assault. Not necessarily an inappropriate use of the word. The words "angered" or "offended" might be more appropriate for Socapro's example.

[asylumseeker]

... what I'm suggesting is that there's room for all of these word choices and others.

[pecan]

I see you are trying to play clever and dumb at the same time but anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying in post below so I decided to make my position crystal clear to you and to everyone else least I be falsely accused of being homophobic by the gullible ones reading your post and taking it as gospel.

Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.

I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.

Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.

And btw, when I was approached I did not view it as being victimized as you term it as I am not a fan of playing the victim card at every opportunity. I simply said I was not that way inclined and therefore was not interested and took myself away. Simple.
The only way I would have viewed myself as being victimized is if the perpetrator was in a position of power and insisted on making future advances even after I made my position clear that I was not interested.

So you have now migrated from an outright accusation to "anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying" in my post.

I was not implying anything - I clearly stated what I stated. I was hypothesizing that there might be a link between conservative views on homosexuality (and yes, some would argue that these views are hateful and bigoted - no obfuscation implied) and unpleasant experiences (the word I used was victimized) with members of the gay community. If you chose to believe anything else than what I wrote, then that is your issue.

I have lost count of the number of times you have stated your views oh how you "have no problems with Gays". You don't think that the less gullible would be more inclined to agree with you given the plethora of homosexual related posts and threads you have made? Why would they listen my "BS" posts that I made back on March 14 when you have repeatedly made your position known in this and the other thread. If you had not resurrected my posts, it would have died quietly, with no one the wiser. But no, you had to bring it up and give it air time for those gullible readers to ingest.

Back to Bakes post which you have so far ignored -  as a PSA, I suggest you better clear up what Bakes speculated on,  less the more gullible on this forum believe that too.

http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61701.msg888725#msg888725

OK, I done. Feel free to reply to get the last word.

[pecan]

... what I'm suggesting is that there's room for all of these word choices and others.

agree

[Socapro]

I see you are trying to play clever and dumb at the same time but anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying in post below so I decided to make my position crystal clear to you and to everyone else least I be falsely accused of being homophobic by the gullible ones reading your post and taking it as gospel.

Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.

I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.

Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.

And btw, when I was approached I did not view it as being victimized as you term it as I am not a fan of playing the victim card at every opportunity. I simply said I was not that way inclined and therefore was not interested and took myself away. Simple.
The only way I would have viewed myself as being victimized is if the perpetrator was in a position of power and insisted on making future advances even after I made my position clear that I was not interested.

So you have now migrated from an outright accusation to "anyone with a brain can workout what you were saying and implying" in my post.

I was not implying anything - I clearly stated what I stated. I was hypothesizing that there might be a link between conservative views on homosexuality (and yes, some would argue that these views are hateful and bigoted - no obfuscation implied) and unpleasant experiences (the word I used was victimized) with members of the gay community. If you chose to believe anything else than what I wrote, then that is your issue.

I have lost count of the number of times you have stated your views oh how you "have no problems with Gays". You don't think that the less gullible would be more inclined to agree with you given the plethora of homosexual related posts and threads you have made? Why would they listen my "BS" posts that I made back on March 14 when you have repeatedly made your position known in this and the other thread. If you had not resurrected my posts, it would have died quietly, with no one the wiser. But no, you had to bring it up and give it air time for those gullible readers to ingest.

Back to Bakes post which you have so far ignored -  as a PSA, I suggest you better clear up what Bakes speculated on,  less the more gullible on this forum believe that too.

http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61701.msg888725#msg888725

OK, I done. Feel free to reply to get the last word.

You really feel people are dumb don't you? Maybe you should go into politics.

Anyone with a working brain cell could see what you said and what you tried to imply and I pointed out exactly why you were lying or for the least you were deliberately trying to mislead others reading your post about what I said.

Next time stop imagining things and trying to falsely imply to others who could be reading that it is true.
I've already debunked both of your points regards what you were "thinking" and falsely trying to imply and also why you were thinking wrong because of your twisted interpretation of me saying 3 cheers to Congo's post because he exercised his God given human right to defend himself from violence.

Now that you have clearly been shown up for trying to mislead others and for not being clever enough to see the clear logic of why Congo had to reciprocate the threat so that he would not be bothered again I suggest you should move on as you have clearly lost this argument.

If you had some shame and integrity you would have already apologized and moved on but I don't think you are noble and man enough to do that which is really down to your own personal shortcomings and not mines.

PS:
Btw I have not created a plethora of threads on this topic, there you go lying again. Just this one giving the current news of what was happening in Uganda and another one which I felt was worth discussing regards the obvious Gay Agenda that seems to be negatively impacting almost every country on the planet.

This thread only became one of the hottest threads on the forum because of the interest shown in the topic by you guys and in fact after starting this thread on what was happening in Uganda, all matter of related topics have been posted to this thread by posters like yourself which I am not responsible for.
In fact if you go back and check, after I started this thread I think I did not post to it again for a few days and the thread had already taken on a life of its own from you guys being obsessed with it before I decided to contribute some of my views on the topic.

Finally if you were observant you would have noticed that Asylumseeker quoted your post with the "Lie" as I view it in Reply #389 just before I replied in Reply #390 so I did not go back thru the old pages as you imagined that I did to resurrect anything as it was there steering me and everyone else in their face who were reading the latest posts added to the thread. Once again you are believing everything that you imagine to be true which is dangerous. When will you ever learn from your mistakes? 

[Bakes]

Doh pull me into allyuh bacchanal... is picong I was throwing at Socapro, although yuh have to really question why he campaigning as hard as he is about something which he admits doesn't affect him.

[Socapro]

Doh pull me into allyuh bacchanal... is picong I was throwing at Socapro, although yuh have to really question why he campaigning as hard as he is about something which he admits doesn't affect him.

I am not campaigning about anything, just debating points raised in this thread and defending my position and will not allow any fools here to falsely call me homophobic. Some of you guys can't seem to handle the fact that I can defend my point of view which is totally logical to anyone with working brain cells.

PS:
And btw Bakes you are an expert at twisting words which usually amounts to lying and sounding very convincing, no wonder you would make an excellent lawyer or politician.
I never argued anywhere that the Gay Agenda doesn't affect me as it does or will affect everyone on the planet if left unchecked. What I said is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms which is completely different argument.

[Bakes]

I am not campaigning about anything, just debating points raised in this thread and defending my position and will not allow any fools here to falsely call me homophobic. Some of you guys can't seem to handle the fact that I can defend my point of view which is totally logical to anyone with working brain cells.

You self-triumphantly claiming that your point of view is "totally logical" doesn't make it so.  I have pointed out your many contradictions, flat out erroneous statements and unsubstantiated assertions over and over again.  It is a waste of an exercise engaging you in any sort of constructive debate, so don't slander logic by claiming it for your cause.

PS:
And btw Bakes you are an expert at twisting words which usually amounts to lying and sounding very convincing, no wonder you would make an excellent lawyer or politician.
I never argued anywhere that the Gay Agenda doesn't affect me as it does or will affect everyone on the planet if left unchecked. What I said is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms which is completely different argument.

I am good at what I do because I can smell bullshit a mile away and call it for what it is.  You trying to slur me as a liar does nothing to mask the utter emptiness of your position.  It is telling that the only other person to co-sign on anything that you've said is that other infamous half-wit, Ribbit.  I'd be worried in your shoes if that's the best company I could attract.  Retard that you are though, you actually take that as a compliment, and now contorting yuh elbows to pat yuhself on the back.

I specifically asked how earlier (and I'm not about to go back and look for it) how it is that gays or the so-called gay agenda affecting you.  You responded with some hypothetical bullshit about "IF" it continues what might happen... and just so that I didn't miss the gist, you emphasized that you were saying IF.  If implies uncertainty... something that may or may not come to pass, it doesn't describe a current situation.  Therefore you dimwit, if it doesn't describe your current situation then it's not currently affecting you.  It's really not that hard to understand.  For all of your self-professed logical proficiency, it is evident that you're still struggling with the basics.

[Socapro]

I am not campaigning about anything, just debating points raised in this thread and defending my position and will not allow any fools here to falsely call me homophobic. Some of you guys can't seem to handle the fact that I can defend my point of view which is totally logical to anyone with working brain cells.

You self-triumphantly claiming that your point of view is "totally logical" doesn't make it so.  I have pointed out your many contradictions, flat out erroneous statements and unsubstantiated assertions over and over again.  It is a waste of an exercise engaging you in any sort of constructive debate, so don't slander logic by claiming it for your cause.

PS:
And btw Bakes you are an expert at twisting words which usually amounts to lying and sounding very convincing, no wonder you would make an excellent lawyer or politician.
I never argued anywhere that the Gay Agenda doesn't affect me as it does or will affect everyone on the planet if left unchecked. What I said is that I don't care what Gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms which is completely different argument.

I am good at what I do because I can smell bullshit a mile away and call it for what it is.  You trying to slur me as a liar does nothing to mask the utter emptiness of your position.  It is telling that the only other person to co-sign on anything that you've said is that other infamous half-wit, Ribbit.  I'd be worried in your shoes if that's the best company I could attract.  Retard that you are though, you actually take that as a compliment, and now contorting yuh elbows to pat yuhself on the back.

I specifically asked how earlier (and I'm not about to go back and look for it) how it is that gays or the so-called gay agenda affecting you.  You responded with some hypothetical bullshit about "IF" it continues what might happen... and just so that I didn't miss the gist, you emphasized that you were saying IF.  If implies uncertainty... something that may or may not come to pass, it doesn't describe a current situation.  Therefore you dimwit, if it doesn't describe your current situation then it's not currently affecting you.  It's really not that hard to understand.  For all of your self-professed logical proficiency, it is evident that you're still struggling with the basics.

Problem with you is that most of the time you don't actually point out any real contradictions in my position.
What you do is cleverly try to twist and misrepresent what I have said just to try to have a time wasting argument which simply amounts to an exercise in ego-tripping and trying to prove that you are more clever than everyone else.

I seriously don't have time for your time wasting and nit-picking exercises in ego-tripping right now as I am following the CL football games.

I may get back to dealing with your time wasting nit-picking and twisting after the games have ended.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Okay the CL football games are over and Bakes the King of nit-picking and twisting what people said in order to have an unnecessary argument is at it again. Let me deal with his irrelevant and twisted points.

The If's that I mentioned when you were previously allowed to waste my time with your ego-tripping unnecessary arguments was in regards to the teaching of Gay sex in schools.

I used both the words "If" and "when" because I recognize that not ALL schools are currently teaching Gay sex on their syllabus as morally okay to their students. I also did post examples of where it was already happening and where teachers and parents were not happy with the proposals.

However I also recognition that its one of the main goals of the folks pushing the Gay Agenda to have the teaching of Gay sex introduced in ALL schools around the world which will eventually have an effect on all of us who have young children attending school and are concerned about what they are taught as morally okay, healthy and natural.

So I made it clear that the aggressive Gay Agenda is a concern of mines and everyone else and anyone who wants to argue otherwise is a fool as I would not have posted this thread and the other one and contributed so strongly if it wasn't a concern of mines as it should be a concern to everyone else with children that cares about their future, their health and their morals.

However I did clarify on a number of occasions that what Gay folks do in the privacy of their bedrooms is not my concern and I don't think that gays should be victimized for doing whatever they choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms provided that it brings no harm to anyone else outside of themselves.

That is my position and it cannot be made any clearer and it is totally logical and based on the reality of what is going on around the world today and us all being more aware of what is going on and not all unwillingly falling victims to the Gay agenda.
However if you are personally happy to be a victim of the Gay agenda that is also your choice and good luck to you especially if you still wish to argue that it don't exist despite all the common sense evidence out there.