Rhodesian State Lottery

[Osomir]

I believe you missed the "post colonial" part of his post. There is none from the ancients. Which is sad. It would be nice to know what they did know. They may have had beer. There is an archeological dig where brewing evidence exists from around 19,000 years ago. That would make it the earliest known.

No I didnt miss it. Ethiopia for example was a civilization long before "post colonial". You sound like an idiot not knowing this stuff.

Aksum is post Egypt, and owed its existence to the trade between Egypt and the goldfields of Sudan. You sound like an idiot not knowing that.

Youre stupid if you dont know Egyptians came from Ethiopia (Punt). They even said it themselves. Either way it had nothing to do with "post colonial" white people. Stop trying to deflect from your white logic error. African civilization goes way further back than whites will admit to themselves. They cant take it for some reason.

egyptians werent black at the time either. Youd be an abid to them.

Yes they were Black. I'll take the descriptions of the people that actually laid eyes on them instead of the white logic you are employing.

I was on my phone last night so I couldn't adequately respond. "the people who actually laid eyes on them" I've laid eyes on them too, they still exist and they describe themselves and their culture quite differently than you are attempting to. Moor was literally a term that the Spanish used to apply to all Muslims. So Indonesians were considered moors, Philippine Muslims were moors, north Africans were moors etc. So the term "Moor" doesn't denote a specific group of peoples, and most peoples who carried the identifier 'moor' weren't of relative Sub-Saharan African descent. They were primarily in north Africa composed of three groups: Arabs, Berbers, and black African slave levies that Muslims utilized through the transatlantic slave trade. To the "moors" blacks were slaves - not Chattel slaves like we practiced here in the States, but certainly of a much lower standing than non-black populations such as the Arabs and Berbers - who have stronger genetic links to Mediterranean populations.

The same goes for Somalis. They are genetically connected more to Mediterranean populations than they are to Black Africa, and that is also absolutely the way they see themselves racially and culturally as well. They often refer specifically to a Somali race (to Somalia may just be a country, but it is MUCH more to them). Outside of their own identifiers they also identify closely with Arabs, which is why Somalia is a member of the Arab League. southern Somalia also happens to be somewhat racist against blacks in general, and black Africans are often treated with discrimination or referred to as slaves.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

 

[Asclepias]

Care to wager it via a ban bet?

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

 

[Osomir]

Care to wager it via a ban bet?

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

 

[Asclepias]

No I didnt miss it. Ethiopia for example was a civilization long before "post colonial". You sound like an idiot not knowing this stuff.

Aksum is post Egypt, and owed its existence to the trade between Egypt and the goldfields of Sudan. You sound like an idiot not knowing that.

Youre stupid if you dont know Egyptians came from Ethiopia (Punt). They even said it themselves. Either way it had nothing to do with "post colonial" white people. Stop trying to deflect from your white logic error. African civilization goes way further back than whites will admit to themselves. They cant take it for some reason.

egyptians werent black at the time either. Youd be an abid to them.

Yes they were Black. I'll take the descriptions of the people that actually laid eyes on them instead of the white logic you are employing.

I was on my phone last night so I couldn't adequately respond. "the people who actually laid eyes on them" I've laid eyes on them too, they still exist and they describe themselves and their culture quite differently than you are attempting to. Moor was literally a term that the Spanish used to apply to all Muslims. So Indonesians were considered moors, Philippine Muslims were moors, north Africans were moors etc. So the term "Moor" doesn't denote a specific group of peoples, and most peoples who carried the identifier 'moor' weren't of relative Sub-Saharan African descent. They were primarily in north Africa composed of three groups: Arabs, Berbers, and black African slave levies that Muslims utilized through the transatlantic slave trade. To the "moors" blacks were slaves - not Chattel slaves like we practiced here in the States, but certainly of a much lower standing than non-black populations such as the Arabs and Berbers - who have stronger genetic links to Mediterranean populations.

The same goes for Somalis. They are genetically connected more to Mediterranean populations than they are to Black Africa, and that is also absolutely the way they see themselves racially and culturally as well. They often refer specifically to a Somali race (to Somalia may just be a country, but it is MUCH more to them). Outside of their own identifiers they also identify closely with Arabs, which is why Somalia is a member of the Arab League. southern Somalia also happens to be somewhat racist against blacks in general, and black Africans are often treated with discrimination or referred to as slaves.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

Thats interesting. You cant possibly have laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. Are you some kind of fool?

Moor was was used to describe Blacks hence the term "Blackamoor" or "Black as a moor". If you ever get to travel to europe like I did you will see many references to them like that statue I showed you of a Black Moor in Germany. You are correct about one thing though. There were Tawny Moors who were Arabs. The rock of Gibraltar is named after a Black Moor so you must be drunk if you expect me to buy your story that Blacks were only thought of as slaves. White people tend to feel that Africa is monolithic so I understand your white logic confusion on the issue.

Your wrong about the Somalis as I stated before. I have many friends that are Somalian and they consider themselves Black Africans. White peoples attempt to group them with whites is a source of amusement to them. Since they are in the north of course they have mixed with Mediterraneans but their culture has always been and remains African.

I found this particularly amusing.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

What you mean is when whites speak of Black Africa they use their handy dandy "sub Saharan" reference. I dont subscribe to that nonsense. Dont try and speak for everyone. Africa is Black. The entire continent is Black. Just because Whites and white influence Arabs have taken over North Africa doesnt change that. I have a few questions for you. Who empowered white people with the authority to claim Black people only lived below the Sahara desert? I missed that memo. Also what race of people are the ones that set up this categorization technique and why?

 

[Asclepias]

Care to wager it via a ban bet?

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

 

[Osomir]

Aksum is post Egypt, and owed its existence to the trade between Egypt and the goldfields of Sudan. You sound like an idiot not knowing that.

Youre stupid if you dont know Egyptians came from Ethiopia (Punt). They even said it themselves. Either way it had nothing to do with "post colonial" white people. Stop trying to deflect from your white logic error. African civilization goes way further back than whites will admit to themselves. They cant take it for some reason.

egyptians werent black at the time either. Youd be an abid to them.

Yes they were Black. I'll take the descriptions of the people that actually laid eyes on them instead of the white logic you are employing.

I was on my phone last night so I couldn't adequately respond. "the people who actually laid eyes on them" I've laid eyes on them too, they still exist and they describe themselves and their culture quite differently than you are attempting to. Moor was literally a term that the Spanish used to apply to all Muslims. So Indonesians were considered moors, Philippine Muslims were moors, north Africans were moors etc. So the term "Moor" doesn't denote a specific group of peoples, and most peoples who carried the identifier 'moor' weren't of relative Sub-Saharan African descent. They were primarily in north Africa composed of three groups: Arabs, Berbers, and black African slave levies that Muslims utilized through the transatlantic slave trade. To the "moors" blacks were slaves - not Chattel slaves like we practiced here in the States, but certainly of a much lower standing than non-black populations such as the Arabs and Berbers - who have stronger genetic links to Mediterranean populations.

The same goes for Somalis. They are genetically connected more to Mediterranean populations than they are to Black Africa, and that is also absolutely the way they see themselves racially and culturally as well. They often refer specifically to a Somali race (to Somalia may just be a country, but it is MUCH more to them). Outside of their own identifiers they also identify closely with Arabs, which is why Somalia is a member of the Arab League. southern Somalia also happens to be somewhat racist against blacks in general, and black Africans are often treated with discrimination or referred to as slaves.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

Thats interesting. You cant possibly have laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. Are you some kind of fool?

Moor was was used to describe Blacks hence the term "Blackamoor" or "Black as a moor". If you ever get to travel to europe like I did you will see many references to them like that statue I showed you of a Black Moor in Germany. You are correct about one thing though. There were Tawny Moors who were Arabs. The rock of Gibraltar is named after a Black Moor so you must be drunk if you expect me to buy your story that Blacks were only thought of as slaves. White people tend to feel that Africa is monolithic so I understand your white logic confusion on the issue.

Your wrong about the Somalis as I stated before. I have many friends that are Somalian and they consider themselves Black Africans. White peoples attempt to group them with whites is a source of amusement to them. Since they are in the north of course they have mixed with Mediterraneans but their culture has always been and remains African.

I found this particularly amusing.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

What you mean is when whites speak of Black Africa they use their handy dandy "sub Saharan" reference. I dont subscribe to that nonsense. Dont try and speak for everyone. Africa is Black. The entire continent is Black. Just because Whites and white influence Arabs have taken over North Africa doesnt change that. I have a few questions for you. Who empowered white people with the authority to claim Black people only lived below the Sahara desert? I missed that memo. Also what race of people are the ones that set up this categorization technique and why?

I find it quite amusing that you would attempt to chide me on generalizing Africa and then making statements like "all of Africa is black" when Africa is by far the most genetically diverse continent in the world and by attempting to allude to a singular African culture as if one ever existed.

 

[Osomir]

Care to wager it via a ban bet?

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

 

[Asclepias]

Youre stupid if you dont know Egyptians came from Ethiopia (Punt). They even said it themselves. Either way it had nothing to do with "post colonial" white people. Stop trying to deflect from your white logic error. African civilization goes way further back than whites will admit to themselves. They cant take it for some reason.

egyptians werent black at the time either. Youd be an abid to them.

Yes they were Black. I'll take the descriptions of the people that actually laid eyes on them instead of the white logic you are employing.

I was on my phone last night so I couldn't adequately respond. "the people who actually laid eyes on them" I've laid eyes on them too, they still exist and they describe themselves and their culture quite differently than you are attempting to. Moor was literally a term that the Spanish used to apply to all Muslims. So Indonesians were considered moors, Philippine Muslims were moors, north Africans were moors etc. So the term "Moor" doesn't denote a specific group of peoples, and most peoples who carried the identifier 'moor' weren't of relative Sub-Saharan African descent. They were primarily in north Africa composed of three groups: Arabs, Berbers, and black African slave levies that Muslims utilized through the transatlantic slave trade. To the "moors" blacks were slaves - not Chattel slaves like we practiced here in the States, but certainly of a much lower standing than non-black populations such as the Arabs and Berbers - who have stronger genetic links to Mediterranean populations.

The same goes for Somalis. They are genetically connected more to Mediterranean populations than they are to Black Africa, and that is also absolutely the way they see themselves racially and culturally as well. They often refer specifically to a Somali race (to Somalia may just be a country, but it is MUCH more to them). Outside of their own identifiers they also identify closely with Arabs, which is why Somalia is a member of the Arab League. southern Somalia also happens to be somewhat racist against blacks in general, and black Africans are often treated with discrimination or referred to as slaves.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

Thats interesting. You cant possibly have laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. Are you some kind of fool?

Moor was was used to describe Blacks hence the term "Blackamoor" or "Black as a moor". If you ever get to travel to europe like I did you will see many references to them like that statue I showed you of a Black Moor in Germany. You are correct about one thing though. There were Tawny Moors who were Arabs. The rock of Gibraltar is named after a Black Moor so you must be drunk if you expect me to buy your story that Blacks were only thought of as slaves. White people tend to feel that Africa is monolithic so I understand your white logic confusion on the issue.

Your wrong about the Somalis as I stated before. I have many friends that are Somalian and they consider themselves Black Africans. White peoples attempt to group them with whites is a source of amusement to them. Since they are in the north of course they have mixed with Mediterraneans but their culture has always been and remains African.

I found this particularly amusing.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

What you mean is when whites speak of Black Africa they use their handy dandy "sub Saharan" reference. I dont subscribe to that nonsense. Dont try and speak for everyone. Africa is Black. The entire continent is Black. Just because Whites and white influence Arabs have taken over North Africa doesnt change that. I have a few questions for you. Who empowered white people with the authority to claim Black people only lived below the Sahara desert? I missed that memo. Also what race of people are the ones that set up this categorization technique and why?

I find it quite amusing that you would attempt to chide me on generalizing Africa and then making statements like "all of Africa is black" when Africa is by far the most genetically diverse continent in the world and by attempting to allude to a singular African culture as if one ever existed.

Africa is only the most genetically diverse continent on the planet because Black people are the most genetically diverse. Before whites even appeared on the planet, Blacks were the most genetically diverse. They populated the world and started the worlds first civilizations. You should take a look at where all genetics comes from. You dont sound like you know much about it nor are you up to the challenge of educating yourself regarding the issue.

 

[Asclepias]

Care to wager it via a ban bet?

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

 

[Osomir]

Care to wager it via a ban bet?

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

 

[Osomir]

egyptians werent black at the time either. Youd be an abid to them.

Yes they were Black. I'll take the descriptions of the people that actually laid eyes on them instead of the white logic you are employing.

I was on my phone last night so I couldn't adequately respond. "the people who actually laid eyes on them" I've laid eyes on them too, they still exist and they describe themselves and their culture quite differently than you are attempting to. Moor was literally a term that the Spanish used to apply to all Muslims. So Indonesians were considered moors, Philippine Muslims were moors, north Africans were moors etc. So the term "Moor" doesn't denote a specific group of peoples, and most peoples who carried the identifier 'moor' weren't of relative Sub-Saharan African descent. They were primarily in north Africa composed of three groups: Arabs, Berbers, and black African slave levies that Muslims utilized through the transatlantic slave trade. To the "moors" blacks were slaves - not Chattel slaves like we practiced here in the States, but certainly of a much lower standing than non-black populations such as the Arabs and Berbers - who have stronger genetic links to Mediterranean populations.

The same goes for Somalis. They are genetically connected more to Mediterranean populations than they are to Black Africa, and that is also absolutely the way they see themselves racially and culturally as well. They often refer specifically to a Somali race (to Somalia may just be a country, but it is MUCH more to them). Outside of their own identifiers they also identify closely with Arabs, which is why Somalia is a member of the Arab League. southern Somalia also happens to be somewhat racist against blacks in general, and black Africans are often treated with discrimination or referred to as slaves.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

Thats interesting. You cant possibly have laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. Are you some kind of fool?

Moor was was used to describe Blacks hence the term "Blackamoor" or "Black as a moor". If you ever get to travel to europe like I did you will see many references to them like that statue I showed you of a Black Moor in Germany. You are correct about one thing though. There were Tawny Moors who were Arabs. The rock of Gibraltar is named after a Black Moor so you must be drunk if you expect me to buy your story that Blacks were only thought of as slaves. White people tend to feel that Africa is monolithic so I understand your white logic confusion on the issue.

Your wrong about the Somalis as I stated before. I have many friends that are Somalian and they consider themselves Black Africans. White peoples attempt to group them with whites is a source of amusement to them. Since they are in the north of course they have mixed with Mediterraneans but their culture has always been and remains African.

I found this particularly amusing.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

What you mean is when whites speak of Black Africa they use their handy dandy "sub Saharan" reference. I dont subscribe to that nonsense. Dont try and speak for everyone. Africa is Black. The entire continent is Black. Just because Whites and white influence Arabs have taken over North Africa doesnt change that. I have a few questions for you. Who empowered white people with the authority to claim Black people only lived below the Sahara desert? I missed that memo. Also what race of people are the ones that set up this categorization technique and why?

I find it quite amusing that you would attempt to chide me on generalizing Africa and then making statements like "all of Africa is black" when Africa is by far the most genetically diverse continent in the world and by attempting to allude to a singular African culture as if one ever existed.

Africa is only the most genetically diverse continent on the planet because Black people are the most genetically diverse. Before whites even appeared on the planet, Blacks were the most genetically diverse. They populated the world and started the worlds first civilizations. You should take a look at where all genetics comes from. You dont sound like you know much about it nor are you up to the challenge of educating yourself regarding the issue.

I'm getting the sense here that you have a tendency to classify anyone who isn't white as black. Do you consider Arabs and Indians as black too?

 

[Asclepias]

Sure we can wager it. However, how are you going to prove it?

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes they were Black. I'll take the descriptions of the people that actually laid eyes on them instead of the white logic you are employing.

I was on my phone last night so I couldn't adequately respond. "the people who actually laid eyes on them" I've laid eyes on them too, they still exist and they describe themselves and their culture quite differently than you are attempting to. Moor was literally a term that the Spanish used to apply to all Muslims. So Indonesians were considered moors, Philippine Muslims were moors, north Africans were moors etc. So the term "Moor" doesn't denote a specific group of peoples, and most peoples who carried the identifier 'moor' weren't of relative Sub-Saharan African descent. They were primarily in north Africa composed of three groups: Arabs, Berbers, and black African slave levies that Muslims utilized through the transatlantic slave trade. To the "moors" blacks were slaves - not Chattel slaves like we practiced here in the States, but certainly of a much lower standing than non-black populations such as the Arabs and Berbers - who have stronger genetic links to Mediterranean populations.

The same goes for Somalis. They are genetically connected more to Mediterranean populations than they are to Black Africa, and that is also absolutely the way they see themselves racially and culturally as well. They often refer specifically to a Somali race (to Somalia may just be a country, but it is MUCH more to them). Outside of their own identifiers they also identify closely with Arabs, which is why Somalia is a member of the Arab League. southern Somalia also happens to be somewhat racist against blacks in general, and black Africans are often treated with discrimination or referred to as slaves.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

Thats interesting. You cant possibly have laid eyes on the ancient Egyptians. Are you some kind of fool?

Moor was was used to describe Blacks hence the term "Blackamoor" or "Black as a moor". If you ever get to travel to europe like I did you will see many references to them like that statue I showed you of a Black Moor in Germany. You are correct about one thing though. There were Tawny Moors who were Arabs. The rock of Gibraltar is named after a Black Moor so you must be drunk if you expect me to buy your story that Blacks were only thought of as slaves. White people tend to feel that Africa is monolithic so I understand your white logic confusion on the issue.

Your wrong about the Somalis as I stated before. I have many friends that are Somalian and they consider themselves Black Africans. White peoples attempt to group them with whites is a source of amusement to them. Since they are in the north of course they have mixed with Mediterraneans but their culture has always been and remains African.

I found this particularly amusing.

When one speaks of Black Africa one generally is speaking of sub-Saharan Africa, not northern Arab Africa.

What you mean is when whites speak of Black Africa they use their handy dandy "sub Saharan" reference. I dont subscribe to that nonsense. Dont try and speak for everyone. Africa is Black. The entire continent is Black. Just because Whites and white influence Arabs have taken over North Africa doesnt change that. I have a few questions for you. Who empowered white people with the authority to claim Black people only lived below the Sahara desert? I missed that memo. Also what race of people are the ones that set up this categorization technique and why?

I find it quite amusing that you would attempt to chide me on generalizing Africa and then making statements like "all of Africa is black" when Africa is by far the most genetically diverse continent in the world and by attempting to allude to a singular African culture as if one ever existed.

Africa is only the most genetically diverse continent on the planet because Black people are the most genetically diverse. Before whites even appeared on the planet, Blacks were the most genetically diverse. They populated the world and started the worlds first civilizations. You should take a look at where all genetics comes from. You dont sound like you know much about it nor are you up to the challenge of educating yourself regarding the issue.

I'm getting the sense here that you have a tendency to classify anyone who isn't white as black. Do you consider Arabs and Indians as black too?

Sounds like more white logic to me. I consider Arabs basically mixed race. Some are Black. So are some Native Americans. East Indians the same thing. You keep forgetting that Black people were the first to populate the planet.

 

[Osomir]

Great, have a preference on which mod you'd like to be the judge? As for how I am going to prove my case, that's for me to worry about. I'll set up a thread in the new formal discussion sub-forum.

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Once again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually how you are going to prove it is vital to me agreeing to waste my time or learning something. I dont accept white fables as proof. The mods here cant be a judge because they are affected by the same white fables you are undoubtedly going to use a proof. This is why I dont waste time debating the subject.

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Ocne again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

Either you cant read or you're stalling. I said "you and I". Thats why I asked the question you avoided yet again.

 

[Osomir]

So who would you then have judge the ban bet?

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Ocne again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

Either you cant read or you're stalling. I said "you and I". Thats why I asked the question you avoided yet again.

The entire point of a moderated debate is to have a third neutral party evaluate the strength of each argument and declare a winner. You are never going to agree with me and my position and I am never going to agree with you and yours. That's called an impasse. Rejecting third party scrutiny of your argument (especially when I gave you the choice of judges) indicates that you aren't very confident in your ability to put forward a strong argument.

 

[Asclepias]

You and I. Are you the type that can admit when you are wrong or lacking knowledge?

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Ocne again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

Either you cant read or you're stalling. I said "you and I". Thats why I asked the question you avoided yet again.

The entire point of a moderated debate is to have a third neutral party evaluate the strength of each argument and declare a winner. You are never going to agree with me and my position and I am never going to agree with you and yours. That's called an impasse. Rejecting third party scrutiny of your argument (especially when I gave you the choice of judges) indicates that you aren't very confident in your ability to put forward a strong argument.

How can a third party be neutral if they have already been brainwashed by white fables? That would be like me having someone that believes they were abducted by aliens moderate a debate on the plausibility of life on other planets. You didnt give me a choice of judges. You gave me a list of people just as lacking in knowledge as you are. They are going to weigh credibility of any argument based on standards set up by whites. I dont need validation from others to support my arguments. If you were a man you wouldnt need that crutch either.

 

[Osomir]

Sounds pretty cowardly. Let me know when you grow a spine and we can set it up.

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Ocne again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

Either you cant read or you're stalling. I said "you and I". Thats why I asked the question you avoided yet again.

The entire point of a moderated debate is to have a third neutral party evaluate the strength of each argument and declare a winner. You are never going to agree with me and my position and I am never going to agree with you and yours. That's called an impasse. Rejecting third party scrutiny of your argument (especially when I gave you the choice of judges) indicates that you aren't very confident in your ability to put forward a strong argument.

How can a third party be neutral if they have already been brainwashed by white fables? That would be like me having someone that believes they were abducted by aliens moderate a debate on the plausibility of life on other planets. You didnt give me a choice of judges. You gave me a list of people just as lacking in knowledge as you are. They are going to weigh credibility of any argument based on standards set up by whites. I dont need validation from others to support my arguments. If you were a man you wouldnt need that crutch either.

If you see yourself as the only holder of truth and you don't feel confident in you ability to convince others of that truth then you must not be very confident about said truth; or your truth must not be that powerful. Just saying.

 

[Asclepias]

Sounds like a pretty weak attempt to avoid being your own man. Let me know when you grow some balls and can answer my question.

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Ocne again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

Either you cant read or you're stalling. I said "you and I". Thats why I asked the question you avoided yet again.

The entire point of a moderated debate is to have a third neutral party evaluate the strength of each argument and declare a winner. You are never going to agree with me and my position and I am never going to agree with you and yours. That's called an impasse. Rejecting third party scrutiny of your argument (especially when I gave you the choice of judges) indicates that you aren't very confident in your ability to put forward a strong argument.

How can a third party be neutral if they have already been brainwashed by white fables? That would be like me having someone that believes they were abducted by aliens moderate a debate on the plausibility of life on other planets. You didnt give me a choice of judges. You gave me a list of people just as lacking in knowledge as you are. They are going to weigh credibility of any argument based on standards set up by whites. I dont need validation from others to support my arguments. If you were a man you wouldnt need that crutch either.

If you see yourself as the only holder of truth and you don't feel confident in you ability to convince others of that truth then you must not be very confident about said truth; or your truth must not be that powerful. Just saying.

I dont see myself as the only holder of truth. Plenty of other people know more than I do about the subject. None of them however, are on this forum. Just sayin.

 

[Osomir]

If you don't trust anyone except yourself to be able to judge the robustness of your argument then that is pretty indicative of the fact that you are intellectually insecure in your argument. Ocne again, I'm sorry that you have to live that way. It can't be good for your self-esteem.

Either you cant read or you're stalling. I said "you and I". Thats why I asked the question you avoided yet again.

The entire point of a moderated debate is to have a third neutral party evaluate the strength of each argument and declare a winner. You are never going to agree with me and my position and I am never going to agree with you and yours. That's called an impasse. Rejecting third party scrutiny of your argument (especially when I gave you the choice of judges) indicates that you aren't very confident in your ability to put forward a strong argument.

How can a third party be neutral if they have already been brainwashed by white fables? That would be like me having someone that believes they were abducted by aliens moderate a debate on the plausibility of life on other planets. You didnt give me a choice of judges. You gave me a list of people just as lacking in knowledge as you are. They are going to weigh credibility of any argument based on standards set up by whites. I dont need validation from others to support my arguments. If you were a man you wouldnt need that crutch either.

If you see yourself as the only holder of truth and you don't feel confident in you ability to convince others of that truth then you must not be very confident about said truth; or your truth must not be that powerful. Just saying.

I dont see myself as the only holder of truth. Plenty of other people know more than I do about the subject. None of them however, are on this forum. Just sayin.

I'm sorry that you have to live with such insecurities.