Cameron's washy stance on gay rights

[VENOM]

the only reason chicken cottage is chatting sh*t is cos he wants everythign spoonfed to him

when u have read any articles or information about what you think are lies then present them

if not just shut the f*ck up since your mind is already made up that the stuff youve been told is the truth

this is just arguing in the same way those d*ckheads did in eskays thread.

they clrearly had no f*ck*ng interest in taking up the offer but just chose to get hung up on "what ifs"

i dont give a sh*t what you want to believe

In history there is such thing as accredited sources, counter sources and debates which go into forming a historical narrative. History is essentially a narrative. What you've provided is internet articles which can be written by any old d*ck and ali.

You need to provide the evidence so a healthy debate can actually happen because right now it's like anyone who doesn't agree with what you have to say is either wrong, misinformed or part of a Eurocentric conspiracy. Grow up mate.

The sudden twist to the thread is interesting.

I personally wonder why people rely so heavily on shitty internet resources. I took a look at that l&l thread, it would be nice if people actually read books, journals ,old newspapers,letters,interviews(the wealth of info at your finger tips is endless) or is that technique obsolete these days?? laziness ??... the spoon feeding point is interesting because alot of that goes on,in such debates like this.

people who keep begging for information, why not go to the British library(or any f*ckin library) and do your own research?? why rely on biased he said she said,when generally people on this site regurgitate information in a shitty manner.

Maybe because I love reading and nourishing my mind is why im suggesting this. I never like to argue on things without indepth personal research. people like to fly their mouth armed with ignorance.

those shitty internet sources you claim are shitty actually DID cite journals, books, and actual archeological discoveries of proof that support the fact that much of western history has been distorted at the expense of africa and asia.

you're writing long chapters calling "internet sources" sh*t. Yet its this same internet thats allowed this information to come out. these books and journals were not written on youtube BUT YOUTUBE ALLOWS PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IN THOSE BOOKS SO YOU CAN READ FOR YOURSELF COS THE HISTORY CHANNEL OR BBC IS NOT GOING TO POINT YOU IN THAT DIRECTION. some of those documentaries were by some people that carpe said cane to give lectures at his uni.

are we supposed to find the breh's number and ask him for a personal interview or do we benefit from the same kind of lecture which was recorded on youtube? from his name we can then use the internet and research how 'credible' he is.

thats why i said you havent done any research about the sources you're talking about cos ur mind is already made up. so u have no place commenting on sh*t you dont know anything about. not gonna bother talking about this again. The end

[Nazomi]

the only reason chicken cottage is chatting sh*t is cos he wants everythign spoonfed to him

when u have read any articles or information about what you think are lies then present them

if not just shut the f*ck up since your mind is already made up that the stuff youve been told is the truth

this is just arguing in the same way those d*ckheads did in eskays thread.

they clrearly had no f*ck*ng interest in taking up the offer but just chose to get hung up on "what ifs"

i dont give a sh*t what you want to believe

In history there is such thing as accredited sources, counter sources and debates which go into forming a historical narrative. History is essentially a narrative. What you've provided is internet articles which can be written by any old d*ck and ali.

You need to provide the evidence so a healthy debate can actually happen because right now it's like anyone who doesn't agree with what you have to say is either wrong, misinformed or part of a Eurocentric conspiracy. Grow up mate.

The sudden twist to the thread is interesting.

I personally wonder why people rely so heavily on shitty internet resources. I took a look at that l&l thread, it would be nice if people actually read books, journals ,old newspapers,letters,interviews(the wealth of info at your finger tips is endless) or is that technique obsolete these days?? laziness ??... the spoon feeding point is interesting because alot of that goes on,in such debates like this.

people who keep begging for information, why not go to the British library(or any f*ckin library) and do your own research?? why rely on biased he said she said,when generally people on this site regurgitate information in a shitty manner.

Maybe because I love reading and nourishing my mind is why im suggesting this. I never like to argue on things without indepth personal research. people like to fly their mouth armed with ignorance.

those shitty internet sources you claim are shitty actually DID cite journals, books, and actual archeological discoveries of proof that support the fact that much of western history has been distorted at the expense of africa and asia.

you're writing long chapters calling "internet sources" sh*t. Yet its this same internet thats allowed this information to come out. these books and journals were not written on youtube BUT YOUTUBE ALLOWS PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IN THOSE BOOKS SO YOU CAN READ FOR YOURSELF COS THE HISTORY CHANNEL OR BBC IS NOT GOING TO POINT YOU IN THAT DIRECTION. some of those documentaries were by some people that carpe said cane to give lectures at his uni.

are we supposed to find the breh's number and ask him for a personal interview or do we benefit from the same kind of lecture which was recorded on youtube? from his name we can then use the internet and research how 'credible' he is.

thats why i said you havent done any research about the sources you're talking about cos ur mind is already made up. so u have no place commenting on sh*t you dont know anything about. not gonna bother talking about this again. The end

at your passionate attack... my whole point is that i want people to expand on their own personal research rather than make up their mind in limitation.. so no not the end?

this is why I purposely avoided putting any opinion of my own in this topic, you would be surprised to know my own personal beliefs on this,wanted to see how far people jump to conclusions.

of course the internet gives the opportunity of resources and on-line debates, I highly enjoy reading them but there is one thing to go onto a website journal (in example) which supposedly sites all these sources then to go and do your own personal research beyond the screen. to me the internet is another means of spoon feeding biases.

to actually accessing the complete journal in your very hands,with other resources to back up the journal, being able to see the WHOLE article,not just a piece taken out of it,used to twist an idea to fit their own interpretation.

By accessing information through your own research on what you consider as credible rather than than relying on the way others formulate their own interpretation. Only then can you be content (to a degree) otherwise you will continue going in circles demanding other people to 'give me evidence'. Most of the information online is REGURGITATED which was my point, if you go to the actual book/journal/newspaper source yourself you can make up your OWN mind and not just rely on how it is presented to you in a more likely biased stance.

For example even Dr. Phil Valentine himself said in one of his lectures (in a colourful and entertaining way) do not expect him to feed you all of this information and be the only means to answer your questions, he encouraged people to go out and research on the back of his lectures. Too many people limit themselves.

...oh and you can find Mr. Valentine on facebook and 'chat to the breh'

[Bardissimo]

out of all the females on here

Nazomi chats the most truth

FACHT

[Guest Esquilax]

Although you can tell she's a girl from all the and and she uses

[Phil Brooks]

These brainwashed guys, lol. Brainwashed on global warming and ting der too. If you hear someone on youtube give an interview who specialises on this subject, that is truth. Why is it bad to not watch what Carpe put up? As he's doing a masters on the subject, wouldn't that give him HUGE credit? STFU

[Nazomi]

These brainwashed guys, lol. Brainwashed on global warming and ting der too. If you hear someone on youtube give an interview who specialises on this subject, that is truth. Why is it bad to not watch what Carpe put up? As he's doing a masters on the subject, wouldn't that give him HUGE credit? STFU

if you are talking to me, I never said there is anything wrong with watching resources on youtube.

[Phil Brooks]

Shitty internet sources, yeah? Like what faggot lovers say, it's 2010. Allow being suckered in by Eurocentric lies. All throughout history, all the europeans have done is try to base major event in history in europe & on white people. It is fact them greek dudes learnt everything they knew from Africa.

[Bardissimo]

i see where you're coming from Phil Brooks

i also think history is very eurocentric; for example i do not believe the greeks "invented" democracy, etc.

however at the same time do not be suckered into statements like they learnt EVERYTHING from africa and that because it makes what your saying sensationalist and silly; it's like them black supremacists saying isaac newton was black, etc. it's f*ck*ng cringeworthy

[Guest Esquilax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

Look at this and tell me it's all been stolen from Africa.

[VENOM]

http://en.wikipedia....oman_technology

Look at this and tell me it's all been stolen from Africa.

OK, I LOOKED AT IT, AND I QUOTE

Much of what is known of Roman technology comes indirectly from archaeology and from the third-hand accounts of Latin texts copied from Arabic texts, which were in turn copied from the Greek texts of scholars

DOES THAT HELP?

[Uncle Man]

gay is just a sexual fetish like shittin on someones chest or lettin some 7 foot dominatrix crush ur gonads with her high heels.

dont give a f*ck what people do in their bedrooms but why do they have to go prancing about advertising it, u dont see people walking round with dried sh*t on their chest or riding the top deck in a gimp suit

LOLOL refreshing viewpoint

/ f*ck ancient greek and romans they were just faggots

faggots shud not have same rights as humans

faggots are not a race but mentally ill abominations in every race

this society aims to treat them as the superior to us to make them feel better?

it is a sick society

this info all comes from a highly intelligent and reliable source

faggots dont take this personal my politics is never personal it is painful truth for the greater good

remember the truth is always the best thing since sliced bread

[Nazomi]

Heh, wikipedia...my most despised resource. Anyway it is obvious we have different methods in challenging people in discussions. I hav personally learnt that having an opinion biased heavily on passion(emotions such as disgust from the white mans oppression against black people) will fall on deaf ears or the 'truth' will relentlessly be denied by the opposing forces UNLESS you arm youself with a cunning level of articulation, resources and diplomatic yet assertive means of excecution. Otherwise you will get laughed at for your 'radical' ideas. Seriously, technically I am on your side and even I am not convinced! Hahaha!

[Guest Esquilax]

Dunno what everyone seems to have against wikipedia tbh, it's a fantastic a comprehensive information source that's AS reliable as Britannica.

[Trilliam]

Nazomi is the ditzy one, fact.

[Nazomi]

The fact randoms can tamper with it makes it lose its strength, otherwise its decent.But if you was trying to challenge academics in certain institutions and cite wiki? They will tell you to 'get da f*ck outta here'... in an articulate way of course. But hey this is Vip2, and the emotions in these 'debates' usually reflect pride moreso than knowledge.

[GrimmyGrimGrim]

not like anyone can just go on and start changing stuff

most pages are locked down

and you gotta do loads of edits before they let you change stuff

[Guest Esquilax]

The fact randoms can tamper with it makes it lose its strength, otherwise its decent.But if you was trying to challenge academics in certain institutions and cite wiki? They will tell you to 'get da f*ck outta here'... in an articulate way of course. But hey this is Vip2, and the emotions in these 'debates' usually reflect pride moreso than knowledge.

You are aware that the academics in those institutions probably wrote those articles yeah?

They have a sh*t load of mods who are alerted as soon as an article is changed and check its' veracity. It's genius and if you dont like it you can GEEEET AUUTT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

[Nazomi]

If wiki is enough for you to satisfy you of topics, than that is fair enough we all don't have to like the same methods of research. Like I said earlier I just personally like to corroberate what I read.Wiki will never be enough for me. Its just how I've be taught,try to keep an open mind, drop any hostility against those who may not think like me.imo its healthy to not agree, also makes it more fun.

[Guest Esquilax]

Bitch shut up you're talking bollocks, this isn't Oxford, you don't like to have 8 tabs open of different sources so you have a hefty arsenal of "facts", you're the same as everyone else.

[Nazomi]

The fact randoms can tamper with it makes it lose its strength, otherwise its decent.But if you was trying to challenge academics in certain institutions and cite wiki? They will tell you to 'get da f*ck outta here'... in an articulate way of course. But hey this is Vip2, and the emotions in these 'debates' usually reflect pride moreso than knowledge.

You are aware that the academics in those institutions probably wrote those articles yeah?

They have a sh*t load of mods who are alerted as soon as an article is changed and check its' veracity. It's genius and if you dont like it you can GEEEET AUUTT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

Cool,in my experience sometimes academics (the ones in positions of influence)can be the worst kinds of people, because they are in this position of education authority,they at times automatically get that sense of power in what information they are feeding you is right and because of who they are you therefore should agree with them and take what they are saying as gospel(let's be real allota people are sheep like that cos they are impressionable). But truth is some of them are wankers with(sometimes evil) agenda's,not to be trusted,f*ck up peoples own autonomy of learning (ie the Bloody UK schooling curriculum!) With their biases and bullshit. Not all obviously but their are some. That's why personal education is important, gaining your own sense of autonomy in what you think is satisfactory(in terms of historical research).History research is very complex, and yea a good point you made earlier, how plausible can any historical resource be?if any credible resource even exists at all

this day and age!

[Guest Intervention]

Pos'd even though shes a black man

[Guest Esquilax]

The fact randoms can tamper with it makes it lose its strength, otherwise its decent.But if you was trying to challenge academics in certain institutions and cite wiki? They will tell you to 'get da f*ck outta here'... in an articulate way of course. But hey this is Vip2, and the emotions in these 'debates' usually reflect pride moreso than knowledge.

You are aware that the academics in those institutions probably wrote those articles yeah?

They have a sh*t load of mods who are alerted as soon as an article is changed and check its' veracity. It's genius and if you dont like it you can GEEEET AUUTT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

Cool,in my experience sometimes academics (the ones in positions of influence)can be the worst kinds of people, because they are in this position of education authority,they at times automatically get that sense of power in what information they are feeding you is right and because of who they are you therefore should agree with them and take what they are saying as gospel(let's be real allota people are sheep like that cos they are impressionable). But truth is some of them are wankers with(sometimes evil) agenda's,not to be trusted,f*ck up peoples own autonomy of learning (ie the Bloody UK schooling curriculum!) With their biases and bullshit. Not all obviously but their are some. That's why personal education is important, gaining your own sense of autonomy in what you think is satisfactory(in terms of historical research).History research is very complex, and yea a good point you made earlier, how plausible can any historical resource be?if any credible resource even exists at all

this day and age!

You just said that academics shouldn't be argued with because the subject at hand is their forte, now you're saying that their arrogance causes them to think whatever they say is fact?

Fix up your continuity game G

[Nazomi]

Bitch shut up you're talking bollocks, this isn't Oxford, you don't like to have 8 tabs open of different sources so you have a hefty arsenal of "facts", you're the same as everyone else.

So,basically all you want is a wiki quote to contest your arguement and that would be enough cos 'this isn't oxford'. please, you just dnt want it to be true that Africa pioneered western 'civilisation'. We all know that ignorance is sometimes bliss!

[Guest Yilmaz]

inb4essaycompetition

[Nazomi]

The fact randoms can tamper with it makes it lose its strength, otherwise its decent.But if you was trying to challenge academics in certain institutions and cite wiki? They will tell you to 'get da f*ck outta here'... in an articulate way of course. But hey this is Vip2, and the emotions in these 'debates' usually reflect pride moreso than knowledge.

You are aware that the academics in those institutions probably wrote those articles yeah?

They have a sh*t load of mods who are alerted as soon as an article is changed and check its' veracity. It's genius and if you dont like it you can GEEEET AUUTT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

Cool,in my experience sometimes academics (the ones in positions of influence)can be the worst kinds of people, because they are in this position of education authority,they at times automatically get that sense of power in what information they are feeding you is right and because of who they are you therefore should agree with them and take what they are saying as gospel(let's be real allota people are sheep like that cos they are impressionable). But truth is some of them are wankers with(sometimes evil) agenda's,not to be trusted,f*ck up peoples own autonomy of learning (ie the Bloody UK schooling curriculum!) With their biases and bullshit. Not all obviously but their are some. That's why personal education is important, gaining your own sense of autonomy in what you think is satisfactory(in terms of historical research).History research is very complex, and yea a good point you made earlier, how plausible can any historical resource be?if any credible resource even exists at all

this day and age!

You just said that academics shouldn't be argued with because the subject at hand is their forte, now you're saying that their arrogance causes them to think whatever they say is fact?

Fix up your continuity game G

Hmmm I think you got wat I said confused.Academics should always be argued with! As to not try and repeat to much cos that's all I seem to be doing, I said SOME academics are not to be trusted becasues of how they promote their knowledge,SOME have agendas that brainwash impressionable people into narrowminded ignorance.those ppl who rely on being fed all the time rather than corroborate the information with their OWN means of research. To then go on to challenge these people in those academic positions.