Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "The Occult, Video 181: Paganism, Not Christianity, Built Civilization" video.

  1. 7
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. I misspoke, but of course you will label it "something denied". If anyone looks, which is doubtful, but if so, they can see I simply had, in the midst of mentioning the suppression of Copernicus' theories along with the mentioning of the fact of many people who were always cut down whilst making said scientific process in the middle ages, and Copernicus was in-between ellipses with mention of Bruno, in the same breadth, as my mention of the others, including Bruno, being killed, you concluded that I meant that Copernicus had been killed, but I simply did not mean that, and so edited my post (openly, you prevaricator, you) so as to correct myself, and added "(OR SUPPRESSED)" in betwixt my admitted error in speaking (which was the main point you prevaricated away from)- that was before I knew someone was going to actually attempt to argue the point- which I suggest people look at, at the top of the page, it's a doozy, it's very funny seeing Christians exculpate themselves from any wrong-doing ever in History, while at the same time decrying everyone else in History, and claiming that they "invented civilization" (nothing more, not "western civilization", which is at least marginally more understandable a claim, that some individuals do make, but not more so- besides, Greek civility, and Roman civility, seems to've invented western civilization, and alot of the Bible was lifted from pagan lore). But it's funny to see you constantly refer to this mistake, simply rectified within moments of it's utterance- it's not really a good argument, considering things.
    1
  15. Liar. You didn't misspeak. You thought Copernicus was killed. You said so. This is your exact quote before your edit. Notice how you used the plural "they." Copernicus...Bruno...why were they killed for being RIGHT in their science? No, not "liar", and as I already explained, this was AFTER I had ALREADY AFOREMENTIONED (The AFOREMENTIONED SUPPRESSION, which any can see was the original topic) that "the sentence structure was broken into ellipses for a reason; the lack of motivation for me to write an essay on how you are wrong", and that "I was referring to those who were killed for their scientific endeavor." See: right before your quote of me: Muslims in Spain were doing great things, until they were sacked by crusaders. Then that scientific age of discovery was delayed, yet again...and how many times in History has this occurred? -- than I go on to state the sentence you attribute to me, and I edited it, and openly stated that I didn't mean he was killed, but that "they", the Muslims in Spain, and the likes of Bruno, were killed, and that Copernicus was suppressed, like the aforementioned Muslims in Spain. See what I did there? Now, please, I admitted I "Misspoke". You don't wont for the committal of the fallacy fallacy, and see that even though, while shitposting, I misspoke, now you've arrived at, what's it called, the Dragon Power, yes, that's it...can you ever prove a refutation of the facts presented herein this comment thread, or the one you've gotten that quote out of? That of the active suppression of (and banning of) books, works, knowledge, ect, and other various acts committed by the church to suppress and subdue? Well, I mean, again, cause you already have, anyone can plainly look at the strenuous display and see, well shit, i'll be, Cynicalbroadcast is right. shrug No skin off my teeth, anyway. You keep adulating yourself with the notion that you "see my words as error" (even after they've been correctly posited, and you still can't refute my statements of fact, but instead opt for ad homs about my poetry (lol) and make claims about how, and I quote, "pagans can do x y and z, but you want me to hang my head in shame", which is pitiful to say the least, because at least you could have relented and yielded from the argument, but instead insisted, and continue to insist, that you've made a point. You haven't. In fact, you've only been shewn refuted out-right, and quite abjectly, I might say. I have not spoken out of turn, once. You keep trying to insinuate that, though. =) Anyone can see for themselves. (You can't discern verisimilitude because you keep harkening back to a loosely worded statement, that you want to keep identifying as a "lie", even though it's been established to've been your misapprehension of me.)
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. "The dark ages" usually refer to the small ice age in europe during which there is very little written information available. There is no indication that some large scale "suppression and/or excoration of knowledge" took place during that time. In terms of intellectual development, it seemed to progress at the same rate as the immediate pre and post dark ages. Indeed. You didn't need to explain that, you realize that many people understand this basic fact, and that it's right in the label "dark ages". You know what was suppressed? I'll tell you. Copernicus's heliocentric theory was suppressed and supplanted by geocentric "hogwash" (see: Bullshit) because people had 'theological concerns' (ibid), and yes, his books were banned, this is well attested to. Everything I said was true. I never said that the "dark ages" were as "dark" as you may have thought I had let on. You must know t 's a colloquialism, and like, it's like not needed to be reiterated so often that, yes, the label is like harsh buzz, bro; but still...these things, even in their 'moderate happenstance' DID happen -- so did lots of killings and stuff over other bullshit- other "suppressing" of, well, frankly, other religions doing all the same thing. So....yeah. =\ PS: You might notice my phrasing was a play-on-words parsing what Tonixxy was saying...if all of the above examples did what they did, and he did comparing "those dark ages" with the one in reference by Styx, then i am was just exemplifying to him why it's called "dark ages". It's just a label...you could also say it was just "hard to read"...but that's especially so cause things were banned, and such. You know how many times people say "it was not even dark" completely trying to foist the notion that there was "no darkness" with this red herring of "not as violent as you think" (apologea), whilst trying to forgo the obvious nuance? Darkness obviously implies, like you said, the lack of recorded knowledge...but then again, it's even more than that you know, as I already explained, but you see why the term exists...some people seem to wanna act like they don't. And here is reason enough, but still- once more, we do have two ways of looking at things here....on the broad stroke, it's just a lack of information...on the small-scale, you have the Copernicus book ban, and Galileo affair.
    1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1