I would argue that while you’re correct you’re not 100% correct and overlooking a lot of nuances in history. If you want to look at it like that the empire fractured into two, there was a war and the winning side engulfed the other. None of the things you bring up as examples were accomplished with just unity and lobbying, all of these causes involved violence or the threat of violence. Don’t go over simplifying history, a lot of people died for those rights. I by no means am advocating for these liars or violence but history has proven liars like this can be very dangerous and should not be laughed off.
Did you even pay attention to the comment I was responding to? Like how am I suppose to anticipate my response being applied to a completely different argument
I would argue that while you’re correct you’re not 100% correct and overlooking a lot of nuances in history. If you want to look at it like that the empire fractured into two, there was a war and the winning side engulfed the other. None of the things you bring up as examples were accomplished with just unity and lobbying, all of these causes involved violence or the threat of violence. Don’t go over simplifying history, a lot of people died for those rights. I by no means am advocating for these liars or violence but history has proven liars like this can be very dangerous and should not be laughed off.
Did you even pay attention to the comment I was responding to? Like how am I suppose to anticipate my response being applied to a completely different argument
That’s why I did it! Did you read the comment you were responding to? Being applied to a completely different argument?
I didn’t say you were wrong but I was adressing the defeatist part of their argument.
Hey I’m just poking fun. That first comment was obviously a joke, you took it seriously so I ran with your logic and replied to you in the same way.