True or false? Columbus day

Well since evil is a subjective label then the answer must be true and false.

How convenient for you, Tsars.

evil is exclusively for objective label, so it cant b subjective by definition

evil is the living one, what one is necessary against any else as a matter of fact could b proven objectively
while clearly keepin inventin his end alone being real

physically, evil is livin back in order to live alone when back is by definition dead

past is not back
past is the most existin present when only truth exist

while back is nothing but relative thing meanin a stand still that dont move when truth is superiroity so always advanced and evolving for sure

That worthless tripe said then you're an evil person yourself for actually not bothering to read the question of the OP.

well look at this like Schrödinger's cat, until you have studied the issue he can be either good or evil, you must decide for yourself

sayin anything objectively is never evil when evil is the possession of things for livings
so whatever deal with objects as existing things is the opposite to evil

evil is the life of what is never real, this what proves evil fundamentally being opposition to truth by using it as a thing to abuse

anything real is right bc real matter to itself positive state and ends so it wont b wrong to itself sense especially when reality is constant thing

RL, you'll believe anything as long as someone puts it in a video.

Come on Setanta, "I know you better than this. You know very well that no one believes every video that they have ever seen. Do you think I believe all cartoon videos to be true?

In yet another area, Setanta, ought not to be pointing fingers about unbelievable ****. His bullshit history on Vietnam being a prime example.

I would not allow that person to purchase a squirt gun.

It would not surprise me . . .

Why haven't you researched this yourself. Why do you post bullshit like this and expect someone here to vet it for you? Lazy . . . clueless . . . just hope to annoy people?

Again with the hypocritical finger pointing, Set. What is wrong with your brain?

Can I be honest without upsetting you?

I find you to be very intellectual and like the rest of us you get some things wrong even though it may be less frequent than most of us. Yes I study these subjects but I also rely on all of you to help me to see where I may be wrong.

I study way to many subjects to be a specialist on any given subject so I have to compare what you all share and try to find what seems to have the most logical consistencies to back them up.

I may think at times that you may be correct but I will always be open minded to the fact that you could be wrong.

Why do you find it wrong of me to consider what others such as yourself have to share when it is people like you who go more in depth than me when it comes to history? Sure you may be wrong but why should I not at least consider what you all share?

Is there anything in this video that you disagree with?

This reminds me of Columbus day but yet it is Australia day.

Why do you allege that i think that's wrong? You have no basis for such a specious and scurrilous allegation.

You really lack a sense of proportion. You go to youtube, you suck up all this bullshit that people post, and apparently apply no judgment at all about the source. If people insist, i can give them a reference, or post a link to back up what i say. I am usually careful to state when i am giving an opinion or an interpretation. If someone calls me on what i write, i will either cite a source or acknowledge that i'm speculating.

This joker you've got here reminds me of Howard Zinn. There is some truth, a lot of half-truths which constitute distortions, and a pack of outright lies. For example, your boy here alleges things that are in Columbus' "diary" ([sic]--he kept a journal of his voyages, which is not at all the same as a diary; you may think that's not an important point, but when people are careless of the small things, how reliable can we consider them about the big issue?) He says that "it says so right in his diary" that he enslaved people. Yes he did, but that's one of those truths allied to a half-truth which is a distortion. On his first voyage, he noted in his journal that the people he encountered, the Tiano, would make good servants. He said servants, not slaves. When he returned to Spain in 1493, he suggested taking these people to be "servants" to Spanish settlers. Isabella was already pissed that he had brought some of them back with him, apparently without their prior consent. She told him that it was also his duty to convert them to Christianity, and that if he had done so, he could not make slaves of them, and tanking them from their homes was effectively enslaving them.

On his second voyage, he made slaves of some of the people, and although the truth did not get back to Spain right away, when it did, he was in the deep ****.

I'm not going through this shithook's rant line by line, so forget that. Try this on for size:



Do you understand why i'm pointing this out to you? This is not your average online exchange where you can't see or hear the other person. You can see this guy. You can see him getting hysterical and vilifying a man who was, essentially a failure by the end of his career, and who has been dead for 500 years. This guy is not a credible witness, he's not a trustworthy source. Howard Zinn was the same way. Truth--a lot of the Taino and Arawak died while employed by the Spanish. Converted into a half truth--the Spanish worked them to death, the truth being that they died, the lie being that they were worked to death--Zinn converts the truth to a lie. The Taino and the Arawak died of malaria, which the Spanish unknowingly brought from Italy. Spaniards who had not fought in Italy and who went out to the new colonies died of malaria, too. Zinn either didn't know that, or he suppressed that fact--in either case, he had no business calling himself an historian on that basis.

At least with Zinn, though, you can check his work. Although he wasn't very strong on citing his sources, you can still check what he does provide, and by looking at other sources, see what he's left out. With this ranting fool, you've got no way of checking his work. You can either swallow it whole (which seems to be your predilection), or you can come here, and expect us to do that for you.

You lack a sense of proportion, you lack discrimination, and you are woefully ignorant. There is a cure for that last condition, but i don't see any evidence that you're doing anything about that.

Don't expect me to fall for your bullshit. If you can't judge it, don't expect me to do it for you.

Clown.

OK so I have now changed my mind about you but I still find you to be intellectual but a sociopathic intellectual.

You seem to have shown me that you are not empathic. Thank you for sharing your view point.

Definition of DIARY
1
: a record of events, transactions, or observations kept daily or at frequent intervals : journal; especially : a daily record of personal activities, reflections, or feelings
2
: a book intended or used for a diary
See diary defined for English-language learners »
See diary defined for kids »

Do you disagree or see these as two different things?

Definition of JOURNAL
1
a : a record of current transactions; especially : a book of original entry in double-entry bookkeeping
b : an account of day-to-day events
c : a record of experiences, ideas, or reflections kept regularly for private use
d : a record of transactions kept by a deliberative or legislative body

Don't know what a sociopath is, huh?