>>510140885>You’re not saying anything. You’re just dancing around in circles pretending my argument lacks things it very obviously containsIt doesn't. In the same way the post you just made is literally just saying "joos bad".
Let's go point by point, since it's so difficult for you.
>colonizationMy argument wasn't that colonization was bad, in fact I explicitly stated this, but you dishonesty ignored it.
My argument was that you logic is faulty, because, based PURELY on the elements YOU proposed, colonialism is just as bad.
And, as you proved with this post, I'm correct, for you had to add nuance to the argument.
Now, let's discuss this nuance.
>Qualitatively so in its essence and its execution and the results. Colonialism was premised on the objective to build and edify.For whom? For the colonialists. Where's this meme pic of the English colonialists walking on a mountain of skulls and the Spanish colonialists kissing a native?
Once again, we can see a perfecg example you manipulating the facts at your convenience.
>buildBy which you mean first destroy the buildings of the native population. And their culture + intermixing and thus eliminating the purity of the native race.
>noble religion Oh you mean the one started by jews?
And you also mean one that they didn't ask for.
>moralsAccording to what that Hitler guy said, these are relative, and should be a consequence of consensus of the people.
But I won't attribute his words to you, I will simply point out that they were developing their own morals, in fact the Imca were in the process of getting rid of child sacrifice and enforcing monogamy.
>you attempt toThis just part of the same schizo babble that has absolutely no substance. There's nothing to respond to here, as it's not an actual argument. But the unsupported claim of "le joos bad"
>divisionsDo you want to go through the history of divisions? I don't have enough characters here to do so, unfortunately.