Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

NemosGhost t1_ja4m72a wrote

Like I said.

You cannot be honest. Thanks for proving me right I guess, not that I needed it.

When South Carolina seceded, as they had an absolute right to do so, previous contracts were no longer valid and Sumter belonged to SC. Even so, the Confederacy attempted diplomacy and was even willing to compensate the Union, for the partially complete fort. You claiming it was already garrisoned by federal troops is an exaggeration as it wasn't even complete yet. Regardless, when the Confederate diplomats arrived in Washington, Lincoln refused to meet with them at all. He refused peaceful means in order for war. That is the cold hard, documented and undeniable fact. He also upended the democratic process in other states such as Maryland where he actually arrested legislatures to prevent them from doing their fucking jobs.

And you didn't just stop there with the dishonesty. That "unarmed" ship wasn't unarmed at all. It was full of military and supplies. The union used a civilian ship to do their dirty work and pull a fast one. Nobody was fooled.

The confederacy fired the first shots in self defense and only to rightfully reclaim their property and protect the city of Charleston and the port. Claiming that the South started the war despite the facts is no absolutely different whatsoever than my analogy and to claim otherwise is blatantly dishonest.

So once again, answer the fucking question or sit down and shut up rather than just spouting dishonest bullshit.

Tell me the truth. If a gang starts building up an armed group in the front of your house are you just gonna sit there and let them do it and not call them aggressors?

0

will0593 t1_ja4m71h wrote

they really were. they wanted independence from mexico because the mexican 1824 Constitution prohibited slavery and of course all those southern US transplants didn't want to live anywhere without their good old chattel slavery system.

19

thedefinitionofidiot t1_ja4kl8o wrote

Especially considering the fact that humans were already living on the continent during the period when PIE would have been spoken. Basque alone stands as the only pre-PIE language still widely spoken in Europe.

1

blahblahrasputan t1_ja4kk6v wrote

This reminds me I had a great Popeye game on Commodore 64 when I was a kid and it was pretty similar to classic Donkey Kong where you played as "Mario" (which I also had on C64). It was hard, a bit weird, but really entertaining. So I wonder if that game is what they were trying to get the rights to back in the 80s?

Gameplay

4

sharaq t1_ja4jp0u wrote

Stimulants are much more likely to cause psychosis than alcohol is in a much shorter period of time. Within a few weeks of stimulant use, one in a thousand users experience full blown schizophrenia like symptoms. The rate of alcoholic hallucinosis is one in four thousand and only occurs amongst individuals using it for many years; and typically has much milder symptoms typically isolated to visual and tactile stimuli.

The rate of addiction is much lower in alcohol users, at around one in twenty adults. I don't know how many adults try methamphetamine and develop addiction, but colloquially and from my experience with substance abuse programs, the ratio of first use to addiction is much higher by an order of magnitude.

Alcohol is a toxin, yes, but every mammal has evolved to seek out and (within limits) safely metabolize alcohol. Strong stimulants are not something we have evolved alongside. I think there's many safer substances that are unfairly regulated when alcohol gets a pass but methamphetamine simply isn't one.

2

Old_Doughnut_5847 t1_ja4jj59 wrote

3

MattJFarrell t1_ja4iui3 wrote

No, because it's a false analogy that I won't engage with. Fort Sumter was a federal fort on federal land that was already garrisoned by federal troops. Resupplying that fort was 100% within the federal government's rights. No one provoked SC. They just got scared that the new president-elect might take their precious slaves away from them, so they illegally seceded from the Union and ordered the government to abandon their own forts. They then attacked an unarmed ship that attempted to resupply Fort Sumter. At every step, the Confederate forces were the aggressors. But I'm not going to argue with a Lost Causer, since you probably refuse to accept actual historical evidence.

3

RogerKnights t1_ja4fhm1 wrote

I read that Houston only attacked after he learned that Santa Anna had split his forces, and that he moved rapidly to attack the weaker part once he learned that. Also, that he waited until Santa Anna had advanced so far his supply lines were stretched.

14