Russia - Gay Rights - Sochi Olympics Megathread

[Shofercia]

I'm sorry, do you think that Lyt's a puppet of mine, or are you just not reading his posts very well?

What, you mean that one post made that isn't straightforward? That's what you fall back on for support? Ha.

The only one who's been ignorant about Russia's Culture would be you. The reason I stopped responding to you, is because I couldn't stand your ignorance.

Translation: You hae no actual decent counter-argument against what I've saod, so you opt to slink away shamefully, hoping no one will notice.

By the way, you still never addressed my post about your own self-defeat. That you recognize that society doesn't magically transform over night demonstrates precisely why this is not some phenominon, but the product of a homophobic culture.

BTW, here's a Gay Russian on Russia's Traditions:

In otherwords, "most people in a culture believing something about their culture, doesn't mean their culture is that way."

Despite, you know, that being precisely what culture is: The values and beliefs of a given people.

According to that definition, America's Culture was Genocidal around the time of Lincoln towards Native Americans

See, this is why I don't take your posts seriously.

[Aurora Novus]

What, you mean that one post made that isn't straightforward? That's what you fall back on for support? Ha.



Translation: You hae no actual decent counter-argument against what I've saod, so you opt to slink away shamefully, hoping no one will notice.

By the way, you still never addressed my post about your own self-defeat. That you recognize that society doesn't magically transform over night demonstrates precisely why this is not some phenominon, but the product of a homophobic culture.




In otherwords, "most people in a culture believing something about their culture, doesn't mean their culture is that way."

Despite, you know, that being precisely what culture is: The values and beliefs of a given people.

According to that definition, America's Culture was Genocidal around the time of Lincoln towards Native Americans

...Yes. It was. American culture has a history of being incredibly racist, and not just towards Native Americans. Some would argue to an extent it is still that way, just less open, and more subconcious. Thank you for proving my point.

See, this is why I don't take your posts seriously.

The irony is painful.

[Shofercia]

According to that definition, America's Culture was Genocidal around the time of Lincoln towards Native Americans

...Yes. It was. American culture has a history of being incredibly racist, and not just towards Native Americans. Some would argue to an extent it is still that way, just less open, and more subconcious. Thank you for proving my point.

See, this is why I don't take your posts seriously.

The irony is painful.

California passes anti-Gay Prop 8
California elects pro-Gay Governors

So what's California's Culture's on Gay Rights?

Here's the thing: you keep on repeatedly confusing Current Political Climate with Culture. Because, using your phenomenally idiotic definition, under Bush, America's Culture was of one Stupid Imperialism. Not just Imperialism, but Stupid Imperialism. Why? Because most Americans supporting the Invasion of Iraq, while the job in Afghanistan wasn't done. But here's the thing: had Gore been elected, (and most Americans voted for Gore,) US wouldn't have invaded Iraq. So apparently, according to your stupid definition, America's Culture is set by the White House. Dang, Obama didn't even know he had such powers. Maybe it's Obama Girl helping him out... (That last part, that was sarcasm, just in case you missed it!)

Additionally, you stated that no one besides me held the view that I did on Culture. I cited at least two other Russians, who qualify as other people, who, erm, actually did. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you went ahead and babbled "haha, you told me you ignored my post earlier cause u sed it was idiotic, so I win online debate, durr hurr, durr hurr". What does that say about you? Oh, and while we're at it, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, different people from different countries view the same term in different ways? Just a though.

[Aurora Novus]

:palm:

California passes anti-Gay Prop 8
California elects pro-Gay Governors

So what's California's Culture's on Gay Rights?

Electing pro-homosexual officials doesn't mean California isn't homophobic; it just means they valued the other traits of that governor more than the traits they detested. Is this your best attempt at a refutation?

Here's the thing: you keep on repeatedly confusing Current Political Climate with Culture.

No, I'm not. What's happening here is you repeatedly trying to shift goalposts. I've given you definitions of the term "culture", I've explained to you centuries of homophobic behavior and attitudes by a people, and you've seen blunt evidence that the majority of the population holds a wicked and homophobic attitude towards homosexuals. You refuse to call this culture, because it doesn't suite your perogative. It's nothing more than bald-face dishonesty on your part.

Because, using your phenomenally idiotic definition

You mean the popularly accepted definition? Yes, clearly I'm the one using the wrong definition.

And again, you're only showing your dishonesty. "Your definition of culture you and everyone else uses makes my society look bad, so I'm going to try and change the definition of culture, to make myself look better." That is literally what you're doing. It's pathetic.

, under Bush, America's Culture was of one Stupid Imperialism. Not just Imperialism, but Stupid Imperialism. Why? Because most Americans supporting the Invasion of Iraq, while the job in Afghanistan wasn't done.

I don't think you quite understand what "Imperialism" is. Also, even if the American government were engaging in Imperialism, supporting those actions does not mean the American people support Imperialism. They may have supported it for other reasons. For instance, the removal of a wicked despot.

But here's the thing: had Gore been elected, (and most Americans voted for Gore,) US wouldn't have invaded Iraq. So apparently, according to your stupid definition, America's Culture is set by the White House.

No, it's not. You're making logical jumps. What part of voting for a politician means you agree with everythig about that politician? Why would voting for Gore pre September Eleventh mean the culture of America would not be okay with invading Iraq after the fact? You've got to justify these leaps.

Additionally, you stated that no one besides me held the view that I did on Culture. I cited at least two other Russians, who qualify as other people, who, erm, actually did.

Not really, no. And even then, during our last discussion, I saw no one showing support for your claims, versus the support for my own. You are really not in a position to talk.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you went ahead and babbled "haha, you told me you ignored my post earlier cause u sed it was idiotic, so I win online debate, durr hurr, durr hurr".

Do you listen to yourself before you talk?

What does that say about you?

That I have a point you refuse to address, assumably because it's cripling to your argument.

Oh, and while we're at it, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, different people from different countries view the same term in different ways? Just a though.

In otherwords, you're trying to play a semantics game, because you've got nothing else to fall back on. Thanks for destroying whatever credibility you had left for me. You've saved me a lot of trouble.

[Shofercia]

:palm:

California passes anti-Gay Prop 8
California elects pro-Gay Governors

So what's California's Culture's on Gay Rights?

Electing pro-homosexual officials doesn't mean California isn't homophobic; it just means they valued the other traits of that governor more than the traits they detested. Is this your best attempt at a refutation?

Obviously not, since there's the rest of the post, and, sadly, your response.

Here's the thing: you keep on repeatedly confusing Current Political Climate with Culture.

No, I'm not.

Yes you are.

What's happening here is you repeatedly trying to shift goalposts. I've given you definitions of the term "culture"

Actually, I'm not shifting anything, I pointed out that your definitions were bullshit from the beginning.

Because, using your phenomenally idiotic definition

You mean the popularly accepted definition?

Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right. Do you really want to argue otherwise in this thread? Because, considering your other posts, that makes you a massive hypocrite.

And again, you're only showing your dishonesty. "Your definition of culture you and everyone else uses makes my society look bad, so I'm going to try and change the definition of culture, to make myself look better." That is literally what you're doing. It's pathetic.

The anti-LGBT laws are already making Russia look bad. What's more, is that I admitted that. Openly. You, however, are rather angry that I refuse to accept your definition of Culture, and are trying to make me look ridiculous, by claiming that one of the reasons that I won't accept your definition, is because it makes Russia look bad. That's actually not a reason. And it's pathetic on your part to pretend otherwise. Additionally, I've been opposing the anti-LGBT Law quite consistently. Your failure to notice that, is also rather pathetic.

under Bush, America's Culture was of one Stupid Imperialism. Not just Imperialism, but Stupid Imperialism. Why? Because most Americans supporting the Invasion of Iraq, while the job in Afghanistan wasn't done.

I don't think you quite understand what "Imperialism" is. Also, even if the American government were engaging in Imperialism, supporting those actions does not mean the American people support Imperialism. They may have supported it for other reasons. For instance, the removal of a wicked despot.

Earlier, you defined culture as: The values and beliefs of a given people.

So if a given people value bombs in the name of human rights, and actually believe that sir bombs a lot gets to play World Force Police because their country is exceptional and the dictator that they're attacking is oh so wicked, well, that just means that America's Culture, according to you, is America: World Force Police!

But here's the thing: had Gore been elected, (and most Americans voted for Gore,) US wouldn't have invaded Iraq. So apparently, according to your stupid definition, America's Culture is set by the White House.

No, it's not. You're making logical jumps. What part of voting for a politician means you agree with everythig about that politician? Why would voting for Gore pre September Eleventh mean the culture of America would not be okay with invading Iraq after the fact? You've got to justify these leaps.

It's rather well known that Gore wouldn't invade Iraq: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... gore_x.htm That was my point in that quote. You missed it. As you usually do.

Since Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, the invasion would not have occured, and most Americans wouldn't have a craze supporting "America World Force Police", a craze that your definition simply dubs as "culture".

Additionally, you stated that no one besides me held the view that I did on Culture. I cited at least two other Russians, who qualify as other people, who, erm, actually did.

Not really, no. And even then, during our last discussion, I saw no one showing support for your claims, versus the support for my own. You are really not in a position to talk.

You're the only one here that's in no position to post. Who showed support for your claims? Additionally, here's your definition of Culture:

The values and beliefs of a given people.

Here's what I actually get off of Google:

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

And here's Merriam-Websters:

the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

And yet another one:

What is Culture? With a diverse population existing in the United States today, our country is a melting pot of different cultures, each one unique in its own respect. Culture, distinguishing one societal group from another, includes beliefs, behaviors, language, traditions, art, fashion styles, food, religion, politics, and economic systems.

Note, how the two definitions mentions "arts" and yours doesn't. It's because you're ignorant of Russia's arts, and thus that part of the definition fails to fit your needs, so you simply removed it, going around yelling "I DEFINE CULTURE THIS WAY, SO SHOULD YOU!" Are you trying to evoke laughter?

Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you went ahead and babbled "haha, you told me you ignored my post earlier cause u sed it was idiotic, so I win online debate, durr hurr, durr hurr".

Do you listen to yourself before you talk?

Do you listen to yourself before you talk? Does it evoke laughter?

What does that say about you?

That I have a point you refuse to address, assumably because it's cripling to your argument.

You don't have a point. You have an ignorant opinion, that you arrogantly believe is a point. Those two aren't the same, just like Culture and Current Political Climate aren't the same.

Oh, and while we're at it, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, different people from different countries view the same term in different ways? Just a though.

In otherwords, you're trying to play a semantics game, because you've got nothing else to fall back on. Thanks for destroying whatever credibility you had left for me. You've saved me a lot of trouble.

It's a bit hard to debate you, Aurora Novus, when you arrogantly believe that your ignorant opinion, is allegedly a fact. It's really not. Numerous societies, people, cultures, etc, have different definitions of what a culture is. However, most of them, actually agree that "the arts" is part of it. You vehemently disagree, with your ignorant opinion, that you're trying to parade as a fact, by going "I DEFINE CULTURE THIS WAY, SO SHOULD YOU!"

What was that Buckley quote?

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

You've failed to prove that your definition is the popular one, and even if you do, considering that culture is a complex term, it wouldn't be a shocker to comprehend that many different views on how to define that, exist.

Aurora Novus says: "My definition is popular! You should use my definition!"
"But denying Gays marital rights is popular. Should we do that?"
Aurora Novus: "No! You can only do what's popular, when I say it's good!"

Yeah, dude, just stop.

[Aurora Novus]

Electing pro-homosexual officials doesn't mean California isn't homophobic; it just means they valued the other traits of that governor more than the traits they detested. Is this your best attempt at a refutation?

Obviously not, since there's the rest of the post, and, sadly, your response.

That doesn't make sense given the question put forward. You're not even paying attention, are you?

No, I'm not.

Yes you are.

No, I am not, I cannot confuse your made up nonsense with reality. It's fundamnetally impossible. "Currwnt political climate" is nothing more than some nonsense you made up so you could try and call culture someting different. It's nothing but semnatical nonsense. You know it, I know it, everyone watching knows it.

Actually, I'm not shifting anything, I pointed out that your definitions were bullshit from the beginning.

Actually, what occured was as follows:

1) You claim Russian culture is not homophobic.
2) I provide reasons for why it is.
3) You claim I am using a flawed definition of "culture".
4) I give you my definition, whch you reject, but never give me your own, despite frrquent requests.
5) I point out to you my definition is the common definition, and your only response is "yeah, but it's still not culture waahhh!"

Please, explain how that's not shifting goalposts. I showed you evidence of Russian culture being homophobic, as per the common definition of "culture". Because you couldn't refute that reality, now you're trying to play a semantics game. It's intellectually dishonest scumfuckery.

Just because something is popular, doesn't make it right.

When it comes ot language, yes it does. Furthermore, you've yet to provide any kind of definition of culture that you think is "better". You have not, because you cannot, refute the claim that the history of Russian society is littered with social attitudes against homosexuals. The social attitudes and practices of a people are what culture is. If you can't accept that, good luck ever understanding anything an anthropoligist ever tries to tell you.

And again, you're only showing your dishonesty. "Your definition of culture you and everyone else uses makes my society look bad, so I'm going to try and change the definition of culture, to make myself look better." That is literally what you're doing. It's pathetic.

The anti-LGBT laws are already making Russia look bad. What's more, is that I admitted that. Openly.

And yet you vehemently deny the existence of a homophobic culutre, or that there ever was such a thing in Russian history, despite all evidence to the contrary. Openly.

You, however, are rather angry that I refuse to accept your definition of Culture, and are trying to make me look ridiculous, by claiming that one of the reasons that I won't accept your definition, is because it makes Russia look bad.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much it. you haven't givena definition of culutre yourself, you haven't adequetly explained why yu reject mine. Anytime I've requested you give me something you think works better, you openly refuse. Meanwhile you spot Russian nationalistic nonsense in this thread and others. It seems to anyone capable of critical thought that the reason for your behavior is because the only reason you disagree with me is because what I'm sayig makes poor little Russia look bad. Boo hoo.

That's actually not a reason. And it's pathetic on your part to pretend otherwise. Additionally, I've been opposing the anti-LGBT Law quite consistently. Your failure to notice that, is also rather pathetic.

Your views on the laws doesn't figure into the dicussion. Quit trying to chang the goalposts constantly. you always do this when somethig make you uncomforable.

I don't think you quite understand what "Imperialism" is. Also, even if the American government were engaging in Imperialism, supporting those actions does not mean the American people support Imperialism. They may have supported it for other reasons. For instance, the removal of a wicked despot.

Earlier, you defined culture as: The values and beliefs of a given people.

So if a given people value bombs in the name of human rights, and actually believe that sir bombs a lot gets to play World Force Police because their country is exceptional and the dictator that they're attacking is oh so wicked, well, that just means that America's Culture, according to you, is America: World Force Police!

No, it doesn't. All it means is that the culture at that time believed it had an obligation to do this specific action. Again, you're making competely unwarrented leaps in your logic.

No, it's not. You're making logical jumps. What part of voting for a politician means you agree with everythig about that politician? Why would voting for Gore pre September Eleventh mean the culture of America would not be okay with invading Iraq after the fact? You've got to justify these leaps.

It's rather well known that Gore wouldn't invade Iraq: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... gore_x.htm That was my point in that quote. You missed it. As you usually do.

I didn't miss it; But apparently you misunderstood my post. I didn't say anything about what Gore would do. I questioned where you make the connection that voting for Gore pre 9/11 would mean people wouldn't be okay with certain things post 9/11. You have no way of having such knowledge. You cannot simply delcare that to be the case, without good reason to think it might have played out that way.

Since Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, the invasion would not have occured, and most Americans wouldn't have a craze supporting "America World Force Police", a craze that your definition simply dubs as "culture".

Again, you're making leaps and bounds in your logical connections. It's rendering them horribly flawed.

Not really, no. And even then, during our last discussion, I saw no one showing support for your claims, versus the support for my own. You are really not in a position to talk.

You're the only one here that's in no position to post. Who showed support for your claims? Additionally, here's your definition of Culture:

The values and beliefs of a given people.

Here's what I actually get off of Google:

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

And here's Merriam-Websters:

the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

And yet another one:

What is Culture? With a diverse population existing in the United States today, our country is a melting pot of different cultures, each one unique in its own respect. Culture, distinguishing one societal group from another, includes beliefs, behaviors, language, traditions, art, fashion styles, food, religion, politics, and economic systems.

Note, how the two definitions mentions "arts" and yours doesn't. It's because you're ignorant of Russia's arts, and thus that part of the definition fails to fit your needs, so you simply removed it, going around yelling "I DEFINE CULTURE THIS WAY, SO SHOULD YOU!" Are you trying to evoke laughter?

I already explained this to you, but you seem to not like to face facts. When we're discussing culture, we popularly use the term to describe two kinds of things. One is what we call "culture" (the beliefs and practises of a people) and the other is called "Material culture", which deals with arts and things of that nature. We're discussing beliefs and ideals. We're discussing culture. Not art. Not material culture. You know this, I know this, and everyone in this thread complaining about Russia knows this. Again, quit attempting to shift goal posts.

What does that say about you?

That I have a point you refuse to address, assumably because it's cripling to your argument.

You don't have a point. You have an ignorant opinion, that you arrogantly believe is a point.[/quote]

It's not an opinion. It's an objective, empirically verifiable fact, as I have shown earlier. One that you refuse to accept, to the point of outright lying and playing semnatics to avoud reckoning with it. You've lost absolutely all cedibility to comment on Russian culture honestly. Which is highly amusing, and very sad. That a foreigner is more adept to discuss the culture of your nation than you, due to your own dishonesty, is pitiful. You should feel ashamed.

Those two aren't the same, just like Culture and Current Political Climate aren't the same.

As defined by you, to suit your perogative.

It's a bit hard to debate you, Aurora Novus, when you arrogantly believe that your ignorant opinion,

Take note viewers: Objective facts that make Shofercia feel uncomfortable are "arrogant" and "opinions". Only things which he approves of are "facts".

is allegedly a fact. It's really not.

Despite, you know, all the evidence laid out in this thread earlier, which you simply tried to sweep under the rug. Oher than that, no, of course it's not fact.

Numerous societies, people, cultures, etc, have different definitions of what a culture is.

Look, I'm putting this to bed right now. First of all, no. You're wrong, and you have to be a complete moron, or a devious shithead, to say this. Nearly everyone globally shares the same definition of "culture". When you're discussing culture, they know what you're talking about. Beause no matter what sounds you use to describe the idea, peope understand the idea being communicated.

Even if you refuse to ever call what I've pointed out to you as "culture", you've done nothing but play semantics. Why? Because whatever word we use to describe the ideas I've been discussing, those ideas are still true. It is true that Russia has a longstanding history of it's citizens holding homophobic views. It is true that Russia has for centuries been vehemently opposed to homosexuals in legislation. It is trues that for sveeral hundred years, the Russian people collectiuvely have sought out, villified, and punished homosexuals, simply for being homosexuals. It is true that, for centuries, Russian people as a collective have been incredibly homophobic to the extreme.

Now, the modern world calls that culture. If you, in your little backwards fantasy, want to call that something else, you can. But those statement are still true. You don't disporve them by changing the definition of a word. Even if you disagree with the commonly held definition of culture (being a people groups values, beliefs, and practices), those vaues, beliefs, and practices are still littering Russian history.

So this entire "it's not culture, it's poitical climate" bullshit from you is just that; bullshit. It's nonsense designed to try and draw attention away from reality.

However, most of them, actually agree that "the arts" is part of it. You vehemently disagree, with your ignorant opinion, that you're trying to parade as a fact, by going "I DEFINE CULTURE THIS WAY, SO SHOULD YOU!"

Actually, that's what you're doing.

I'm using the definition other use, so as to better commuicate ideas. You're trying to use a different definition unfamirliar to most, because it suits your perogatives more in your distorted little patriotic mind.

You've failed to prove that your definition is the popular one,

What, you mean other than the numerous links posted throught out discussion? Oh yeah, I totally haven't demonstrated it.

Not to mention, you're still in no position to talk. You've still yet to give your own definition of culture.

and even if you do, considering that culture is a complex term, it wouldn't be a shocker to comprehend that many different views on how to define that, exist.

Translation: "You may be right, but I'm still going to disagree with you!"

Seems as if you're on the retreat.

Aurora Novus says: "My definition is popular! You should use my definition!"
"But denying Gays marital rights is popular. Should we do that?"
Aurora Novus: "No! You can only do what's popular, when I say it's good!"

Yeah, dude, just stop.

False equivelency. Nice fallacy to round your horrible post off with. Are you actually capable of competent debate? Or is this your first time?

[Free Tristania]

I think that the Netherlands should boycott the Olympics but for completely different reasons: Russia's piss poor attitude as of late.

[Shofercia]

-snipped ignorant and arrogant post-

Different people from different places have different definitions of various terms. You are not even able to comprehend this basic fact, and yet, you are the one running around asking others if they're capable of debate.



Certain terms, such as "Culture" have various definitions, based on various different Cultures. Again, a concept you fail to comprehend, miserably so. Instead you respond with this bullshit:

I already explained this to you, but you seem to not like to face facts. When we're discussing culture, we popularly use the term to describe two kinds of things. One is what we call "culture" (the beliefs and practises of a people) and the other is called "Material culture", which deals with arts and things of that nature. We're discussing beliefs and ideals. We're discussing culture. Not art. Not material culture. You know this, I know this, and everyone in this thread complaining about Russia knows this. Again, quit attempting to shift goal posts.

Are you referring to the royal "we"? Those aren't facts. Those are your opinions. Because that's not how Brittanica defines culture. That's not how Google defines culture. I looked up the term "Culture", not material culture. But that doesn't fit your needs, so you shift goalposts and label that "material culture", and continue your ignorant and arrogant babbling, while accusing me of moving goalposts. And the rest of your post is simply unworthy of a response.

Not to mention that you're derailing a thread for quite a while, for nothing other than your very own selfish needs, as you're seeking to impose your views of definitions upon others, and shifting goalposts, while accusing others of doing so. Just stop, before my pet goldfish loses anymore IQ points, from looking at my reaction to your posts, as further shock experienced by the aforementioned goldfish will simply add you to my ignore list. Thank you Because honestly, I care more about that, than my response to someone who cannot grasp that basic fact that different people from different places have different definitions of various terms.

Sorry, forgot to include this "gem" by Aurora Novus, which shows that he is fully capable of reading comprehension:

Culture, distinguishing one societal group from another, includes beliefs, behaviors, language, traditions, art, fashion styles, food, religion, politics, and economic systems.

you've yet to provide any kind of definition of culture that you think is "better"

[Aurora Novus]

-snipped ignorant and arrogant post-

Nice way of conceding the argument.

Different people from different places have different definitions of various terms.

Then you admit you are playing a semantics game, and have nothing meanigful to add to the discussion. If all you're going to do is argue over the definition of a word, and not the state of society that word is attempting to describe, you've wasted everyoe's time.

You are not even able to comprehend this basic fact, and yet, you are the one running around asking others if they're capable of debate.

I can comprehend this fact. And I'm telling you the popular definition of the term, even in your own country, is as O have described.

You are free to use your own definition; but you're not going to be able to communicate intellgiently with others as a result, as if evidence by your posts. Not to mention it's frivilous, because the ideas being communicated still stand, however you choose to define terms.

Certain terms, such as "Culture" have various definitions, based on various different Cultures.

Of course the sounds that make up the word "culture" can have tons of different definitions.

But culture, as I have defined it, is precisely that way in Russia. You cannot refute that, and you won't even bother to try anymore, as evidenced by your little tantrum on the matter of definitions.

Again, a concept you fail to comprehend, miserably so. Instead you respond with this bullshit:



Are you referring to the royal "we"?

No. We. As in you and I. Come on, surely you realize you're engaged in a discussion, yes? We're not discussing

Those aren't facts. Those are your opinions.

No, they're facts. It's a fact that the term "culture" is used primarily in two ways; to describe values and practices, and to describe arts and things of that nature. Because of the multiple usages, anthropologists use the term "material culture" to describe the latter, and "culture" to describe the former. That's not opinion. That's fact.

And we're discussing the former, not the latter.

Because that's not how Brittanica defines culture. That's not how Google defines culture.

Actually, yes it is. Both Brittanica and Goggle define culture in both the material culture way, and the normal, "culture" way. They have them listed as different definitions for different reasons. Because people use the term to describe two different things.

To avoid this confusion, Anthropologists, as was shown to yuo via Wikipedia in an earlier post of mine, use the term "material culture" to differentiate between the two. You're simply wrong if you deny this.

I looked up the term "Culture", not material culture.

So did I, and that's how I larned about the terminology distinction. Next time you do reserach, it;s probably best you do more than just Googling something.

But that doesn't fit your needs, so you shift goalposts and label that "material culture", and continue your ignorant and arrogant babbling, while accusing me of moving goalposts. And the rest of your post is simply unworthy of a response.

Now I'm th one shifting goalposts? Oh that's laughable.

And this information isn't new. I told you about this long ago in earlier posts. And you cinviniently ignored it then to. Which one of us is only recognizing that which is beneficial to our position again?

Not to mention that you're derailing a thread for quite a while, for nothing other than your very own selfish needs, as you're seeking to impose your views of definitions upon others, and shifting goalposts, while accusing others of doing so.

Amusing. Actually, you derailed this thread. My original post wasn't derailing at all. It was you who started arguing with me over culture. Who's imposing who's view again?

Just stop, before my pet goldfish loses anymore IQ points, from looking at my reaction to your posts, as further shock experienced by the aforementioned goldfish will simply add you to my ignore list. Thank you

Cute. Threatening to put my on ignore because you don't like what I'm saying. Aren't you a big boy?

I couldn't give a toss if you put me on ignore or not. I'm not doing this for your benefit, I'm doing this for the benefit of others and myself. I'm not going to stop responding to your idiotic comments because it makes you feel upset. Boo stupid hoo.

As far as your credibility goes, I think this is the nail in the coffin.

Because honestly, I care more about that, than my response to someone who cannot grasp that basic fact that different people from different places have different definitions of various terms.

Again, semantical nonsense. You cannot refute the information about Russia I've provided, so you've attempted to distract from that by complaining about words. Pitiful.

Sorry, forgot to include this "gem" by Aurora Novus, which shows that he is fully capable of reading comprehension

Indeed, that is the truth. If you'll recall, the quote you're citing was you listing several definitions of culture you hastily looked up just a moment ago. Am I supposed to take that as you definition? Alright then. It took you long anough though. How many posts did I have to ask you for one, with you responding "No, I'm not going to" again? Several at least.

You'e in no position to talk, when you're only just now attempting to define culture on your own. Keep up here mate.

[Shofercia]

Nice way of conceding the argument.

You didn't have an argument. You had an extraordinarily ignorant and arrogant opinion that you framed as an argument. It's still your opinion. You should be ashamed of not being able to differentiate between the two.

Different people from different places have different definitions of various terms.

Then you admit you are playing a semantics game, and have nothing meanigful to add to the discussion. If all you're going to do is argue over the definition of a word, and not the state of society that word is attempting to describe, you've wasted everyoe's time.

Arguing over the definition is what you've been doing. All of this time.

You are not even able to comprehend this basic fact, and yet, you are the one running around asking others if they're capable of debate.

I can comprehend this fact. And I'm telling you the popular definition of the term, even in your own country, is as O have described.

You are free to use your own definition; but you're not going to be able to communicate intellgiently with others as a result, as if evidence by your posts. Not to mention it's frivilous, because the ideas being communicated still stand, however you choose to define terms.

It's obvious that the current law is homophobic. No one has to define complex terms to communicate that. In spite of that, you opted to, and went on a Crusading Rant, seeking to impose your definition on others, partially through insults and flames.

Certain terms, such as "Culture" have various definitions, based on various different Cultures.

Of course the sounds that make up the word "culture" can have tons of different definitions.

But culture, as I have defined it, is precisely that way in Russia. You cannot refute that, and you won't even bother to try anymore, as evidenced by your little tantrum on the matter of definitions.

Did I ever bother refuting that the new law is right? Nope, I did not, because, as I've repeatedly stated, it violates some laws in the Council of Europe, and I believe it's wrong for laws discriminating against innocent minorities.

Again, a concept you fail to comprehend, miserably so. Instead you respond with this bullshit:


Are you referring to the royal "we"?

No. We. As in you and I.

I repeatedly stated that I didn't adhere to your definition of culture.

Those aren't facts. Those are your opinions.

No, they're facts. It's a fact that the term "culture" is used primarily in two ways; to describe values and practices, and to describe arts and things of that nature. Because of the multiple usages, anthropologists use the term "material culture" to describe the latter, and "culture" to describe the former. That's not opinion. That's fact.

And we're discussing the former, not the latter.

When I looked up the term culture, that distinction didn't come up. Thus to me, it sounds like you are bullshitting, and calling that a fact. Either that, or reality and Google have an anti-Aurora Novus bias.

Because that's not how Brittanica defines culture. That's not how Google defines culture.

Actually, yes it is. Both Brittanica and Goggle define culture in both the material culture way, and the normal, "culture" way. They have them listed as different definitions for different reasons. Because people use the term to describe two different things.

Really? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

https://www.google.com/#q=culture+definition

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

I'm not seeing the distinction that you made up. But even if there was such a distinction, material culture is still part of culture. And when I was referring to culture, I included material culture, just as when I refer to cars, I include blue cars along with red cars and yellow cars, etc. How do you not get this stuff?

To avoid this confusion, Anthropologists, as was shown to yuo via Wikipedia in an earlier post of mine, use the term "material culture" to differentiate between the two. You're simply wrong if you deny this.

When I talk about culture, I include material culture. This is obvious to anyone who reads my sig, where I have a link to a thread on Russian Culture. Additionally, according to wikipedia, they're not a scholarly source, and honestly, saying "culture and material culture" sounds rather silly to me.

I looked up the term "Culture", not material culture.

So did I, and that's how I larned about the terminology distinction. Next time you do reserach, it;s probably best you do more than just Googling something.

If by research you mean quote wikidorkia, you should probably understand that's not real research: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/hoax- ... ive-years/

For the last five years, those who spend their time procrastinating on Wikipedia could read up on a 17th century war between colonial Portugal and India’s Maratham Empire known as the “Bicholim Conflict.” The problem is that Bicholim Conflict never happened, and that the entire 4,500-word article on the war was nothing more than an elaborate joke. The Daily Dot, which previously reported on the hoax, says that the writer of the article still hasn’t been identified. But whoever it is, he or she did an outstanding job of fooling the online encyclopedia into believing the “research” was genuine.

It was voted a “good article” by Wikipedia’s readers, and at one point was even nominated to be a “featured article” that would be prominently displayed on the site’s homepage. “’Featured Article’ status is a bit of a badge of honor on Wikipedia, a recognition bestowed to only the highest quality pieces on the site,” the Daily Dot notes. “Out of more than 4 million English Wikipedia articles, only 3,772 are ‘featured.’”

In reference to your claim, it's a quote on wikidorkia that links to a single source published in 2010. An amazon review of said source states: "Both [chapters] share an accessible writing style, they have appropriate levels of Canadian content, current material as well, and are nicely laid out with useful pedagogical features and illlustration".

"The writing style is excellent especially considering the need to simplify complex concepts and theories. The level is appropriate for introductory students".

Well, I can see why you like it, as it is appropriate for entry level, but even then, even the most rudimentary basic research points out that it's simplified for the student level and it's from a Canadian viewpoint. Next time maybe you should understand that doing research is more than just going "ooooh, wikipedia!"

But that doesn't fit your needs, so you shift goalposts and label that "material culture", and continue your ignorant and arrogant babbling, while accusing me of moving goalposts. And the rest of your post is simply unworthy of a response.

Now I'm th one shifting goalposts? Oh that's laughable.

Your previous post is laughable, you know, the one where you claimed that I didn't give you a better definition, when I did, in the very post that you were responding to! Now that's comedy gold!

Not to mention that you're derailing a thread for quite a while, for nothing other than your very own selfish needs, as you're seeking to impose your views of definitions upon others, and shifting goalposts, while accusing others of doing so.

Amusing. Actually, you derailed this thread. My original post wasn't derailing at all. It was you who started arguing with me over culture. Who's imposing who's view again?

No, it was actually you. Do I need to go back and find the post where you derailed it?

Just stop, before my pet goldfish loses anymore IQ points, from looking at my reaction to your posts, as further shock experienced by the aforementioned goldfish will simply add you to my ignore list. Thank you

Cute. Threatening to put my on ignore because you don't like what I'm saying. Aren't you a big boy?

No, I'm informing you that your posts in this thread are not intelligent, like the one where you claimed that I didn't give you a better definition, when I did, in the very post that you were responding to! Now that's comedy gold!

I couldn't give a toss if you put me on ignore or not.

Obviously you do, since you're responding. Or do you respond to things you don't care about on a daily basis?

As far as my credibility goes, I think this is the nail in the coffin.

Fixed for accuracy.

Because honestly, I care more about that, than my response to someone who cannot grasp that basic fact that different people from different places have different definitions of various terms.

Again, semantical nonsense. You cannot refute the information about Russia I've provided, so you've attempted to distract from that by complaining about words. Pitiful.

We were arguing over the definition of the term culture, not about actual statistics. You imagined the argument about actual statistics in your mind. This is reality.

Sorry, forgot to include this "gem" by Aurora Novus, which shows that he is fully capable of reading comprehension

Indeed, that is the truth.

No, it's actually sarcasm. Oh wait, maybe to you sarcasm is the truth! Your posts make so much sense now!

If you'll recall, the quote you're citing was you listing several definitions of culture you hastily looked up just a moment ago.

Just a moment ago is not the same as over a day ago, but I don't expect you to comprehend that either: Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:00 am

What is Culture? With a diverse population existing in the United States today, our country is a melting pot of different cultures, each one unique in its own respect. Culture, distinguishing one societal group from another, includes beliefs, behaviors, language, traditions, art, fashion styles, food, religion, politics, and economic systems.

Am I supposed to take that as you definition?

No you aren't. From the post:

you've yet to provide any kind of definition of culture that you think is "better"

I think that definition that I showed is better than yours. That was blatantly implied when I cited it, after labeling it as a "definition" I mean what else was there to do?

Alright then. It took you long anough though. How many posts did I have to ask you for one, with you responding "No, I'm not going to" again? Several at least.

Incorrect, I said that my definition would be too complex for you, so I provided one that's similar to mine, but appropriate for introductory level, i.e. for those who think that Wikipedia is research.

You'e in no position to talk

Indeed, because:

Culture includes beliefs, behaviors, language, traditions, art, fashion styles, food, religion, politics, and economic systems.

you've yet to provide any kind of definition of culture that you think is "better"

I cannot talk while I'm laughing my ass off. Now, please stop further derailing the thread. Thank you

[Aurora Novus]

You didn't have an argument. You had an extraordinarily ignorant and arrogant opinion that you framed as an argument. It's still your opinion. You should be ashamed of not being able to differentiate between the two.

It's not opinion. It's facts you do not wish to reckon with, that you choose to try and dismiss as opinion for that reason. You can't put up a proper argument aginst me, so you're attempting to being intellectually dishonest and dismiss my claims as "opinions". Which isn't surprising, giving your astounding lack of credibility at this point.

Then you admit you are playing a semantics game, and have nothing meanigful to add to the discussion. If all you're going to do is argue over the definition of a word, and not the state of society that word is attempting to describe, you've wasted everyoe's time.

Arguing over the definition is what you've been doing. All of this time.

Because you first began it, and forced me into it. You accused me of not unerstanding Russian culture. When I gave you my evidence, your response was to say "but that's not culture waaaahhhhhhhhh". You started and have pursued a semantics game, because you cannot refute my claims about Russia. You've already conceded the biggest point in this argument. Now you're merely furthering your display of ignorance by not understanding the difference between culture and material culture.

It's obvious that the current law is homophobic. No one has to define complex terms to communicate that. In spite of that, you opted to, and went on a Crusading Rant, seeking to impose your definition on others,

So let me get this straight. Me using the globally common definition of culture is "seeking to impose my definition on others".

But you, trying to chastise me for not using your special little definition, isn't? Ha! That's rich.

You do realize communication requires commonality in definition, yes? In order to communicate, we have to understand what the other is talking about. Me "imposing" my definition is just your way of saying I'm communicating with others. What a ridiculously childish complaint to make. Grow up.

partially through insults and flames.

Oh the irony.

Of course the sounds that make up the word "culture" can have tons of different definitions.

But culture, as I have defined it, is precisely that way in Russia. You cannot refute that, and you won't even bother to try anymore, as evidenced by your little tantrum on the matter of definitions.

Did I ever bother refuting that the new law is right? Nope, I did not, because, as I've repeatedly stated, it violates some laws in the Council of Europe, and I believe it's wrong for laws discriminating against innocent minorities.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the quote you responded to. You cannot, and will not even try anymore, to attempt to refute the claims that Russia has a long-standing history of homophobia in it's populace. Instead you're trying to attack my definition of culture, because according to you, "The history of my people's behavior and values isn't culture, beause you didn't include ART and FOOD in that waahhhhh! Art and food aren't homophobic in russia so Russia doesn't have a homophobic culture baaawwww!!!" You're just being willfully ignorant. This is why we have two terms. "material culture" and "culture".

I repeatedly stated that I didn't adhere to your definition of culture.

It doesn't matter if you adhere to my defnition of culture, the idea that my definition expresses is the topic of discussion. We're discussing the Russian people's values and behaviors, as it pertains to homosexuality, in the modern era and throughout history. Not art, not food. You know this, I know this, and everyone watching knows this.

No, they're facts. It's a fact that the term "culture" is used primarily in two ways; to describe values and practices, and to describe arts and things of that nature. Because of the multiple usages, anthropologists use the term "material culture" to describe the latter, and "culture" to describe the former. That's not opinion. That's fact.

And we're discussing the former, not the latter.

When I looked up the term culture, that distinction didn't come up. Thus to me, it sounds like you are bullshitting, and calling that a fact. Either that, or reality and Google have an anti-Aurora Novus bias.

Then you're not looking very hard.

Distinctions are currently made between the physical artifacts created by a society, its so-called material culture, and everything else, the intangibles such as language, customs, etc. that are the main referent of the term "culture".

Because that's not how Brittanica defines culture. That's not how Google defines culture.

Actually, yes it is. Both Brittanica and Goggle define culture in both the material culture way, and the normal, "culture" way. They have them listed as different definitions for different reasons. Because people use the term to describe two different things.

Really? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture[/quote]

I don't know why you're linking me there. That's not the Encyclopedia website. I'd link you to it, but you have to actually purchase it, so it'd be pointless. Not that it maters. The distinction between culture and material culture has been made.

I'm not seeing the distinction that you made up. But even if there was such a distinction, material culture is still part of culture.

A seperate aspect of culture from "culture", which is what we're discussing. There's "culture" in the all-encompassing sense, and "culture" in the specific, beliefs and behaviors sense. We're discussing the latter, and you know it. You're not made right by the limitations of language. Keep in mind, "culture" has a mirage of definitions outside of human socities too. A "culture" of bactaeria for instance.

And when I was referring to culture, I included material culture, just as when I refer to cars, I include blue cars along with red cars and yellow cars, etc. How do you not get this stuff?

Because I assume you're caoable of paying attention to context. If you're unable to comprehend context, that's your problem. But to any crtiically thinking individual, it's obvious that when someone is discussing "culture", and discussing the values and hevaiors of a people group, they are not discussing material culture, and to bring it up is worthless in that discussion.

So, now that it's clear we're not talking about art and food and whatnot, are you prepraied to actually get this discussing back on track? That being about Russia's homophobic culture.

When I talk about culture, I include material culture. This is obvious to anyone who reads my sig, where I have a link to a thread on Russian Culture. Additionally, according to wikipedia, they're not a scholarly source, and honestly, saying "culture and material culture" sounds rather silly to me.

No, but the term "material culture" comes from scholarly sources, which are reported by Wikipedia. Additionally, if you took a minute to just Goggle the term, you'd see a barrage of links discussing it. You really have no exucse to be uninformed about this. As for you discussing "material culture", who's forcing who's definition on others again? When you can't pay attention to context, that's your fault, not mine.

It was voted a “good article” by Wikipedia’s readers, and at one point was even nominated to be a “featured article” that would be prominently displayed on the site’s homepage. “’Featured Article’ status is a bit of a badge of honor on Wikipedia, a recognition bestowed to only the highest quality pieces on the site,” the Daily Dot notes. “Out of more than 4 million English Wikipedia articles, only 3,772 are ‘featured.’”

With any source of information you run the risk of getting inaccurate information. Wiki's have codes of conduct that prevent this from happening most of the time. It's possible to slip things by, but it rarely happens. People who are still terrified of the wiki model in 2013 need to get with the times. It's not necessariy inaccurate just because it's mentioned on Wikipedia, and if you're that concerned, you're more than welcome to do a little follow up invesitgation. By, say, looking into the term yourself.

Well, I can see why you like it, as it is appropriate for entry level, but even then, even the most rudimentary basic research points out that it's simplified for the student level and it's from a Canadian viewpoint. Next time maybe you should understand that doing research is more than just going "ooooh, wikipedia!"

What are you even trying to point out here? That the term is an actual term people use? Good job on accepting reality, whoo.

As for research, above I did the work of Googling the term for you. You're more than welcome to check that out and do some actual research on the term.

On, not to mention, there's also this. It's obvious this is not something "just from Canada". Yet you insist on continuing the intellectual dishonesty.

Your previous post is laughable, you know, the one where you claimed that I didn't give you a better definition, when I did, in the very post that you were responding to! Now that's comedy gold!

You never said "this is the definition I'm using". How am I supposed to know what you think, when you don't make it known, especially after the multiple posts where you ouright refused to provid any definition? You have a duty to make yourself understandbale, not me.

Amusing. Actually, you derailed this thread. My original post wasn't derailing at all. It was you who started arguing with me over culture. Who's imposing who's view again?

No, it was actually you. Do I need to go back and find the post where you derailed it?

My first post in this thread.

Your response to it. You are, quote clearly, the one who brough us into this discussion about culture, by taking the least important part of my post, and starting an argument over it.

No, I'm informing you that your posts in this thread are not intelligent

Despite the reality that all facts are on my side, and you're slowly having to reckon with that.

, like the one where you claimed that I didn't give you a better definition, when I did, in the very post that you were responding to! Now that's comedy gold!

You've caled it comedic gold twice in the same post. You're like a Republican you know? You just repeat buzzwords and prhases, hoping they stick. Amusing.

I couldn't give a toss if you put me on ignore or not.

Obviously you do, since you're responding. Or do you respond to things you don't care about on a daily basis?

No, I really don't. I'm not responding so that you'll respond back to me. I'm responding to you to point out the batshit stupid idiocy you're vomitting out of your mouth. Whether or not you respond back is of no consequence to me.

As far as my credibility goes, I think this is the nail in the coffin.

Fixed for accuracy.

Yes, because having sources, and not threatening to block people, is totally destroying my credibility. Oh, not to mention having multipe people in this thread agree with me. Yes, my poor credibility.

Pro tip: If you want people to take you seriously, don't threaten to block them when you don't like what they are saying. Also, drop the intellectual dishonesty. It's getting old.

We were arguing over the definition of the term culture, not about actual statistics. You imagined the argument about actual statistics in your mind. This is reality.

No, it's not. The reality is that you spawned an argument with me over Russian culture, and it's homophobia. When it became obvious you were losing that argument, you tried to hift goalposts, and argue over the definition of culture, instead of he history of Russia. That is the reality.

No, it's actually sarcasm. Oh wait, maybe to you sarcasm is the truth! Your posts make so much sense now!

What are you even talking about now? This isn't a coherent response to my comment.

If you'll recall, the quote you're citing was you listing several definitions of culture you hastily looked up just a moment ago.

Just a moment ago is not the same as over a day ago, but I don't expect you to comprehend that either: Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:00 am[/quote]

Just a moment ago in relation to our discussion. You really are bad at this context thing aren't you?

Alright then. It took you long anough though. How many posts did I have to ask you for one, with you responding "No, I'm not going to" again? Several at least.

Incorrect, I said that my definition would be too complex for you, so I provided one that's similar to mine, but appropriate for introductory level, i.e. for those who think that Wikipedia is research.[/quote]

Saying "it's too complex for you" is the same as refusing to provide one. Moot point.

I cannot talk while I'm laughing my ass off. Now, please stop further derailing the thread. Thank you

Sorry, no matter how much you want me to, I'm not going to stop responding to your uninformed bullshit. You want me to stop responding to you? Stop posting.

Alternatively, actualy make a coherent case about the culture of Russia, instead of going on about this inane bullshit of definitions. You know what I'm talking about now. You know about the difference between cultue and material culture. You no longer have any excuse. Russia has a homophobic deeply culture, as evidenced by it's current situation, and history. Yes? Or no? I'm done with your semantics game.

[The Rising Sun Katana]

I've said it before and I will say it again, if you are a homosexual currently living in Russia.... LEAVE. Or die, it's up to you. The Russians, led by Putin, have publicly declared complete intolerance toward homosexuality and are very ready to enforce their beliefs/views/social standards through the use of extreme violence THAT IS SOCIETALLY CONDONED. They will club you to death like baby seals and then go knock back shots of Vodka to celebrate their victory. It does not matter if it is right or wrong........ this is friggin RUSSIA we're talking about........ so get realistic about it and live another day SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[Urmanian]

I've said it before and I will say it again, if you are a homosexual currently living in Russia.... LEAVE.

It's so easy to say "well sucks to be you! you'd better migrate" anywhere where oppression and injustice happens, before you actually consider the process of moving countries yourself. Migration is not as easy as you think it is. I have my family and friends I have an obligation to, work and education here in Russia that I cannot so easily just drop, nor is the very process of moving countries so easy.

The Russians, led by Putin, have publicly declared complete intolerance toward homosexuality and are very ready to enforce their beliefs/views/social standards through the use of extreme violence THAT IS SOCIETALLY CONDONED..

Nazi rule was societally condoned. Klan Lynchings in the U.S. were societally condoned. Etc, etc, etc. Majority approval of an objectively morally awful thing, for whatever reason, doesn't lend it anymore moral legitimacy and doesn't make it any less awful.

They will club you to death like baby seals and then go knock back shots of Vodka to celebrate their victory. It does not matter if it is right or wrong........ this is friggin RUSSIA we're talking about........ so get realistic about it and live another day SOMEWHERE ELSE.

It'd be surprising coming from me, but Putinist Russia would never do anything of the sort. Its homophobic laws have already attracted the attention of the world community and the moment Putin tries to enact some sort of an actual genocidal program against the LGBT crowd Russia would immediately be economically, diplomatically or even physically obliterated, and in reality, which is different to the one that our darling young Red Alert 3-playing Russia fans imagine, it won't be pretty for Russia at all.

Of course, Putin's government has already made promises to the international community to fight violent hate crime against gays. These promises most likely won't actually be made reality, this being Putin's government, but it still makes the point null. Russia just doesn't have nor the power nor the political will to do what it wants to gays. It matters that the homophobia is objectively wrong because the world community does care, and Russia does have to listen to the world community, no matter whether it wants it or not.

[Shofercia]

-snip-

I did not read that post. I skimmed parts of it, and realized that reading it wasn't worth it. You seem to think that you can "win" a debate by writing absurdly long posts, repeatedly, and filling them up with sheer stupidity, in the hopes that someone will simply get bored. My sarcastic congratulations:



I'm not going to go into many examples of the sheer stupidity written in your posts, but in one of the previous posts, you claimed that I did not provide what I though would be a better definition, when I provided not one, not two, but three definitions that I thought were better in the very post you were responding to! You've yet to admit even that basic mistake, but you're certainly adept at writing long posts. It's over. I don't want to know you. I don't want to know your posts. Welcome to my ignore list. If you think that's intellectually dishonest, you're just someone who cannot realize that people have better things to do than argue over the definition of "culture" with an ignoramus who thinks that introductory material quoted on wikidorkia is "research". And don't bother TGing me either, as I'll simply ignore the first one, and block the rest of them.

[Aurora Novus]

I did not read that post. I skimmed parts of it, and realized that reading it wasn't worth it. You seem to think that you can "win" a debate by writing absurdly long posts, repeatedly, and filling them up with sheer stupidity, in the hopes that someone will simply get bored.

Oh the irony.

I'm not going to go into many examples of the sheer stupidity written in your posts

Translation: You hve no adequate rebuttle, and you know it. You've been backed into corner.

, but in one of the previous posts, you claimed that I did not provide what I though would be a better definition, when I provided not one, not two, but three definitions that I thought were better in the very post you were responding to!

Which does not excuse your previous behavior and ignorance, and something which I have already given an explanation for. If this is your "knockdown argument" against me, you're grasping at straws.

You've yet to admit even that basic mistake, but you're certainly adept at writing long posts.

You are in no position to criticize about not admitting mistakes.

It's over. I don't want to know you. I don't want to know your posts. Welcome to my ignore list.

Boo stupud hoo. As if I should care. You putting me on ignore only strengthens my position.

If you think that's intellectually dishonest, you're just someone who cannot realize that people have better things to do than argue over the definition of "culture"

It's funny that you put me on ignore the moment I try and turn the discussion away from debating the defintion of "culture".

with an ignoramus who thinks that introductory material quoted on wikidorkia is "research". And don't bother TGing me either, as I'll simply ignore the first one, and block the rest of them.

First of all, it's not "introductory material". I've already pointed that out to you. Secondly, reading a Wikipedia article and it's related links is far more research than simply Googling a definition, and calling it good. Again, he irony of your posts is painfully amusing.


But whatever. Have a nice life. Twating nationalists.

[Peoples Republic of Appalachia (Ancient)]

Certainly the world has actually problems then a few people who feel uncomfortable. This is as ridiculous as the women who sued that baker just for publicity. The world does have real victims.

[The 93rd Coalition]

Certainly the world has actually problems then a few people who feel uncomfortable. This is as ridiculous as the women who sued that baker just for publicity. The world does have real victims.

Er, see the date of the above post.