Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 2123535)

Well, In my original post I disagreed that smallpox was initially or intentionally weaponized against the Native Americans. That may not have been the case later on, but I disagreed that smallpox was spread intentionally in the earliest years of colonization. I talked about it over multiple posts that supported this point since I had people disagreeing with me about it.

This led into my other point - that regardless of how someone "feels" about how things transpired, that I didn't see a version of history where smallpox or the Aztecs didn't kill off most of the Native American tribes, and that every timeline was probably ****ed in that regard. That's not me taking a side or making any kind of moral case - it's just an observation on what we know in general about that era of time. A single sniffling Spanish merchant had the potential to wipe out an entire tribe just for showing up and wanting to trade goods. And he would have had no idea he was even doing it, which is the worst part.

That led to a comment where I said that even if smallpox had not wiped out the various tribes due to early interactions with the Portuguese, Spanish, etc., the Aztecs would have likely conquered those tribes and erased them in their bid to take over the North American continent. They were already gradually moving north at the time Cortes arrived, so enslavement and/or being masscred was the likeliest outcome over a several century period. Assuming no Europeans showed up at all of course.

Eventually, the Aztecs would have grown into a Rome-esque sized empire and likely developed technology to cross the sea to Europe, probably by the early 1600's at the latest if Cortez had never showed up. This would have led to a very different world history than what we know now, but it's still likely smallpox would have been an issue if they tried to occupy and build a foothold in any part of western Europe or the Mediterranean. Or maybe they would have brought some other viruses that would have wiped out Europe at the time.

So my point was that for many of those Native American tribes to have not been wiped out from the 14th through 17th centuries, history would have had to play out very differently than it did and that it sucks that it didn't.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 2123541)

Oh for the love of **** he knows what he's doing and now he's just dissembling to show that snowflakes can't handle a logical discussion with someone who's a Holocaust denier.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 2123541)

Oh for the love of **** he knows what he's doing and now he's just dissembling to show that snowflakes can't handle a logical discussion with someone who's a Holocaust denier.

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 2123541)

Oh for the love of **** he knows what he's doing and now he's just dissembling to show that snowflakes can't handle a logical discussion with someone who's a Holocaust denier.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 2123542)

How are the people in Hogwarts so incompetent that 3 disorganized children keep discovering secrets that even the 'wisest' wizards/witches haven't found in generations just through the slightest bit of curiosity driven effort?

Plus, Dumbledore didn't have any objections to Slytherins using a supremacist slur while hate speech was being written on the walls threatening to kill the muggle born children?

This school is a **** hole.

And why wasn't Peeves in any of the goddamn movies when he's such an integral part to the story?

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 2123543)

See, I go to the trouble of providing clarity over pages of content and you just write it off cause your mad. This is why we can't have nice things.

Originally Posted by MarieMarie (Post 2123544)

lmao I approve this change of topic. Harry Potter is full of plot holes and random unrealistic ****. Still love it though

Originally Posted by MarieMarie (Post 2123544)

Ant, looking at the repeated history of these discussions I do find it hard to believe that you don't know were things are going and that there's not an element of trolling to it, and the discussion itself sounded more trollish than the recap you gave. But I realise that that might just be the same thing as you finding it hard to believe that people get offended.

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 2123546)

I like Charles and everyone else but I don't like being personally attacked and told I don't have any sense of morals just because I'm speculative by nature. I do a lot of world building and things for my writing (so I actually enjoy history and also speculative fiction) on the side so I don't find discussions like that as polarizing.