This'll make the bigots cry...

Well, you both seem to agree that the Colston Four should have been done.

Doug's pretty moderate as far as I can make out, talks a lot of sense and brings his own debating style to the table. YMMV

The day anybody revises their opinion on the basis of what someone else says in an internet debate we can celebrate by tucking into a slice of unicorn pie.

Thanks Zeo, I wasn't aware that length of time on a forum contributed to whether someone was right or not anyway. I think the legal decision to say the statue removal wasn't criminal damage could set a precedence that harms all sides of the political landscape, also we should take punishment for our political beliefs, it's part of what makes the actions important.
   As for the slavery argument it is obviously done to stir the pot (pretty much that is trolling in my book) due to it's hyperbolic nature and the known political affiliation of nearly everyone else apart from the poster on here. Bland statements that certain racial groups  couldn't have bettered themselves without white help for 600 years because they hadn't before, dressed up as facts shouldn't go unquestioned. Most of us have fought our whole lives to get rid of that level of casual racism. But apparently that is "personal opinion dressed up as argument" whereas stating that they couldn't have progressed is fact based rather than a guess based on past events.
   Still, as with Rogue and his assertations that anyone who wasn't for completely open borders was a National Front type, these deliberately controversial views are most often posted for the entertainment of the poster rather than for any real serious debate.

As I have demonstrated repeatedly, I do not offer "bland statements… dressed up as facts": I offer reasoned arguments based on facts. That doesn't make the conclusion a fact, as anything that might have happened in an alternate timeline clearly cannot be proved. But it's not a guess either: it's an extrapolation; a reasoned argument. You're just saying "well, you could be wrong" over and over, as though that in itself is an argument. It isn't. I could be wrong, for sure, but I've presented a reasoned argument as to why that is very unlikely. You have nothing to offer in response except contradiction without argument.

Shouting "you're wrong", "you're a racist" and "you're a troll" over and over again won't win you the argument. You're making a fool of yourself, just as I warned.

Interesting... On another (American) forum I post on, someone just got banned for racism for advancing a similar argument to Poli's in this here thread... 



His white supremacist views extend to Native Americans as well:

“If Indians were smart enough to build ships like the Vikings and the Europeans they would have explored other lands and tried to conquer them too, but they were primitive and backwards”

They wouldn't have kicked them out, they would've put them straight to work in their plantations and factories while they eased back in their comfy chairs

Stating that sub-Saharan Africans would have been unlikely to develop a technological culture without outside involvement is not "white supremacy" or "rubbish" – it is a conclusion based on evidence and extrapolation. Similarly, it is neither racist nor white supremacist to state that black people in Britain commit a disproportionate amount of crime, as that is also backed by ample evidence. You may feel that it is racist to point out such facts, but that is an entirely different debate.