Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Originally Posted by Old-T If you could learn how to read it would really help you avoid quite so much ridicule on here.
I never said the Aztecs didn't practice human sacrifice. That was someone else's issue. You made it your fuckin' issue when you jumped into the conversation like the pathetic little troll you are, Old-THUMPER. So now you say a person "owns" every argument they comment on?
My issue was that you condemn Aztec human sacrifice for religious reasons, but you refuse to condemn Christian atrocities for "conversion", or Good Ol' Confederate plantation owners human killings for greed. You're the jackass that needs to learn how to read, Old-THUMPER, because what you obviously and ignorantly did not comprehend was that that was an example of how correlation doesn't confer causation, you blithering jackass. All I pointed out is your hypocrisy. And your lies.
As to my "lies", I point out again that I only quoted YOU contradicting YOURSELF.
Have a great day, asshole. Go screw yourself with an obsidian blade, Old-THUMPER.
.
So now we see IB at his finest. Caught in a lie (well, actually, multiple lies), and caught being a hypocritical apologist for Christian confederate slave owners, he STILL does not find it in himself to acknowledge that the southern slave owners were every bit as evil and immoral as the Aztecs. Actually I argue they were MORE immoral because they did it for only one reason: GREED! "Kill those darkies so we "Christians" can live in our plantation houses". But condemn the Aztecs who did it because they thought it appeased the gods. Which gods were the Confederacy concerned about appeasing? Only their wallets. No, no admission that there was ever any bad thing done by them. I do not condemn all southerners, nor all Christians, but I do say they did some bad things just as every other group of people. Including the Aztecs. Too bad IBMassa' is so blind he can't. Nope, because I point out truth and reality, he wishes me ill with an obsidian knife.
Temper, temper IB. That really isn't very nice. And you should learn the difference between a crucifix and a lynching tree.
So now we see IB at his finest. Caught in a lie (well, actually, multiple lies), and caught being a hypocritical apologist for Christian confederate slave owners, he STILL doe snot find it in himself to acknowledge that the southern slave owners were every bit as evil and immoral as the Aztecs. Actually I argue they were MORE immoral because they did it for only one reason: GREED! Kill those darkies so we "Christians" can live in our plantation houses". But condemn the Aztecs who did it because they thought it appeased the gods. Which gods were the Confederacy concerned about appeasing? Only their wallets. No, no admission that there was ever any bad thing done by them. I do not condemn all southerners, nor all Christians, but I do say they did some bad things just as every other group of people. Including the Aztecs. Too bad IBMassa' is so blind he can't. Nope, because I point out truth and reality, he wishes me ill with an obsidian knife.
Temper, temper IB. That really isn't very nice.
You'd be the stupid-ass liar, Old-THUMPER, because in this instance the ritual of Aztec sacrifice was used to illustrate that correlation does not confer causation, Old-THUMPER.
But while you hasten to distort that post into something it wasn't, Old-THUMPER, it's notable how you are quick to WK for a culture of slave owning, ritualistic cannibals, Old-THUMPER, who sacrificed some 20,000 to 250,000 victims per year, and enslaved even more, you pathetic, trollish jackass.
Words for your stupid-ass to feast on, Old-THUMPER.
Quote:
"Cortes one day took the caziques aside, and put several questions to them respecting the situation and affairs of Mexico. Xicotencatl, as the more intelligent and distinguished personage, answered his queries, and Maxixcatzin, who was likewise a man of high rank, assisted him from time to time.
"'Motecusuma,' said Xicotencatl, 'had such a vast army, that when he intended to conquer any large township, or of falling into any province, he invariably ordered 100,000 warriors into the field. They, the Tlascallans, had often experienced this in the many wars which they had waged with the Mexicans for upwards of 100 years.'
"When Cortes here interrupted them with the question: 'How they had managed to escape from being in the end subdued by such a vast army?' They replied, 'That they had, indeed, often been worsted by the Mexicans, and lost many of their men, who were either killed in battle, or taken prisoners and sacrificed to the idols; but that they likewise had slain numbers of the enemy and taken many of them prisoners." ....
"[W]e found houses built of wood, in the shape of cages, in which numbers of Indians, of both sexes, were confined, and fattened for their sacrifices and feasts." ....
"Alvarado nowhere met with any inhabitants, but found sufficient proofs in the temples that boys and full-grown people had very recently been sacrificed; for the altars and walls were covered with drops of fresh blood. The flint knives with which the unfortunate victim's breast is cut open to tear the heart away, and the large stones on which they are sacrificed, still lay in their proper places. Most of the bodies thus seen by our men were without arms or legs, which, according to the accounts of the Indians, had been devoured." (Díaz del Castillo [c.1568])
Words for your stupid-ass to feast on, Old-THUMPER.
Too bad your words have nothing to do with the question: why do you continue to be blind to the atrocities of your own kind, only seeing the sins of others?
Too bad your words have nothing to do with the question: why do you continue to be blind to the atrocities of your own kind, only seeing the sins of others?
Your reading skills are ridiculously poor, Old-THUMPER. Those words were written by Díaz del Castillo, c.1568, Old-THUMPER.
Quote:
"Respecting the abominable human sacrifices of these people, the[Pg 233] following was communicated to us: The breast of the unhappy victim destined to be sacrificed was ripped open with a knife made of sharp flint; the throbbing heart was then torn out, and immediately offered to the idol-god in whose honour the sacrifice had been instituted. After this, the head, arms, and legs were cut off and eaten at their banquets, with the exception of the head, which was saved, and hung to a beam appropriated for that purpose. No other part of the body was eaten, but the remainder was thrown to the beasts which were kept in those abominable dens..."
Your reading skills are ridiculously poor, Old-THUMPER. Those words were written by Díaz del Castillo, c.1568, Old-THUMPER.
So? The point is, YOU selected those words and posted them as if they had something to do with the point of my post. They don't, so YOU are the one who posted inappropriate words, even if you did not first write them.
And while we are at it, you use a Spaniard's perspective to say the Spaniards (Christians) were morally superior. Objective source? Not quite.
So? The point is, YOU selected those words and posted them as if they had something to do with the point of my post. They don't, so YOU are the one who posted inappropriate words, even if you did not first write them.
And while we are at it, you use a Spaniard's perspective to say the Spaniards (Christians) were morally superior. Objective source? Not quite.
Hey, Old-THUMPER, you deflecting jackass, here's a fuckin' "objective" Aztec source for your stupid-ass:
And here's some fuckin' "objective" forensic anthropology that substantiates what Díaz del Castillo recorded, Old-THUMPER:
Quote:
Aztecs Tortured, Ate Spaniards, Bones Show
Evidence of capture and rituals is unearthed at a site near Mexico City.
August 26, 2006|From Reuters
CALPULALPAN, Mexico — Skeletons found at an archeological site show that Aztecs captured, sacrificed and partially ate several hundred people traveling with invading Spanish forces in 1520.
The condition of skulls and bones from the Tecuaque site east of Mexico City offers evidence that about 550 victims had their hearts ripped out by Aztec priests in ritual offerings, and were dismembered or had their bones boiled or scraped clean, experts say.
The findings support accounts of Aztecs capturing and killing a caravan led by Spanish conquistadors in revenge for the murder of Cacamatzin, king of the Aztec city of Texcoco ....
The prisoners were kept in cages for months while Aztec priests selected a few each day, cut out their hearts and offered them up to various Aztec gods, Martinez said.
"It was a continuous sacrifice over six months. While the prisoners were listening to their companions being sacrificed, the next ones were being selected," Martinez said, standing in his lab amid boxes of bones, some of young children.
The priests and town elders sometimes ate their victims' hearts or cooked flesh from their arms and legs, Martinez said. Knife cuts and even teeth marks on the bones show which ones had meat stripped off to be eaten, he said.
In Aztec times, the site was called Zultepec, a town of white-stucco temples and homes where 5,000 people grew maize and beans. Upon hearing of the massacre, Cortes renamed the town Tecuaque -- "where people were eaten" in the indigenous Nahuatl language -- and sent an army to wipe out its people. (LA TIMES).
Dear IBAsshole, since I never questioned that Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, just what do you think is the significance of your post?
The question on the table is why YOU are genetically unable to admit that Christians ever did wrong. You spend an inordinate amount of you pathetic life reposting what is already accepted: that many societies did some bad things. Like Don Juan Onate, or Rev James Jones, or the noted Christian Adolph Hitler.
But you will either ignore these--and many others--or you will try to argue that they weren't really Christians.
Of course you can always tell us about the "honorable" John Chivington, a Methodist preacher and someone clearly doing "God's work" when he slaughtered innocent native American women and children. But you can't really blame him, how was he to know those women and children weren't who he was after. Seen one redskin seen 'em all, right? Seen one heathen savage, seen 'em all--ain't that so. Can't tell one of then injins from another--but since they don't believe my version of the bible, who cares.
Yep, no bad apples in the Christian annals of history. Not if you believe Ol' IB. ( Fortunately few people do believe him.)
Exactly WHICH Aztecs are you talking about with this painting? The ones at San Jacinto?
What a fucking ignorant hillbilly you are, IBGrubergruber!
You'd be the cognitively deficient jackass thinking the remark "VIVA LA RAZA!" is narrowly defined as pertaining to the Aztecs alone, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T
Dear IBAsshole, since I never questioned that Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, just what do you think is the significance of your post?
The question on the table is why YOU are genetically unable to admit that Christians ever did wrong. You spend an inordinate amount of you pathetic life reposting what is already accepted: that many societies did some bad things. Like Don Juan Onate, or Rev James Jones, or the noted Christian Adolph Hitler.
But you will either ignore these--and many others--or you will try to argue that they weren't really Christians.
Of course you can always tell us about the "honorable" John Chivington, a Methodist preacher and someone clearly doing "God's work" when he slaughtered innocent native American women and children. But you can't really blame him, how was he to know those women and children weren't who he was after. Seen one redskin seen 'em all, right? Seen one heathen savage, seen 'em all--ain't that so. Can't tell one of then injins from another--but since they don't believe my version of the bible, who cares.
Yep, no bad apples in the Christian annals of history. Not if you believe Ol' IB. ( Fortunately few people do believe him.)
Yes, U B a lying asshole, Old-THUMPER, because you sure as shit did question the veracity of Castillo's narrative, Old-THUMPER. Furthermore, wasn't Chivington's action predicated by three centuries of internecine warfare between settlers and Native Americans: many of whom were already slave trading ritualistic cannibals like the Aztecs, e.g., the Algonquins and Iroquois, Old-THUMPER?
The scene below, from the movie Last of the Mohicans was based on a notorious historical incident, Old-THUMPER, illustrating what white men had learned about the red man by the time Chivington took to the field:
Quote:
"In one of the most notorious incidents of the French and Indian War, Montcalm's Indian allies violated the agreed terms of surrender and attacked the British column, which had been deprived of ammunition, as it left the Fort William Henry. They killed and scalped a significant number of soldiers, took as captives women, children, servants, and slaves, and slaughtered sick and wounded prisoners."
That, in addition to tales such as Castillo's narrative supported by modern forensic anthropology, is what the average 19th century American white man knew about the Indians, Old-THUMPER. It was a true story picked up by James Fenimore Cooper and read by early American settlers, Old-THUMPER. So you can take your ignorant and pretentious notion that only "white people" committed atrocities and shove it up your wide ass, Old-THUMPER.
FYI, here's another true story white men heard related on the frontier, Old-THUMPER. Hence, they were motivated to do unto others before they were done unto, you supercilious jackass:
I have a strong suspicion that IB isn't even white. His fervent admiration for anything white eclipses any neo-nazi con ideology. He's like the house ni**er who'll whip and kill his own race to appease his masters.
That's the only thing that could explain his outright denial of any villainy committed by whites, and so he'll find fault with any and every race except for that one. Like I said......total house ni**er.
