>>80
Wow you've accused me of a lot of things.
>>41 wasn't me.
My argument is nothing like
>>30's. You can hardly accuse me of denial if you consider an argument like "Revolutions rarely achieve the social objectives they promise and such things take decades of social evolution to achieve, assuming they are possible at all", to be the same as "damn commies".
As for your accusation that my entire argument is about semantics I have now both clearly defined "revolution" to the bone and provided facts to back up my statements which remain undiscussed.
I am willing to accept the idea that a revolution can speed up social evolution, I even said so earlier, but you seemed to ignore that.
Even if you won't even look at the facts I will, since you don't want to I'll just make a start.
Slavery did not end until 90 years after the American revolution, last time I presented this fact you dismissed it as "well, those are just opinions you have".
"glaring over the American Civil War, which for all intensive perpurses was a revolution- it resulted in the end of slavery"
If I remember correctly the south supported slavery and they were the ones who seceded from the union.
As for the french revolution, if you don't believe it resulted in decades of tyrannt maybe you will believe a source you consider trustworthy.
http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/timeline.htm
I believe the burden on proof is on you to prove that the Russian revolution resulted in a communist utopia.