The US was a country founded on illegal immigration and open rebellion.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Abomination:
The United States can choose to accept more or less immigrants from whatever country they deem worthy, much like any other country can choose to do

This is not actually germane to the question of what should a country do at the border. Yes, a country could just slaughter everyone who goes there.

Seanchaidh:

runic knight:
1st of all, America was founded by colonialists, not immigrants. They did not come over with intention of joining the great nations of the native americans, but rather to claim land and resources.

It's true! They were genocidal colonizers, not illegal immigrants.

Wouldn't say genocidal, considering they worked with, or traded with, a lot of the natives as much as warred with them during the times of the colonies, and most of the large scale violence occurred after the nation was established and started pushing westward to expand.

At any rate though, they were colonialists, not immigrants, and the distinction is important to keep in mind.

ineptelephant:

runic knight:
They never came to america with the intention of not being english (or french, in the case of the canadian colonies)

Or Spanish, right? Unless you think that Las Vegas and Los Angeles are strange French dialects

Does this mention have a purpose related to my point? I am genuinely curious if the lack of mention of the fact Spain had colonies as well (or other european nations I didn't mention either such as netherlands) has any baring at all to the point being made that colonialists, unlike immigrants, aren't planning on leaving their nationality behind them.

Because I can't for the life of me see how it matters to that point at all. Seems like pedantic nit-picking for the sake of trying to antagonize.

Hold the phone here a minute. Do you think that people here are arguing that colonialism was/is literally the same as immigration?

I think that Saelune's attempt to equate the two with a position of "If you have a problem with illegal immigrants, you have a problem with what this country was founded on" was enough to call out the nonsense for what it was, regardless if they personally earnestly believed it, or merely pretending to. I have seen enough earnest presentations of the argument that the colonialists were no different than modern illegal immigrants that it warrants addressing the flaws of it.

Might I offer an alternative argument

You can, but I don't have any incentive to address it because it is an irrelevant non-sequitur that avoids my points and instead wastes time complaining about "the right" as if that matters in the least to a single point I made or somehow undoes a single problem I called out.

But I might as well address it's flaws anyways. I don't want to get into a big side-discussion on your attempts to validate the OP's equating, but might as well hit the basic points.

Commenting on the right's current hypocricy is about noting the bullshit entailed when people complain about immigrants in a country whose demographics are vastly made up by "non-native" populations?

There seems to be two options: Either you accept that European colonists injustly destroyed Native American culture and annexed all of their territory, in which case what kind of claim do you have to "America" anyway? What makes it yours aside from the formality of having happened to be born there? (Which sure didn't seem to help the Native Americans)

OR: The influx of global "settlers" (in many cases religious refugees, gee isn't that a funny parralel) have precicely as much right to the land of the USA as anyone else, meaning that there is as little right to turn away a non-violent refugee as there is to turn away a U.S. citizen.

This relies on many flaws
1st. Most, if not all nations are the result of settlers unjustly destroying the livelihoods of those who's lands they take. In the case of the American colonialists, they were just part of a nation across the ocean when they did it, as opposed to the usual land-based efforts of the same effect. No nation is without war, trade, or claiming of lands, and if you wish to invalidate the claims of one nation for those practices, you must do the same to ALL nations for the same. Can't cherry pick that, got to be consistent.

2nd. Pointing out hypocrisy usual requires you not commit it. In this case, in saying europeans were unjust in their claiming of native american lands (a complicated claim itself as some was stolen outright, some was bought and paid for, some was given, and some was claimed with war), you invalidate every nation on the planet (name one that hasn't used any of the previously mentioned methods to obtain, claim, or defend the claim of land), and by extension invalidate any claim that there is a "rightful" owner of said land in the first place.

Or to sum it up more directly, why is it unjust when colonialists took land and resources from the native tribes, but not when the native tribes took the land and resources from other native tribes? Or when tribes took it from smaller gatherings of humans and proto humans as the evolved. Hence the hypocrisy while trying to call it out for such.

3rd. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen equates the two. They are different yet you use them interchangeably.

4th. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen also commits the exact problem I called out before, that of equating immigration with colonization since you use it in relation to discussing that topic. That you laughed off my calling that problem out only to repeat that equating does have me scratching my head, but it doesn't stop it from still being as flawed as it was from the start. Immigrants are moving into a new nation with hopes of joining it and benefiting from it as a nation. Colonist are moving to new lands with hope of claiming them for their parent nation. Saying they equate is saying that immigrants want to claim american lands for their own nations, a claim that, again, I would hope people supporting immigration would know better than to try to make.

5th. Nations make their own rules and part of that is deciding their own rules for citizenship. And when other nations of people disagree, they sometimes have to go to war to defend those. Nations are social constructs, so there is no "absolute" to their claims, merely what they can defend against attack. This is sort of the fundamental basis of how nations war and claim lands previously owned by other nations. And it is the basis for many conflicts over ownership of lands across the globe even today. Being able to turn away refugees out of concern for their safety is the option for any nation that wishes to do so. You can rule it immoral if you wish (others might thing it recklessly endangering citizens and rule you immoral in reply), but no immigrant or refuge has claim to a status in the nation that the nation has not given them, including a home or citizenship.

This is simply condescending tripe. You have completely missed the crux of the argument. We arent talking about "immigration" from just colonial times (though in the literal sense, they most definitely were "immigrants") but immigrants from all across the U.S.' history. Irish, Italian, German, Spanish: huge numbers of immigrants.

Immigration has been at the heart of the U.S.'s economic success. The same people that celebrate white immigration (irish, italian) are claiming that non-white immigration is the end of all civilisation, with no self-awareness or understanding of their own immigration based history.

And it does not matter in the least that you failed to understand that I was not limiting immigrants to to the modern era in my explaining why they are still different than colonialists.

As for whoever is celebrating what when, that is irrelevant to my point. But if you wish for me to address it anyways, fine.
The people who celebrate the immigration of the past who now condemn it tend to do it along a very specific line of reasoning.

Unlike you claim though, no, the reason for the difference is not race for most people.

The difference is legality.

The ones you mentioned first, the Irish, the italian, the german, the spanish, they were never celebrated in their own time to begin with (remember, they were outright denied employment when they first came over and forced to live in ghettos), but they were allowed because they were legally processed. Hell, Elis island was renowned for that, was it not? Compare that to modern day and the problem people are complaining about is not immigration, but illegal immigration. In fact, a lot of the time I see those so critical and demonizing of those opposed to illegal immigrants try to make sweeping claims and outright misrepresentations that their complaints are directed to all immigrants instead.

Say what you will about the problems with modern legal immigration, but please do not misrepresent most people who have no problems with the immigration of the past but may have issue with the illegal immigration of the present with something as dishonest as them being racist. Some certainly are, but to maliciously malign so many for their disagreement with your position, to dictate their motivations to them with such a dismissive accusation about what drives their position, it is simply disgusting.

That is without a doubt the most uncritical and niave interpretation as to the start of the U.S. war of independence that I have ever heard on this website. Its adorable.

That's it, is it? No mention of slavery? No mention of U.S. states denied requests to expand the 13 colonies inland? Please, give me a break. That explanation sounds like what they teach children.

Tell me, given your criticism of what was very obviously simple breakdown of things to demonstrate the problem with the claim about the rebels being terrorist, was the over-simplification of events in any way undermining my actual point that the rebels were not terrorists?

Because if not, then what is your point of complaint here actually about? Because yeah, it was a very simple. That was the intent and purpose since that was all that was needed to make my point. If your only complaint here was "this was simple" then ok, noted, and dismissed as being worthlessly irrelevant to the discussion.

I can almost hear the propaganda music playing in the backround. Nothing but heroes, hm? It must be nice, to delude yourself over history quite so much.

Did I say they were nothing but heroes? Rather bold of you to lie about my position while directly quoting me. Again, you misrepresent things but don't make any points relevant to what was said and discussed.

Yes, there is absolutely no similarity between the U.S.' treatment of Porto Rico and the British Empire's treatment of the 13 colonies. None at all. Not even a smidge.

Furthermore, anyone in a gerrymandered district of Alabama or Texas (especially a racially gerrymandered one) whose vote is far less meaningfull than other white swing voters is just a cry-baby liberal who cant handle all their freedom.

Cool, nice.

Did I say there was no similarity?
Did I say there was no problems with voting districts?
Did I say those complaining about voting issues were "cry-baby liberals?

You show you have no interest in engaging in good faith when you so dishonestly try to misrepresent my positions and arguments, while still failing to even bother fighting your manufactured strawmen of my positions or arguments.

My point was, and remains, that there was a difference between what drove the colonialists to rebel against the crown, and the entitled feelings that drive many radical leftist to push, promote, and even engage in violence today.

To pretend I claimed there was no problems is to be maliciously dishonest. That you resort to such tactics so frequently in your reply to me only shows everyone else the lack of ability to argue your position like a rational adult.

See above

I see you blatantly and maliciously misrepresent my actual positions to instead construct strawmen that you merely scoff at and often don't even address as arguments themselves.

EDIT: can't get this link to work, start this youtube vid at 1m23 sec. :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DRD1SNdhoc

Video is unavailable.
Furthermore, if you can't translate the video into your own words, you shouldn't bother arguing the point in the first place. I can get calling in a source, but don't expect me to watch a video in place of your actual argument. Doing so makes me think you don't actually have one and I wont waste my time watching what you link me to when you can't even give it context.

You all ready typed this exact same point minus some meaningless ad-hominum, but I'm not surprised you forgot

No, I have had to become used to over-explaining things around these parts because people like to cut parts out they don't want to address, or will intentionally misrepresent when only said once, so I tend to be more wordy then I need to. Can you imagine that, people being willfully dishonest in how they represent their opponent's position, arguing, or words just so they can pretend they won when they "defeat" the strawment they made, or dismiss the person they demonized? What a sad thing to see people reduced to try to defend their fragile political views when arguing with random people on line.

As for the claim of it being an ad hom, actually, it is not. It is not an insult in place of address an argument. Wouldn't even call it much of an insult itself so much as an observation about those who promote violence in the modern left. Unfavorable observation, of course, but not much of an insult to call a spade, a spade regardless how offended the spade itself my get about it.

But do note that I address several points and take my time doing that, not relying on insult or casually handwaving things away. Thie observation is just an additional that my position neither relies itself on nor uses alone as an argument. That you take offense to the description of those who I referred to (namely, those who willingly use violence in response to their political disagreements) is noted, but that does not make it an ad hom just because you chose to be offended by it rather than address the point itself.

People claiming to be on the side of "common sense" are typically people whose arguments are far more flimsy than they are willing to admit. You thinking that your argument is self-evident does not excuse you from making it. And no, nothing that you have offered thus far has demonstrated your argument to any logically satisfactory degree.

You are right that saying an argument is self-evident does not make it so. Fortunately I did not make that claim either. I probably could have, with a side-by-side comparison of the reasons for action of the America revolutionaries and the modern radical violent left such as antifa. Would be very self-evident that they were different when you can outright compare and contrasts.

But yes, you do make one valid point that claiming self-evidence does not make it so. But since I never did, I don't need to worry there. I said history disagreed, and it does. As does the other aspects (common sense, basic reasoning, and reality itself). But while I think is very obvious, I wasn't going to say self-evident. I learned long ago that you will always be disappointed in assuming things are self-evident to those who wish to argue with you online.

Now, your claims about my positions though does make it easy to disregard your lack of being satisfied. When you can't even represent my position correctly, let alone argue against what I actually said, the fact you aren't satisfied comes off more as a failing on your part for being unable, or simply intentionally unwilling, to understand my positions and arguments.

Hard to convince someone of something when they aren't willing to listen to what you are actually saying.

I don't know enough about gymnastics to be able to predict your score, but if there is any justice in the mental-gymnastics league it'll be a record breaker, I'm sure.

You know, in making an insult instead of addressing the point, you actually HAVE made an ad hom here. Kinda like when you called my reply condescending tripe before, or when you called it uncritical and naive, or when you inferred it was propaganda. You know, similar to how you begin almost all your replies, only without even the attempt to put an argument alongside your blatant dismissals you attempt to justify by insults.

Would you care to try to address this claim itself the next time around though? The claim being that it is not inconsistent for descendants of colonialists to want the laws of the nation to be followed regarding immigration.

I mean, I know you waste most of your, and my, time misrepresenting my actual positions and arguments making strawmen, and trying to insult me, but it would be nice to see what your point is behind all this nonsense.

runic knight:

Wouldn't say genocidal, considering they worked with, or traded with, a lot of the natives as much as warred with them during the times of the colonies, and most of the large scale violence occurred after the nation was established and started pushing westward to expand.

Oh, that's okay then: they merely slaughtered most of the Native Americans west of the Eastern seaboard. Only 95% or so of them eliminated, and the remainder ethnically cleansed into worthless patches of desert - hardly worth even calling a genocide.

Saelune:

You know Mexicans don't live in huts right? And why is the centuries of native American pride, struggle and strife less valid than US Americans who have been here way less than they?

It isn't/wasn't. We're (European Americans) merely the latest dominant occupants of the territory, and for better or worse, primarily responsible its greatest cultivation (and raping). But having said that, I again would ask how many people living in this country today would be willing to go back to what it was like before any of that. Furthermore, most people come here now because of those advancements that they don't yet have or are able to obtain in their current territory.

bastardofmelbourne:

Imagine a bunch of aliens visited Earth and brought with them an alien form of smallpox that wipes out 95% of the Earth's population. Then, two generations later, some more aliens visit Earth and go "Wow, look at all these vast and empty ruins of great cities - and these strange savage beings living in squalor amongst them! Let's come live here, there's tons of space." And then over the next five hundred years, humanity is slowly pushed out of the cities they built by aliens with space lasers - who drive humanity into the barren parts of the world, hunt humanity's own livestock to extinction, disintegrate humans when they try to poach alien crops to eat, and mine the shit out of Mount Rushmore to look for space gold or something. And once there's no more space left to drive the humans into, the aliens create "human reservations" out in the middle of the nowhere where the humans can live in peace - though they still depend on the aliens for food and resources, because the aliens appropriated all the arable land and useful resources, and ultimately end up working menial jobs in service to wealthier aliens under a constant crushing weight of low-yield prejudice, while suffering vastly higher rates of crime and sexual assault - mostly from aliens targeting humans - than the average alien citizen would.

And then imagine that an alien living in the United Alien States of Earth goes onto the Space Internet and says "It's ultimately a good thing that we came to Earth. We had a plan for how to build this planet into what it is today. It involved corruption and injustice of great proportions, to be sure, but how many people living today would prefer the alternative?"

What would you say to that alien?

How many Australians are willing to go back to the Aboriginal way of life? The U.S. is just one of the latest in a long list of global imperialists. Our star is likely fading though, and it's highly likely those who replace us will mark the pendulum swinging back in the opposite direction. How good or bad that is for the unprecedented swath of culture that currently resides here now ultimately depends on how much one has to lose, I suppose.

Another question: will it ever not be human nature to pursue ventures that ultimately cause injustice to one group of another? I never understood how, if the entire human race is really supposed to be on an even keel that we wound up so differently; especially if we all originated from the same background. Perhaps we're still bound to the laws of nature, no matter how much we try to distance ourselves from them.

Abomination:
A country's absolute authority is recognized by its borders and it can do what it desires to those who have willingly entered it without its permission.

I hope you don't really believe this.

hanselthecaretaker:

Saelune:

You know Mexicans don't live in huts right? And why is the centuries of native American pride, struggle and strife less valid than US Americans who have been here way less than they?

It isn?t/wasn?t. We?re (European Americans) merely the latest dominant occupants of the territory, and for better or worse, primarily responsible its greatest cultivation (and raping). But having said that, I again would ask how many people living in this country today would be willing to go back to what it was like before any of that. Furthermore, most people come here now because of those advancements that they don?t yet have or are able to obtain in their current territory.

I am not asking us to go back, I am just asking we be aware of our history.

I mean, if you wanna look it that way sure, but I disagree.

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
The United States can choose to accept more or less immigrants from whatever country they deem worthy, much like any other country can choose to do

This is not actually germane to the question of what should a country do at the border. Yes, a country could just slaughter everyone who goes there.

A country should do what is in the country's best interests for the prosperity of its citizens.

I admit the US is pretty backwards when it comes to the registration of its citizens compared to other developed nations, and having a genuine federal identification system and not the retarded social security number system.

Point is, efficient taxation and management of social resources requires the country have a firm understanding of its inhabitants. The US has none of these.

Saelune:

Abomination:
A country's absolute authority is recognized by its borders and it can do what it desires to those who have willingly entered it without its permission.

I hope you don't really believe this.

I do not want countries to do whatever they want to those who enter their borders without permission but to preserve national sovereignty they need to possess the authority to do so.

Hypothetical situation, if a busload of people just entered the US without authorization what genuine obligation does the US have towards those people? The US needs to expend resources to remove them or be willing to accept them and expend more resources. The more humane the method the more resources need to be expended. The US is already under no obligation to these people who have knowingly, willingly, illegally entered the country. Ethically they can remove them in the cheapest way possible - that, unfortunately, would likely require violence to succeed.

Zontar:

Saelune:

No one who voted for Trump prioritized the American people. None. They prioritized rich white straight men who hate them just a bit less than they hate non-whites and LGBT people.

You know, for someone who loves to chastise people who didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party for "effectively voting for Trump", you seem awfully dedicated to hurting the Democrats as much as possible. If I didn't know better I'd think you where actually a Republican trying to smear Democrats while pretending to be one.

Saelune keeps on attacking Bernie supporters, so she's trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

WolvDragon:

Zontar:

Saelune:

No one who voted for Trump prioritized the American people. None. They prioritized rich white straight men who hate them just a bit less than they hate non-whites and LGBT people.

You know, for someone who loves to chastise people who didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party for "effectively voting for Trump", you seem awfully dedicated to hurting the Democrats as much as possible. If I didn't know better I'd think you where actually a Republican trying to smear Democrats while pretending to be one.

Saelune keeps on attacking Bernie supporters, so she's trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

The Bernie supporters on this site keep attacking people who understand how voting works, so they are trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

Abomination:

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
The United States can choose to accept more or less immigrants from whatever country they deem worthy, much like any other country can choose to do

This is not actually germane to the question of what should a country do at the border. Yes, a country could just slaughter everyone who goes there.

A country should do what is in the country's best interests for the prosperity of its citizens.

I admit the US is pretty backwards when it comes to the registration of its citizens compared to other developed nations, and having a genuine federal identification system and not the retarded social security number system.

Point is, efficient taxation and management of social resources requires the country have a firm understanding of its inhabitants. The US has none of these.

Saelune:

Abomination:
A country's absolute authority is recognized by its borders and it can do what it desires to those who have willingly entered it without its permission.

I hope you don't really believe this.

I do not want countries to do whatever they want to those who enter their borders without permission but to preserve national sovereignty they need to possess the authority to do so.

Hypothetical situation, if a busload of people just entered the US without authorization what genuine obligation does the US have towards those people? The US needs to expend resources to remove them or be willing to accept them and expend more resources. The more humane the method the more resources need to be expended. The US is already under no obligation to these people who have knowingly, willingly, illegally entered the country. Ethically they can remove them in the cheapest way possible - that, unfortunately, would likely require violence to succeed.

Morality > Resources. Fuck Thanos.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Zontar:

You know, for someone who loves to chastise people who didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party for "effectively voting for Trump", you seem awfully dedicated to hurting the Democrats as much as possible. If I didn't know better I'd think you where actually a Republican trying to smear Democrats while pretending to be one.

Saelune keeps on attacking Bernie supporters, so she's trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

The Bernie supporters on this site keep attacking people who understand how voting works, so they are trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

I seen your posts where you go after Bernie and some of his supporters, you're not doing the left any favors by dividing us like that. He didn't make Hillary lose the election, it was her horrible policies.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune keeps on attacking Bernie supporters, so she's trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

The Bernie supporters on this site keep attacking people who understand how voting works, so they are trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

I seen your posts where you go after Bernie and some of his supporters, you're not doing the left any favors by dividing us like that. He didn't make Hillary lose the election, it was her horrible policies.

I didn't divide anything. I am just pointing out who did.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
The Bernie supporters on this site keep attacking people who understand how voting works, so they are trying to keep the left divided and that makes us weaker.

I seen your posts where you go after Bernie and some of his supporters, you're not doing the left any favors by dividing us like that. He didn't make Hillary lose the election, it was her horrible policies.

I didn't divide anything. I am just pointing out who did.

Uh you are. Maybe Zontar's right, you could be a republican in disguise trying to undermine the left.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

I seen your posts where you go after Bernie and some of his supporters, you're not doing the left any favors by dividing us like that. He didn't make Hillary lose the election, it was her horrible policies.

I didn't divide anything. I am just pointing out who did.

Uh you are. Maybe Zontar's right, you could be a republican in disguise trying to undermine the left.

I don't see you working to bridge the gap. And you're the one defending Trump in multiple arguments I am having with you across the site right now, not me.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
I didn't divide anything. I am just pointing out who did.

Uh you are. Maybe Zontar's right, you could be a republican in disguise trying to undermine the left.

I don't see you working to bridge the gap. And you're the one defending Trump in multiple arguments I am having with you across the site right now, not me.

Where am I defending Trump? I am not defending his policies, show me where I am defending that cretin.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Uh you are. Maybe Zontar's right, you could be a republican in disguise trying to undermine the left.

I don't see you working to bridge the gap. And you're the one defending Trump in multiple arguments I am having with you across the site right now, not me.

Where am I defending Trump? I am not defending his policies, show me where I am defending that cretin.

Every time you go 'but Obama, but Hillary'. The argument about how Trump is making things worse, you are taking the position he is not. That is a defense of Trump.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
I don't see you working to bridge the gap. And you're the one defending Trump in multiple arguments I am having with you across the site right now, not me.

Where am I defending Trump? I am not defending his policies, show me where I am defending that cretin.

Every time you go 'but Obama, but Hillary'. The argument about how Trump is making things worse, you are taking the position he is not. That is a defense of Trump.

You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that he is continuing business as usual. I'm not gonna pretend everything was fine and dandy under those two.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Where am I defending Trump? I am not defending his policies, show me where I am defending that cretin.

Every time you go 'but Obama, but Hillary'. The argument about how Trump is making things worse, you are taking the position he is not. That is a defense of Trump.

You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that he is continuing business as usual. I'm not gonna pretend everything was fine and dandy under those two.

Neither am I. Things could have been better, but that doesn't justify it getting worse.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Every time you go 'but Obama, but Hillary'. The argument about how Trump is making things worse, you are taking the position he is not. That is a defense of Trump.

You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that he is continuing business as usual. I'm not gonna pretend everything was fine and dandy under those two.

Neither am I. Things could have been better, but that doesn't justify it getting worse.

Under Queen Hillary I'm sure things would've gotten worse.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that he is continuing business as usual. I'm not gonna pretend everything was fine and dandy under those two.

Neither am I. Things could have been better, but that doesn't justify it getting worse.

Under Queen Hillary I'm sure things would've gotten worse.

That is a dumb insult and you know it. Trump is an oligarch and a nepotist.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Neither am I. Things could have been better, but that doesn't justify it getting worse.

Under Queen Hillary I'm sure things would've gotten worse.

That is a dumb insult and you know it. Trump is an oligarch and a nepotist.

Well yeah and a wanna be dictator.

Saelune:
Morality > Resources. Fuck Thanos.

Those who have the luxury to debate morality are those with the resources.

runic knight:

Does this mention have a purpose related to my point? I am genuinely curious if the lack of mention of the fact Spain had colonies as well (or other european nations I didn't mention either such as netherlands) has any baring at all to the point being made that colonialists, unlike immigrants, aren't planning on leaving their nationality behind them.

Because I can't for the life of me see how it matters to that point at all. Seems like pedantic nit-picking for the sake of trying to antagonize.

Its just an apt demonstration of how you view Spanish/Portugeuse colonists as somehow different to French and English speaking ones. There were/are far, far, far fewer descendents of French speaking colonists in the Americas and in the U.S. than Spanish. But Spanish as opposed to French speaking has become associated with non-European-ness (weirdly, as a european) so your go to was French. Its paper thin.

Also lol, I'm trying to antagonize? You are doing the exact thing you complain about me doing in the post that I was replying to. Lets all enjoy this wonderful antagonism-free discussion, shall we?:

runic knight:

Oh for the love of...

You just parrot this stuff you hear others saying that you think support your political opinions without even thinking about it, don't you? I have seen this same opinion spammed across twitter, facebook and other sites all week, complete with the same flaws and irrationality behind it. Well, lets tackle it again.

Smug beyond belief. Truly, there's no bar so low that you couldn't condescendingly inform it that you could make a lower one.

Other examples of anti-antagonism?:

But I might as well address it's flaws anyways. I don't want to get into a big side-discussion on your attempts to validate the OP's equating, but might as well hit the basic points.

Oh? You might as well hit the "basic" points? That's so kind of you.

Also, do you really think that what you typed to me constitutes avoiding a big side discussion? Its absolutely astonishing either A) how much you enjoy posting so many superfluous words or B) how much you do something you don't enjoy that much for absolutely no reason. All the while patting yourself on the back like you are doing this great favour to humankind by bestowing your wisdom through impenetrably long diatribes full to the brim with condescending, self-congratulatory waffling.

To top it off, at the end of all that passive-aggressive belittling you seem genuinely confused that people don't agree with you. Its mesmerizing.

You can, but I don't have any incentive to address it because it is an irrelevant non-sequitur that avoids my points and instead wastes time complaining about "the right" as if that matters in the least to a single point I made or somehow undoes a single problem I called out.

But I might as well address it's flaws anyways. I don't want to get into a big side-discussion on your attempts to validate the OP's equating, but might as well hit the basic points.

Oh runic. I'm so glad you complained about antagonism. You really are a dream. Honestly though, there's no need to be coy. Don't feel the need to bat down my opinion as being not worth your time only to a paragraph later say that you suppose you could get into some of the simpler points with me. Those simple points apparently making up several very long paragraphs. I dread to think what the complicated version was going to be.

1st snip

See point 3.

2nd. Pointing out hypocrisy usual requires you not commit it. In this case, in saying europeans were unjust in their claiming of native american lands (a complicated claim itself as some was stolen outright, some was bought and paid for, some was given, and some was claimed with war), you invalidate every nation on the planet (name one that hasn't used any of the previously mentioned methods to obtain, claim, or defend the claim of land), and by extension invalidate any claim that there is a "rightful" owner of said land in the first place.

Or to sum it up more directly, why is it unjust when colonialists took land and resources from the native tribes, but not when the native tribes took the land and resources from other native tribes? Or when tribes took it from smaller gatherings of humans and proto humans as the evolved. Hence the hypocrisy while trying to call it out for such.

The difference is that when native people took land from other native people, they very rarely exterminated the culture that remained. For all your talk of equation, this has to be the most absurd equation of them all. Native tribes lived under not the same, but similar government and social systems. The difference to a native person between living under a different tribe in a colonist-free North America and living on a colonist designated renovation is massive.

3rd. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen equates the two. They are different yet you use them interchangeably.

No it doesn't. I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion, frankly. Here is the argument:

1) Native Americans originally occupy and "own" the land.
2) Colonists come to North America and take land unjustly (Through conquest, etc)
3) Colonists form U.S. from stolen land
4) U.S. claims that illegal immigration to the U.S. is unjust

Conclusion: The U.S. is hypocritical.

Citizens do not have to equal illegal immigrants for them to also have as much justifiable claim to ownership as each other. They do not have to share the exact same charateristics, but to reject immigrants (illegal or otherwise) as having no claim while your claim is knowingly manufactored is hypocritical.

Now, you can also add to that conclusion that every country that restricts immigration is also hypocritical and to a degree you would be right; but not in any similar degree as the U.S. The U.S. needed vast numbers of people to fill all that land it stole. It is a country built and arguably founded on immigration with the parodoxical desire to despise any immigrant group at the behest of a conservative narrative.

There is a statue in one of the most famous immigrant ports in the country dedicated to immigration and liberty, a focul point of U.S. culture. Immigration from Europe has changed demograpics across the country. This sudden rejection of immigration is mindblowingly short-sighted.

4th. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen also commits the exact problem I called out before, that of equating immigration with colonization since you use it in relation to discussing that topic. That you laughed off my calling that problem out only to repeat that equating does have me scratching my head, but it doesn't stop it from still being as flawed as it was from the start. Immigrants are moving into a new nation with hopes of joining it and benefiting from it as a nation. Colonist are moving to new lands with hope of claiming them for their parent nation. Saying they equate is saying that immigrants want to claim american lands for their own nations, a claim that, again, I would hope people supporting immigration would know better than to try to make.

You are describing the actions of individuals by the motivation of the group. What makes you think that individual colonists moving to North America gave a damn about "claiming land for their parent nation"? They wanted to live somewhere else, often to be free of religious or other persecution, sometimes fleeing famine or war. In that sense, there is so much more similarity between these colonists and illegal immigrants. They were people looking for a different, better life. Is there really no comparison to be made?

5th snip

This is just a bunch of nonsense. I'm fully aware that nations can go to war, but thanks for checking up on me. Who knows, I could have had a stroke reading this thesis of a reply.

As for the rest, I'm not asking if nations "can" restrict immigration and cage children. Evidently they can. I'm asking if its justifiable.

The difference is legality.

Right. Its not a convenient difference to distance yourself from an acknowldged mistake, its a solidly upheld moral principle. Gotcha.

The ones you mentioned first, the Irish, the italian, the german, the spanish, they were never celebrated in their own time to begin with (remember, they were outright denied employment when they first came over and forced to live in ghettos), but they were allowed because they were legally processed.

"allowed"? Denied employment, harrased and killed, but "allowed"? That's your standard?

If legal immigration isn't a problem, why is Trump eliminating the family lottery, one of the few legal ways to immigrate to the U.S.? The intention of the current administration is obvious from its actions and supporters and enablers of that administration are responsible as well.

Tell me, given your criticism of what was very obviously simple breakdown of things to demonstrate the problem with the claim about the rebels being terrorist, was the over-simplification of events in any way undermining my actual point that the rebels were not terrorists?

Your interpretation is so simplistic that it is missing nuance. What of U.S. revolutionary captains who pirated British ships? What of the other less savoury elements of the war of independence that you are not mentioning? Are those not more similar to terrorism? Are you really arguing that the rebels weren't willing to commit atrocities considering the revenge attacks that happened to the natives that sided with the British?

Its an insincere comparison. You are arguing in bad faith.

Did I say there was no similarity?
Did I say there was no problems with voting districts?
Did I say those complaining about voting issues were "cry-baby liberals?

Yes, Yes and no, I added that one; but on further analysis you'd probably call them the "radical left". Anyway, I'll bold it for you:

That is very different than today where many people are encouraging violence as a response to not getting their way in a democratic republic where they DO have right to voice their concerns and vote on representatives. That is also very different on the basis of a lot of the people demanding being treated like citizens are not actual citizens of the nation they want to direct how to run what way.

"people not being able to vote on representatives" is Porto Rico still having no right to vote and in many U.S. states. gerrymandering.

Video is unavailable.
Furthermore, if you can't translate the video into your own words, you shouldn't bother arguing the point in the first place. I can get calling in a source, but don't expect me to watch a video in place of your actual argument. Doing so makes me think you don't actually have one and I wont waste my time watching what you link me to when you can't even give it context.

Oh ho ho, spicy words. What, am I wasting your valuable time, dear denzien of the internet willing to type 100s of lines when 10 would do?

So as not to waste your time, I will describe exactly what happens in the video: A black man is being arrested by police, he is sitting on the curb recieving contradictory instructions from two officers. The man attempts to cross his legs (as ordered by one officer) and is tased by the other officer. the man remained seated and calm until the taser hits him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i27bfjfdVGQ
It was in reference to this point:

On the revolutionary side, you have people with no peaceful recourse, who were denied actual rights, had no means to vote for them, and were taxed and punished unfairly despite being legal citizens themselves, and who when even declaring freedom, were attacked and pressed into a war to justify their very human rights to speak freely, to arm themselves, and to be able to vote.

The more things change the more they stay the same, hm?

Wouldn't even call it much of an insult itself so much as an observation about those who promote violence in the modern left.

This is just ridiculous. "Observing" that you think someone is overweight is insulting. "Observing" that you think someone needs the basic facts fed to them is insulting. I'm mystified that you don't understand.

Thie observation is just an additional that my position neither relies itself on nor uses alone as an argument.

An addition that you use to feel superior about yourself. Its purely for your own benefit and very obviously so. Its the fuel for your dismisal of others.

Saelune:

Zontar:

erttheking:

Also a reminder, the majority of GOP voters are a-ok with locking kids in cages.

What Democrats pretend it is:

image

What it really is:

image

Reminder that Obama put kids in cages and Democrats didn't pretend to care.

The answer is no. Anyone who blames Obama is factually wrong. Trump was the one who made a policy of putting children in cages, separated from their family. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed, or outright lying.

Saelune:

Zontar:

erttheking:

Also a reminder, the majority of GOP voters are a-ok with locking kids in cages.

What Democrats pretend it is:

image

What it really is:

image

Reminder that Obama put kids in cages and Democrats didn't pretend to care.

The answer is no. Anyone who blames Obama is factually wrong. Trump was the one who made a policy of putting children in cages, separated from their family. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed, or outright lying.

CNN is lying as usual, Obama did put kids in cages. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html
Don't fall for CNN's lies they're as much bad as Fox News.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Also a reminder, the majority of GOP voters are a-ok with locking kids in cages.

What Democrats pretend it is:

image

What it really is:

image

Reminder that Obama put kids in cages and Democrats didn't pretend to care.

Here's another source for that http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html

Abomination:
Those who have the luxury to debate morality are those with the resources.

Not entirely. Sometimes morality is the argument of those without resources to attempt to secure them; and sometimes it is the consoling high ground of losers for resources.

runic knight:
Agema, I know you like...

Given that antagonism and desire to eliminate and dispossess the native Americans long predated independence, and the resentment of European powers' restraints on freely doing so (which was a major contributor to desire for independence), I do not think it is safe to neatly compartmentalise into a before and after. The main difference is merely that in the before, there were limits imposed by the distant motherland(s).

Agema:

runic knight:
Agema, I know you like...

Given that antagonism and desire to eliminate and dispossess the native Americans long predated independence, and the resentment of European powers' restraints on freely doing so (which was a major contributor to desire for independence), I do not think it is safe to neatly compartmentalise into a before and after. The main difference is merely that in the before, there were limits imposed by the distant motherland(s).

So you agree with my point of distinction that prior to independence and the rise of manifest destiny, there was not the intent to commit actual genocide by the governing bodies that led and maintained the colonies?
Ok, apology accepted then.

runic knight:
So you agree with my point of distinction...

Had that been the point of distinction you made, you might have a point. However, you have never meaningfully referred to "governing bodies" before that comment, instead referring to various vaguer, collective terms (colonials, America, etc.).

Agema:

runic knight:
So you agree with my point of distinction...

Had that been the point of distinction you made, you might have a point. However, you have never meaningfully referred to "governing bodies" before that comment, instead referring to various vaguer, collective terms (colonials, America, etc.).

I see. I would have thought that by referring to them as colonialists, and having explained before how colonialists were distinct in how they not want to join a new nation but rather were acting on behalf of another nation to get resources, it would at least strongly imply that they were colonists acting in the intentions of, and beholden to the rules of, the parent nation.

I suppose making it a clear point of distinction from immigrants that they are part of another nation, and thus beholden to the laws and intentions of that nation (to the point a revolutionary was was needed to break free) was missed in your rush to reply to me. Despite that the distinction I made was based entirely around the difference of colonialists and the actual american citizenship in the first place.

That is fine, we seemed to have reach an agreement that my point was right.

runic knight:

I see. I would have thought that by referring to them as colonialists, and having explained before how colonialists were distinct in how they not want to join a new nation but rather were acting on behalf of another nation to get resources...

That's not really true, though. Or at best, it's only partly true. European colonists moved to North America chiefly as individuals seeking a new (better) life and opportunities - some were even explicitly trying to get away from their home nation. The colonies had extensive autonomy, and repeatedly rebuffed attempts to install greater control from the home nations - culminating as we all know in their ultimate decision to go their own way. Consequently it is plainly illogical to assert that the will of the colonists and the government of their home nation were identical.

I suppose making it a clear point of distinction...

To most people, "clear" would be something explicitly stated in a relevant context. A torturously-derived implication from another topic, however, could only be called "clear" for self-serving rhetoric. That (as above) the implication is based on an erroneous notion merely makes it even less compelling.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here