Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

/jediwave

These are not the droids you're looking for.

Nice try? Be less words to just type "You were right, Joph."

Since when does contradicting yourself make you "right".... Oh.. I get it, you and Gbaji are friends now.... sharing tactics now aren't we?

I can do this all day... the onus is on you to support your "arbitrary is arbitrary" statement since I challenged it first. I'm not going down some mystery trail of fairy tales because you can't man up to say that your statement is wrong..

If you can support your statement, then I'll have no choice but to respond.

Still nothing?!!! Oh, I guess you think if you keep throwing the ball in my court that I will just some how forget about your contradiction. I guess that's almost like having a real strategy! "Contradiction no jutsu!!"

Yeah, the whole "throw back" thing doesn't work when Gbaji does it either.

And what would those be?

They didn't really have much to work with. The grammar doesn't really matter. You're correct in what 'of' refers to, but it's still part of the name, and citizen names come out of the name of the country.

Not normal, but can still happen. Typically if this happened in a social setting, the rest of the smiths would go by some other name to avoid confusion, just like American! It happens the other way with first names all the time, mostly because calling people by their first name is generally more common.

Is this STILL a retarded etymology discussion?

Interesting indeed that you are able to twist an entire block of text. If you didn't realize, we have TWO main political parties that have (or at least pretend to have) very different ideas and beliefs. This isn't about me, as I'm an independent. You asked for examples, I gave you examples. If you don't like them, then fine, but don't try to twist this around as a personal grudge.

The reality is, the nation is "divided" on many issues, but certain people make the decisions for the people without much of the people's intervention. Much of that is played from the media as we try to become so "politically correct" in not offending people and creating this illusion of togetherness. In order to make news, the media will blow things out of proportion while forcing a change of acceptance to feed into this illusion.



Trying to please everyone in a diverse group is literally an impossible task. You end up wasting a lot of resources on scenarios that shouldn't receive that much attention if any. Some things should be carefully examined, while others should not.

This all goes back to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". We teach that concept going to other nations, but we void it when people come to the U.S.



Nice try, but you were the one who said "Arbitrary is Arbitrary" then immediately contradicted yourself. It doesn't make any sense for me to address a stance with hypothetical boundaries as if we are discussing reality. You either believe your statement "Arbitrary is Arbitrary" (where the drinking age of 5 is equally as arbitrary as the drinking age of 21) or you believe that arbitrary is not always arbitrary (there is some reason involved that makes a distinction between two arbitrary numbers).

It's one or the other. You can't pick and choose varying on the debate. You presented your statement under one pretense pretending to believe scenario A, but in reality believe (as what we actually practice) scenario B.



I'm not a history buff, so feel free to make any corrections.

Patriots, Whigs, Rebels, Revolutionaries, Colonists, Loyalists, Tories,etc



If the U.S. were one of the FIRST nations, then I could buy that argument. At the time of the creation of the U.S., naming conventions were already standardized. France was French, Britain was British, China was Chinese, Japan was Japanese, etc.

So, to think that not a single person thought about the naming convention of their citizens when creating a name for their new nation, given their current many names, would be silly.



Read above, there are numerous of other countries that are named in the same way, but aren't abbreviated as such. This was a choice.



I never seen that happen. Usually the newest addition to the names gets the altered name. The original people keep their original names. For example, if there's already a Jonathon and another Jonathon comes around, then the second one is abbreviated to "Jon". If a third Jonathon comes around, then his name will be abbreviated to "J" or his middle name or last name of a combination such as "J.T".

In any of those cases, I've never seen the newest person causing everyone prior to change their names or to go by something different.

Furthermore, none of that matters as my point is on the fact that the U.S. would want to be simply called Americans as opposed to something more unique. We already agreed that it is a "legitimate" term.

Yes, unless you can get Gbaji to explain how White people not wanting to live with Black people, according to his source, is evidence of black people self-segregating themselves and causing self-harm (even though according to his source, Black people want to live in integrated communities).

That's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question.

The "that's really sort of a non-answer there, isn't it?" part was the rhetorical question. But thanks for proving, again, that your reading comprehension is lacking.