Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#652 Mar 31 2011 at 6:42 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Samira wrote:
No.

And I'll tell you why: it's pointless.

You have a problem. I don't know whether it's a thinking problem or a communication problem; but whatever it is, it prevents you from either understanding or relating ideas more complex than a simple linear conclusion. You can get from A to B as long as there's a clear path; but as soon as another variable, or God forbid a relevant vector, intervenes you lose it. You probably don't even realize that other people aren't like you.

I have no underlying compulsion to play into your disability. I don't get a kick out of it, and I don't think it does any good.

Sorry.


Soooooooo basically you have nothing. You could have explained it in less words than the paragraph above. I asked for clarification and gave you the benefit with out a doubt that I possibly misread the post. That tells you that I'm being reasonable in admitting any error on my part. Instead, you pull the "I know, I know, I know, but I'm not going to tell you" game, which makes you look real childish.

If you're not going to make a correction, then don't bother pointing out mistakes. You're just wasting space, as this is grown up talk with no room for children and their petty games.

Edit: I thought of another possible interpretation, but after rereading the post in question, I seriously doubt that was the intent. If it were, I would have an answer anyway.


That's interesting*. you didn't believe that a year ago.

*Not really.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#653 Mar 31 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Nadenu wrote:
What Sam said.

And no, I won't explain.


Oh, so you're in the same boat with Samira.... got it... I could understand if it were like 3 or 4 times already. In this case, I took you literally, so if you weren't literal, but abstract, then you should explain yourself as not everyone will initially understand your abstraction.

With no initial explanation, that tells me that I was initially right, you just failed to read before posting. Now, instead of just admitting that you have misspoken, you're pretending that there is this secret interpretation that you wont say.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#654 Mar 31 2011 at 6:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
She told you in @#%^ing clear English that a clinically retarded child could understand.

Please tell me that you don't have the Downs.



It's a very simple concept. I have a different interpretation of her post and am asking for an explanation. If that makes me a clinically retarded child with Down syndrome, then so be it. If you're not going to take the time to explain yourself if someone initially doesn't understands you, then STFU.

Edit:

Kavekk wrote:
That's interesting*. you didn't believe that a year ago.

*Not really.


Not sure what you mean.

Edited, Mar 31st 2011 3:03pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#655 Mar 31 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The term "America/n", as much as the U.S. owns it, is not a unique term, but we use it as such.
Why do you have a problem with this, or think it ties in with some lack of identity or whatever. It wasn't a unique term, now it is. America actually is less specific then Americans.

wiki has a pretty clear statement really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_U.S._citizens

It was originally a term referring to the larger group, it is now, by and large specifically a term referring to people from the states. That doesn't imply anything like what you're saying though, and neither is it a problem.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#656 Mar 31 2011 at 6:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
The term "America/n", as much as the U.S. owns it, is not a unique term, but we use it as such.
Why do you have a problem with this, or think it ties in with some lack of identity or whatever. It wasn't a unique term, now it is. America actually is less specific then Americans.

wiki has a pretty clear statement really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_U.S._citizens

It was originally a term referring to the larger group, it is now, by and large specifically a term referring to people from the states. That doesn't imply anything like what you're saying though, and neither is it a problem.


Hi! Nice of you to join the conversation! How about reading the multiple counters already stated to your statement that was already mentioned multiple times over...

I mean for Pete's sake, you quote the same exact link that I posted and referred to later.

There should definitely be a rule on posting without reading..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#657 Mar 31 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
I've been skimming it, and this counters that last half dozen posts you've made pretty well. The link doesn't show what you want it to show.

you're making statements that aren't necessarily false, but then you draw a line from them to a conclusion that doesn't follow.

Edited, Mar 31st 2011 8:09pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#658 Apr 01 2011 at 2:06 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
You know, if everyone else also put Alma on ignore, he might just leave.

Just putting it out there.
But then how is Joph ever going to reach 100000 posts?


Gbaji. The same way he reached 50k. Smiley: tongue


Am I really the only one who doesn't see that much of a slippery slope between mass-ignoring Alma and mass-ignoring gbaji?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#659 Apr 01 2011 at 3:38 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
Most of gbaji's arguments are him being a partisan hack. Alma's arguments are born of a level of stupidity that hurts us all. Maybe it's just a matter of preference. The person who alerted me to the ignore function uses it to filter out gbaji.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#660 Apr 01 2011 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Also, I think gbaji's a pretty normal poster when it comes to non-political matters. Alma's posts uniformly bear the mark of whatever learning disability he's got, no matter what the subject matter.

Edited, Apr 1st 2011 12:38pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#661 Apr 03 2011 at 3:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I've been skimming it, and this counters that last half dozen posts you've made pretty well. The link doesn't show what you want it to show.

you're making statements that aren't necessarily false, but then you draw a line from them to a conclusion that doesn't follow.

Edited, Mar 31st 2011 8:09pm by Xsarus


For someone who hasn't been reading, you sure do think to have a grasp on the concept. Guess what? The link shows exactly what I want it to show, because you said the same exact thing that I said. If you had read that, then you would have known that.

All you have done is support my argument, but because you have no clue what is being discussed, you just assumed that I was wrong. Ironically, you just supported my argument. Thanks..

You quoted the same exact link, with you saying the same exact thing that I said.... sheesh, stop making up excuses for not reading.

Eske wrote:
Also, I think gbaji's a pretty normal poster when it comes to non-political matters. Alma's posts uniformly bear the mark of whatever learning disability he's got, no matter what the subject matter.


Thanks,

I pride myself on being uniform, something that many posters are not here. Confusing "logic" with a "learning disability", is quite funny.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2011 1:02pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#662 Apr 03 2011 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But then how is Joph ever going to reach 100000 posts?
Gbaji. The same way he reached 50k. Smiley: tongue

51,776 vs 23,555
LERN2MATH.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#663 Apr 03 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But then how is Joph ever going to reach 100000 posts?
Gbaji. The same way he reached 50k. Smiley: tongue

51,776 vs 23,555
LERN2MATH.
Honestly though, to reply to all 23555 pages you should be running atleast a 3:1, probably more like 4:1.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#664 Apr 03 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
But then how is Joph ever going to reach 100000 posts?
Gbaji. The same way he reached 50k. Smiley: tongue

51,776 vs 23,555
LERN2MATH.
Honestly though, to reply to all 23555 pages you should be running atleast a 3:1, probably more like 4:1.
this.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#665 Apr 03 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
The U.S doesn't have an identity ... we use the term "Americans" instead of a term that's only applicable for the U.S.
This is the place where I was referring to you making a logical connection that doesn't exist.
Quote:
Other languages have terms for U.S. citizens, so I'm sure we could do the same if we really wanted to.
Yes, Most of them are Americans.
Quote:
So, there is no identifying name for the U.S country among the other 50 countries and you say that isn't indicative of not having an identity?


So the link pretty clearly establishes that in fact there is an identifying name for the U.S, and that's it American. The fact that it didn't used to mean only that is irrelevant, Americans took the name for themselves, which honestly fits with the American identity pretty nicely. It also doesn't take away from American identity if someone else calls themselves American as well. You seem to be saying in other posts that because it used to refer to something else, it can't now refer to just the U.S. but I'm sorry to say that's not how language and words work. Besides, you haven't defended your basic premise that is in the third quote above.

Then you went off on the hilarious tangent about how you guys don't have a language called American, which pretty much established that you were way off the deep end as everyone listed off all the many countries that don't have a unique language.

I mean, I have no problem with someone arguing that Americans don't have an identity, but to base your argument on the fact that they call themselves Americans is laughable.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2011 5:43pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#666 Apr 03 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
I know I'm "shooting myself in the foot" by making a long post to someone who doesn't read or just "skims", but I'll give it a go.. At least you read a little bit more this time. Since you took the time out to correct yourself, I'll assist you..


TL:DR Everything we said up until to the conclusion is the exact same thing. You interpret the conclusion as an "identity" and I don't.


Sir X wrote:
This is the place where I was referring to you making a logical connection that doesn't exist.
Yet, you haven't provided anything to the contrary.

Sir X wrote:
Yes, Most of them are Americans.


Which wasn't the point. The point was that the U.S. CHOSE not to create an exclusively identifiable term for that's only applicable to the U.S. The fact that OTHER countries, i.e. SOUTH and CENTRAL AMERICA, have developed other terminology that does just that is evident that it is/was possible to do so. The rest of the world doesn't care because they are not Americans. Do you find it a coincidence that only other countries in the Americas have made those distinctions?

Sir X wrote:
So the link pretty clearly establishes that in fact there is an identifying name for the U.S, and that's it American.


No, it stated that the U.S. took an already existing name that referenced an entire land mass to represent the U.S. Once again, that's exactly what I stated and what you stated.
I was never arguing in the literal sense, as simply having a name or boundary is "identifiable". I've stated numerous times that the U.S. Deeboed the term "America". So, I was never arguing that the term doesn't primarily exclusively represent the U.S., but the fact that they chose that term, shows a lack of an identity as the term "American" represents to citizens who live in the Americas.

Sir X wrote:
The fact that it didn't used to mean only that is irrelevant, Americans took the name for themselves,


Le sigh.... You all can't go around and label EVERYTHING "irrelevant", when it counters your argument. That makes a HUGE freaking difference. The argument made earlier was that the U.S was always initially called America, therefore, it's only right that the U.S. be called American, because it was first.

That's why I referenced the link the second time to counter that. To show that the U.S. was not founded exclusively as "America", but the entire land mass was "America", hence the name "The United States OF America". If the U.S. was somehow magically founded exclusively as "America", then I wouldn't have much of an argument.


Sir X wrote:

You seem to be saying in other posts that because it used to refer to something else, it can't now refer to just the U.S.


WRONG: I said that it's stupid to do so, not that it can't happen, because I explicitly said multiple times that it already does. If you want me to quote it, I can. If you need a hint,it's in the same link that I provided to you, when I said just that. Pay attention!


Sir X wrote:
Besides, you haven't defended your basic premise that is in the third quote above.


I did and you supported me. The only term we use is "American". Which has been the point. Thanks for playing.

Sir X wrote:
It also doesn't take away from American identity if someone else calls themselves American as well.


If by "identity", you mean "not having one", then yes, you're right. The terms "America/n" alone don't take away from the identity, it's a combination of things and this is just the one that the posters picked to argue. I've stated that as well.

Sir X wrote:
Then you went off on the hilarious tangent about how you guys don't have a language called American, which pretty much established that you were way off the deep end as everyone listed off all the many countries that don't have a unique language.


WTF? Lol, this is evident of your lack of reading. Even if you someone misunderstood it the first time, (as those posters you mentioned did), I explained it again so that any idiot could understand.

That was a result of people always assuming the dumbest interpretation of something as opposed to the most logical. No one was ever arguing that we don't have an "American language". As I stated numerous times, if you were actually paying attention, is that I was making a comparison on how stupid it is to call U.S. people, products, services, etc. as "American" by calling our U.S. English as "American".

We adopted the term "American" for everything else that's "U.S". but we don't for the language, because we realize how stupid that is. English is English is English. Even though it may sound slightly different in the U.S., we just don't call it "American" because it resides in the U.S. So WTF do we do that for everything else? How is Jose Cuervo, who lives in California, an American, but not when he lives in Mexico?

The point of me bringing up the language, as so many of you misunderstood, was to show the similarity in the two. It's stupid to just call something "American", just because it's from the U.S. when there are 50+ countries that are just as "American" as the U.S.

That's why I asked if anyone had a problem with the term "Do you speak American?". I wasn't stating that the U.S doesn't/should have their own language, but the fact that people cringe at such phrases.

Jophiel first made a grammatical argument saying it isn't right, but everyone accepts the term "Chinese" and other like names for languages. No one cares about the incorrect usage of "Chinese" because there aren't that many countries, in comparison, who speak "Chinese" as opposed to English. As I said before, when you're just dealing with a hand full of countries, no one cares, but more than a handful is another story. That is why I laughed at Gbaj's "Australia" comment. If he would have done his research, he would have known why Australia (the country) has the same name as Australia (the continent).


Then people started to catch on, making the argument that English isn't exclusive to the U.S. so it would be stupid to call it American, just because there is a slight variation. I countered with, how's that any different from calling one person who resides in North America "American", but not another person who resides in North America, "American"? How is one country more "American" than another one?

Sir X wrote:
I mean, I have no problem with someone arguing that Americans don't have an identity, but to base your argument on the fact that they call themselves Americans is laughable.



I have no problem arguing with someone about the lack of U.S identity, but to not read or "skim" over arguments and then claim that you know what you're talking about, when the words were already written, is laughable.

My argument was never based on that. I actually started off with an entire list on why the U.S doesn't have an identity and that topic was just one of them. Posters just attached unto that one comment. I even later stated that this "American" argument wouldn't hold water alone.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 2:35am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#667 Apr 03 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
Ready to rethink that "can't ban stupid" policy yet?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#668 Apr 03 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ready to rethink that "can't ban stupid" policy yet?


For someone who is "ignoring" me, you're sure doing an awful lot of talking. Besides, if X and I are saying the same thing, except for the conclusion, which he and others have said do see a legitimate argument, I'm not quite sure how that would fall under "stupid".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#669 Apr 03 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Almalieque wrote:
you're sure doing an awful lot of talking.


NO KIDDING. If anyone actually reads any more of alma's posts and replies to them, you seriously, seriously, need to find a new hobby.
#670 Apr 03 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
you're sure doing an awful lot of talking.


NO KIDDING. If anyone actually reads any more of alma's posts and replies to them, you seriously, seriously, need to find a new hobby.


I would be glad that I was once a hobby... :)
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#671 Apr 03 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
you're sure doing an awful lot of talking.


NO KIDDING. If anyone actually reads any more of alma's posts and replies to them, you seriously, seriously, need to find a new hobby.
Agreed. Someone, do everyone a favour and just ban him. Which Admin truly has the forum's best interests at heart and will step up and take action?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#672 Apr 03 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
you're sure doing an awful lot of talking.


NO KIDDING. If anyone actually reads any more of alma's posts and replies to them, you seriously, seriously, need to find a new hobby.
Agreed. Someone, do everyone a favour and just ban him. Which Admin truly has the forum's best interests at heart and will step up and take action?


Orrrrrrrr. you can just do what you claim you have been doing for quite some time and just ignore me. You can't continually be involved and then complain that I'm somehow always involving you. You're choosing to stand outside in the heat and then complain that it's always hot. Go away already.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#673 Apr 03 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Someone needs to ban him for HIS own good. Typing 3 gbajis worth of a post about the definition of the word "American" in his own garbled way shows a mania I can't even begin to understand.
#674 Apr 03 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Guenny wrote:
Someone needs to ban him for HIS own good. Typing 3 gbajis worth of a post about the definition of the word "American" in his own garbled way shows a mania I can't even begin to understand.


3? That's more like 1. Besides, if X would have been reading the past 3 pages, it wouldn't have been that long. That was a recap to him, because he decided to respond to random quotes without reading. So, instead of telling him to read page 14, I took the time and summarized it AGAIN for him.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 3:59am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#675 Apr 03 2011 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The U.S doesn't have an identity ... we use the term "Americans" instead of a term that's only applicable for the U.S. Other languages have terms for U.S. citizens, so I'm sure we could do the same if we really wanted to.


We also have terms for other countries and languages that those native countries don't use. Germans don't call their country Germany, we do. Do they not have an identity?
#676 Apr 03 2011 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Firstly, Pretty much every non-American can recognise that an American is American straight off. Why do you think that happens Alma?

Secondly, I'd say pretty much every nation is multifaceted, complex, non-uniform, however you want to put it. No two people are exactly the same, and nations are inhabited by people.

Thirdly, "American" has been an official dialect of the English language for a few years now, so if people want to refer to "speaking American" they are now correct and welcome to do so.

Fourthly, the forums NEED Stupid as part of the spice mix. No banning Stupid. It's good for the maturity of everyone else by rising above it.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2011 11:24pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#677 Apr 03 2011 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
I tried to make this post a bit smaller, I hope I didn't miss any SUPER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. You talk a lot about how stupid it is to refer to people from the US as Americans because it can also mean people from "the Americas". Unfortunately the fact that you think it's stupid doesn't change that it still is that way, and also doesn't mean that it points to a lack of identity. Perhaps you think identity means that you have a unique name for citizens that can't be used in any way for anything else, and in that case I'll concede the point.

Almalieque wrote:
Which wasn't the point. The point was that the U.S. CHOSE not to create an exclusively identifiable term for that's only applicable to the U.S. The fact that countOTHER ries, i.e. SOUTH and CENTRAL AMERICA, have developed other terminology that does just that is evident that it is/was possible to do so. The rest of the world doesn't care because they are not Americans. Do you find it a coincidence that only other countries in the Americas have made those distinctions?
The US came up with a name for themselves, called the United States of America. This quickly was shortened to Americans when referring to people from there. They chose to name themselves that. There was no point during some meeting where someone said I propose that we don't come up with a unique name for ourselves. I think you're a bit confused about how these names come to be. They usually evolve from the name of the country, and aren't chosen by some national steering committee. You're referring to this whole process as if it's some controlled situation where people sit down and decide, and that really doesn't reflect what actually happens.

Is "The United States Of America" the proper and full name for the country? In that case saying America is a completely correct shorthand form, just as US or the states is. You might think it's stupid because American/America has another meaning, but that doesn't make it any less proper.

Almalieque wrote:
but the fact that they chose that term, shows a lack of an identity as the term "American" represents to citizens who live in the Americas.
Why does it show a lack of identity? What do you think of as identity anyway? When people refer to themselves as Americans they were never referring to the continent because they just didn't have a name for themselves, they were just shortening the country name.

Almalieque wrote:
That's why I referenced the link the second time to counter that. To show that the U.S. was not founded exclusively as "America", but the entire land mass was "America", hence the name "The United States OF America". If the U.S. was somehow magically founded exclusively as "America", then I wouldn't have much of an argument.
Right, but that doesn't mean that calling someone American and meaning they are from the states is incorrect, and neither does it mean they don't have an identity.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Besides, you haven't defended your basic premise that is in the third quote above.
I did and you supported me. The only term we use is "American". Which has been the point. Thanks for playing.
That's not your premise. You haven't supported the idea that using a term with multiple meanings for some reason indicates a lack of identity. You've asserted that it does, but I can't see that you've ever actually explained why.

Almalieque wrote:
The point of me bringing up the language, as so many of you misunderstood, was to show the similarity in the two. It's stupid to just call something "American", just because it's from the U.S. when there are 50+ countries that are just as "American" as the U.S.
You may think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or incorrect.

Almalieque wrote:
That's why I asked if anyone had a problem with the term "Do you speak American?". I wasn't stating that the U.S doesn't/should have their own language, but the fact that people cringe at such phrases.
If someone asked me if I spoke Canadian I'd also look at them like they were an idiot.

Almalieque wrote:
Then people started to catch on, making the argument that English isn't exclusive to the U.S. so it would be stupid to call it American, just because there is a slight variation. I countered with, how's that any different from calling one person who resides in North America "American", but not another person who resides in North America, "American"? How is one country more "American" than another one?
One country isn't more American then the others, but that doesn't take away from the fact that in reality when you call someone an American you're referring to someone who is from the states. The real difference is that this is how it actually works.

Almalieque wrote:
I have no problem arguing with someone about the lack of U.S identity, but to not read or "skim" over arguments and then claim that you know what you're talking about, when the words were already written, is laughable.
Smiley: oyvey I had only skimmed before, I did go back and read most of conversation on this topic.

Edited, Apr 3rd 2011 10:43pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#678 Apr 03 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The U.S doesn't have an identity ... we use the term "Americans" instead of a term that's only applicable for the U.S. Other languages have terms for U.S. citizens, so I'm sure we could do the same if we really wanted to.


We also have terms for other countries and languages that those native countries don't use. Germans don't call their country Germany, we do. Do they not have an identity?


This is what I don't get, you all complain about the lengths of my posts, yet you don't read any of the posts and continually make the same statements (as above) that has already been addressed multiple times. We all observed the fact that we don't speak the same language and that although "American" and "Americano" are two different words, they represent the same word.

It's the concept that the translated words are unique.

PAY ATTENTION...

Arip wrote:
Firstly, Pretty much every non-American can recognise that an American is American straight off. Why do you think that happens Alma?


Read above.... How many times do we have to say that the U.S. took the term "American" to refer specifically to them? NO ONE IS DENYING THAT.. The REASON why that occurred is the discussion. What is your point?

Arip wrote:
Secondly, I'd say pretty much every nation is multifaceted, complex, non-uniform, however you want to put it. No two people are exactly the same, and nations are inhabited by people.


And?

Arip wrote:
Thirdly, "American" has been an official dialect of the English language for a few years now, so if people want to refer to "speaking American" they are now correct and welcome to do so.


Tell that to Jophiel.

It's people like him that cringe when you say "Do you speak American"? Ask a Hispanic person if s/he speaks "Mexican" and see if s/he doesn't think you're an idiot.

Arip wrote:
Fourthly, the forums NEED Stupid as part of the spice mix. No banning Stupid. It's good for the maturity of everyone else by rising above it.


Which has been my argument for debating on these forums in the first place. When I discuss these arguments with people in RL, they wonder why I waste my time with such stupid people. I respond that, it's stupid people that you have to convince.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#679 Apr 03 2011 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
Fourthly, the forums NEED Stupid as part of the spice mix. No banning Stupid. It's good for the maturity of everyone else by rising above it.


Can't say I agree. I mean, sure, you obviously can't ban him. But we sure as **** don't need his degree of idiocy. All that he accomplishes is lowering the intellectual level of the discourse here. 90% of the conversation in the Asylum these days is devoted to people trying to lead him through simple logic by the hand. The marginal practice in being patient doesn't outweigh the degradation of the debates. At any rate, eventually everyone realizes that he's beyond reaching and just gives up on him, anyway.


I'm not kidding at all...everyone should just set him on ignore. He's a waste of time. He's not even a fun waste of time. He's just a miserable excuse for a human being, and he's not going to ever get better or learn a damned thing from anybody else. That's it.



PS: I'd say LAST, but then I'm sure he'd just have to get a post in afterwards responding to me, even though I've got him on ignore.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 12:47am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#680 Apr 03 2011 at 11:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Sir X wrote:
I tried to make this post a bit smaller, I hope I didn't miss any SUPER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. You talk a lot about how stupid it is to refer to people from the US as Americans because it can also mean people from "the Americas". Unfortunately the fact that you think it's stupid doesn't change that it still is that way, and also doesn't mean that it points to a lack of identity. Perhaps you think identity means that you have a unique name for citizens that can't be used in any way for anything else, and in that case I'll concede the point.


This isn't just my opinion nor does my opinion changes anything. Neither does any other opinion on an online forum. My argument is that the US doesn't have an identity for several reasons, one of which is the lack of a unique term for their citizens.

Sir X wrote:
The US came up with a name for themselves, called the United States of America. This quickly was shortened to Americans when referring to people from there. They chose to name themselves that. There was no point during some meeting where someone said I propose that we don't come up with a unique name for ourselves. I think you're a bit confused about how these names come to be. They usually evolve from the name of the country, and aren't chosen by some national steering committee. You're referring to this whole process as if it's some controlled situation where people sit down and decide, and that really doesn't reflect what actually happens.

Is "The United States Of America" the proper and full name for the country? In that case saying America is a completely correct shorthand form, just as US or the states is. You might think it's stupid because American/America has another meaning, but that doesn't make it any less proper.


Once again, the proper full name is "The United States OF America, which supports the fact that they realized that particular part of the land was a portion of America. I'm not a history buff, but I'm pretty sure there were other terms to represent civilians during the colonies.

I'm not arguing that it is "incorrect" or improper to use the term "America/n", I'm just saying it's stupid. Just because the U.S is the number one country in the world by far, doesn't mean we don't do some stupid things. Just like you all try to tell me, "Sometimes being the only one is a hint that you might be doing it wrong".

Sir X wrote:
Why does it show a lack of identity? What do you think of as identity anyway? When people refer to themselves as Americans they were never referring to the continent because they just didn't have a name for themselves, they were just shortening the country name.


The problem is, you all took one section out of my entire list of reasons why I said the U.S. doesn't have an identity and argue that one claim as a stand alone argument. My interpretation of the U.S. having an identity is the processes, beliefs, etc. that the U.S. follows and practices as a constant to describe who they are.

The U.S. took the "melting pot" in the wrong direction IMO. Instead of developing an environment with a set of rules and practices that is mixed with various cultures, the U.S. tries to create this environment by pleasing everyone.

Being called "American" alone, doesn't really support that much, but when you take everything else in consideration, i.e. no official language, then you can't deny it.

Sir X wrote:
Right, but that doesn't mean that calling someone American and meaning they are from the states is incorrect, and neither does it mean they don't have an identity.


Read above. It's not wrong, it's just stupid and lazy. So, unless you equate the "U.S" as stupid and lazy (as many do), then yes, it fits the bill.

Sir X wrote:
That's not your premise. You haven't supported the idea that using a term with multiple meanings for some reason indicates a lack of identity. You've asserted that it does, but I can't see that you've ever actually explained why.


What exactly else are you looking for? I've "explained" it several times already. If just about every other country in the world has an official language and a unique term that only reflects their country (or 2-3 others), what does that really say about the U.S? Now put that together with this practice of trying to please everyone and not offending one, even if that means going against the majority on a subject with no objective right/wrong answer.

Sir X wrote:
If someone asked me if I spoke Canadian I'd also look at them like they were an idiot.


So, what determines what "sounds silly" or what is wrong to say? What it appears to me is that it's just social acceptances with no consistent regulations. It's ok to say "Do you speak Chinese?", but not "Do you speak Canadian?"

Sir X wrote:
One country isn't more American then the others, but that doesn't take away from the fact that in reality when you call someone an American you're referring to someone who is from the states. The real difference is that this is how it actually works.


And how it works is what I'm referring to. I was never denying that it is what it is, by why is it the way it is? You all just got caught up in the term "American" being thrown around and lost track of what I was actually arguing.

Sir X wrote:
Smiley: oyvey I had only skimmed before, I did go back and read most of conversation on this topic.


If you did read it, then you didn't comprehend it very well, because we were saying the same exact thing except the conclusion of "it's a lack of identity", which should have been the topic of the discussion. Instead, you wasted a lot of time making points that I already made and agreed to.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#681 Apr 03 2011 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
REPLY TO ESKE:

Exactly. If Stupid finally gets to you, put it on Ignore. But the thing is, that some of the most objectionable, or idiotic, posters have kept some forums moving at all, when nothing else more interesting was going on.

The admins could keep playing whack-a-mole with Varrus and successfully keep him off, but the truth is, he generates readers and posters. He's a big nasty itch that people keep coming back to scratch. That's why the Admins let him have his endless socks, and lets us rate them down to oblivion in lieu of banning him.

It's like a lot of story plots. Conflict and conflict-resolution, or irresolution, generates interest.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 1:15am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#682 Apr 03 2011 at 11:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Fourthly, the forums NEED Stupid as part of the spice mix. No banning Stupid. It's good for the maturity of everyone else by rising above it.


Can't say I agree. I mean, sure, you obviously can't ban him. But we sure as **** don't need his degree of idiocy. All that he accomplishes is lowering the intellectual level of the discourse here. 90% of the conversation in the Asylum these days is devoted to people trying to lead him through simple logic by the hand. The marginal practice in being patient doesn't outweigh the degradation of the debates. At any rate, eventually everyone realizes that he's beyond reaching and just gives up on him, anyway.


I'm not kidding at all...everyone should just set him on ignore. He's a waste of time. He's not even a fun waste of time. He's just a miserable excuse for a human being, and he's not going to ever get better or learn a damned thing from anybody else. That's it.



PS: I'd say LAST, but then I'm sure he'd just have to get a post in afterwards responding to me, even though I've got him on ignore.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 12:47am by Eske


Uh, yea, you fail to understand the concept of ignoring. Just go away....

Disagreement doesn't equate with idiocy. The only thing people have done is said "I don't agree with you, you're an idiot".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#683 Apr 03 2011 at 11:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
REPLY TO ESKE:

Exactly. If Stupid finally gets to you, put it on Ignore. But the thing is, that some of the most objectionable, or idiotic, posters have kept some forums moving at all, when nothing else more interesting was going on.

The admins could keep playing whack-a-mole with Varrus and successfully keep him off, but the truth is, he generates readers and posters. He's a big nasty itch that people keep coming back to scratch. That's why the Admins let him have his endless socks, and lets us rate them down to oblivion in lieu of banning him.

It's like a lot of story plots. Conflict and conflict-resolution, or irresolution, generates interest.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 1:15am by Aripyanfar


This also..

For the most part, I don't even respond to Varus, because he's obviously a troll. That's what you do, not continually respond telling people to ignore him. You make jokes such as the one I made about IP/MAC banning him. For anyone to actually get the slightest bit annoyed is silly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#684 Apr 03 2011 at 11:38 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
OMGESKENOWLOOKWHATYOU'VEDONEALMAAGREEDWITHMEARGH!
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#685 Apr 04 2011 at 4:54 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
OMGESKENOWLOOKWHATYOU'VEDONEALMAAGREEDWITHMEARGH!


Your posts for now on will be labeled with an "A". Hold your head down in shame.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 12:56pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 1:50pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#686 Apr 04 2011 at 5:03 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,702 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
OMGESKENOWLOOKWHATYOU'VEDONEALMAAGREEDWITHMEARGH!
A clear sign you've said something retarded.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#687 Apr 04 2011 at 5:53 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
OMGESKENOWLOOKWHATYOU'VEDONEALMAAGREEDWITHMEARGH!
A clear sign you've said something retarded.


Given the fact that this is the only thread that I'm currently involved in (easily 50% of the posts) and you're still posting here is evident how important I am to you.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#688 Apr 04 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Arip wrote:
Thirdly, "American" has been an official dialect of the English language for a few years now, so if people want to refer to "speaking American" they are now correct and welcome to do so.
Tell that to Jophiel.

It's people like him that cringe when you say "Do you speak American"? Ask a Hispanic person if s/he speaks "Mexican" and see if s/he doesn't think you're an idiot.

"American" may be a dialect of English (I said as much myself) just as Mexican is a dialect of Spanish but both "I speak American" and "I speak Mexican" are incorrect.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#689 Apr 04 2011 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
You can have an identity, and then have significant variations within that identity. See identifying as Christian, and then belonging to a specific denomination. Being part of a diverse group can also be part of an identity. It differentiates you as a country from other places that have a more uniform group. I'd say that historically one of the things about the US was that no matter where you came from, when you get here, now you're an American. That might not happen as much now, but it's certainly part of your history, and certainly demonstrates a strong identity.

Almalieque wrote:
Once again, the proper full name is "The United States OF America, which supports the fact that they realized that particular part of the land was a portion of America. I'm not a history buff, but I'm pretty sure there were other terms to represent civilians during the colonies.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that calling them American is wrong, or that it denotes a lack of identity. Again, when they referred to themselves as American they were never using it in terms of the entire continent.

Almalieque wrote:
Being called "American" alone, doesn't really support that much, but when you take everything else in consideration, i.e. no official language, then you can't deny it.
It doesn't support it at all, and you haven't justified why it does. Also you're wrong about the language.

Almalieque wrote:
It's not wrong, it's just stupid and lazy.
Saying a version of your country name is stupid and lazy apparently. Are nicknames also stupid and lazy?

Almalieque wrote:
What exactly else are you looking for? I've "explained" it several times already. If just about every other country in the world has an official language and a unique term that only reflects their country (or 2-3 others), what does that really say about the U.S?
Not much. Names for citizens of countries are almost all derived from their full country names. Regardless that there is an of, America is still a legitimate part of the name, and so using it as a shortened form makes sense. That's all that's going on here, it's a shortened version of the name for convenience. Other countries did the exact same thing. No one sits down and decides on a term, it just happens.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
If someone asked me if I spoke Canadian I'd also look at them like they were an idiot.
So, what determines what "sounds silly" or what is wrong to say? What it appears to me is that it's just social acceptances with no consistent regulations. It's ok to say "Do you speak Chinese?", but not "Do you speak Canadian?"
Common practice, what people are used to, the fact that in Canada we speak English.

Almalieque wrote:
If you did read it, then you didn't comprehend it very well, because we were saying the same exact thing except the conclusion of "it's a lack of identity", which should have been the topic of the discussion. Instead, you wasted a lot of time making points that I already made and agreed to.
That was what I said Alma, that you were taking facts, like what people call Americans, and then making a logical leap that has no justification.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 8:51am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#690 Apr 04 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
This thread has advanced well beyond the point of why the **** do you people still care?




And yeah, I know, +1.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#691 Apr 04 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Pretty much +1 and occasional boredom. We all know Alma's disabled, but what else have we got to do?
#692 Apr 04 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Alma is black and disabled?

He's probably left-handed too.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#693 Apr 04 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Arip wrote:
Thirdly, "American" has been an official dialect of the English language for a few years now, so if people want to refer to "speaking American" they are now correct and welcome to do so.
Tell that to Jophiel.

It's people like him that cringe when you say "Do you speak American"? Ask a Hispanic person if s/he speaks "Mexican" and see if s/he doesn't think you're an idiot.

"American" may be a dialect of English (I said as much myself) just as Mexican is a dialect of Spanish but both "I speak American" and "I speak Mexican" are incorrect.


That's what I was leaning on. Your argument isn't with me, it's with Arip. Except you two aren't going to debate the issue with each other, only me.

Sir X wrote:
You can have an identity, and then have significant variations within that identity. See identifying as Christian, and then belonging to a specific denomination. Being part of a diverse group can also be part of an identity. It differentiates you as a country from other places that have a more uniform group. I'd say that historically one of the things about the US was that no matter where you came from, when you get here, now you're an American. That might not happen as much now, but it's certainly part of your history, and certainly demonstrates a strong identity.


I don't disagree with that concept, it's the application of it. "What is an American?" We should have a "set" of morals, values and beliefs that the U.S as a majority support. So, if Joe Blow from La-La Land comes over to the U.S and starts complaining because the U.S. doesn't do x,y and z a certain way, we can turn to him and say "You're in the U.S. now, STFU or GTFO if you don't like it". That's what countries with an identity do, not try to please every complaint.

There are some complaints worth addressing, but not simply because you're offended. That's where we lose our identity. The intent of the "land of the free" is that you have the "freedom" to believe what you want and do certain things, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. has to accept it. Now, you have various organizations and groups of people fighting for ACCEPTANCE as disguised as "civil rights" and we're going in circles trying to please everyone without offending others. That is an impossible task.

Sir X wrote:
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that calling them American is wrong, or that it denotes a lack of identity. Again, when they referred to themselves as American they were never using it in terms of the entire continent.


I'm guessing that you are replying to each section at a time instead of after reading the entire post first.

I've told you at least twice now, it's not that it's wrong, it's that it's stupid to do so. That's like saying "I speak American" instead of "I speak English". If you want to debate that, then fine, but please stop arguing with me stuff that I've explicitly told you numerous times that I agree to.

My argument is referring to yourselves as a name that was currently referencing to an entire continent is stupid. That alone does not take away from your identity, but in conjunction with others, it does.

Sir X wrote:
It doesn't support it at all, and you haven't justified why it does. Also you're wrong about the language.


I have, just because you don't agree with my justification doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, you're wrong about the language. We have a national language, but no official language. Unless it changed recently.

Sir X wrote:
Saying a version of your country name is stupid and lazy apparently. Are nicknames also stupid and lazy?


Uh, no. Not creating a unique name for your country like the rest of the world is stupid and lazy. I've stated that it's nothing wrong with abbreviating your name, but you abbreviate the part that is unique to your country, not "Democratic", "People", "Socialist", "Asia", "Africa", "America", etc. You know that and you're wasting my time trying to argue otherwise.

Sir X wrote:
Not much. Names for citizens of countries are almost all derived from their full country names. Regardless that there is an of, America is still a legitimate part of the name, and so using it as a shortened form makes sense. That's all that's going on here, it's a shortened version of the name for convenience. Other countries did the exact same thing. No one sits down and decides on a term, it just happens.


Read above. You're in denial. List me some countries or STFU.

Sir X wrote:
Common practice, what people are used to, the fact that in Canada we speak English.


So, social acceptance as I said. The Chinese don't speak "Chinese" and yet we still say "Chinese". Koreans don't read or write Korean, yet we still say so.

Sir X wrote:
That was what I said Alma, that you were taking facts, like what people call Americans, and then making a logical leap that has no justification.


As I said, at this point, you're in denial. You say there's no justification, yet I've been using the entire rest of the world as evidence. What else do you want? The universe? How many countries have to be used as examples before you realize that no one does that?


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#694 Apr 04 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Not much. Names for citizens of countries are almost all derived from their full country names. Regardless that there is an of, America is still a legitimate part of the name, and so using it as a shortened form makes sense. That's all that's going on here, it's a shortened version of the name for convenience. Other countries did the exact same thing. No one sits down and decides on a term, it just happens.
Read above. You're in denial. List me some countries or STFU.

He's saying that other nations referred to citizens of the United States of America as Americans. Which is broadly correct.

That said, both nations from the Congo region refer to themselves as Congolese. Heck, Zaire even changed their name to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and started calling themselves Congolese despite the Republic of the Congo doing the same thing. Those crazy Congolese! These should be calling themselves "Democratic Republicans" because they're of the Congo, not the Congo itself. Dorks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#695 Apr 04 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Not much. Names for citizens of countries are almost all derived from their full country names. Regardless that there is an of, America is still a legitimate part of the name, and so using it as a shortened form makes sense. That's all that's going on here, it's a shortened version of the name for convenience. Other countries did the exact same thing. No one sits down and decides on a term, it just happens.
Read above. You're in denial. List me some countries or STFU.

He's saying that other nations referred to citizens of the United States of America as Americans. Which is broadly correct.

That said, both nations from the Congo region refer to themselves as Congolese. Heck, Zaire even changed their name to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and started calling themselves Congolese despite the Republic of the Congo doing the same thing. Those crazy Congolese! These should be calling themselves "Democratic Republicans" because they're of the Congo, not the Congo itself. Dorks.


I've only acknowledged that numerous times already. It just so happened that "Congo" was the country that I looked up a few days ago. I said that names that refer to a hand full of countries, is no big deal, i.e "North/South", "East/West", etc. That's usually due to some sort of split or something and no one wants to "give up" their name as they see that they are the rightful owners. That's not the same as taking a name of two entire continents. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#696 Apr 04 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry if you don't see the difference.

I'm sorry you have to move the goalposts when you see your argument fall apart. Must get tiring to run like that :)

Zaire wasn't giving up the name "Congo", they were appropriating it when they changed country names despite it being the name of an entire region.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#697 Apr 04 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry if you don't see the difference.

I'm sorry you have to move the goalposts when you see your argument fall apart. Must get tiring to run like that :)

Zaire wasn't giving up the name "Congo", they were appropriating it when they changed country names despite it being the name of an entire region.


I was talking in generic terms, not specifically on Congo. In any case, I stated at least three times that no one really cares about 2 or 3 countries. I was very specific on this as I lived in Korea for 3 years. When people say "Korea", they immediately refer to the Republic of Korea (South) and not the North. North Korea is always prefaced with "North" or "Democratic of".

If you just now realized that, that's a personal problem. Don't try to put it off on me that I'm "changing positions". If you want me to quote myself, just let me know. Else, just man up that you are wrong.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#698 Apr 04 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
I don't disagree with that concept, it's the application of it. "What is an American?" We should have a "set" of morals, values and beliefs that the U.S as a majority support. So, if Joe Blow from La-La Land comes over to the U.S and starts complaining because the U.S. doesn't do x,y and z a certain way, we can turn to him and say "You're in the U.S. now, STFU or GTFO if you don't like it". That's what countries with an identity do, not try to please every complaint.

There are some complaints worth addressing, but not simply because you're offended. That's where we lose our identity. The intent of the "land of the free" is that you have the "freedom" to believe what you want and do certain things, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. has to accept it. Now, you have various organizations and groups of people fighting for ACCEPTANCE as disguised as "civil rights" and we're going in circles trying to please everyone without offending others. That is an impossible task.
I don't really think you're going in circles trying to please anyone first of all, but everything you've listed here is pretty much what the US has been like. If nothing else the fact that countless immigrant families choose to identify as American-whatever and also just Americans, rather then just the whatever points to the fact that there is a distinct identity.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that calling them American is wrong, or that it denotes a lack of identity. Again, when they referred to themselves as American they were never using it in terms of the entire continent.


I'm guessing that you are replying to each section at a time instead of after reading the entire post first.

I've told you at least twice now, it's not that it's wrong, it's that it's stupid to do so. That's like saying "I speak American" instead of "I speak English". If you want to debate that, then fine, but please stop arguing with me stuff that I've explicitly told you numerous times that I agree to.

My argument is referring to yourselves as a name that was currently referencing to an entire continent is stupid. That alone does not take away from your identity, but in conjunction with others, it does.
No, I read the entire post. However you've as usual missed the point of what I am saying. It's my fault, I should have been clearer. I know that you've admitted that it isn't incorrect, but you assert that it's stupid and lazy, and that it's somehow wrong in that it doesn't donate any identity while other country names do. The name somehow 'doesn't work'. That's all I meant by wrong.

Almalieque wrote:
Read above. You're in denial. List me some countries or STFU. As I said, at this point, you're in denial. You say there's no justification, yet I've been using the entire rest of the world as evidence. What else do you want? The universe? How many countries have to be used as examples before you realize that no one does that?
Canada, Australia, Britain, well all of them really. All these countries have a name, and the name that they call themselves is derived from that. It's a natural process not a committee decision, and so American is no different then Canadian. It's a naturally derived word that comes from the name of the country.

You still haven't justified the connection either. Comparing the US to the other countries is just that a comparison, you still need to justify the fact that having a super unique name for yourself is somehow tied into identity. So if you're going to use all the other countries, then first you have to show why the name they use matters to their identity, and then also show that the process for them getting their names was somehow different then how "American" evolved. Hint, there isn't one.

I enjoyed you hopping around and moving the goalposts around after jophs point btw. People call North Koreans that because Koreans doesn't denote a specific country. American does denote a specific country.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 8:46pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#699 Apr 04 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I was talking in generic terms, not specifically on Congo. In any case, I stated at least three times that no one really cares about 2 or 3 countries.

Oh, of course. So it never happens except when it does and is really important except when it doesn't matter.

Got it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#700 Apr 04 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
I guarantee that the different Congolese who all think they are the true Congolese care a heck of a lot more then diverse nations in north and south America. Canadians sure as **** don't care.

Addressing the first quote in my previous page, if there was some magical country that would take all the different people in it and come up with a set of rules based on the shared values, and incorporated new values as new people came, that would be a pretty **** unique identity for that place to have. Their identity would be based on adapting and accommodating, and it would be a valid identity, and wouldn't depend at all on what they called themselves.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 9:16pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#701 Apr 04 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,021 posts
Sir X wrote:
I don't really think you're going in circles trying to please anyone first of all, but everything you've listed here is pretty much what the US has been like. If nothing else the fact that countless immigrant families choose to identify as American-whatever and also just Americans, rather then just the whatever points to the fact that there is a distinct identity.


I'm not denying the American references, I'm focusing on the REASONs and the why factors. You some how continually overlook the remaining part of my list and only focusing on the one thing that I've said does not hold water alone. There's probably not *one* thing that completely takes away an identity. As I stated, it's a combination of things.

Sir X wrote:
No, I read the entire post. However you've as usual missed the point of what I am saying. It's my fault, I should have been clearer. I know that you've admitted that it isn't incorrect, but you assert that it's stupid and lazy, and that it's somehow wrong in that it doesn't donate any identity while other country names do. The name somehow 'doesn't work'. That's all I meant by wrong.


Well, I guess we just disagree then. I think using a term that represents two entire continents for your national citizens as opposed to using something more unique like the rest of the world is dumb and lazy.

Sir X wrote:
Canada, Australia, Britain, well all of them really. All these countries have a name, and the name that they call themselves is derived from that. It's a natural process not a committee decision, and so American is no different then Canadian. It's a naturally derived word that comes from the name of the country.


That's not what I meant, you just supported my argument. They chose names reference to their country, not continents. What country only goes by "European", "Asian" and "African" without a more term personal name?

Sir X wrote:
You still haven't justified the connection either. Comparing the US to the other countries is just that a comparison, you still need to justify the fact that having a super unique name for yourself is somehow tied into identity. So if you're going to use all the other countries, then first you have to show why the name they use matters to their identity, and then also show that the process for them getting their names was somehow different then how "American" evolved. Hint, there isn't one.


Read above.. You're not paying attention. I've made an entire list of reasons why the U.S doesn't have an identity. You all picked and chose one of those topics which I've said numerous times already that it doesn't stand alone, only supports the notion. I've already made the connection, you just don't want to accept it.

You just said yourself that there isn't one, which means no matter what I say, you will deny it. Your argument is "What's in a name?". Really? When you call yourself "Mexican", you are saying "Hey, I'm a citizen from Mexico". When you say "I'm American", it originally did not denote any country, it was only through usage of referencing to the U.S. till the name became exclusive to the U.S. That's my point.

If your name in itself does not denote your actual country, like the countries you listed above, but has to be told that, "Hey, that's the U.S.", then it isn't really identifiable.

Sir X wrote:
I enjoyed you hopping around and moving the goalposts around after jophs point btw. People call North Koreans that because Koreans doesn't denote a specific country. American does denote a specific country.



Are you smoking Crack? Are you serious? How does "America" denote "The United States of America" but Korea not denote the "Republic of Korea" or "Democratic of Korea". It's the same freaking thing, except "Korea" only refers to those two countries, because they were once one country. They are not calling themselves simply "Asian". South Koreans call themselves Koreans, North Koreans call themselves Koreans and they call each other Koreans.

There's no jumping around.. I guess I'll have to quote myself saying that just to make you look sillier.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT