Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#702 Apr 04 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
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.
I'm not focusing on them, because discussing what an identity is and what the identity of a group is, is a complex issue and you're terrible at discussing complex issues. I want you to explain why the name matters.

Almalieque wrote:
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?
That's probably because they don't have that term in their name. America is actually part of the name. In all these cases the name for the people in the country derived naturally from the country name. No one ever "came up with a more personal name" you've giving all this weight to an imaginary thing. You know, when you don't understand what I'm saying and insist I'm supporting you, that doesn't actually mean that I'm supporting you. It is an obvious way to show me you've missed the point, which is somewhat useful in that I'll try to clarify better I suppose.

Almalieque wrote:
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.
I'm not asking for a justification of why the US does or doesn't have an identity, I'm asking for a justification to link the name of the country to the identity.

Almalieque wrote:
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.
It didn't used to be identifiable. Now it is. That's the point. American really does denote their actual country. Truly. Regardless of how lazy or stupid you think it is.

Edited, Apr 4th 2011 9:27pm 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
#703 Apr 04 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
"What is an American?" We should have a "set" of morals, values and beliefs that the U.S as a majority support.


Like, oh I don't know, a state religion? That you have to follow?

Count me out.
Almalieque wrote:
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.


So... what you're saying is... being in the land of the free means you're not really free at all...? Is that what I'm getting here? "Yeah, you can think and do what you want, but it's illegal."

Me thinks you are confused on the definition of "freedom."
#704 Apr 04 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


Uh, no, because small regions are not the same as entire continents. Does anyone care that there's a North and a South Carolina/Dakota and a West Virginia? I'm not stating that two countries or regions can't have similar names. My complaint is taking a name that refers to two entire continents consisting of more than 50 countries.

Sir X wrote:
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.


ALmalieque just a few posts ago 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.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#705Almalieque, Posted: Apr 04 2011 at 9:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Why do you all (I am actually including you this time) always take the dumbest interpretations. You know, for once, if you sat back and just thought, what would make more sense and argued that, this wouldn't be so painful.
#706 Apr 04 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Disabled...
#707 Apr 04 2011 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Some serious lulz in that post Alma, did you really miss my point by that much? The fact that you think that X is a stupid name doesn't make it any less the kids name. Kind of exactly the same way American works. BTW, let me know when you feel like explaining how the term American to refer to people from the United states of America was derived in a different way the Canadians from Canada. See now you're going off about the right of the US to use the term American, and going on and on about how it's stupid and lazy. That's all nice that you think that, but it doesn't change what it is.

When you consistently miss the point and regurgitate stuff that doesn't address what I'm saying, yeah, I don't want to get any more complex with you. It does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside though, that I'm making you feel good too, yay for niceness!
____________________________
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
#708 Apr 04 2011 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You can't have laws and practices without some form of a consensus from the public. My point is, establish what that is and stay with it
ITT the world should never change.

ever.


____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#709 Apr 04 2011 at 10:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Sir X wrote:
Some serious lulz in that post Alma, did you really miss my point by that much? The fact that you think that X is a stupid name doesn't make it any less the kids name.


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! That's what I've been saying!!!. I'm not arguing against the kid's name.. WIll you PLEAAAAAAASE for the sake of God, humanity and all that we know and love, quit making this a discussion of proving "X" is his name.

My entire argument is that it's stupid to name the child "X", not that it isn't it's name.

How did you manage to ***** up that analogy?

Sir X wrote:
BTW, let me know when you feel like explaining how the term American to refer to people from the United states of America was derived in a different way the Canadians from Canada.


Easy, Canada chose a name that strictly reflects their country and their country alone. The U.S. bypassed several names used during the early days to reference their civilians and chose a name that refers to two entire continents. Calling U.S citizens "Americans" is like call the Chinese simply "People".

Just because it's part of your name, doesn't necessarily make it a good abbreviation.

Sir X wrote:
See now you're going off about the right of the US to use the term American, and going on and on about how it's stupid and lazy. That's all nice that you think that, but it doesn't change what it is.


Read my first response. How is it that you continually miss the point? I'm strictly talking about the stupidity of the action, not that the action exists.

Sir X wrote:
When you consistently miss the point and regurgitate stuff that doesn't address what I'm saying, yeah, I don't want to get any more complex with you. It does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside though, that I'm making you feel good too, yay for niceness!


Really? Read this post again.. You STILL can't grasp the fact that I'm not debating that the U.S. uses the term "America/n", but that it's stupid. You continually keep saying stuff like "X is a stupid name doesn't make it any less the kids name. Kind of exactly the same way American works." and say that I can't comprehend complex conversations? LOL
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#710 Apr 04 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You can't have laws and practices without some form of a consensus from the public. My point is, establish what that is and stay with it
ITT the world should never change.

ever.



Almalieque already wrote:

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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#711 Apr 04 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 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.


Not to mention, the Stupid is pretty much the only thing remotely entertaining about this forum.

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.


Same could easily be said about gbaji and varus (except to Alma's credit, I do actually observe incidence of growth, however slowly). And then this forum would just be a lame watercooler.

I more or less like you Eske, which isn't something I can say about most posters, and the reason for that is because your replies are generally intelligent, measured and civil. However, this is the Asylum. If you want intelligent discourse, I can PM you some links to fora that are actually decent for that. For me, it's not much fun to have intelligent discourse online when the civility police are about. It's not terrible until your pretty reasonable posting habits warrant moderator warnings because you offended someone's delicate sensibilities or you were off topic. Or people are tired of redundant discussions of religion/economics. Or your posting style wasn't optimally efficient. Or the moderator was having her period. I have never seen a forum that moderates stupidity that doesn't involve some degree of annoyingly subjective, high-horse moderation, all for the sake of "elevating the discourse."
____________________________
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.
#712 Apr 04 2011 at 10:49 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
OMGESKENOWLOOKWHATYOU'VEDONEALMAAGREEDWITHMEARGH!


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


Bwahahahaha, that's actually a really good joke! Smiley: boozing
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#713 Apr 04 2011 at 10:56 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Quote:

Same could easily be said about gbaji and varus (except to Alma's credit, I do actually observe incidence of growth, however slowly). And then this forum would just be a lame watercooler.

I more or less like you Eske, which isn't something I can say about most posters, and the reason for that is because your replies are generally intelligent, measured and civil. However, this is the Asylum. If you want intelligent discourse, I can PM you some links to fora that are actually decent for that. For me, it's not much fun to have intelligent discourse online when the civility police are about. It's not terrible until your pretty reasonable posting habits warrant moderator warnings because you offended someone's delicate sensibilities or you were off topic. Or people are tired of redundant discussions of religion/economics. Or your posting style wasn't optimally efficient. Or the moderator was having her period. I have never seen a forum that moderates stupidity that doesn't involve some degree of annoyingly subjective, high-horse moderation, all for the sake of "elevating the discourse."


Part of it is being real with yourself. Don't just accuse everyone else as being stupid. Realize the fact that your beliefs maybe missing some information. I don't think it's a coincidence that every debate I've had on here with another audience turns out completely different.

I've had this very same argument about "The U.S. lack of identity" with my LT and his argument was that "not having an identity is what makes the U.S. unique". That's something I can argue with and he made very good arguments that I actually incorporated some of his points into my belief.

On the other hand, I can't even get posters on this thread to accept the fact that I'm not arguing that the term "America/n" is mostly exclusive to the U.S., but the stupidity of the usage. So to immediately label me "stupid" is delusional.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#714 Apr 04 2011 at 11:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Haven't been reading your argument at all lately, myself, but I've had several people from other countries tell me that they don't see the U.S. as having any culture. Not sure if they helps/hurts your point-- just tossing it out there.
____________________________
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.
#715 Apr 04 2011 at 11:06 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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?


Australia does. There are two Australias. The continent of Australia, and the nation of Australia. Up until 1901 the continent of Australia was not in its entirety occupied by one nation, but by a collection of colonies.

While the word Australia is most frequently used to describe the nation, the official list of continents is this: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.

I am Australian because I am a citizen of the nation of Australia, and I live on the continent of Australia.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#716 Apr 04 2011 at 11:26 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
ALmalieque just a few posts ago 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.

You HAVE a set of morals, values and beliefs that the US as a majority support. It's called The Law. You have a system in place for the majority to change those it wants changed. It's called voting people into and out of the Congress and Senate. If you don't like the present system of changing the Law, you can change it via the Constitution.

If an immigrant doesn't agree with the Law, s/he still must abide by it, and can try changing it via democratic processes. But the immigrant must abide by the Law or STFU and get out. Same with born citizens. If you don't agree with the Law, lobby and vote to get them changed, but abide by them until they are. There's your common identity.

You can have all the cultural, gastronomic, festive, clothing, languages differences you want, but you are all united under the one Legal system, and the legal system applies to you all equally. (In theory).

____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#717 Apr 05 2011 at 2:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Kachi wrote:
Haven't been reading your argument at all lately, myself, but I've had several people from other countries tell me that they don't see the U.S. as having any culture. Not sure if they helps/hurts your point-- just tossing it out there.



It does, but not so much in this current discussion because the posters are only focusing on the usage of the "America/n" term as opposed to my initial claim.

Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
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?


Australia does. There are two Australias. The continent of Australia, and the nation of Australia. Up until 1901 the continent of Australia was not in its entirety occupied by one nation, but by a collection of colonies.

While the word Australia is most frequently used to describe the nation, the official list of continents is this: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia.

I am Australian because I am a citizen of the nation of Australia, and I live on the continent of Australia.


Gbaji already mentioned this and I laughed at him because of the following:

Australia is the smallest of the geographic continents, though not of geological continents.[1] There is no universally accepted definition of the word "continent"; the lay definition is "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface" (Oxford English Dictionary). By that definition, the continent of Australia includes only the Australian mainland, and not nearby islands such as New Guinea. From the perspective of geology or physical geography, however, a "continent" may be understood to include the continental shelf (the submerged adjacent area) and the islands on the shelf, which are taken to be structurally part of the continent. By that definition Tasmania, New Guinea and other nearby islands such as the Aru Islands and Raja Ampat Islands are part of the Australian continent since they are part of the same geological landmass. These islands are separated by seas overlying the continental shelf — the Arafura Sea and Torres Strait between Australia and New Guinea, and Bass Strait between mainland Australia and Tasmania.


I was taught the definition for the continent consisted only the main island. Even if that were wrong, I already mentioned, a handful of countries is reasonable, two entire continents of 50 plus countries (including the 2nd largest city in the world) is something else.

Arip wrote:
You HAVE a set of morals, values and beliefs that the US as a majority support. It's called The Law. You have a system in place for the majority to change those it wants changed. It's called voting people into and out of the Congress and Senate. If you don't like the present system of changing the Law, you can change it via the Constitution.

If an immigrant doesn't agree with the Law, s/he still must abide by it, and can try changing it via democratic processes. But the immigrant must abide by the Law or STFU and get out. Same with born citizens. If you don't agree with the Law, lobby and vote to get them changed, but abide by them until they are. There's your common identity.

You can have all the cultural, gastronomic, festive, clothing, languages differences you want, but you are all united under the one Legal system, and the legal system applies to you all equally. (In theory).


You're overlooking the point. I'm not referencing the voting process, it's the fact that officials can make decisions that don't represent the public, i.e. presidents winning off of electoral college as opposed to the popular vote. That's just one example, may not be the best example, but the point is, people in power will do what they think is "politically correct", which is not the same of what the people want.

Just because you and friends created and/or founded a religion, doesn't mean the U.S. should or have to recognize it, i.e., FSM, Jedi, Wicca, etc. Instead of saying "STFU", we do the politically correct thing and accept them. In some instances, I can see acceptance, but others are obviously absurd, but it is accepted due to "political correctness".

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#718 Apr 05 2011 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
a handful of countries is reasonable, two entire continents of 50 plus countries (including the 2nd largest city in the world) is something else.

Arbitrary definition is arbitrary.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#719 Apr 05 2011 at 6:30 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
a handful of countries is reasonable, two entire continents of 50 plus countries (including the 2nd largest city in the world) is something else.

Arbitrary definition is arbitrary.


You're absolutely correct as I made that argument about the legal age of being able to sign into a contract. Remember that? I was ridiculed to no end with, "But that's the law!" as I stated that 18 is just an arbitrary age. Even so, the reality is, while there is no real difference between 17 years old and 18 years old, there is a big difference between 18 years old and 5 years old.

While the age of 18 is arbitrary, ages close to 18 are also acceptable, but there is a limit where it becomes unacceptable. Likewise in this case, while 3 similar or small countries are just as arbitrary as 4 similar or small countries, two entire continents of 50+ countries is beyond that limit.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#720 Apr 05 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
a handful of countries is reasonable, two entire continents of 50 plus countries (including the 2nd largest city in the world) is something else.
Arbitrary definition is arbitrary.
You're absolutely correct as I made that argument about the legal age of being able to sign into a contract. Remember that? I was ridiculed to no end with, "But that's the law!" as I stated that 18 is just an arbitrary age.

Right. A lot of people agreed to that age (making it into law) just as a planet's worth of people (give or take) agree that citizens from the USA are "Americans".
Quote:
Likewise in this case, while 3 similar or small countries are just as arbitrary as 4 similar or small countries, two entire continents of 50+ countries is beyond that limit.

Arbitrary definition is arbitrary.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#721 Apr 05 2011 at 7:04 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
a handful of countries is reasonable, two entire continents of 50 plus countries (including the 2nd largest city in the world) is something else.
Arbitrary definition is arbitrary.
You're absolutely correct as I made that argument about the legal age of being able to sign into a contract. Remember that? I was ridiculed to no end with, "But that's the law!" as I stated that 18 is just an arbitrary age.

Right. A lot of people agreed to that age (making it into law) just as a planet's worth of people (give or take) agree that citizens from the USA are "Americans".
Quote:
Likewise in this case, while 3 similar or small countries are just as arbitrary as 4 similar or small countries, two entire continents of 50+ countries is beyond that limit.

Arbitrary definition is arbitrary.


Your two statements don't even support each other. Did you even understand the analogy? If you believe 18 is arbitrary, do you believe 5 is equally as arbitrary? I'm sure it wasn't a lot of people who agreed to that age, but certain people who agreed to that age. I don't remember ever being a national vote on the legal age.

Besides, the planet didn't "agree" to the U.S. being called "Americans", they accepted it. Why should non-Americans (North/South) care what the U.S. calls themselves? You're discrediting the only people that should have a say in the matter (Central/South America) to focus on people who shouldn't have a say in the matter. Do you think it's coincidental that only the central/south Americans had shown concern?

I bet if the U.S. decided to go with "Europeans" or "Asians", then the rest of the world would be more vocal.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 3:07pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 3:28pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#722 Apr 05 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You two statements don't even support each other. Did you even understand the analogy? if you believe 18 is arbitrary, do you believe 5 is equally as arbitrary?

Do YOU understand the analogy? Because, right now, you're the goof demanding a cut-off that has everyone else scratching their heads. You can't present a reason why "American" is worse than "Congolese" or "Australian" so you just huff "NO! It's TWO CONTINENTS! That's TOO MUCH!!" If it's "too much", convince us all of that fact. Otherwise, admit that you're just drawing the line where it suits your argument best.
Quote:
You're discrediting the only people that should have a say in the matter (Central/South America) to focus on people who shouldn't have a say in the matter.

Again, most of them don't give a shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#723 Apr 05 2011 at 7:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Do YOU understand the analogy? Because, right now, you're the goof demanding a cut-off that has everyone else scratching their heads. You can't present a reason why "American" is worse than "Congolese" or "Australian" so you just huff "NO! It's TWO CONTINENTS! That's TOO MUCH!!" If it's "too much", convince us all of that fact. Otherwise, admit that you're just drawing the line where it suits your argument best.


Yes, I understand the analogy, that is why I asked you if you see the age 5 equally as arbitrary to the age of 18? So, do you or do you not? Do you not believe that one age is more reasonable than the other? Answer the question.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#724 Apr 05 2011 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You two statements don't even support each other. Did you even understand the analogy? if you believe 18 is arbitrary, do you believe 5 is equally as arbitrary?

Do YOU understand the analogy? Because, right now, you're the goof demanding a cut-off that has everyone else scratching their heads. You can't present a reason why "American" is worse than "Congolese" or "Australian" so you just huff "NO! It's TWO CONTINENTS! That's TOO MUCH!!" If it's "too much", convince us all of that fact. Otherwise, admit that you're just drawing the line where it suits your argument best.
Quote:
You're discrediting the only people that should have a say in the matter (Central/South America) to focus on people who shouldn't have a say in the matter.

Again, most of them don't give a shit.
Notice how he doesn't argue about North America? Because he knows that none of us give a shit. And it's funny that he'd bring up Central America, since no one gives a shit even if they do give a shit.
____________________________
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

#725 Apr 05 2011 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You two statements don't even support each other. Did you even understand the analogy? if you believe 18 is arbitrary, do you believe 5 is equally as arbitrary?

Do YOU understand the analogy? Because, right now, you're the goof demanding a cut-off that has everyone else scratching their heads. You can't present a reason why "American" is worse than "Congolese" or "Australian" so you just huff "NO! It's TWO CONTINENTS! That's TOO MUCH!!" If it's "too much", convince us all of that fact. Otherwise, admit that you're just drawing the line where it suits your argument best.
Quote:
You're discrediting the only people that should have a say in the matter (Central/South America) to focus on people who shouldn't have a say in the matter.

Again, most of them don't give a shit.
Notice how he doesn't argue about North America? Because he knows that none of us give a shit. And it's funny that he'd bring up Central America, since no one gives a shit even if they do give a shit.


LOL, this is a result of calling a single country a name of entire continents... hahahahahaha


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

Take a look at the Demonym while you're at it...

You're so funny... hahaha
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#726 Apr 05 2011 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Yes, I understand the analogy, that is why I asked you if you see the age 5 equally as arbitrary to the age of 18? So, do you or do you not? Do you not believe that one age is more reasonable than the other? Answer the question.

No, I don't. Because most people would agree that issues with a 5 year old are far different from issues with an 18 year old.

Since you apparently feel that there are far different issues between "American" and whatever else, it's up to you to enumerate them and convince everyone else that they're legitimate problems because no one else is seeing it. If you can't do that, you may as well just admit that you're just making the mark where it best serves your argument best out of pride, not out of any rational argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#727 Apr 05 2011 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

Take a look at the Demonym while you're at it...

You're so funny... hahaha

You're easily amused. It's already established that the Spanish language dictionary people continue to say "American" for anyone from the region while the rank-and-file citizenry say Americanos for citizens of the US.

Hey, if you really wanted to be so caring towards the people of Honduras, they'd also take offense to your "TWO CONTINENTS!" remarks since they view the entire western hemisphere land mass as a single continent called "America". Apparently Europe teaches the same thing while continuing to make the even more arbitrary distinction between Europe and Asia. Go figure.

If you really want something good, go ***** at the Central African Republic for ruining "Central African" for everyone else south of the Sahara and north of the Kalahari. Selfish assholes.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 8:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#728 Apr 05 2011 at 8:01 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Yes, I understand the analogy, that is why I asked you if you see the age 5 equally as arbitrary to the age of 18? So, do you or do you not? Do you not believe that one age is more reasonable than the other? Answer the question.

No, I don't. Because most people would agree that issues with a 5 year old are far different from issues with an 18 year old.

Since you apparently feel that there are far different issues between "American" and whatever else, it's up to you to enumerate them and convince everyone else that they're legitimate problems because no one else is seeing it. If you can't do that, you may as well just admit that you're just making the mark where it best serves your argument best out of pride, not out of any rational argument.


So, you agree that although the two ages are arbitrary, one has more reason then the other. So that means your argument isn't that it's simply arbitrary which you were eluding to earlier. Your argument is that you don't see a difference between North and South Korea sharing a name vs the U.S exclusively using a name that also references to dozens of other countries.

Is that right?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#729 Apr 05 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:

You're easily amused. It's already established that the Spanish language dictionary people continue to say "American" for anyone from the region while the rank-and-file citizenry say Americanos for citizens of the US.


Not you too...

Let me try this again..

He said the following "Notice how he doesn't argue about North America? "

Try it again. If you still can't figure it out why that's funny, then I'll tell you. I gave you a clue that this was a result of calling the U.S. explicitly "America"...

Jophiel wrote:
Hey, if you really wanted to be so caring towards the people of Honduras, they'd also take offense to your "TWO CONTINENTS!" remarks since they view the entire western hemisphere land mass as a single continent called "America". Apparently Europe teaches the same thing while continuing to make the even more arbitrary distinction between Europe and Asia. Go figure.

If you really want something good, go ***** at the Central African Republic for ruining "Central African" for everyone else south of the Sahara and north of the Kalahari. Selfish ********.


Pay attention. I said why should Non-Americans care what Americans call themselves?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#730 Apr 05 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, you agree that although the two ages are arbitrary

I didn't agree to that. I said that five years old was not arbitrary.

You're struggling very hard to avoid having to enumerate the legitimate reasons why your distinction isn't completely arbitrary.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#731 Apr 05 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I said why should Non-Americans care what Americans call themselves?

Why should anyone? Most nations refer to other nations by a direct derivative of their preferred name as a matter of convenience but there's nothing saying they can't call the land over yonder whatever in the **** they want. Witness the wealth of different names for the patch of real estate east of France, west of Poland and north of the Czech Republic.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 9:36am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#732 Apr 05 2011 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, you agree that although the two ages are arbitrary

I didn't agree to that. I said that five years old was not arbitrary.

You're struggling very hard to avoid having to enumerate the legitimate reasons why your distinction isn't completely arbitrary.


I'm staying on point and getting to your concern when I get to it as I asked you this first. Funny how you all often accuse me of "bouncing around on points", yet when you do it, it's ok.

How is 5 not arbitrary and 18 is? If 17 is just as arbitrary as 18, then what's the difference between 17 and 16, 16 and 15 so forth and so on? Where does it stop? You keep pretending that there was this national vote on the legal age when in fact it wasn't.

How is it not arbitrary when other countries don't have drinking ages and/or enforce drinking laws?

If the drinking age weren't "arbitrary", then every country would have the same drinking age limit. Unless you believe everyone else is just doing it wrong.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#733 Apr 05 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I said why should Non-Americans care what Americans call themselves?

Why should anyone? Most nations refer to other nations by a direct derivative of their preferred name as a matter of convenience


There's nothing wrong with that, as I said numerous times already. My statement has been that it was stupid to refer to the " of America" part as opposed to the "United States" part as the term "America" was not only already in usage to two entire continents, but for South America first, Brazil if I'm not mistaken. In that sense, I could see Brazil wanting to be called "America". I would think that would be stupid as well, but less stupid.


Edit: I guess you figured out why I laughed at Ugly. Of course you wont acknowledge his stupidity.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 4:49pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#734 Apr 05 2011 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm staying on point

We're talking country names.

I guess you had no real reasons. You only had to say so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#735 Apr 05 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
If there were a country that was named something like, The Awesome Areas of America and it's citizens chose to call themselves American when discussing stuffs amongst themselves. That would be perfectly acceptable.

It could present a problem however if both AAA citizens and USA citizens insisted that the rest of the world always and only called their citizens Americans.

But really, if there were two countries that colloquially adopted duplicate names for themselves, the world would recognize this and account for it.

So, what was the question again? I think it started with language. If the citizens of AAA were English speaking, I still don't think it's justification to rename English to American.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#736 Apr 05 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:

Like, oh I don't know, a state religion? That you have to follow?


Who said anything about a religion?


I assumed that's what you meant when you started talking about morals, values, and beliefs. Because laws (except idiotic outdated laws that really should be changed if we value freedom) have nothing to do with those things.

Almalieque wrote:
You can't have laws and practices without some form of a consensus from the public. My point is, establish what that is and stay with it, like the rest of the world. Don't go changing stuff simply because some one from another country does it a different way.


Oh, you meant LAWS. Well, no problem! We have those. Issue solved!!

Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:

So... what you're saying is... being in the land of the free means you're not really free at all...? Is that what I'm getting here? "Yeah, you can think and do what you want, but it's illegal."

Me thinks you are confused on the definition of "freedom."


Why do you all (I am actually including you this time) always take the dumbest interpretations. You know, for once, if you sat back and just thought, what would make more sense and argued that, this wouldn't be so painful.

I didn't say anything about illegal, I said acceptance as in social acceptance. You can believe in dragons and unicorns, but you can't get upset because other people don't recognize it, because they also have the freedom to reject your beliefs. It's a very simple concept.


Yeah, we have that too, numbnuts. Shador over there has the freedom to think that interracial marriage is genocide. It may make him look like a moron, but he can believe it. Society doesn't "accept" that, but no one is telling him he can't do it. Joe Bob has the right to think that black Americans should still be slaves. So long as he doesn't act on that belief, he's good. The asshole who burned the Koran has the right to burn the Koran. I have the right to burn the Bible or the flag. Society as a whole will probably want to stone me, but I can do it. I have the right to think that poligamy and incest are fine so long as everyone participating are consenting adults. But society doesn't accept that notion.

You can't start ******** because we change laws, then say, "Oh, the US won't accept that" and pretend you meant society as a whole. You're conflating two different arguments, and you're wrong on both counts.

Give it up, bud.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 9:55am by Belkira
#737 Apr 05 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I said why should Non-Americans care what Americans call themselves?

Why should anyone? Most nations refer to other nations by a direct derivative of their preferred name as a matter of convenience


There's nothing wrong with that, as I said numerous times already. My statement has been that it was stupid to refer to the " of America" part as opposed to the "United States" part as the term "America" was not only already in usage to two entire continents, but for South America first, Brazil if I'm not mistaken. In that sense, I could see Brazil wanting to be called "America". I would think that would be stupid as well, but less stupid.
Why in world would Brazil want to be called America?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#738 Apr 05 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because if they called themselves New Portugal, they wouldn't be allowed to call themselves Portuguese.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#739 Apr 05 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm staying on point

We're talking country names.

I guess you had no real reasons. You only had to say so.


False: We are talking about arbitrary numbers and how to determine when something is arbitrary or not.

You claimed that I was "moving goal posts" when referencing to other countries that share similar names.

I pointed out that I had from the beginning said that no one cares about one or two countries, but using a name that refers to two continents is a different story.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong about me "moving goal posts", you said that the number was arbitrary, making an argument on arbitrariness.

I countered your claim to say, "Yes, it is arbitrary, but this isn't an argument on arbitrariness, as you can see the same scenario in drinking ages".

I brought this up as an analogy to show while the number is arbitrary, there is a sense of reason involved to distinguish the two.

You realize this and instead of admitting once again that you were wrong, you were trying to get me off track by pretending your counter was based on my number being arbitrary, when in reality the fact that it was "arbitrary" doesn't matter as there is reason involved, just like 5 year olds not being able to drink.

Nice try though.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#740 Apr 05 2011 at 9:40 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Belkira wrote:
I assumed that's what you meant when you started talking about morals, values, and beliefs. Because laws (except idiotic outdated laws that really should be changed if we value freedom) have nothing to do with those things.


For the exception for safety, they just about all do. Even then, you can always tie in "safety" to any law based on morals, values and beliefs. I'm actually shocked that you believe otherwise.

Belkira wrote:

Oh, you meant LAWS. Well, no problem! We have those. Issue solved!!


smh..

You know, you don't always have to argue against me for the sake of arguing. My point wasn't the existence of laws, but the last sentence in that quote.

Belkira wrote:
Yeah, we have that too, numbnuts. Shador over there has the freedom to think that interracial marriage is genocide. It may make him look like a moron, but he can believe it. Society doesn't "accept" that, but no one is telling him he can't do it. Joe Bob has the right to think that black Americans should still be slaves. So long as he doesn't act on that belief, he's good. The ******* who burned the Koran has the right to burn the Koran. I have the right to burn the Bible or the flag. Society as a whole will probably want to stone me, but I can do it. I have the right to think that poligamy and incest are fine so long as everyone participating are consenting adults. But society doesn't accept that notion.

You can't start ******** because we change laws, then say, "Oh, the US won't accept that" and pretend you meant society as a whole. You're conflating two different arguments, and you're wrong on both counts.

Give it up, bud.


You're being more one-sided than Fox News during an RNC.

Social acceptance is not tied with laws. Just because you have the freedom to do certain things, doesn't mean that people wont look down upon you. What has happened in our society is that we are being pressured to accept certain things and feel certain ways towards whatever is "hot" and if you don't, you're a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe, heterophobe,etc.

Let's take the burning of the Koran. Do you think other religions would get the same type of treatment? No. Muslims right now is a touchy-subject and we're more concerned on not "offending" them than any other group. The reality is, that guy in Florida shouldn't have even gotten any air time.

Compare that to the building of the Mosque near ground zero. When U.S. citizens complained about the image that would portray, people chastised that thought of being ignorant. YET, when Joe Bubba Smith wants to burn the Koran, then it's "Oh no! Don't do that, it's a negative image". Do you see where I'm going with this?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#741 Apr 05 2011 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Still no reasons then. 'Cause, if you actually had some, you'd have offered them instead of ducking and weaving and praying.

Almost as though arbitrary definition is arbitrary. Thanks for letting me know I was right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#742 Apr 05 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Compare that to the building of the Mosque near ground zero. When U.S. citizens complained about the image that would portray, people chastised that thought of being ignorant. YET, when Joe Bubba Smith wants to burn the Koran, then it's "Oh no! Don't do that, it's a negative image".

Protesting against Islamic mosque = Ignorant; Don't do that
Burning Islamic holy book = Ignorant; Don't do that
Quote:
Do you see where I'm going with this?

All over the **** map, from the looks of it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#743 Apr 05 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Funny how you all often accuse me of "bouncing around on points", yet when you do it, it's ok.


Jophiel wrote:
Still no reasons then. 'Cause, if you actually had some, you'd have offered them instead of ducking and weaving and praying.

Almost as though arbitrary definition is arbitrary. Thanks for letting me know I was right.


Jophiel wrote:

All over the **** map, from the looks of it.


You're so funny. I'm not avoiding anything. I've laid out exactly what I was doing. You chose not to continue, that's at your fault. How am I supposed to counter something that isn't defined? I'm asking you to define your counter as you're just pretending to be arguing against arbitrariness when in reality you're not. You explicitly explain to me your concept of the matter, then I can say if I disagree with it or not. You don't want to because you wont be able to change it once you define it.

So either answer my questions, so I can understand your actual stance and then I can agree or disagree with you or kindly STFU.

Jophiel wrote:

Protesting against Islamic mosque = Ignorant; Don't do that
Burning Islamic holy book = Ignorant; Don't do that


The point is that the media is favoring scenarios to society. Would burning a Bible get the same attention? Could you not argue that placing an Islamic mosque near ground zero is just as ignorant as burning a Koran?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#744 Apr 05 2011 at 10:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Still no reasons on the whole country-name thing, huh?

It's incredibly simple: If you think there's legitimate reasons why a nation using the name of a multi-nation region is okay or even a continent with several nations is okay, but it's not okay at a certain point, explain exactly why that is.

If you can't explain it, the logical conclusion is that there is no reason (even in your own mind) and you're only making the distinction to serve your own argument and nothing more.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 11:39am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#745 Apr 05 2011 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What country only goes by "European", "Asian" and "African" without a more term personal name?


Australia does.


Yes I'm aware I'm just repeating myself. Yes, I just ignored your big long reply to me by cutting it all out.

Yes, I disagree with Joph in that I think it is correct to say "they were speaking American", "they were speaking Quebecois" and "they were speaking Pidgeon".

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 12:43pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#746 Apr 05 2011 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Yes, I disagree with Joph in that I think it is correct to say "they were speaking American", "they were speaking Quebecois" and "they were speaking Pidgeon".


That's all about the semantics of "correct", right? I mean, "speaking American" is not correct based on the formal law of the language. On the other hand, it is correct in the sense that it represents its intended meaning (i.e: people would know what you mean when you tell them that you "Speak American".

Joph's clearly arguing the former, which isn't really something that you can disagree with, as best as I can tell.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#747 Apr 05 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For the exception for safety, they just about all do. Even then, you can always tie in "safety" to any law based on morals, values and beliefs. I'm actually shocked that you believe otherwise.


Show me what you're talking about, please.

Almalieque wrote:
smh..

You know, you don't always have to argue against me for the sake of arguing. My point wasn't the existence of laws, but the last sentence in that quote.


Yeah, you still haven't proven that we're changing these big important laws because one guy got offended. Try harder.

Almalieque wrote:
You're being more one-sided than Fox News during an RNC.

Social acceptance is not tied with laws. Just because you have the freedom to do certain things, doesn't mean that people wont look down upon you. What has happened in our society is that we are being pressured to accept certain things and feel certain ways towards whatever is "hot" and if you don't, you're a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe, heterophobe,etc.


That **** freedom of speech. Gets you every time, doesn't it? Smiley: frown

Almalieque wrote:
Let's take the burning of the Koran. Do you think other religions would get the same type of treatment? No. Muslims right now is a touchy-subject and we're more concerned on not "offending" them than any other group. The reality is, that guy in Florida shouldn't have even gotten any air time.

Compare that to the building of the Mosque near ground zero. When U.S. citizens complained about the image that would portray, people chastised that thought of being ignorant. YET, when Joe Bubba Smith wants to burn the Koran, then it's "Oh no! Don't do that, it's a negative image". Do you see where I'm going with this?


No, I don't see where you're going with this. Other than to say that, as a society, we have differing opinions on subjects, and the loudest voice gets heard. And...? What does that mean, exactly? What's your point?
#748 Apr 05 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
That's all about the semantics of "correct", right? I mean, "speaking American" is not correct based on the formal law of the language. On the other hand, it is correct in the sense that it represents its intended meaning (i.e: people would know what you mean when you tell them that you "Speak American".

Joph's clearly arguing the former, which isn't really something that you can disagree with, as best as I can tell.

Yup. You can get away with saying "She speaks Chinese" and have the listener casually understand that someone is speaking a language common to China but anyone would be correct in saying "You mean 'she speaks Mandarin'" (or Cantonese).

People understood what's meant by "He speaks American" but it's still sloppy and improper.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#749 Apr 05 2011 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
You STILL can't grasp the fact that I'm not debating that the U.S. uses the term "America/n", but that it's stupid
I know you're not alma, and I haven't accused you of that. /shrug, it's not worth my time if you're not going to actually ever address anything I say. I'm not honestly sure how to phrase it so you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm clearly saying it in a way that for some reason is incredibly confusing to you, but I don't know how to make you understand. Oh well. I'll try to give it in two points.

American evolved from the name United States of America the exact same way that Canadian evolved from Canada. The US chose USofA, the same way Canada chose Canada. No one chose American or Canadian, they are natural extensions based on the name of the country.

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 1:37pm 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
#750 Apr 05 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What country only goes by "European", "Asian" and "African" without a more term personal name?


Australia does.


Yes I'm aware I'm just repeating myself. Yes, I just ignored your big long reply to me by cutting it all out.

Yes, I disagree with Joph in that I think it is correct to say "they were speaking American", "they were speaking Quebecois" and "they were speaking Pidgeon".

Edited, Apr 5th 2011 12:43pm by Aripyanfar
Why not dig down even deeper? Belkira speaks Tennesseean and Joph speaks Illinoisese. I mean, your basis for breaking English down to American is that its it's own dialect, so why not break it down even further?
____________________________
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

#751 Apr 05 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
See! This is why the south should have succeeded during the Civil War. Then we'd have the United States of America and the Confederate States of America, and maybe neither of them would today be known simply as "Americans". Maybe Feds and Unis? Who knows?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CST
Debalic, Shojindo, TirithRR, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (38)