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 
