Independence from the British Empire

[SmartyPants]

Yes, im2smart4u. I don't consider speaking out against injustice whiny, but rather consider speaking out against not much to have an excuse to promote your own agenda (*cough* 43rd president towards terrorism *cough*) whiny and inconsiderate.

Attacking the organization that killed about 3000 people on September 11th is considered "whiny and inconsiderate".  Trusting the world's greatest intelligence agencies when they say that a ruthless dictator (who has tried to create nuclear and biological weapons before and has used chemical weapons on his own people) has weapons of mass destruction is "whiny and inconsiderate".  It is also "whiny and inconsiderate" to use usually highly reliable advice of the CIA to replace the unjust dictator with a democracy.  Its good to know what you consider "whiny and inconsiderate".

1st: Hmm. The King isn't following his laws. Er... he's the king. Point invalid.

A king who's power has been limited by multiple documents such as the Magna Carta.

2nd: Okay; so he ignores his Americans. That's understandable, considering that George was dealing with the aftermath of the Seven Years War, and balancing the delicate politics of dealing with the French revolution so he could take advantage of the situation to the best of his ability, and at the same time not look like a power-hungry maniac (hard to do when you've just established yourself as a huge military power).

I can tell that you are pulling these "facts" out of your butt,  because the French Revolution came after the American Revolution.  I doubt George (both the king and prime minister) were being unjust to the colonist because of something that hasn't happened yet.  The French had their revolution after seeing the colonist rebell against their unjust monarch.

3rd: I thought you said that Americans didn't get representation in the Legislature...

They weren't represented in Parliament.  Did I ever say otherwise?

4th: Everyone uses sketchy tactics, George more so that most, that's all.

The classic peer pressure arguement. "I can do it, since everyone else is doing it."

[ArtDrake]

im2smart4u,
I don't particularly like the tone of the language you use in your posts, or what I think the tone is, anyway; it feels like you're condescending, and makes me feel bad, and
I don't agree with your use of profanity, and
I don't appreciate that you exaggerate the legitimate points I'm making in such a way that seems like you're trying to make me look silly (sorry if I'm mistaken);
I'm mildly annoyed that your posts aren't easily (for me) readable -- could you try and get rid of the spelling errors? It would make your arguments more convincing, and my head hurt less -- and
I don't agree that "peer pressure" is what my point was describing; and

Finally, this is not as a substitute for an argument. This is merely an expression of the mild irritation I'm feeling right now, and you may choose to or choose not to act upon it as you will. Thanks!

[bugfartboy]

Okay... This is getting out of hand. Don't forget Craig's last warning when we got to this point in another conversation a couple months ago. Hate speech is against the forum rules. Just, please try to bring it all back under control.

(By the way: I know I'm not a mod. Ert's just not online right now.)

Nous sommes tous bien.
Let us show it.

[Deagonx]

im2smart4u,
I don't like the tone of posting you're using, and
I don't like the profanity you're using, and
I don't like that you exaggerate the legitimate points I'm making to make me sound like an idiot;
I don't like that you can't even go to the trouble of making your posts grammatically correct so I can actually read them without having to nearly translate, and
I don't like the fact that you ignore the fact the the "peer pressure" you refer to in your post is actually one of the driving forces of politics, and instead condescend like a pretentious forum debator telling another that he's clearly an idiot; and
I don't like you.

If you consider each point insignificant on its own, try taking them as a whole, like you do with your precious Declaration of Independence.

There is no 'Tone of Posting' it is just how you interpret it.
Profanity? Well I think that one stands on its own.

Exaggeration is the way to show the illegitimacy of a point. It uses the same mindset yet in a more extreme scenario.

I had no problem reading his posts.


Sketchy tactics... everyone does it? That is not legitimate in the slightest. It is, in a more explicit way, 'taken out of your ass.'

Please do not state things as facts without any proof. Im not saying they aren't. But when it comes down to something like this citations are the way to go.



You know what I don't like?

All you did was hate on him in this post. Have you not the ability to accept defeat? You addressed your post towards him, yet did not rebuttal anything he had stated.

You didnt even acknowledge what I had said.


You've been backed into a corner because you lost this arguement, and you lash out by personally attacking another member?
Pathetic.

[MikeW781]

im2smart4u,
I don't like the tone of posting you're using, and
I don't like the profanity you're using, and
I don't like that you exaggerate the legitimate points I'm making to make me sound like an idiot;
I don't like that you can't even go to the trouble of making your posts grammatically correct so I can actually read them without having to nearly translate, and
I don't like the fact that you ignore the fact the the "peer pressure" you refer to in your post is actually one of the driving forces of politics, and instead condescend like a pretentious forum debator telling another that he's clearly an idiot; and
I don't like you.

If you consider each point insignificant on its own, try taking them as a whole, like you do with your precious Declaration of Independence.

Stop misinterpreting getting your argument attacked with him attacking you. There is a big difference. Your stance was torn to pieces, and I personally think it was mostly because it was an incorrect stance made on the bias of insufficient information/no information. This does not translate into him insulting you. Which he has done on separate occasions, but this is not one of them, and you insult him more anyways.

[Ertxiem]

C'mon guys. Calm down. Everyone has the right to have their opinion. Don't take the discussion elsewhere. This thread is about the "Independence from the British Empire". It isn't about personal divergences.

[bugfartboy]

Thanks Ert!

So let's discuss, shall we?

[Zackirus]

I personally think that the U.S. could have waited a bit longer. Britain would have eventually given in and given the US its independence.

[ArtDrake]

Sorry, guys. No, I'm not done arguing (no, not argueing with an "e") this point. No, I haven't accepted defeat. I simply don't like to be brutally condescended to, and that's what it felt like. I was expressing my irritation in this manner, a series of listed points, which I believe to be perfectly legitimate, and do not actually think it substitutes for an argument. This is my argument.

To refer to im2smart4u's post that started all of this,

Your first quote is completely misinterpreting what I'm saying. I say that protesting that the King of England is presiding over his colony in a less than attentive manner is fine, but that starting an entire war over it was indeed inconsiderate.

Attacking a nation that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and by extension the United States was inconsiderate of the ruler who, though irresponsible and who mistreated his people at times, was going to have his sovereignty violated (psst; the United States of Democracy and Good in the World doesn't have a clean track record as far as violation of sovereignty goes). Sticking our nose and other body parts into the business of a country on the other side of the world is inconsiderate. It's (not "its") good to know what you consider perfectly justified.

Next, I'd like to know whether George was actually violating the terms of the Magna Carta through actions at the time of the American Revolution. If so, I was not aware of it.

Yes, I know that the French Revolution hadn't happened yet, but what George III was dealing with at the time were the politics that were going to be those of the French Revolution. Sorry for not making it clear; there were certain inferences I was hoping you'd make -- I guess not. The French Revolution was partially caused by the financial crisis in France stemming from the end of the Seven Years War (a problem that was only later aggravated by its involvement in the American Revolution) and general dissatisfaction with the economic conditions within France at the time was what would lead to the French Revolution; the French leaders were already aware of this to some extent (especially those whose job it was totry and deal with it), and so was King George III of England. All clear about that?

Definitely not drawn out from my rectum. [spoiler=mildly rude; low-brow humour]What about you? Have you pooped any interesting facts recently?[/spoiler]

And finally, about the fourth point, it's not a matter of "I can do it, since everyone else ..." It's more like "I have to do it, since everyone else is doing it." Otherwise, King George would have lost control of America (ironic, I know); he needed to keep the colonies compliant with the measures he was using, or they would have simply refused. Unrest in France, combined with Britain's recent victory over France in the Seven Years War could have meant a revenge war against Britain, and in order to keep a decent-sized standing army... taxation and quartering of soldiers had to occur. This ticked off the Americans, but it was best for the Empire.

Another point -- another of the motivations for the Revolution of America was the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which organized the American section of the Empire, and tried to stabilize relations with the Native Americans, by basically halting European settlement of the area in consideration of the natives. The really ticked the Americans off, and they continued to oppress and marginalize the natives, and continued to colonize in Native American territory. So in reality, America was fighting Britain because Britain wouldn't let the Americans oppress the natives, and instead tried to force them to "play nice".

Zack: Agreed.

[Deagonx]

Your arguements consists mainly of saying this:

"King George had a good excuse to do what he did"
and
"The colonies were being too whiny"


Which, evidently, are entirely opinionated. What you have done is given us examples to justify your opinion.
Regardless of which, they are still an opinion.

America was being wrongly treated by its supposed 'ruler' who lives thousands of miles away.
Regardless of the 'politics' he had to deal with, he still had to take responsibility. Chances are the colonists did not even know what was going on to make king george do such things. They made an attempt to improve their lives by breaking off from their cruel leader.

I have yet to see what is so wrong with that.

[MikeW781]

Duck, no discussion on if the colonists treatment was truly worth revolution, but don't you believe everybody should get to choose who rules them? Even if they make a bad choice, or decide for the wrong reasons?

[ArtDrake]

Not particularly, Mike (W781). If everyone got to choose who rules them, we might very well have a disaster situation on our hands. We can only count on collective wisdom and predecided criteria to make sure that we have leaders that will make the right choices for the group, region, or community they lead.

[Deagonx]

Yet again... duckling has refused to acknowledge everything I have said.


Bravo, bravo indeed.

[ArtDrake]

I can't respond to everybody at once.

Deagonx, those aren't my arguments; those are my points. Everything revolves around that. These points are to demonstrate that the American colonists were unjustified and inconsiderate in their action of declaring war on Britain.

It's an opinion I'm defending. I can't declare it as fact, and nor can you the other way around. I support the opinion with fact.

Are you saying that if we (us having been at war for the past 10 years, and under considerable financial strain) declared war on North Korea, and we needed somewhere to station troops as a half-way point, and decided to raise Hawaii's taxes to respond to the strain on the economy from a war, and particularly Hawaii because this would most likely be the first target of the North Koreans (like in WWII), they would be perfectly justified in revolting, because their supposed "ruler" who lives thousands of miles away was, in their opinion, overtaxing them?

If the Hawaiians happened to be ignorant of the fact that their nation was at war and in a financial crisis, which would be difficult, as Hawaii has been affected as well by the recession (just like America was adversely economically affected by the Seven Years War), and the Hawaiians happened to think that Obama (or the next president) wasn't taking responsibility, when in actuality, he / she was doing everything he / she could to decisively win the war against North Korea, should they simply send a list of their complaints over to the White House and detach themselves from the United States?

I have yet to see what could possibly be right with that.

I put this in current-day terms for you, so you could understand the context around the event a bit better. The scenarios are nearly analogous, except for the fact that Hawaii doesn't have much naval strength. But that could change, if they wanted it to...

The point is, I'm not refusing to acknowledge you, and I do have a point, and I'm not saying they're facts.

[Deagonx]

You call them inconsiderate... as if they should pity their ruler for having a hard time? Regardless of what was going on with George's politics, he still had responsibilities that he was neglecting. The americans got the short end of the stick. They broke off from the nation to improve living conditions.


I don't think you can compare what happened then to what happened now. Everything has changed, the way society works, the way we live, the politics under which our governments deal with. Everything.


I understand what you are saying perfectly, no need to make a (bad) analogy.