Anti-Americanism on NationStates

[Socialdemokraterne]

...what shall I counter-argue that I haven't already, honey-bear? You've yet to address my post, and I answered every claim you made. What's left?

what post would that be? so far all the posts i have seen are questioning me and demanding hours of me providing you with data.

but now im questioning YOU, what made you feel i had to had my statements torn down? on what principles did you makes such a decision to do so?

im sure you going to insert some sort of comment you find witty.

Let's start with this:

Alot of americans are ignorant of the unconstitutional laws passed by this recent government.

Are you familiar with the phrase "informal amendment"? A literal, direct reading of the federal constitution is not necessarily the best way to use that document.

See how I said that while the government has obtained powers which are not directly prescribed by the constitution, it has borne the ability to enforce and enact these powers by virtue of informal amendments?

Do you have a rebuttal, or are you just going to keep insisting that I didn't actually offer any counterarguments?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

*rubs temples* you know i dont have time for all of this nor can i type fast enough so instead of wasting my productivity giving all the evidence you want including poles, testimonies, research, and the easter bunny coming out here saying im right I will just say this.

You are all right and im 100% wrong, im just a butt hurting self hating american loser who lives in his parents basement planning the next anti-liberty attack on my fellow Americans by using false statements with absolutely no data.

Now you all tell me what makes americans so grand, and how every word im my statements is false with all the data you can muster. I can wait, though i doubt any of you will.

Don't let us stop you being passive aggressive. I'd hate to end this pity party.
And you create yet more straw-men, because you're afraid of actually taking on what people are saying against your "argument".
As for America? As an American citizen, I like it. Need any more?

We don't have to. You've presented nothing, so we don't have to counter it.

i presented a comment, you presented a argument saying my comment was based on nothing, which means you possibly believe in the opposite. So since you questioned me, im questioning on youe motives to question me and what they are based on.

nut up or shut up.

You made the claim. Burden of proof's on you, not us, buddy.
Once you actually SUPPORT ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, we'll counter (if it merits it). That's how this works.

[Sailsia]

Taking a look at the last page or two, I'd recommend you guys cool down a little and take a break from this thread. I don't see any debating, just personal arguing.

[Valhallion]

what post would that be? so far all the posts i have seen are questioning me and demanding hours of me providing you with data.

but now im questioning YOU, what made you feel i had to had my statements torn down? on what principles did you makes such a decision to do so?

im sure you going to insert some sort of comment you find witty.

Let's start with this:

Are you familiar with the phrase "informal amendment"? A literal, direct reading of the federal constitution is not necessarily the best way to use that document.

See how I said that while the government has obtained powers which are not directly prescribed by the constitution, it has borne the ability to enforce and enact these powers by virtue of informal amendments?

Do you have a rebuttal, or are you just going to keep insisting that I didn't actually offer any counterarguments?

excuse me for being a simple minded moron, but are you asking how can these laws be enforced? or am i missing what your saying.

if i am speak to me in small words since in slow.

[Valhallion]

*rubs temples* you know i dont have time for all of this nor can i type fast enough so instead of wasting my productivity giving all the evidence you want including poles, testimonies, research, and the easter bunny coming out here saying im right I will just say this.

You are all right and im 100% wrong, im just a butt hurting self hating american loser who lives in his parents basement planning the next anti-liberty attack on my fellow Americans by using false statements with absolutely no data.

Now you all tell me what makes americans so grand, and how every word im my statements is false with all the data you can muster. I can wait, though i doubt any of you will.

Don't let us stop you being passive aggressive. I'd hate to end this pity party.
And you create yet more straw-men, because you're afraid of actually taking on what people are saying against your "argument".
As for America? As an American citizen, I like it. Need any more?

i presented a comment, you presented a argument saying my comment was based on nothing, which means you possibly believe in the opposite. So since you questioned me, im questioning on youe motives to question me and what they are based on.

nut up or shut up.

You made the claim. Burden of proof's on you, not us, buddy.
Once you actually SUPPORT ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, we'll counter (if it merits it). That's how this works.

im holding you to the same standards you did with me, i disagree with your comment and i demand proof in the same matter you demanded from me to back your statement other than previous comments.

and dont call me buddy, i dont know you and you dont know me.

[Socialdemokraterne]

excuse me for being a simple minded moron, but are you asking how can these laws be enforced? or am i missing what your saying.

if i am speak to me in small words since in slow.

I said that while the government has obtained powers which are not directly prescribed by the constitution, it has borne the ability to enforce and enact these powers by virtue of informal amendments. If you knew what an informal amendment is, it should be obvious that I'm saying that interpretation of the document is infinitely more important in determining what powers the US government possesses (what it can and can't do) than what the document literally says. Which is why I said that a literal, direct reading of the constitution isn't the best way to use the document.

Follow?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Don't let us stop you being passive aggressive. I'd hate to end this pity party.
And you create yet more straw-men, because you're afraid of actually taking on what people are saying against your "argument".
As for America? As an American citizen, I like it. Need any more?


You made the claim. Burden of proof's on you, not us, buddy.
Once you actually SUPPORT ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, we'll counter (if it merits it). That's how this works.

im holding you to the same standards you did with me, i disagree with your comment and i demand proof in the same matter you demanded from me to back your statement other than previous comments.

and dont call me buddy, i dont know you and you dont know me.

Except you made the initial claim, which means you gotta pull out support/proof/whatever before the rest of us counter.
The burden is not on us. It is on you right now.

[Ostroeuropa]

im holding you to the same standards you did with me, i disagree with your comment and i demand proof in the same matter you demanded from me to back your statement other than previous comments.

and dont call me buddy, i dont know you and you dont know me.

Except you made the initial claim, which means you gotta pull out support/proof/whatever before the rest of us counter.
The burden is not on us. It is on you right now.

PROVE the burden is on him, since that's a positive claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_T ... o_Achilles

Annnnd there, I just killed all arguments forever.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Except you made the initial claim, which means you gotta pull out support/proof/whatever before the rest of us counter.
The burden is not on us. It is on you right now.

PROVE the burden is on him, since that's a positive claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_T ... o_Achilles

Annnnd there, I just killed all arguments forever.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU OSTROEUROPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

[Ostroeuropa]

PROVE the burden is on him, since that's a positive claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_T ... o_Achilles

Annnnd there, I just killed all arguments forever.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU OSTROEUROPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Theres a number of argument-buster weapons me and some friends came up with, including "I DENY DESCARTES!" which amounts to denying the major premise of des cartes arguments, and in turn the universe. You simply cant argue after someones done that
"But X!" "I disagree. None of this exists, the laws of logic are my fever dream." etc
asking someone to prove the location of the burden of proof and then either doing (or linking) that story pretty much ends an argument

[Valhallion]

excuse me for being a simple minded moron, but are you asking how can these laws be enforced? or am i missing what your saying.

if i am speak to me in small words since in slow.

I said that while the government has obtained powers which are not directly prescribed by the constitution, it has borne the ability to enforce and enact these powers by virtue of informal amendments. If you knew what an informal amendment is, it should be obvious that I'm saying that interpretation of the document is infinitely more important in determining what powers the US government possesses (what it can and can't do) than what the document literally says. Which is why I said that a literal, direct reading of the constitution isn't the best way to use the document.

Follow?

Yeah i follow i think, even though i have no clue what a informal amendment is. I believe in short hand your saying that reading of any legal document/ how it is interpreted in more important than the law it represents.

If that is th case the mean if a document read " I am a homo and deserve to be beaten" mean that the focus should be on the language rather than the fact im owed a beating?

[Valhallion]

Except you made the initial claim, which means you gotta pull out support/proof/whatever before the rest of us counter.
The burden is not on us. It is on you right now.

PROVE the burden is on him, since that's a positive claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_T ... o_Achilles

Annnnd there, I just killed all arguments forever.

............................*puts flowers on the grave* ...................they died so young.

[Socialdemokraterne]

You are, perhaps, waiting for me to address these questions?

but now im questioning YOU, what made you feel i had to had my statements torn down? on what principles did you makes such a decision to do so?

There's a difference between tearing someone's claims down arbitrarily and asking that the person who has made a claim offer some sort of evidence or rationale behind their claim, if for no other reason than to confirm the claim's truth value within a given set of assumptions.

Generally when one makes the claim that a certain number of individuals share a certain characteristic (such as being ignorant of something) it's assumed that this can be confirmed by measurement. I asked for the measurement to confirm your claim that the number you presented was in fact the number. That's hardly a faux pas or being unreasonable.

So "can you show me how you know that" as a response to "90% of US citizens have 'x' in common" is hardly an unfair manner of doing things. Now, more abstract questions such as "should we eschew the possibility of informal amendments and read the constitution literally" aren't as easily backed with measurable data. Instead, claims like that are typically backed up by providing a logical framework with all the assumptions listed. The argument holds if there are no contradictions in its framework, and it doesn't if there are.

My "decision to tear you down" amounts to asking for either data or a logical framework in order to confirm that your claims are consistent either with the logical framework in question or the social/physical record.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yeah i follow i think, even though i have no clue what a informal amendment is. I believe in short hand your saying that reading of any legal document/ how it is interpreted in more important than the law it represents.

If that is th case the mean if a document read " I am a homo and deserve to be beaten" mean that the focus should be on the language rather than the fact im owed a beating?

There we go, now things are calming down. I bear partial responsibility for the instigation of the frustration, so I'll go ahead and apologize first: I'm sorry that I used such harsh language with you. It was counterproductive.

Now, as for your "I am a homo and deserve to be beaten", a focus on the language is very important. You see, it could be extrapolated from that statement that all homosexuals should be beaten, and that could set the precedent in future considerations. Alternatively, you could hypothetically conclude that the statement has provided extraneous information by saying that you're a homosexual and that the part that really matters is that you specifically need to be beaten. You're still constrained to the phrase, but the same statement can have two radically different meanings.

[Valhallion]

You are, perhaps, waiting for me to address these questions?

but now im questioning YOU, what made you feel i had to had my statements torn down? on what principles did you makes such a decision to do so?

There's a difference between tearing someone's claims down arbitrarily and asking that the person who has made a claim offer some sort of evidence or rationale behind their claim, if for no other reason than to confirm the claim's truth value within a given set of assumptions.

Generally when one makes the claim that a certain number of individuals share a certain characteristic (such as being ignorant of something) it's assumed that this can be confirmed by measurement. I asked for the measurement to confirm your claim that the number you presented was in fact the number. That's hardly a faux pas or being unreasonable.

So "can you show me how you know that" as a response to "90% of US citizens have 'x' in common" is hardly an unfair manner of doing things. Now, more abstract questions such as "should we eschew the possibility of informal amendments and read the constitution literally" aren't as easily backed with measurable data. Instead, claims like that are typically backed up by providing a logical framework with all the assumptions listed. The argument holds if there are no contradictions in its framework, and it doesn't if there are.

My "decision to tear you down" amounts to asking for either data or a logical framework in order to confirm that your claims are consistent either with the logical framework in question or the social/physical record.

and there lays the trap, for most of my data i have done on my own through social experiments since i could not find any data polls on my claim. Out of a 100 people i asked and perform these experiments on they 90 of them showed all of the qualities as i stated above so long ago.

now im no scientist, nor do i hold any short of title, this was on my own on my time. But here is the thing, since by my own admission i am not a qualified professional and data i collect is void in a formal argument. And if that isnt enough there are not other data collected to stand by my data/argument other than a few biased news letters

so how can their be proof when the merits of that proof already compromise it? So all i have been left with is my statement and voided data i long since gotten rid of.

but here is the other thing, can you prove anything im saying is true when there is not evidence proving or disproving? what kind of discussion are we left with?

[Valhallion]

Yeah i follow i think, even though i have no clue what a informal amendment is. I believe in short hand your saying that reading of any legal document/ how it is interpreted in more important than the law it represents.

If that is th case the mean if a document read " I am a homo and deserve to be beaten" mean that the focus should be on the language rather than the fact im owed a beating?

There we go, now things are calming down. I bear partial responsibility for the instigation of the frustration, so I'll go ahead and apologize first: I'm sorry that I used such harsh language with you. It was counterproductive.

Now, as for your "I am a homo and deserve to be beaten", a focus on the language is very important. You see, it could be extrapolated from that statement that all homosexuals should be beaten, and that could set the precedent in future considerations. Alternatively, you could hypothetically conclude that the statement has provided extraneous information by saying that you're a homosexual and that the part that really matters is that you specifically need to be beaten. You're still constrained to the phrase, but the same statement can have two radically different meanings.

well thank you for the apology, i dont deserve it, and i apologize if i said anything that was harsh as well.

now that we got that cleared up what are we applying this to?

[Post War America]

People are upset with the United States for the following reasons...

1) An outright Imperialistic Foreign Policy (of the Economic Imperialist variety)
2) A greedy consumerist culture that builds its wealth off the backs of weaker nations.
3) Finally, because trolls like you play the "American Exceptionalist" card, to devastating effect. Particularly when those trolls happen to comprise most of the United States media establishment, and government.

Take it from a proud American, your post damages the image of the United States, not helps it.

1) I see no imperialism. Cite an example or quit the propoganda.
2) That's capitalism, we had a cold war over this you know.
3) They are the current hegenomy. All hegenomies do this.

1)Since WWII...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause
That's just a scratch of the surface...
2) I can't argue that Capitalism does that, I can however state, that it does piss off a number of non-Americans.
3) I also can't argue the statement of hegemonies doing that, once again, doesn't stop people from getting pissed.

[Ostroeuropa]

1) I see no imperialism. Cite an example or quit the propoganda.
2) That's capitalism, we had a cold war over this you know.
3) They are the current hegenomy. All hegenomies do this.

1)Since WWII...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause
That's just a scratch of the surface...
2) I can't argue that Capitalism does that, I can however state, that it does piss off a number of non-Americans.
3) I also can't argue the statement of hegemonies doing that, once again, doesn't stop people from getting pissed.

Ok, so The Iranian operations - stopping commies. Not imperialism, sorry. Do try to look up definitions of words before you throw them around, it'd be akin to calling it Colonialism just because it's a nasty word.

The Iraq war, again, not imperialism. INTERVENTIONISM is a word for a reason.

And Panama, again, interventionism.

[Valhallion]

And Panama, again, interventionism.

no, not interventionism, its ROCK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toP4UtQZiw8

[Post War America]

1)Since WWII...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause
That's just a scratch of the surface...
2) I can't argue that Capitalism does that, I can however state, that it does piss off a number of non-Americans.
3) I also can't argue the statement of hegemonies doing that, once again, doesn't stop people from getting pissed.

Ok, so The Iranian operations - stopping commies. Not imperialism, sorry. Do try to look up definitions of words before you throw them around, it'd be akin to calling it Colonialism just because it's a nasty word.

The Iraq war, again, not imperialism. INTERVENTIONISM is a word for a reason.

And Panama, again, interventionism.

Note I said Economic Imperialism (knocking over governments to create loyal client states to buy your product) which works very differently from direct Imperialism (knocking over governments and establishing colonial rule), and all of those cases are Economic Imperialism, 'cept for Iran-Contra...

Ajax, overthrew a democratically elected government for better access to Iranian Oil.
Iraq, overthrew a government (no matter how heinous it was) to better access Iraqi Oil, and install a pro-US power base to better control the rest of the Middle East.
Panama, overthrow a government to hold onto direct control of the Panama Canal for a little bit longer.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ok, so The Iranian operations - stopping commies. Not imperialism, sorry. Do try to look up definitions of words before you throw them around, it'd be akin to calling it Colonialism just because it's a nasty word.

The Iraq war, again, not imperialism. INTERVENTIONISM is a word for a reason.

And Panama, again, interventionism.

Note I said Economic Imperialism (knocking over governments to create loyal client states to buy your product) which works very differently from direct Imperialism (knocking over governments and establishing colonial rule), and all of those cases are Economic Imperialism, 'cept for Iran-Contra...

Ajax, overthrew a democratically elected government for better access to Iranian Oil.
Iraq, overthrew a government (no matter how heinous it was) to better access Iraqi Oil, and install a pro-US power base to better control the rest of the Middle East.
Panama, overthrow a government to hold onto direct control of the Panama Canal for a little bit longer.

Do you have evidence those were the motives, or just conjecture.

[Tagmatium]

Ok, so The Iranian operations - stopping commies.

It was still a democratically elected government, however. It's not like it was certain that they would become Communist, although they probably would have considering the antipathy from the West that was aimed at them. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" an' all.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

And Panama, again, interventionism.

no, not interventionism, its ROCK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toP4UtQZiw8

Stop trying to make me like you, dammit!
I'd like to apologize for contributing to the heated atmosphere as well. I'll admit, I can get carried away.

[Valhallion]

no, not interventionism, its ROCK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toP4UtQZiw8

Stop trying to make me like you, dammit!
I'd like to apologize for contributing to the heated atmosphere as well. I'll admit, I can get carried away.

its all okay, i know i can come off a bit.....................whats the word........extreme, and i know it does cause a bad reaction, no no apology needed.

But i will agree, Yan Halen rocks.

[Ierm]

Stop invading people's nations, attempting to overthrow governments, flooding our markets with sub-par produce and treating the rest of the world like they are second class citizens.

Then start solving your problems by yourselves, and stop asking us to use our military so the rest of you don't have to.

You must have cognitive dissonance.

Countries want to solve their own problems but America believing itself to be some kind of (Bully)Police Officer of the world intervenes and destroys any chance at progress or revolution against the hegemonic interests of america.