What's so bad about 'USian'?

[Caninope]

I simply refer to myself as "A legal citizen and resident of the United States"... very precise... very accurate.

And quite a mouthful... I like estadounidense. It rolls off the tongue very nicely. Americans should be forced to learn Spanish.

I like "Those Yanks" personally.

Which offends some Southerners, regardless of them being a redneck or not.

[Maurepas]

They're both dairy products though, so, I think it's safe to call them both forms of Dairy.

And? You still haven't shown that the United States can be used to describe a system of government.

I did, it can be used to describe a Federalist form of government. Just as cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

No it can't. And you've broken the analogy. You are really claiming that cheese can be used to describe a type of milk. No no, you first have to show that United States refers to a type of government, THEN if the two definitions match up, ONLY THEN will you have demonstrated that United States can be used to describe a federalist form of government.

Why can't it? I didn't say it could be described as a type of milk, but that both milk and cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

And you've yet to demonstrate that US can describe a form of dairy.

Federalism: a Type of government characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government.

A Union of states, that can be described as a United States.

That's not the definition you posted before right? Either way, "United States" does not imply that the states are self governing, nor does it imply that they are united by a central government. They could be either. Yes, a federation can be described as "united states" but "united states" is not a synonym for federation. Like all mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals.

My analogy is more like Rabbit is a form of Mammal.

[Person012345]

They're both dairy products though, so, I think it's safe to call them both forms of Dairy.

And? You still haven't shown that the United States can be used to describe a system of government.

I did, it can be used to describe a Federalist form of government. Just as cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

No it can't. And you've broken the analogy. You are really claiming that cheese can be used to describe a type of milk. No no, you first have to show that United States refers to a type of government, THEN if the two definitions match up, ONLY THEN will you have demonstrated that United States can be used to describe a federalist form of government.

Why can't it? I didn't say it could be described as a type of milk, but that both milk and cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

And you've yet to demonstrate that US can describe a form of dairy.

Federalism: a Type of government characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government.

A Union of states, that can be described as a United States.

That's not the definition you posted before right? Either way, "United States" does not imply that the states are self governing, nor does it imply that they are united by a central government. They could be either. Yes, a federation can be described as "united states" but "united states" is not a synonym for federation. Like all mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals.

My analogy is more like Rabbit is a form of Mammal.

All rabbits are mammals, but not all mammals are rabbits. It still stands.

you first need to prove that the United States has any connotation of government form.

[Robarya]

Seriously. It's a fucking term. Some people prefer it because they consider it more precise than 'American'. Why is it such a huge problem when people use it?

It sounds/looks silly, but go ahead and use the term as much as you like.

[Maurepas]

They're both dairy products though, so, I think it's safe to call them both forms of Dairy.

And? You still haven't shown that the United States can be used to describe a system of government.

I did, it can be used to describe a Federalist form of government. Just as cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

No it can't. And you've broken the analogy. You are really claiming that cheese can be used to describe a type of milk. No no, you first have to show that United States refers to a type of government, THEN if the two definitions match up, ONLY THEN will you have demonstrated that United States can be used to describe a federalist form of government.

Why can't it? I didn't say it could be described as a type of milk, but that both milk and cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

And you've yet to demonstrate that US can describe a form of dairy.

Federalism: a Type of government characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government.

A Union of states, that can be described as a United States.

That's not the definition you posted before right? Either way, "United States" does not imply that the states are self governing, nor does it imply that they are united by a central government. They could be either. Yes, a federation can be described as "united states" but "united states" is not a synonym for federation. Like all mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals.

My analogy is more like Rabbit is a form of Mammal.

All rabbits are mammals, but not all mammals are rabbits. It still stands.

you first need to prove that the United States has any connotation of government form.

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

[Person012345]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is comprised of united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

[Caninope]

They're both dairy products though, so, I think it's safe to call them both forms of Dairy.

And? You still haven't shown that the United States can be used to describe a system of government.

I did, it can be used to describe a Federalist form of government. Just as cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

No it can't. And you've broken the analogy. You are really claiming that cheese can be used to describe a type of milk. No no, you first have to show that United States refers to a type of government, THEN if the two definitions match up, ONLY THEN will you have demonstrated that United States can be used to describe a federalist form of government.

Why can't it? I didn't say it could be described as a type of milk, but that both milk and cheese can be used to describe a form of Dairy.

And you've yet to demonstrate that US can describe a form of dairy.

Federalism: a Type of government characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government.

A Union of states, that can be described as a United States.

That's not the definition you posted before right? Either way, "United States" does not imply that the states are self governing, nor does it imply that they are united by a central government. They could be either. Yes, a federation can be described as "united states" but "united states" is not a synonym for federation. Like all mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals.

My analogy is more like Rabbit is a form of Mammal.

All rabbits are mammals, but not all mammals are rabbits. It still stands.

you first need to prove that the United States has any connotation of government form.

When I say humans, do you think of the species Homo Sapien Sapiens, or do you also think of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and such?

Technically, they were humans too.

[Person012345]

When I say humans, do you think of the species Homo Sapien Sapiens, or do you also think of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and such?

Technically, they were humans too.

/strawman

[Maurepas]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is are united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

My point though, which I've stated several times with every single one of your analogies is that, is that they are both forms of transportation.

I'm not trying to say they are the same form of transportation as you seem to want to equate, I'm saying they are both forms of transportation and nothing further.

Anymore than I would say that just because Communism and Federalism are forms of Government, then Communism is Federalism.

Your problem is, you're trying to apply an analogy that I'm not making.

[Maurepas]

When I say humans, do you think of the species Homo Sapien Sapiens, or do you also think of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and such?

Technically, they were humans too.

/strawman

Ah, I see it, my mistake was not calling that on your analogies earlier.

[Caninope]

When I say humans, do you think of the species Homo Sapien Sapiens, or do you also think of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and such?

Technically, they were humans too.

/strawman

But humans refers to the whole Homo genus.

Americas refer to the landmass that makes up SA and NA. If we apply the logic you are using to biology, we find that "humans" isn't the best term for ourselves.

[Person012345]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is are united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

My point though, which I've stated several times with every single one of your analogies is that, is that they are both forms of transportation.

I'm not trying to say they are the same form of transportation as you seem to want to equate, I'm saying they are both forms of transportation and nothing further.

Anymore than I would say that just because Communism and Federalism are forms of Government, then Communism is Federalism.

Your problem is, you're trying to apply an analogy that I'm not making.

No, as I've repeatedly said, you've yet to prove that the "airplane" (the US) is a "form of transport" (a form of government). That is what you must do. Prove that "United States" implies any form of government.

Seriously, it doesn't.

[Maurepas]

When I say humans, do you think of the species Homo Sapien Sapiens, or do you also think of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and such?

Technically, they were humans too.

/strawman

But humans refers to the whole Homo genus.

Americas refer to the landmass that makes up SA and NA. If we apply the logic you are using to biology, we find that "humans" isn't the best term for ourselves.

The problem there is, we've led this off on a barely related tangent. He isn't arguing the OP.

The argument is rather whether all of them could be called "Forms of Human" as it were.

[Caninope]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is are united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

My point though, which I've stated several times with every single one of your analogies is that, is that they are both forms of transportation.

I'm not trying to say they are the same form of transportation as you seem to want to equate, I'm saying they are both forms of transportation and nothing further.

Anymore than I would say that just because Communism and Federalism are forms of Government, then Communism is Federalism.

Your problem is, you're trying to apply an analogy that I'm not making.

No, as I've repeatedly said, you've yet to prove that the "airplane" (the US) is a "form of transport" (a form of government). That is what you must do. Prove that "United States" implies any form of government.

Seriously, it doesn't.

It implies smaller entities under another. That's a type of government.

[Maurepas]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is are united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

My point though, which I've stated several times with every single one of your analogies is that, is that they are both forms of transportation.

I'm not trying to say they are the same form of transportation as you seem to want to equate, I'm saying they are both forms of transportation and nothing further.

Anymore than I would say that just because Communism and Federalism are forms of Government, then Communism is Federalism.

Your problem is, you're trying to apply an analogy that I'm not making.

No, as I've repeatedly said, you've yet to prove that the "airplane" (the US) is a "form of transport" (a form of government). That is what you must do. Prove that "United States" implies any form of government.

Seriously, it doesn't.

*sigh*

United States imply a Union of Sovereign States, i.e. a Federation.

Not the only Federation, not necessarily same as any other Federation. Not the same as Communism. Not the same as Cheese. Etc.

[United States of PA]

My problem with it is that it's an obvious troll term. I think it should be clear to anyone with eyes and reading ability that it's only used by certain people to make certain other people angry. I never really understood what was supposed to be so heinous about using "American" as a demonym, considering that the US is the only country on either continent to actually deploy the word "America" in its official title. In NS terms, "United States" would be the pretitle, and "America" would be the account name. Calling us "USians" would be like calling Germany "FeReians" or something equally stupid (since their pretitle would be "Federal Republic").

Yeah, but America is also in the name of two continents. So in a sense, everyone in North and South America is an "American" because they inhabit the Americas.

But how many of those other 35 nations actually have the word America in their actual name?

[Person012345]

When I say humans, do you think of the species Homo Sapien Sapiens, or do you also think of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, and such?

Technically, they were humans too.

/strawman

But humans refers to the whole Homo genus.

Americas refer to the landmass that makes up SA and NA. If we apply the logic you are using to biology, we find that "humans" isn't the best term for ourselves.

Actually we don't. If we apply the logic I'm using to biology we find that we don't automatically get dibs on using the name "erectus" just because it's in our name. And that if we did use erectus that would be fine, but that there is no better reason to refer to humans as "erectus" than to refer to them as "homo".

[Maurepas]

My problem with it is that it's an obvious troll term. I think it should be clear to anyone with eyes and reading ability that it's only used by certain people to make certain other people angry. I never really understood what was supposed to be so heinous about using "American" as a demonym, considering that the US is the only country on either continent to actually deploy the word "America" in its official title. In NS terms, "United States" would be the pretitle, and "America" would be the account name. Calling us "USians" would be like calling Germany "FeReians" or something equally stupid (since their pretitle would be "Federal Republic").

Yeah, but America is also in the name of two continents. So in a sense, everyone in North and South America is an "American" because they inhabit the Americas.

But how many of those other 35 nations actually have the word America in their actual name?

The real question is, how many of them would be offended if we called them Americans?

I thought the last time I asked that the answer was rather disingenuous tbqh.

[Person012345]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is are united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

My point though, which I've stated several times with every single one of your analogies is that, is that they are both forms of transportation.

I'm not trying to say they are the same form of transportation as you seem to want to equate, I'm saying they are both forms of transportation and nothing further.

Anymore than I would say that just because Communism and Federalism are forms of Government, then Communism is Federalism.

Your problem is, you're trying to apply an analogy that I'm not making.

No, as I've repeatedly said, you've yet to prove that the "airplane" (the US) is a "form of transport" (a form of government). That is what you must do. Prove that "United States" implies any form of government.

Seriously, it doesn't.

*sigh*

United States imply a Union of Sovereign States, i.e. a Federation.

Not the only Federation, not necessarily same as any other Federation. Not the same as Communism. Not the same as Cheese. Etc.

Again, you've tried to prove that "United States" implies government type by equating it with federation. Which I've already refuted over 9000 times.

[Person012345]

It implies smaller entities under another. That's a type of government.

But under what type of government? Monarchical, dictatorial, republican, no central government, what? It doesn't. It doesn't imply any form of government, it only implies that many states are working together.

[Maurepas]

I don't know how I can keep repeating the same thing over again in some other form at this point.

A Union of States=United States, a Federation=A Union of States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
The first line. I mean, I just don't know how I can dumb it down any further.

I really don't believe that you don't see the logical fallacy in that statement.

A federation is are united states.

United States does not have to refer to a federation (assuming a federation has more of a definition than "a union of states")
By your own logic I can prove that a car is an airplane.

A car is a metal object that transports people from place to place.
An airplane is a metal object that transports people from place to place.

Therefore a car is an airplane.

You then can't claim that because an airplane flies, a car also flies. You have to lay out the full definition of each thing before you can equate them to being the same thing. That has to be part of logic 101.

My point though, which I've stated several times with every single one of your analogies is that, is that they are both forms of transportation.

I'm not trying to say they are the same form of transportation as you seem to want to equate, I'm saying they are both forms of transportation and nothing further.

Anymore than I would say that just because Communism and Federalism are forms of Government, then Communism is Federalism.

Your problem is, you're trying to apply an analogy that I'm not making.

No, as I've repeatedly said, you've yet to prove that the "airplane" (the US) is a "form of transport" (a form of government). That is what you must do. Prove that "United States" implies any form of government.

Seriously, it doesn't.

*sigh*

United States imply a Union of Sovereign States, i.e. a Federation.

Not the only Federation, not necessarily same as any other Federation. Not the same as Communism. Not the same as Cheese. Etc.

Again, you've tried to prove that "United States" implies government type by equating it with federation. Which I've already refuted over 9000 times.

You were the one who made the point, actually. And, actually, I've been equating it with a Union of Sovereign States, a form of Government known as Federalism.

[Person012345]

You were the one who made the point, actually. And, actually, I've been equating it with a Union of Sovereign States, a form of Government known as Federalism.

No, see, there is more to the definition of federalism than "a union of states". I already said, if that was the entirity of the definition I'd agree, but it's not.

[Mushet]

Why not American, the name of the country is America, the real name of the continent is Anahuak as coined by the native people

The adjective "American" originally referred to the landmass known as the Americas or America.

well the real name of the continent is Anahuak, America is what the whiteboy invaders called it

[Caninope]

It implies smaller entities under another. That's a type of government.

But under what type of government? Monarchical, dictatorial, republican, no central government, what? It doesn't. It doesn't imply any form of government, it only implies that many states are working together.

Monarchy isn't a single form of government, therefore the United Kingdom isn't a title.

[South Norwega]

Why not American, the name of the country is America, the real name of the continent is Anahuak as coined by the native people

The adjective "American" originally referred to the landmass known as the Americas or America.

well the real name of the continent is Anahuak, America is what the whiteboy invaders called it

That's an ignorant and silly statement .Different languages almost always have different names for different places.

In English, it's America. It's original name is irrelevant, because that's what it has pretty much always been called in English.

Also, did all the hundreds of different groupings in the Americas all call the continent Anahuak? I think not...