450 posts IS a worse crime than wanting to kill us .

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, May 22, 2009 14:59
VIEWED: 29463
PAGE 41 of 46

PREV PAGE 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Secret and Top Secret are classification levels. They have nothing specifically to do with nuclear technology.

I'm fairly sure you said that Atomic information was classified restricted. That certainly denotes a classification level.

Quote:
It is classified as “restricted,”

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That was my wider point, thanks for parroting it back to me as if it's some new revelation I've missed. America conquered new territory, and absorbed it, making it uniquely American with all the rights and privileges of such, which is closer to how other territorial Empires such as Rome functioned. Britain administered areas to gain control of their resources and markets under a Mercantile trade doctrine, but the interest wasn't in making them British.

You have yet to explain Canada, Australia and the American colonies. All of which the British displaced the local population. So you’re wrong. Britain was, in fact, expanding territory for the Empire. They were displacing local populations when they could.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm fairly sure you said that Atomic information was classified restricted. That certainly denotes a classification level.

No. It denotes a classification caveat.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You have yet to explain Canada, Australia and the American colonies. All of which the British displaced the local population. So you’re wrong. Britain was, in fact, expanding territory for the Empire. They were displacing local populations when they could.

I think the fact that the only argument you have is to ignore most of what I said, and shout "you're wrong" based on nothing other than your own purposeful ignorance of my statements, tells a rather different story to what you claim.

If you had bothered to read my statements, you'd have noticed how Australia, Canada, and America fit in well to them. In fact the explanation of all of those colonies is right there in what you quoted. You really can't blame me for your own unwillingness to discuss this honestly.

Perhaps you need it stated more simply. There is little difference between how the colonies in America, Canada and Australia were administered, to how India was. That is centrally from Britain. Canada wasn't Britain, it was a British Colony. California isn't an American Colony, it's part of America. You even parroted back that to me yourself in your last post. By claiming my point is wrong you're even arguing with yourself. Your desperation to disagree with me is truly astounding.

My point was never about displacing natives, it was with how the areas were administered, and how they were seen by the central authority. America saw new land as new territories for American's to settle in. Britain saw it's empire as a source of raw materials, and a market for it's goods. It's not even a controversial idea, it's widely acknowledged that Britain was a trading empire. America is a territorial empire, Britain was a colonial trading empire, clearly you're wrong on this.

Quote:
No. It denotes a classification caveat.

Not in the English language it doesn't. Saying something is classified restricted, means you are saying it is classified restricted. Either you used very poorly constructed English that said something you didn't mean (in which case it's not my fault for reading what was there, not what you meant but failed to convey), or you meant something that was wrong and can't admit it.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think the fact that the only argument you have is to ignore most of what I said, and shout "you're wrong" based on nothing other than your own purposeful ignorance of my statements, tells a rather different story to what you claim.

Sounds to me like your splitting hairs and inventing definitions in order to suit some ethnocentric perspective. I think maybe you don’t want to believe that the British Empire was in fact an Empire because such a thing insults your feelings of Britishness. You want to pretend that nations that were conquered and ruled by the British weren’t really conquered and ruled. But in fact, they were, and they became part of the British Empire. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, New England, Newfoundland, South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire. The native population was displaced with English speaking peoples of British origin. You don’t have to accept it, but it remains a fact, nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not in the English language it doesn't. Saying something is classified restricted, means you are saying it is classified restricted. Either you used very poorly constructed English that said something you didn't mean (in which case it's not my fault for reading what was there, not what you meant but failed to convey), or you meant something that was wrong and can't admit it.

Actually, I read your post before you changed it. So I know that you read and understood what I said. I know that you understand what Secret/RD means. So give it a rest.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sounds to me like your splitting hairs and inventing definitions in order to suit some ethnocentric perspective. I think maybe you don’t want to believe that the British Empire was in fact an Empire because such a thing insults your feelings of Britishness. You want to pretend that nations that were conquered and ruled by the British weren’t really conquered and ruled. But in fact, they were, and they became part of the British Empire. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, New England, Newfoundland, South America were all conquered and became territorially part of the British Empire. The native population was displaced with English speaking peoples of British origin. You don’t have to accept it, but it remains a fact, nonetheless.

And it sounds to me that you're desperate to claim this weird ethnocentric charge, when even a cursory glance at my words reveals that at the very least I'm saying Britain was an Empire, and at the very least it was more exploitative than what I'm saying the US is. Perhaps your own US ethnocentrism and belief in exceptionalism is requiring you to dismiss what I say as the ravings of a British nationalist. I find if amusing that the man who complained so bitterly about "Gestapo debating tactics" at the beginning of the thread, would so completely rely on them now.

You claim that I want to pretend Britain never had an empire. It's a claim I'm shocked you'd think could be even begun to be taken seriously, since I've been clear through out that Britain did have an Empire. My only statements were that the Empires of Britain and America were of a different type, have/had a different organisation and goal, not that one was an Empire and one not. If anything my statements could only be construed (if read and dealt with honestly) as saying the exact opposite of what you claim. How anyone could read my statements that America and Britain are both Empires, but different types of empires, as saying Britain never had an empire, is beyond me. On the face of it it seems pretty retarded. I've been more than clear that Britain conquered, ruled and exploited, for you to claim that I've attempted to say otherwise, is either a gross lie, or proof that you have no desire to listen to a word posted on this forum if it appears in a post without your name above it.

Well, I have no wish to discuss anything further with someone who feels compelled to be this openly dishonest. It's mere trolling and intensely boring, so you win, the British and US empires are exactly the same. Britain incorporated it's colonies as states with full representation in parliament, or the US incorporated it's territories as colonies with no representation in government, however you want to see it, it's up to you. Happy?

Quote:
Actually, I read your post before you changed it. So I know that you read and understood what I said. I know that you understand what Secret/RD means. So give it a rest.

Yes I do. Which is why I think you know you were wrong, but can't admit it (which also explains why you want me to give it a rest).

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes I do. Which is why I think you know you were wrong, but can't admit it.

I think we both know that's not true. What's the point in this? You know what I said, but you'll pretend like you didn't just so you can argue. Did your mother not love you enough? Don't take the hate out on me.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think we both know that's not true. What's the point in this? You know what I said, but you'll pretend like you didn't just so you can argue. Did your mother not love you enough? Don't take the hate out on me.

Oh dear me, we are in a trollish mood today aren't we. You know what's funny? You even parroted back my statements to me, then you argued against what you said in your previous post, just so you could keep arguing.

Yes Finn, I know what you said, you said "Classified Restricted", which in English, means "Classified Restricted". This arguments getting so absurd it could almost be a Monty Python sketch.

If it makes you feel happy Finn, yes it's all about my hatred of you. That's why I had to make all sorts of crazy statements about your motives, and then brought your mother into the argument, clearly my hatred know no bounds.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If it makes you feel happy Finn, yes it's all about my hatred of you. That's why I had to make all sorts of crazy statements about your motives, and then brought your mother into the argument, clearly my hatred know no bounds.

It’s okay to cry.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For most of European history, there was a caste system where a certainly ruling class was born with freedom and rights, while another working class was born with no freedom and no rights. This, like a lot of things, came from the Romans. Roman society was divided up into a ruling class (Patricians), euphemistically called the “fathers,” while everyone else were Plebeians (commoners). This was a purely artificial division based on presumed birthrights or genes. It had nothing to do with wealth, in fact, many patrician families were very poor (of course there social status meant they were never without a luxurious home and plenty of food). On the other side, the Plebeians weren’t always poor. There was a large diversity of wealth including everything from slaves to the fabulously wealthy robber barons, but they were never patricians.

Actually, the European "caste" system didn't develop straight from Roman structures. Germanic and Gallic tribes already had well established systems of hierarchic society, including slavery, aristocracy and kingship. The system that developed after the collapse of the Roman empire had many contributing factors, in particular the vast poverty, small populations and threat of violent attacks from virtually every direction, Normans and Vikings to the north, Hungarians to the east, Islamic armies to the South.

In an illiterate world of subsistence farming with a great need for protection, it did make a certain amount of sense. They just took it way too far, for way too long.

Incidentally, colonization/conquering (under the guise of missionary objectives) did play a large role then, too. It was all about extending their little "empires", which is really where they copied the Romans, trying to recreate Roman emperorship in terms of glamor and size. Charlemagne did it. Otto the Great did it. Hence their names. Empire = awesome, for a long time.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Actually, the European "caste" system didn't develop straight from Roman structures. Germanic and Gallic tribes already had well established systems of hierarchic society, including slavery, aristocracy and kingship. The system that developed after the collapse of the Roman empire had many contributing factors, in particular the vast poverty, small populations and threat of violent attacks from virtually every direction, Normans and Vikings to the north, Hungarians to the east, Islamic armies to the South.

I don’t completely agree with that. Much of the Celtic world had a well established social order, but most of the Celtic world was eradicated and re-established as Roman society. The Germans did not have an organized social structure before direct contact with the Roman. The Germans had a primitive warrior society in which clans were led by prominent warriors. They didn’t divide society up into nobility or peasantry and they did not have a concept of freedom based on inalienable rights because they had no conception of law. For the Germans, freedom and rights were things that were earned by the strong. After significant contact with the Romans, Germans learned to establish a proto-feudal system based the Roman model of nobility and peasantry. This is a big part of why Germans in the 4th century were such a destabilizing factor for the Western Roman Empire, when before they had not been. The Germans learned to be a more effective society through the organization they gained from the Romans.

So while it may be true that by the time the Roman Empire collapsed in the West, German societies had already begun developing a feudal economy which would later define the European model of aristocracy, it’s not true that that social order developed independent of the Romans.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Incidentally, colonization/conquering (under the guise of missionary objectives) did play a large role then, too. It was all about extending their little "empires", which is really where they copied the Romans, trying to recreate Roman emperorship in terms of glamor and size. Charlemagne did it. Otto the Great did it. Hence their names. Empire = awesome, for a long time.

I agree with that. A great deal of Medieval European thought and politics centered on recreating the mythic “glory” of the Roman Empire.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PREV PAGE 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NEXT PAGE