Mark made a post that compares European immigration to North America in the 18th and 19th centuries to current Latino immigration to same in the 20th and 21st centuries.
I am asking if, as currently accepted wisdom teaches, the European immigration and displacement of Native Americans was a bad thing and said Native Americans were in the morally superior position in resistance to that Immigration - Why then is the same 'accepted wisdom' reversed when the question is resistance to immigration and 'displacement' of European-Americans by Latin-Americans?
Bubble Boys, you guys are a joke! You know exactly what I'm saying. People have been in the America's long before the "white man". Put your fears away its does nothing for you except exploit your racist and bigot tendencies. Get over it and deal with change. Your like toddlers who have their toys taken from them at the playground.
Apparently you are an idiot or have a reading disability.
Let's repeat, using really small words for the disadvantaged....
Native American people were here first -> European people came and took over -> This is bad because? -> Because N.A. people were here first.
European people are here now -> Latin people are coming in -> If enough Latin people come in then they will take over -> This is apparently not bad because??????
That is the question. European people are here before Latin people - why are you not as outraged about the coming displacement of these people who were here first as you are about when these people displaced those who were here prior?
I can only figure that it is only because they are white. That means YOU are the one exhibiting racist tendencies.
Well, as usual GD, you are wrong in several ways. First, the Middle American people were actually here before the Europeans. Second, the Europeans illegally took land from the Native Americans (both North, Middle and South) whereas the people from Mexico jumping across the border aren't seizing any land. So you are missing that difference. Third, you are avoiding the critique and redirecting (shocking, I know) by not admitting that our country was founded on illegal immigration. Worse than that, actually. Thus, you should have no problem with illegal immigration but you do. In short, you guys are the ones that have some 'splaining to do.
So what will it be? An explanation, the turnaround dance, or something else?
No, I am not missing the difference. YOU MADE THE COMPARISON TO BEGIN WITH - it's your analogy.
YOU are missing the fucking point.
If I supposedly have no problem with the illegal immigration that founded our country and therefore I also shouldn't have a problem with current illegal immigration then the SAME LOGIC SHOULD APPLY TO YOU.
IF YOU have a problem with the illegal immigration that founded this country THEN WHY DO YOU NOT have a problem with current illegal immigration?
Where have I excused European displacement of natives? Where have I bemoaned current Latin illegal immigration?
I simply fucking ask you to explain how the logic works wherein YOU can fault one group of people for using a logical argument that you disagree with while NOT faulting the opposite thought pattern THAT USES THE SAME DAMNED LOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Refresh you memory:
Your argument is thus:
If A does X to B is acceptable, then if C does X to A must also be acceptable.
My question is thus:
If A does X to B is NOT acceptable, then if C does X to A must not it ALSO be NOT acceptable?
If you are not bemoaning current Latin illegal immigration, then I apologize and retract my assertion. I recall a few conversations from the past in which I thought you harped on the law long and hard but obviously I am mistaken.
But this still doesn't excuse your douchey and all too familiar maneuvering. This is about the Right's hypocrisy on this issue. There will be no turnaround.
17 comments:
If white people 'invading' the land of red people is bad, why is it not 'bad' if brown people 'invade' the land of white people?
Guardduck-Explain a bit further becasue that appears to be a very racist question.
Uhhh, what appears to be racist?
Mark made a post that compares European immigration to North America in the 18th and 19th centuries to current Latino immigration to same in the 20th and 21st centuries.
I am asking if, as currently accepted wisdom teaches, the European immigration and displacement of Native Americans was a bad thing and said Native Americans were in the morally superior position in resistance to that Immigration - Why then is the same 'accepted wisdom' reversed when the question is resistance to immigration and 'displacement' of European-Americans by Latin-Americans?
This is the America's they have always been here. Who cares at least you have your bubble.
OK, way to miss the entire question.
This is the America's they have always been here.
Who has always been here? No human being lived on either of these continents more than 20,000 years ago. Are you some kind of Young Earther?
Bubble Boys, you guys are a joke! You know exactly what I'm saying. People have been in the America's long before the "white man". Put your fears away its does nothing for you except exploit your racist and bigot tendencies. Get over it and deal with change. Your like toddlers who have their toys taken from them at the playground.
You know exactly what I'm saying.
That you are an idiot? Well, I was only making an educated guess about that.
So some people wander onto some land that doesn't seem to have any other people on it - it is theirs, is that your story?
Apparently you are an idiot or have a reading disability.
Let's repeat, using really small words for the disadvantaged....
Native American people were here first -> European people came and took over -> This is bad because? -> Because N.A. people were here first.
European people are here now -> Latin people are coming in -> If enough Latin people come in then they will take over -> This is apparently not bad because??????
That is the question. European people are here before Latin people - why are you not as outraged about the coming displacement of these people who were here first as you are about when these people displaced those who were here prior?
I can only figure that it is only because they are white. That means YOU are the one exhibiting racist tendencies.
Well, as usual GD, you are wrong in several ways. First, the Middle American people were actually here before the Europeans. Second, the Europeans illegally took land from the Native Americans (both North, Middle and South) whereas the people from Mexico jumping across the border aren't seizing any land. So you are missing that difference. Third, you are avoiding the critique and redirecting (shocking, I know) by not admitting that our country was founded on illegal immigration. Worse than that, actually. Thus, you should have no problem with illegal immigration but you do. In short, you guys are the ones that have some 'splaining to do.
So what will it be? An explanation, the turnaround dance, or something else?
So you are missing that difference.
No, I am not missing the difference. YOU MADE THE COMPARISON TO BEGIN WITH - it's your analogy.
YOU are missing the fucking point.
If I supposedly have no problem with the illegal immigration that founded our country and therefore I also shouldn't have a problem with current illegal immigration then the SAME LOGIC SHOULD APPLY TO YOU.
IF YOU have a problem with the illegal immigration that founded this country THEN WHY DO YOU NOT have a problem with current illegal immigration?
The turnaround dance it is!
Highly intelligent reply Mark.
If the logic scares you, just admit it.
The image details YOUR hypocrisy, GD. Deal with it or do what you always do...avoid responsibility and then make it about someone else.
MY HYPOCRISY? MINE?
Where have I excused European displacement of natives? Where have I bemoaned current Latin illegal immigration?
I simply fucking ask you to explain how the logic works wherein YOU can fault one group of people for using a logical argument that you disagree with while NOT faulting the opposite thought pattern THAT USES THE SAME DAMNED LOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Refresh you memory:
Your argument is thus:
If A does X to B is acceptable, then if C does X to A must also be acceptable.
My question is thus:
If A does X to B is NOT acceptable, then if C does X to A must not it ALSO be NOT acceptable?
The question is about YOUR HYPOCRISY, not mine.
If you are not bemoaning current Latin illegal immigration, then I apologize and retract my assertion. I recall a few conversations from the past in which I thought you harped on the law long and hard but obviously I am mistaken.
But this still doesn't excuse your douchey and all too familiar maneuvering. This is about the Right's hypocrisy on this issue. There will be no turnaround.
This is about the Right's hypocrisy on this issue.
Why do you ever bother attempting to converse with someone other than a voice in your head? They are the only ones you really listen to.
Post a Comment