You wrote:
“Ok Ill soldier on.”
...in posting misrepresentations apparently.
“The protestant unionists, because they are all “oppressors” and completely under the thumb of the British oppressors therefore have (and in fact deserve) no rights, no consideration and no voice?”
Why do you insist on lying about what I have said?
“The catholic nationalist majority, because they are a majority, can simply be an independent nation, irrespective of the wishes of the protestant unionists, because they are the majority. Is that a fairer summation of your position?”
Quit while you’re behind. If you can’t understand why I so plainly stated, then this is simply too difficult for you.
“By what right do you deny the unionists their freedom to do what they want i.e. be in the union?”
They can be in union with the UK all they want - in England, or Wales, or Scotland. They actually have several choices without in any way encroaching on the freedoms of the Irish to be in union with their own people on their own island in their own ancestral homes.
“Human beings are remarkably genetically similar (99.72% on average I understand). Yet, if you were to take a spot of blood from 100 people in Eire and 100 people in Ulster and send them off to a lab, I guarantee you that a scientist could tell which was which.”
Actually, not so much. Again, you appaently haven’t read up on this. They are the same race with the same genetic make-up on all major markers. You were wrong.
“So go on then. What is your definition of freedom?”
I would rather watch you twist in the wind making constant errors.
“What point would that be?”
If you paid attention, you would have known.
“Rubbish. When did the British government seize farms in lower Canada?”
Lower Canada? I never brought up Lower Canada. You’re wrong again!
“I havent descended to personal abuse.”
Neither have I. I have merely stated facts.
“I think youre wrong. In fact I think your belief system is puddled, but I havent called you stupid, said you were floundering, told you you were bad at debating, told you you were an oppressor scum and on, and on.”
I called you a sciolist. I said your comment or point was stupid (ti was!). You are floundering and have been from the start. You also have problems debating. I called oppressors oppressors. If you believe that applies to you, then so be it. Everything I said was true. If facts bother you, then stay away from the internet.
“The point I made, which you denied, was that it was the normans who got England involved in Ireland when they invaded in the 12th century. The Anglo-Saxons never invaded Ireland.”
I didn’t ignore your point. I showed it was a por understanding of history. You jump back and forth from now to the 12th century almost as if there is a point to your leapfrogging, but there isn’t.
“Some of Harold Godwinsons family took sanctuary in Ireland but that’s hardly the start of English oppression, and your man Diarmait lent an Irish fleet that invaded England, not the other way round.”
And all of that still proved my point. And you no longer remember what that is and I am not inclined to tell you.
“The only point is that you just don’t like the British and will find any reason to point it out.”
I treat the British as they deserve to be treated in regard to their actions. Some of their actions have been good. Some have been horrible. You apparently want the British to be worshiped. I want them to be treated as they are - flawed mortals who oppressed their neighbors for hundreds of years while still producing some good things. I am in the end much more even handed than you are.
“Even a sincere apology doesn’t cut it, so why bother apologising. If its not going to be enough, its never going to be enough.”
And apology is the start. A better action would be for the British to simply admit they should have left all of Ireland in the 1920s. Bloody Sunday never would have happened if they had.
I'm trying to understand what you are saying, to lay it out to see if it is consistent. The omens arent good at the moment. If you think it is a misrepresentation THEN WHY DON'T YOU CORRECT IT?
Why do you insist on lying about what I have said?
I'm saying that because that seems to be what you are saying. If I am wrong, then WHY DON'T YOU CORRECT IT?
Quit while you’re behind. If you can’t understand why I so plainly stated, then this is simply too difficult for you.
You ARE good at debating. This technique of stating something highly controversial and/or innacurate, and then when an incredulous observer tries to clarify it and explain its implications, just loftily affirming your superior intelligence works very well. You can say almost anything doing that. Well done.
They can be in union with the UK all they want - in England, or Wales, or Scotland. They actually have several choices without in any way encroaching on the freedoms of the Irish to be in union with their own people on their own island in their own ancestral homes.
But that's the point. They are in Ireland and they want to be part of the Union. They very, very much want to be in Ireland and very very much want to be part of the Union. Violently so. They reject your choices, which effectively (as far as I can make out) amount to a form of ethnic cleansing. It's no wonder you want to obscure your argument.
Actually, not so much. Again, you appaently haven’t read up on this. They are the same race with the same genetic make-up on all major markers. You were wrong.
Actually, I have studied it at degree level (BSc Genetics). In fact it is you who are wrong. Major markers are not the be all and end all of genetic make up. Your simple assertion that I am wrong, tragically, doesn't mean that I am. In any case, your argument is fallacious. How can say that the Irish want to be in union with their own people on their own island, and yet at the same time argue that there is no difference between Irish, Scots, Welsh and English? If the Irish are not a distinct people, then surely their history, culture, trials and tribulation are of no moment! But that is nonsense. In spite of your protestations, the various sub groupings on the British Isles are racially distinct, and they most certainly are culturally distinct.
I would rather watch you twist in the wind making constant errors.
In other words, you aren't going to say because it would show up your arguments for what Modern Irish Nationalist and republican thought all too often is - inward looking, backward looking, and very, very selfish. Not that the unionists are any better.
Lower Canada? I never brought up Lower Canada. You’re wrong again!
Err...yes you did. This particular section was on the war of 1812 and the US invasion of Canada, which was repulsed, and your assertion that payback was a bitch, and that the canadians were oh so wrong to choose the crown over a republic that was "liberating them" by burning down their farms et al. Remember?
I called you a sciolist. I said your comment or point was stupid (ti was!). You are floundering and have been from the start. You also have problems debating. I called oppressors oppressors. If you believe that applies to you, then so be it. Everything I said was true. If facts bother you, then stay away from the internet.
It's true if you accept your definitions. I don't accept I've been floundering. I think it seems that way because you have been slipping and sliding and evading my attempts to clarify, which raises the suspicion that you're doing that because your arguments are weak and will not stand up to critical scrutiny. Tell you what, let me try this technique.
I didn’t ignore your point.
Yes you did. And you still are doing.
I showed it was a por understanding of history.
No you didn't. You didn't show anything.
You jump back and forth from now to the 12th century almost as if there is a point to your leapfrogging, but there isn’t.
Yes there is.
And all of that still proved my point.
No it doesn't. It shows that English people went to Ireland occasionally. That's not the same as dabbling in Irish affairs.
And you no longer remember what that is and I am not inclined to tell you.
I recall better than you. This is easy.
I treat the British as they deserve to be treated in regard to their actions.
Yeah yeah.
Some of their actions have been good. Some have been horrible.
Odd how only the bad gets mentioned.
You apparently want the British to be worshiped.
Nope. I want to move onto the 21st century, not remain in the distant past, where wrongs and wrongdoing are nurtured and amplified, to the detriment of the here and now. Cameron apologised for an incident where the British Army was in the wrong, after an enquiry that cost millions and took years to write. I don't notice any enquiries or apologies from the IRA, or the INLA or the UVF, or the Red Hand Gang, or any of the rest of the murderers who bombed and shot their way across Ulster and beyond for three decades. So, on the one side we have people who really do acknowledge that they are flawed mortals who make mistakes, and whose ANCESTORS oppressed their neighbors for hundreds of years, and on the other we have a bunch of self-contained, self-righteous bigots with lots of suppressed anger and an inbuilt martyr complex. The Irish never forget the past, and they never forgive it, and therefore they will always be shackled by it. Which is their problem, except when they make it MY problem. Well I have news for them (and for you). I'm not going on some self flagellating mass guilt trip for their benefit for the rest of my life. They can get stuffed. This is the only apology they get for Bloody Sunday.
A better action would be for the British to simply admit they should have left all of Ireland in the 1920s. Bloody Sunday never would have happened if they had.
No, but the great Irish civil war would have happened instead, and the island would have run with blood, on a scale that hadnt been seen since the last Civil War. You underestimate the passions involved. Britain should have left Ireland when Gladstone suggested in the 1860's. To abandon it in 1912 and immediately afterwards would have compounded the mistake and been a gross dereliction of responsibility.