Reply With Quote
Burden of proof is on you and Manny. I will retort with the answer once you clarify which sources you are using as the basis for his and your position.
Conversation is over. Manny made the original statement, I asked for an explanation and some sources and you nor he has given them.
Please quote where you answered which en ies from the time period, besides the British national government, call or imply the FF are terrorists, not rebels. If you didn't answer, please answer now.
It doesn't name names, the founding fathers are absolved! Hoorah!Absolved? Their names haven't been tainted, at least not by the terrorist moniker.
Burden of proof is on you and Manny. I will retort with the answer once you clarify which sources you are using as the basis for his and your position.
We never had one since you never provided any evidence to your own claim.
Yes we have.Manny made the original statement, I asked for an explanation and some sources and you nor he has given them.
I mean, who cares what the most powerful government of the era has to say about the matter. Citizens of that govt totally disagreed. <--- Prove thisPlease quote where you answered which en ies from the time period, besides the British national government, call or imply the FF are terrorists, not rebels. If you didn't answer, please answer now.
This also brings up a nice little parallel between then and now. See if you can figure out what I'm talking about.
no one cares
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/procreb.html
And because it is going to come up, the word terrorist is not used but the descriptions used to describe the founding fathers are synonymous with the usage of the word terrorist today. I'm not sure if the word terrorist was in actual usage in that time period, but the meanings are obviously the same.
Enjoy.
That's the political propaganda machine I was talking about. Some non-British government sources for the 5th ing time.
it's over, fella.
Why is that?
I will retort with the answer once you clarify which sources you are using as the basis for his and your position.
Because the burden of proof is not on me.
Fail.
Quotes with primary sources from the time period again, please.Yes we have.
lol Why not? Is your next post gonna be "I'm not doing your homework for you"?
I'm still waiting on your primary sources.Quotes with primary sources from the time period again, please.
This is getting pretty tedious. He won't provide anything to support his own claims. He ignores or discounts anything we post. He's either a very good troll or he's an idiot who likes sticking his fingers in his ears.
Because Manny is the one who made the claim that Americans are commonly terrorists, genius.
I can criticize your claim any way I want and until you prove it with a source, I don't have retort to any of your arguments.
The logic (obviously, but you apparently haven't done much of this) is that you must prove your point before making me prove mine.
You can't prove your point without primary sources from the time period, and unless you're an idiot whose okay eating whatever the King told you, it needs to be from someone other than the government or the Founding Fathers.
Keep not understanding that you made the claim first, and thus must prove it before demanding I explain my arguments with your claim.
And you are the one who made the claim that they were not. PROVE IT.
I can criticize your claim any way I want and until you prove it with a source, I don't have retort to any of your arguments.
But you know this to be true. Why not just prove your point outright? Oh right, because you can't.The logic (obviously, but you apparently haven't done much of this) is that you must prove your point before making me prove mine.
Go back to Manny's original post. Then think about what it meant for the King to say something in the 18th century. I'll wait here.You can't prove your point without primary sources from the time period, and unless you're an idiot whose okay eating whatever the King told you, it needs to be from someone other than the government or the Founding Fathers.
God you are such a pussy. If you can prove your point, do it.Keep not understanding that you made the claim first, and thus must prove it before demanding I explain my arguments with your claim.
Like I said, you fail at reading comprehension of my original statement.no one cares
That's the political propaganda machine I was talking about. Some non-British government sources for the 5th ing time.
I'm not sure why you're asking me to prove something other than what I said.
Pretty much. If you're so stupid that you can make claims and not back them up while demanding others do the opposite, you're not worth my time.
BTW, there's some rules to debate you clearly don't know. Why don't you wikipedia burden of proof instead of random links that aren't primary sources from the time period and educate yourself.
I absolutely have them, but unless you can prove the FF were actually commonly considered terrorists, not the Americans who actually fought and rebelled, not the Americans in the BTP that had nothing to do with a FF specifically; unless you can actively link the Founding Fathers, specifically, to being labeled as terrorists by a mul ude of contemporary sources, there's no need to prove you wrong, because you never proved yourself right.I'm still waiting on your primary sources.
I thought Manny said the British Government considered our founding fathers terrorists? He didn't say Americans were commonly terrorists.
Reading is hard. No really. Its tough. Saying that something is commonly known actually means that it was a common thought in the time period referenced.
I have backed them up with two links.
I'll keep saying it. If you can prove your own point, why not do it?BTW, there's some rules to debate you clearly don't know. Why don't you wikipedia burden of proof instead of random links that aren't primary sources from the time period and educate yourself.
I absolutely have them, but unless you can prove the FF were actually commonly considered terrorists, not the Americans who actually fought and rebelled, not the Americans in the BTP that had nothing to do with a FF specifically; unless you can actively link the Founding Fathers, specifically, to being labeled as terrorists by a mul ude of contemporary sources, there's no need to prove you wrong, because you never proved yourself right.
You said the Founding Fathers, specifically, were commonly considered terrorists.
Except no one commonly considered them terrorists.
So if you think you've proven they were commonly considered terrorists because a King says something halfway along those lines about all Americans, more power to you, but you haven't proven anything about the FF. Not even a tiny bit.
Here you go big guy. See if you can read this and understand the position of "common knowledge".
That's not what he said at all.
IE the knowledge is not rare. Note the use of the word common is used to describe the prevalence of the data TODAY.its common knowledge
Note the word common does not appear in this portion of the sentence. This portion of the statement merely says that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day and it does not state how common such a belief was or who held it.that our founding fathers were considered terrorists in their day.
I know, the sentence was so tough to understand it required paragraphs to explain. Jesus.
So, like I was saying....about your reading comprehension....
You're an idiot. Those aren't contemporary sources. Those aren't a mul ude of them.
Common knowledge must mean they were commonly being called terrorists, don't you think? And by prints, books, by the contemporary writers and thinkers of the time?
You have nothing, you've shown nothing, and you haven't even used your own standards.
You asked me to keep on the argument and how the perception of THAT time is what we must study, yet you provide tertiary source material.
Pathetic.
RIF, right?I'll keep saying it. If you can prove your own point, why not do it?
Yeah, most college US history textbooks are filled with primary source do ents proving the FF weren't commonly considered terrorists. It's really not worth my time finding specific cases that will best spell the point (IE, have a good debate) if you can't even prove they were actually commonly considered terrorists (ie, being a jackass who doesn't know WTF he's talking about).
I wonder if he'll just ignore Manny's original statement and ask us to provide proof Manny used that syntax.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
