Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Arlene foster to attend ulster final
Options
Comments
-
The argument doesn't add up because what you are saying is anyone BORN in Catalonia is Spanish because Catalonia is on the landmass of what would be called Spain. I am amazed how you don't see the real error with this thinking, why it's flawed. I have given you two examples of countries in Greece and Macedonia, the Macedonia within Greece and the country of the Republic of Macedonia which is made up of Slavic people and not actual Greeks, Macedonians.
I also put down the example of Chechnya which is inside the state called Russia, the Chechans are not Russian but according to you they are because they are born on a landmass called Russia. I also used the example of Canada, they are on the landmass called the Americas, but you wouldn't describe them as American, same with Brazil, that is why I think the argument you use doesn't make sense.
You seem to have a problem with British people living on the Island, who are born British. I don't know why that is the case, no one is disputing your own nationality and belonging, I certainly wouldn't do that to you, I'd expect the same for those who are British.
Unless you can show me why Catalans are not Catalans but Spanish and the same with Chechans, then I just think it's more Francie anti-British sentiment as it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to claim that the landmass you are born on determines your identity as shown by the numerous examples outlined on this forum.
You also seem to equate what people from "outside" so to speak think of your identity somehow makes your identity less valid or wrong is another argument which I don't see as a valid argument. Since when did that ever matter? Why would a British people living in Carrickfergus care what a person from London thinks of them identity wise?
Your identity as you said earlier in this conversation is what YOU decide it is.
I do not dispute this nor your right to assume that identity.
You are however from the island of Ireland. Which makes you Irish.
You are from the AND bit. And when any Irish person travels across the water that is how they are seen...as Irish by accent etc etc. How many times has that been said by both communities?
You are not automatically British, you have to tell someone that is how you identify...unless you wear the union jack underpants on the outside?
0 -
-
FrancieBrady wrote: »The argument doesn't add up because what you are saying is anyone BORN in Catalonia is Spanish because Catalonia is on the landmass of what would be called Spain. I am amazed how you don't see the real error with this thinking, why it's flawed. I have given you two examples of countries in Greece and Macedonia, the Macedonia within Greece and the country of the Republic of Macedonia which is made up of Slavic people and not actual Greeks, Macedonians.
I also put down the example of Chechnya which is inside the state called Russia, the Chechans are not Russian but according to you they are because they are born on a landmass called Russia. I also used the example of Canada, they are on the landmass called the Americas, but you wouldn't describe them as American, same with Brazil, that is why I think the argument you use doesn't make sense.
You seem to have a problem with British people living on the Island, who are born British. I don't know why that is the case, no one is disputing your own nationality and belonging, I certainly wouldn't do that to you, I'd expect the same for those who are British.
Unless you can show me why Catalans are not Catalans but Spanish and the same with Chechans, then I just think it's more Francie anti-British sentiment as it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense to claim that the landmass you are born on determines your identity as shown by the numerous examples outlined on this forum.
You also seem to equate what people from "outside" so to speak think of your identity somehow makes your identity less valid or wrong is another argument which I don't see as a valid argument. Since when did that ever matter? Why would a British people living in Carrickfergus care what a person from London thinks of them identity wise?
Your identity as you said earlier in this conversation is what YOU decide it is.
I do not dispute this nor your right to assume that identity.
You are however from the island of Ireland. Which makes you Irish.
You are from the AND bit. And when any Irish person travels across the water that is how they are seen...as Irish by accent etc etc. How many times has that been said by both communities?
You are not automatically British, you have to tell someone that is how you identify...unless you wear the union jack underpants on the outside?
I didn't decide anything, I was born British, that's it. Same way a Chechen is born a Chechen, a Catalan is born a Catalan. I have already disputed the land claim equaling identity. Being born on an Island called "Ireland" doesn't automatically make one Irish, that is beyond silly. That is like calling a Catalan Spanish, they aren't Spanish.0 -
-
I didn't decide anything, I was born British, that's it. Same way a Chechen is born a Chechen, a Catalan is born a Catalan. I have already disputed the land claim equaling identity. Being born on an Island called "Ireland" doesn't automatically make one Irish, that is beyond silly. That is like calling a Catalan Spanish, they aren't Spanish.
How were you born British? 'Britain' is Wales Scotland and England.
You should technically be identifying as a UKer. But we'll let you off.
And yes, you did decide to identify as British. Why would that right have to be enshrined in an international agreement if it was automatic? Again, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. The real British could revoke your Britishness and indeed considered it at various times. By signing the GFA they signed a roadmap to cut NI adrift from the UK. Unionism needs to grow up and accept that.
Nobody is disputing your right btw.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Francie you are losing the argument because you are now bringing up constitutional politics by mentioning a United Ireland. The dispute has nothing to do with that whatsoever, it's a debate over identity and how geography plays into that.FrancieBrady wrote: »I didn't decide anything, I was born British, that's it. Same way a Chechen is born a Chechen, a Catalan is born a Catalan. I have already disputed the land claim equaling identity. Being born on an Island called "Ireland" doesn't automatically make one Irish, that is beyond silly. That is like calling a Catalan Spanish, they aren't Spanish.
How were you born British? 'Britain' is Wales Scotland and England.
You should technically be identifying as a UKer. But we'll let you off.
And yes, you did decide to identify as British. Why would that right have to be enshrined in an international agreement if it was automatic? Again, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. The real British could revoke your Britishness and indeed considered it at various times. By signing the GFA they signed a roadmap to cut NI adrift from the UK. Unionism needs to grow up and accept that.
Nobody is disputing your right btw.
The GFA was a peace agreement to end 30 years of murder and mayhem and designed to respect all identities from Northern Ireland which includes Irish and British people. One of the other flaws is the born argument in as far as if say an English woman gave birth to a boy on the Island, does that make that boy straight away Irish, right away, even before the nurse has picked it up? You have make no count for the actual identity of the mother, the identity of the boy, if it's born on the Island, it must be Irish. That for me makes no sense.
Could anyone else who is reading this debate actually make any sense of that argument?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »Taytoland
"So you respect convicted bombers and murderers than an elected politician who hasn't murdered anyone. How very odd."
Don't forget the DUP has been linked with a number of paramilitaries, the UPV in 1969 exploded bombs in Belfast & blamed them on the IRA to create tension & get the Liberal modernizer Terrence O'Neil out of office, who knows if O'Neill wasn't forced out by DUP militants the Troubles might not have happened. Then there was Third Force in the early 1980's. And finally Ulster Resistance in 1986 who Paisley put money up for, for the UDA,UVF & UR to get weapons from South Africa & Lebanon.
I hate the DUP's intransigence. The political wings of the UDA & UVF, the UDP & PUP could accept the Good Friday Agreement but the DUP couldn't because it was tainted by Popery & witchcraft.
Seamus Mallon (who I never really liked) said, once he (Paisley) was offered the job of First Minister, Dr. No became Dr. Yes Please & Fast.
NEVER NEVER NEVER...well maybe?
same as the fleg, parade and other protests. Every redline they have set, they have cowed. Arlene at an Ulster final being the latest.
Same sex marriage, LGBT rights and Irish language rights to follow. It is inevitable at this stage.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement