Youshouldreborn wrote:
So if you are an American, write in English!...(恕刪)
M大的IP在Baltimore
這比烙英文更有說服力吧
Mike H wrote:
建議你多讀一些歷史書籍
中小學課本 很單純的將南北戰爭的目的及結果 歸納為解放黑奴
但實情複雜多了
美國獨立初期 南方農業經濟發達 政治平台南重北輕
北方工業興起後 開始轉為北重南輕
北方各洲不依賴大量黑奴在農場工作 談起廢奴自然容易
但對南方各洲而言 卻是地方經濟殺手
林肯雖出自北方 理念上支持廢奴 但並非激進派
只不過當時南北矛盾 已經到了臨界點
選出一個北方總統 對南方各洲是個大挫敗 才紛紛脫離聯.(恕刪)
Hey, American!
Can you still read Chinese?
I said "不管檯面下是多髒". that implies they have other agendas, and when I said, "檯面上也是為自由(解放黑奴)" it means that it's the goal on the book.
It seems to me that you are incapable of reading both Chinese and English, and I am still waiting for your reply, if any!!
So you are an American, so what?
I mentioned it only because you asked "您是美國人嗎?" If my background does not have any bearing in our discussion, why did you ask in the first place? Obviously you were trying to diminish my point of view by insinuating that I am not familiar with the United States. I am sorry to disappoint you.
Either one, did I mention that they don't have votes for sovereignty? In the case of Puerto Rico, I cited the votes for sovereignty and that is, "獨立: 2.6%.
What I tried to point out is that those Puerto Ricans who voted against statehood do not necessarily support independence. A third option does exist, which is to maintain the status quo as a U.S. territory.
And in the case of Hawaii, the votes for being a incorporated state is 93%, and why do they have to list the second option? If 93 people out of 100 want something, and what does that tell you about the rest?
There was no option for independence in the Hawaii statehood referendum because that was simply not an option.
"大部份重演者的目的 是體驗歷史 不是提倡政治議題" Did I say it's for politics?
You did mention this: "美國允許民兵組織，有武裝，但被監控，很多還是很自嗨，懷念昔日南軍及南方政府，現在每年還有模擬南北對抗的慶祝節日。"
So, does remembering the Confederate Army and the Confederate government count as political motives?
By the way, militia and Civil War re-enactment groups are hardly the same. Though some people may belong to both, but you'd never see the former use black powder muskets.
"十八世紀的法英 不論在歐洲或美洲 都有利益衝突
從法國立場來看 搞掉英國美洲殖民地 削弱英國國力
對自己在美洲或其它地區發展都有利 "
That's your own interpretations, a moronic conspiracy theory at the best!
What makes you think yours is the best answer?
What about official history sanctioned by the U.S. government?
"American colonists hoped for possible French aid in their struggle against British forces. The Continental Congress established the Secret Committee of Correspondence to publicize the American cause in Europe. Committee member Benjamin Franklin wrote to contacts in France with encouraging accounts of colonial resistance. The French had suffered a defeat by the British during the Seven Years’ War and had lost North American territory under the 1763 Treaty of Paris. As the French and the British continued to vie for power in the 1770s, French officials saw an opportunity in the rebellion of Britain’s North American colonies to take advantage of British troubles. Through secret agents, the French Government began to provide clandestine assistance to the United States, much of which they channeled through American trader Silas Deane."
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance
I said "不管檯面下是多髒". that implies they have other agendas, and when I said, "檯面上也是為自由(解放黑奴)" it means that it's the goal on the book.
Though the nation was divided by slavery and other factors, the primary goal of the U.S. Civil War was to restore the Union. Note that Lincoln himself was ambivalent about slavery and willing to compromise until the Emancipation Proclamation.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/emancipation-150/i-would-save-the-union.html
Mike H wrote:
I mentioned...(恕刪)
" If my background does not have any bearing in our discussion, why did you ask in the first place? "
"So, does remembering the Confederate Army and the Confederate government count as political motives?"
I asked because you obviously misinterpreted my statement as you did again, and it's because you either have a reading comprehension problem or you don't know what I was saying.
Grammar 101: Comma
Comma is a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.
So let's re-examine the original statement that I made: 美國允許民兵組織，有武裝，但被監控，很多還是很自嗨，懷念昔日南軍及南方政府，現在每年還有模擬南北對抗的慶祝節日。
The following phrase is to describe militia "美國允許民兵組織，有武裝，但被監控" and the comma (，) is to separate the next phrase starting with "很多" and "很多 = many but not all" and "自嗨" means that it's not political motivated, followed by 懷念昔日南軍及南方政府。 And there's another comma (，) to separate the phrase, 現在每年還有模擬南北對抗的"慶祝節日"。
So if you can read and correctly comprehend the original statement, why would you make the statement about "
重演活動也不盡是緬懷蓄奴時代" and ask the stupid question like this, "So, does remembering the Confederate Army and the Confederate government count as political motives?"
Can you not find the commas separating those phrases? And the Confederate government only means slavery to you, and even if it does, who gives you the freaking right to assume that everyone else, including me, thinks so?
So what's the freaking point to link the Confederate government to slavery?
If you had correctly done your reading comprehension job, I wouldn't have asked if you were an American because you obviously don't sound like one even you live in the states, and you certainly wouldn't have asked the stupid question again.
So is it because that you just want to say something to prove you're an American, or just the fact that you simply have a reading comprehension problem?
----------
"What I tried to point out is that those Puerto Ricans who voted against statehood do not necessarily support independence. A third option does exist, which is to maintain the status quo as a U.S. territory."
Again, if you can read and comprehend, you wouldn't have made the above statement. In the original statement, I mentioned, "其他還有都是個位數" which tells that there are other options. And in another post, I explicitly stated "維持現狀是，Territorial commonwealth，但是 "0.0%" and in both posts, I provided links to the original source.
So what's your point to point out something that has already been stated?
---------
"There was no option for independence in the Hawaii statehood referendum because that was simply not an option."
Your statement shows that you may also have a logical reasoning problem. Do people have to explicitly cast their votes to against Donald Trumps when they vote for Harley Clinton? Does it not obviously to you that for Donald Trumps is against Harley Clinton, and vice versa?
Have you taken any logical reasoning lessons?
-------------
"Though the nation was divided by slavery and other factors, the primary goal of the U.S. Civil War was to restore the Union. "
Under the table = hidden agendas = objectives not explicitly written or claimed = "Though the nation was divided by slavery and other factors, the primary goal of the U.S. Civil War was to restore the Union. "
So when I used the phrase "不管檯面下是多髒" it already implied that there are objectives not explicitly written or claimed. The thing that I had not done is to explicitly point out that what are other objectives because it's less important to what I was trying to express.
Conclusion:
From what I see from your first and second reply, you obviously need to improve your reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills.
And it's perfectly alright if you don't but the least thing that you can do is not to pick on my post since you obviously can't comprehend.
And I have done my best to give you some basic instructions, and if you have nothing better or productive to say, please don't reply to embarrass yourself further.
But if you insist, I won't mind.
Comma or no comma, associating militia and Civil War re-enactment shows your lack of understanding in either group. Claiming that the Civil War was started to free slaves shows that your understanding of the subject matter is one-dimensional at best. I fancy myself as a student of war and history. If you are interested in conducting intellectual discussions on these subject matters, I am more than willing to participate and offer my thoughts. Unfortunately, it does not look like you are prepared to do so.
Do people have to explicitly cast their votes to against Donald Trumps when they vote for Harley Clinton? Does it not obviously to you that for Donald Trumps is against Harley Clinton, and vice versa?
I have heard of Harley Davidson. I have heard of Hillary Clinton. However, I must plead my ignorance and admit I have never heard of Harley Clinton.
Youshouldreborn wrote:
波多黎各的歷史很長，有興趣可以讀一讀。 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
我先修正或澄清，美國取得波多黎各的源頭是有爭議的。美國取的波多黎各是與西班牙的戰爭的結果(1899, Treaty of Paris)。
若從源頭開始，波多黎各從早期有紀錄就是西班牙殖民地，所謂的拉丁文化是西班牙殖民地文化。要說波多黎各一直反美是錯誤的，正確的說，波多黎各殖民地中有很多不同的政治主張，包含親美，見下文，我不翻譯了。
"An economically evolving Puerto Rico called for a new advancement in political status. Powerful, innovative Puerto Rican leaders including: Luis Muñoz Rivera, José de Diego, Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón, Manuel Zeno Gandía, Luis Lloréns Torres, Eugenio Benítez Castaño, and Pedro Franceschi contributed to the rise in multiple successful political parties. However, the birth of multiple political groups led to a diversion of the island's interest: uniting as a statehood with the US, becoming a US territory commonwealth, or declaring independence altogether."
同時，我修正到底有幾次公投，我不確定，我是偷懶用您說的4次。我的印象是依據以前知道的結果，現在整理給您:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statehood_movement_in_Puerto_Rico
1998 公投:
46.6% 要成為州；
獨立: 2.6% ；
最高的民意是，以上皆非: 50.5%，其他還有都是個位數。
以上皆非，是來鬧的或投好玩，所以46.6%算是相對多數?
2012:
第一部分: 54% vs. 46%，選擇不要現在的地位 (Unincorporated State)
第二部分(成為什麼地位): 61.15% 希望成為正式州，24%空白。
好，我不夠嚴謹，但這二次紀錄，都是相對多數希望成為正式州，除非記入第一次的以上皆非(50.5%)，但獨立只有: 2.6%，與46.6%要成為州，差很多。
第二次，61.15% 希望成為正式州。
若真要說，波多黎各很多人沒主見。有堅強主見的，是要成為美國一州。其他的，都不要，包含獨立，所以要成為啥?
但有"把黑的說成白的"?
另二次，您有資料嗎?
波多黎各歷次公投要加入美國或者獨立的通過條件都是過半數公民同意。所以不想獨立或者作為一個州加入美國的人都不用專門去投票站，在家裡坐著就夠了。所以你會看見50%的人沒投票。那並不代表他們支持加入。
近百年內，4次公投的前三次都只有不到半數波多黎各人願意作為一個州加入美國的情況下，你表達為“波多黎各死拉要成美國一州”，明明就是多數人根本不熱心，結果也是沒成，如何能說成是死也要加入？這不是表達稍微誇張的問題，這就是把黑的說成白的。
在波多黎各人自己都沒有下定決心要加入美国的前提下，美國國會也還沒表決是否同意它加入，那麼，何來“美國民意當小三可以，就是不給入門”的說法？是來自哪家媒體的調查嗎？媒體調查都帶有傾向性，也不完整，能當作官方意見？這次美國大選，到大選日之前，多數民意調查還顯示希拉里會贏呢，結果如何？
什麼叫“當小三可以”？我查到的資料是：波多黎各人擁有幾乎100%的美國公民權，可以自由進入美國，可以在美國合法工作，可以在美國申請各種社會福利補貼，也可以在美國大選的時候投票。唯一受限制的一項權利，是美國大選時必須身處美國或海外（非波多黎各境內）才可以以美國公民身份投票，如果身處波多黎各就不具有投票權，作為波多黎各一直不肯加入為美國一個州的象徵性懲罰。這怎麼是“不給入門”？恐怕你的描述有很大的主觀成分在內。
Youshouldreborn wrote:
...(恕刪)
事實上，第四次公投也沒有決定性的結果。波多黎各今年還要舉行第五次全民公投，決定去向。這一次的選擇只有兩個：加入美國或獨立。
Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017
Mike H wrote:
The normal reaction for a person who thinks he was misunderstood is to explain further. Those who throw accusations and make ad hominem attacks usually do so to hide their embarrassment for being unable to provide a counter-argument.(恕刪)
You are amazing!
Didn't I make a valid counter-argument? Blame me for blindfolding yourself?
You challenged me first with your logical fallacies and putting your words in my mouth.
And now, you are saying that I accuse you first?
OK, it's my bad. The correct name of Ms. Clinton should be, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, a.k.a. Hillary Clinton. In addition, I can happily confirm your statement about the official history sanctioned by the U.S. government is correct.
In any case, I can understand your cowardice of not admitting own faults even until now, and I concur that there will be no intelligent conversations between us.
Have a good day.
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X