sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.
the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!
only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:
Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?
so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.
That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure. NOR how much you try to twist my words.
I dunno what to tell you dawg if you can't understand that a referendum of Hawaiian residents from 1959 doesn't represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians after 60 years of American control and immigration to the island. If you're so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians
doesn’t represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians
that was never my argument
this is a straw man argument because you couldn’t argue agains the facts I initially stated and moved the goalposts from Hawaiian residents to Hawaiian natives
as such, it’s irrelevant
even if it were relevant then it isn’t now just because you’re angry about… whatever.
If you’re so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians
well, why don’t you do that and come back when YOU have some relevant facts to present, and we can talk again.
You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.
Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.
That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.
Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?
sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.
the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!
So then your point about
Is false
So to quote you
only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:
so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.
That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure. NOR how much you try to twist my words.
Nice job replying on your other account first lol, are you in here upvoting yourself too?
They even use the same dumbass fallacy images. That is so sad and lame.
maybe a rogue lib AI escaped confinment 😂
you’re this desperate? wow
you’ll do anything but make a rational argument based on facts.
I dunno what to tell you dawg if you can't understand that a referendum of Hawaiian residents from 1959 doesn't represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians after 60 years of American control and immigration to the island. If you're so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians
even if it were relevant then it isn’t now just because you’re angry about… whatever.
well, why don’t you do that and come back when YOU have some relevant facts to present, and we can talk again.
deleted by creator
🐷 💩 🥎
Lol your mind sure is something.
spoiler
What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?
You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.
I never made this argument, but several others here did. in fact, I, several times, pointed out that there were other possibilities.
clearly you’re confused.