All arguments used to justify Canadian independence are either emotional or refutable

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
Argument 1: It's the status quo.

Rebuttal 1: Who cares?

A2: Most Canadians want to be independent.

R2: Who cares?  Most Crimeans want to join Russia (2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia, UN poll), you guys don't care then.  Why care now?  No party is consistently pro self-determination.

A3: Canadians like Medicare for all (or insert any alternative policy)!

R3: Once again, who cares?  The 10th amendment lets areas keep M4A if they want to keep M4A.

A4: We hate Trump!

R4: Who cares?  He's going to be out in 4 years; the supreme court didn't let him have a 3rd term; he might even be dead in 4 years.  He's going to be gone one way or the other.

A5: Canadians will never become American!  End of story!

R5: Emotional argument.  Who cares?  Your emotions don't and shouldn't matter; quit being a retarted Karandian (Karen Canadian).  You were slapped too little as a child and that needs to change.  Stop caring about your feelings; they're irrelevant.  Grow a thick skin you fucking pussy!  When you base your arguments on emotion, you become hypocritical and you don't care.  You even defend the hypocrisy and then accuse MAGA of being hypocritical.  Don't be a retard!  Don't form ideology based on emotion you fucking spoiled pricks!


#2
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
A2: Most Canadians want to be independent.

R2: Who cares?
If what people want doesnt matter, then there cant be a case for USA taking over Canada, as the latter is based purely on wants. But if what people want does matter, then again, there cannot be case for USA taking over Canada, as Canada doesnt want it. So either way, Canada stands while your empire rots.... not that Canada didnt deserve to be violated by Trump. Really, if you want to be a helping ally of USA, a country who cant respect anyone's boundaries, then having your boundaries violated by USA is kinda deserved as by helping them, you are helping them violate you. When USA runs out of enemies, it starts attacking allies.
#3
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,490
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
How the fuck have you been here several years and literally every post is still a strawman. 


#4
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@RemyBrown
A5: Canadians will never become American!  End of story!

R5: Emotional argument.  Who cares?  Your emotions don't and shouldn't matter; quit being a retarted Karandian (Karen Canadian).  You were slapped too little as a child and that needs to change.  Stop caring about your feelings; they're irrelevant.  Grow a thick skin you fucking pussy!  When you base your arguments on emotion, you become hypocritical and you don't care.  You even defend the hypocrisy and then accuse MAGA of being hypocritical.  Don't be a retard!  Don't form ideology based on emotion you fucking spoiled pricks!
Canadians care. Canadians enjoy a life better than most Americans. Higher education, healthcare and freedom.

#5
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,813
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@WyIted
It's a rare ability to combine so many different fallacies so often.

"R2: Who cares?  Most Crimeans want to join Russia (2014 Crimean status referendum - Wikipedia, UN poll), you guys don't care then.  Why care now?  No party is consistently pro self-determination."

1.) Tu quoque, if 'you' didn't care about self-determination that means it has no value

2.) Guilt by association, since no party "didn't care" and 'you' must be identical to your party you and a party are indistinguishable (he does this one a lot, its his most obtuse)

3.) I don't know if this is a named fallacy, but inferring that a person or entity "doesn't care" or "doesn't hold a certain principle" because they didn't prevent something is invalid logic if there was nothing they could do or if other factors motivated non-intervention.
Topic's author
#6
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If what people want doesnt matter, then there cant be a case for USA taking over Canada, as the latter is based purely on wants. 
You didn't bother to read the rest of my R2, which is a problem if you actually want to steelman my argument.  If you are 100% certain your mind is unchangeable on this issue, then there is no point in talking to you about it.

But if what people want does matter
So then let Russia take Crimea; most Crimeans want to join Russia.  But you want Crimea to be with Ukraine because self determination is irrelevant to you; it's irrelevant to both of us; but at least I'm honest.  It seems people prefer lies though.

So either way, Canada stands while your empire rots
All countries are empires that rule over certain swaths of land.

 not that Canada didnt deserve to be violated by Trump.
If a human is violated, then it's an issue.  That's not true for a country; how did Canada get BC?  They violated Native nations to get it.  Don't be a hypocrite.  Violating other nations is ok.

Really, if you want to be a helping ally of USA, a country who cant respect anyone's boundaries, then having your boundaries violated by USA is kinda deserved as by helping them, you are helping them violate you. When USA runs out of enemies, it starts attacking allies.
So then why are you sticking up for Canada so much if you don't like them for being an ally to the US?
Topic's author
#7
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
Canadians enjoy a life better than most Americans. Higher education, healthcare and freedom.
Topic's author
#8
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
@ADOL

 but inferring that a person or entity "doesn't care" or "doesn't hold a certain principle" because they didn't prevent something is invalid logic if there was nothing they could do or if other factors motivated non-intervention.
So then the argument, "Most Canadians are against it, therefore it's bad", just isn't a consistent argument then.  

Why would someone back self determination only in certain situations?  On a singular issue (self determinationism), it makes more sense to be black and white.  On parties (which are multiple issues (often dozens) wrapped into one) , it's foolish to blindly be black and white with the issue.

1 coin flip is either 100% or 0% heads.  10 coin flips will have a lot of both.
#9
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
You didn't bother to read the rest of my R2, which is a problem if you actually want to steelman my argument
It wasnt even necessary, because if what people want doesnt matter, then you wanting USA to take Canada doesnt matter.

If a human is violated, then it's an issue.  That's not true for a country
Country is made out of humans and owned by humans. You cannot violate a country without violating humans.

Violating other nations is ok
Then so is stealing property.
Topic's author
#10
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It wasnt even necessary, because if what people want doesnt matter, then you wanting USA to take Canada doesnt matter.
I see your argument.  I should have rephrased.  What matters wrt side A vs side B isn't the proportion of people that back side A vs side B, but the merits for side A vs side B (with a cost of side A being a merit of side B and vice versa).  In 12 angry men, juror 8 was in the minority, but the facts/merit ended up more or less on his side in the end.

Country is made out of humans and owned by humans. You cannot violate a country without violating humans.
It's not comparable.

In the 1840s, the US annexed half of Mexico.  If we translate that to humans, then that would be like an American man eating half the body of a Mexican man (totally unrealistic).  What fared better, real life Mexico right after the US took them over and the war settled, or a Mexican man that loses their legs to the US in some cannibalistic ritual.

Countries are not people and should be treated differently.

Then so is stealing property.
Countries are different than people.  No Canadian resident would be forced to lose their land; it only means they become part of America.  If France annexes Walloon, then it doesn't mean Wallonians are forcibly displaced; it just means they are now part of France.
Topic's author
#11
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
How am I strawmanning?  It could be my tense living situation at home that is accidentally coming off on the screen.
#12
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
with a cost of side A being a merit of side B and vice versa
Thats just a different term for wants. Wants determine what is a merit and what is a cost.

In the 1840s, the US annexed half of Mexico.  If we translate that to humans, then that would be like an American man eating half the body of a Mexican man
No, it would be US violating Mexican population, their property, laws...ect.

No Canadian resident would be forced to lose their land
Well, lets see.

Canada = belongs to Canadians

Losing Canada = losing what belongs to Canadians.
Topic's author
#13
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thats just a different term for wants. Wants determine what is a merit and what is a cost.
A want is merely a vote.  You Want Trump; or you don't want Trump.  A merit is a pro for Trump (or con for Trump and a pro for opposing Trump).  Want is a more general term, but the specifics matter, not the generality (because generality is vague).

No, it would be US violating Mexican population, their property, laws...ect.
When the US took over, the Mexican individuals should be allowed to keep the land (I don't know if they were).  No Canadian should be forcibly deported from their private property (the only property they own).  Public property is open to anyone.

Canada = belongs to Canadians

Losing Canada = losing what belongs to Canadians.
I'll correct this:

Private Property owned by Canadians = belongs to Canadians

Losing Private Property by force = won't happen and I'm not proposing that it would.
Nobody says Yellowstone is owned by 340 million Americans equally (I don't have a timeshare on Yellowstone).  They say it's for everyone.  A Chad resident can come to the park to visit if they want.
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,490
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
How am I strawmanning?  It could be my tense living situation at home that is accidentally coming off on the screen.
What the fuck would your mood or how you come across have anything to do with whether something is factually a strawman argument or not?
Topic's author
#15
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
Answer my question.  How am I strawmanning?
#16
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,490
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
"All arguments are either emotional or can be refuted"

Followed by a list of arguments that remove all nuance from what people actually argue and leave out many. 

Why not argue devils advocate and try to lay out as convincing of an argument for the other side as possible and then once you have done that, attack that argument.
Topic's author
#17
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
Followed by a list of arguments that remove all nuance from what people actually argue and leave out many. 
How did I leave out nuance?

Why not argue devils advocate and try to lay out as convincing of an argument for the other side as possible and then once you have done that, attack that argument.
What would that look like?
#18
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
A want is merely a vote.  You Want Trump; or you don't want Trump.  A merit is a pro for Trump (or con for Trump and a pro for opposing Trump).  
Both of those are wants. Whats pro for Trump must be wanted as well.

When the US took over, the Mexican individuals should be allowed to keep the land
Again,

Canada = belongs to Canadians.

You want for USA to take Canada away from Canadians. That is your position here in this topic. Canadians dont want that.
Topic's author
#19
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Both of those are wants. Whats pro for Trump must be wanted as well.
Often, but not necessarily.  If Person A thinks Transwomen are men and is anti ICE, then if they vote for or against Trump, then they're going to disagree with Trump on one issue and agree with him on the other.

Canada = belongs to Canadians.
This is false.  Do Americans own Yellowstone national park?  If you say yes, then you would have to also say that Bennett Spring State Park is owned by Missouri residents.  I as someone who does not live in Missouri, am allowed to go to their state park.  If I want to camp there and it's allowed, then I need to pay the same fee as anyone else (even if they are a Missouri resident).

If you have to pay money to rent a property, then it's not your property.

That means Canadian national parks aren't owned by Canadians; they are owned by their government (aka, some of the 1%).  
#20
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
Often, but not necessarily.  If Person A thinks Transwomen are men and is anti ICE, then if they vote for or against Trump, then they're going to disagree with Trump on one issue and agree with him on the other.
Thats not even a negation of what I said. I didnt say person. I said any merit for Trump must be wanted. You said merits arent wants. They are. Not all people equally want same things.


That means Canadian national parks aren't owned by Canadians; they are owned by their government
Who do you think elects the government?


Anyway, I never even mentioned national parks. I am not sure why you are attacking an argument no one made, while dodging the one which was made.


Again, your position is to take Canada away from Canadians. Its that simple.
Topic's author
#21
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
 I said any merit for Trump must be wanted. You said merits arent wants.
You could claim that; but someone can not want Trump while giving him merit on an issue (or vice versa).

Who do you think elects the government?
The people, but the people elect the government, they don't own the government.  You think every decision the PM makes has a majority of Canadians backing him?  Not at all.

Again, your position is to take Canada away from Canadians. Its that simple.
Not correct; that would mean I would want to mass deport all the Canadians out of Canada; that's like saying if NYC wanted to annex South Westchester, then that's taking White Plains away from the White Plains residents.
#22
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
You could claim that; but someone can not want Trump while giving him merit on an issue
It means he wants the merit, but doesnt want it through Trump.

The people, but the people elect the government, they don't own the government.
They can change the government if they want. Its their choice. They choose Canada over USA.
#23
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,490
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
What would that look like?
What I do is imagine that my life depends on being able to argue that position and win against my own position. 

I usually email professors who have argued in favor of a position I oppose or I find books they have written and read them and I don't really stop until I understand their position well enough that it creates a ton of doubt in my own. Ideally I disprove my own position and then now that ai hold that position I do the same in another direction. 

I haven't done this with every position yet. For example I haven't done a deep dive in the arguments that white privilege is a real problem. Part of the reason is because I expect their best arguments to be ones that take what I understand about Marxism and extrapolate from it and swapping class with identity characteristics. I already did a deep dive on Marxism so it feels like it would be double work, but I don't really drink up white privilege here anyway unless it is in the hopes of finding somebody who can really save me time by breaking down the argument for me. 

So whatever you are intuitively against ideally you research the opposite opinion until you are convinced. The issue comes if once you are convinced you don't also attack your current position in the same way. 

I will add to this because doing this can disrupt your sense of identity which may be psychologically damaging and my never ending cycle of this may have contributed to my depression. To keep a stable sense of identity through the process it can be useful to hold on to certain values. Maybe you value freedom or logic or your highest value is the good for the greatest amount of people, though that one may be too vague. The point is that if doing this will make you feel suicidal or anything just cling onto one or more values. It's worth risking the depression though by challenging that value first so it remains stronger  through the process. 

Let's just say there is a reason why true intellectuals such as Neitzsche go mad. It's this ever shifting removal of identity to fully embody the arguments and mindsets of another
Topic's author
#24
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It means he wants the merit, but doesnt want it through Trump.
That's fine; the person that unifies the US and Canada into one nation could be Obama for all I care; it should occur.

They can change the government if they want. Its their choice. They choose Canada over USA.
But then what's their reason for it?  It's usually M4A (which this is a logical reason, but it's refutable even without trashing M4A it's self).

#25
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,430
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
You know what?

After Canada's PM stood in front of a camera last night and dedicated his entire premiership to stoking the flames of anti-American sentiment, I don't mind shitposts to this effect anymore. If it upsets our peabrained neighbors to the north then I will gladly update my vocabulary. From here on out Canada = 51st state, and PM Carney = Governor Carney.
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,963
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
Canada is in the late Roman collapse stage with overdiversification and zero  loyalty to the economic zone known as Canada.

Whatever the PM says matters little, as hatred for America won't equate to love for Canada with all the diverse tribes squabbling for scraps. If anything, it will only accelerate the squabbling for said scraps.

I spent some time last week in a museum in Ottawa, Ontario where about half of it was dedicated to the Inuit tribes. I marveled at the irony of it all knowing the Inuit would never have built such a thing as a museum, and the fancy blue whale skeleton on display would have long ago been fashioned by the Inuit into easily forgettable tools, cookware and sleds. Let's hope America learns.
#27
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Swagnarok
You know what?

After Canada's PM stood in front of a camera last night and dedicated his entire premiership to stoking the flames of anti-American sentiment, I don't mind shitposts to this effect anymore. If it upsets our peabrained neighbors to the north then I will gladly update my vocabulary. From here on out Canada = 51st state, and PM Carney = Governor Carney.
Canada tore down the two Trump towers in Toronto and Vancouver. Trump bring a convicted criminal is banned from entering Canada. Americans cannot need the high standards set by Canada.
Topic's author
#28
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 866
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
Canada tore down the two Trump towers in Toronto and Vancouver
They vandalized an orange immigrant's home?  It sounds kindof racist.

Trump bring a convicted criminal is banned from entering Canada. 
No human being is illegal!

 Americans cannot need the high standards set by Canada.
It sounds xenophobic to the American community, which, relative to the Canadian colonists, is disproportionally people of color.