This site completely debunks your claims. Language and Statehood
Oh–I thought you were saying that because I was okay with the violation of one law regarding borders, I’d be okay with the violation of all laws regarding borders. That’d be a slippery slope fallacy, that I’d find nothing to distinguish between the violations of different laws.
As an analogy, it sucks. Any analogy comparing private property to a nation-state is a terrible analogy: the two are fundamentally different. For starters, I can kick you out of my house. I can’t kick you out of my nation.
Strangers come into my nation all the time without my being aware of it. Theoretically strangers could come into my house without my being aware of it, but that doesn’t happen: the analogy fails.
But let’s say they did. Let’s say that in some circumstances I was okay with it, and in others I was not.
Let’s say, further, that the ones coming in without my permission were doing work that was vital to my household’s running: let’s call them brownies, coming in and sweeping up at night, if you’d like. I don’t see them, I don’t invite them, but they’re there, and the house would fall apart without them.
Let’s say, further, that the only way for me to get them out would be to make my guests terribly uncomfortable being in my house, and to make myself terribly uncomfortable as well.
Now we’ve got a better analogy. In this analogy, I’ve got a couple choices:
- I can teargas the entire house to get rid of the uninvited guests, despite what that will do to myself, my invited guests, and the running of my household; or
- I can find a way to rework my house’s rules such that these uninvited guests can check in in the lobby and become invited guests, despite what this will do to my rules.
It seems bizarre and awful to me to choose option 1; it seems to ignore the reality of my household to do so.
Daniel
Oh bullshit. Show me where I objected to the words of the treaty. Not even going to waste another second of my time until you actually read the stuff I post.
I think this is going to help motivate some to leave, hopefully. I had no idea this law had been passed because having two nurses in the family, they are always telling me how known illegals come into the hospital and you aren’t allowed to ask them if they are here legally. I’m torn over this because I don’t want to be cruel, but for God’s sake, it has to stop somewhere. Medicare is a huge percentage of the federal budget, so this was an attempt to control some of the costs.
:dubious: Of course the most important piece of message is the name of the messenger, and you know it.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but only with respect to logic, in the strictly deductive sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Validity:
Moreover, most important arguments involve logical chains of reasoning muddled up with distinctively extra-logical concepts or considerations – “values,” “culture,” “national identity.” Everybody has an agenda. Knowing what that agenda is is an indispensable starting point for evaluating any message or argument.
In short, if we want to evaluate John Tanton’s arguments, it is crucially important to know at the outset that he is a racist. That does not automatically invalidate everything he says, but it does give us a lot of clues about what to watch for.
:dubious: Of course the most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger, and you know it.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, but only with respect to logic, in the strictly deductive sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Validity:
Moreover, most important arguments involve logical chains of reasoning muddled up with distinctively extra-logical concepts or considerations – “values,” “culture,” “national identity.” Everybody has an agenda. Knowing what that agenda is is an indispensable starting point for evaluating any message or argument.
In short, if we want to evaluate John Tanton’s arguments, it is crucially important to know at the outset that he is a racist. That does not automatically invalidate everything he says, but it does give us a lot of clues about what to watch for.
I still question the first sentence, but I think you’re right about the rest.
Except the passage in question. It’s there. It means something. And I see no more (or less) reason to beleive it implies what you say or I? I don’t see how you can seriously argue that.
The Founding Fathers chose to have all documents in English. Even when petitioned during the third congress to have the President’s address printed in German for the many non-English-speaking Germans, it was routinely tabled and never brought to a vote. (The notion that it was voted on and that Speaker Muhlenberg cast the deciding vote against seems specious. I found no record of it in the congressional records.)
As you know, Hobbes was an influence on the Founders, so they were probably familiar with this: (boldiing mine)
“But the most noble and profitable invention of all other, was that of speech, consisting of names or appellations, and their connexion; whereby men register their thoughts, recall them when they are past; and also declare them one to another for mutual utility and conversation; without which, there had been amongst men, neither commonwealth, nor society, nor contract nor peace, no more than amongst lions, bears, and wolves.” - Hobbes-Leviathan, Chapter 4
Additionally, they were, of course, familiar with the story of the Tower of Babel.
But moving more to the timeframe in question. In the 1840s proposals were again made to have the President’s address and other papers printed for the large German population. For five consecutive years, from 1843 to 1847, the eve of the treaty in question, congress voted DOWN the proposal. The first year French was proposed as well, and similarly voted down.
12/18/43-german and french
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_6WtA::
12/3/44
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_6WtA::
12/4/45
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_3MPr::
12/8/46
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_3MPr::
12/7/47
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_CT9y::
The next mention I could find was in 1952, when, with the treaty behind them, Spanish became an issue. It was a proposal brought forth by the delagate from New Mexico, Richard Weightman. It was voted down.
12/7/52
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_72pc::
Excerpt from the House Journals:
So it seems to me that the mindset of Congress was NOT to embrace other languages. Of course, I could be wrong, but I bet that particulalry because the U.S. was such an amalgam of different people, that a common language was (is) viewed as bonding force.
We disagree on this. You make good points, but an insulation salesman tells me insulation will keep my house warmer, he is just as right about that as an engineer from MIT. I think it is wise to be somewhat suspect of the claim, if you smell an ulterior motive, but you must take on the burden of evaluatiing the it, apart from the messenger. I think the attitude you describe closes minds and promotes partisanship. (Not necessarily political.)
You might find these helpful.
=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope
And this: http://www.prufrock.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=427
Seriously dude, you may want to spend some time with those cites.
Oh really? Here are the two paragraphs that are pertinent to the time in question:
Now, let’s, for the sake of argument, say that all these estimates are correct. Which part of this debunks my claim? Let’s see, here is the claim you cited that your link supposedly debunks:
It seems that the only part the debunks anything I’ve said is:
Now please show me where the support—any support—is for this claim.
Oops, there is none. Now look at the treaty. It is not there either. The rest of your cite talks about the area and proposed legislation during the 1900s, which has nothig to do with the treaty and the mindset of our governement in drafting it.
You may wanrt to review my some of the information I supplied to tomndebb, as well.
I hope that helps.
You’re claim has been debunked from just reading the text that you posted. It just takes some reading comprehension. And a knowledge of history from that time just further debunks it.
Well that settles that. Thanks for your input. It was so helpful. It lacked any specifics whatsoever, and moved the debate not one iota, but hey, to each their own.
They’ve been given already. You just don’t like the logical answers.
And that was Unregistered Bull, ladies and gentleman. Let’s give him a round of applause [applause]. He’s something else, that Unregistered. And now let’s here it for Bonzo The Hopscotching Bear. [Applause]
Since these are your words how about explaining the exactly what “ways” you are referring to?
Religious expression, e.g., and whatever else that is explicitly stated in the articles of the treaty.
What does that have to do with the debate besides absolutely nothing?
It’s an intervening moment of fun with a little shock value that hopefully (but not optimistically) might allow the gentleman to take a deep breath and actually respond to questions when asked, instead of being so stubbornly non-responsive willfully…what’s the word…oh well, no matter. If that doesn’t do it, I give up.
I didn’t notice any weaseling in the responses you got. Until you elaborated latter in the thread, I couldn’t even figure out why you were using this article of the treaty in your argument.
And like the pevious posters, I can’t see anything in the wording that would imply the mexicans choosing to become american citizens were expected to become culturally integrated. The sentence about the “mexican character” you’re pointing at doesn’t appear to me to have any such meaning, and I find the answers of previous posters perfectly adequate, and not elusive. My opinion is that you’re seeing in this article meanings invisible to most of us.
Religion was explicitly dealt with. Now tell us of the ways you referred to Americanize the Mexicans in the territory that were not explicitly dealt with in the treaty.