• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we abolish Columbus Day?

Abolish Columbus Day, replace it with Bartolomé Day?


  • Total voters
    73
Why do people act as if Columbus is the sole cause of the downfall of the native culture in this hemisphere? It was a group effort and if he wasn't leading that first group that was able to remain established, then it would've been somebody else within a few years. People act as if it weren't for Columbus, this hemisphere would still be "undiscovered" and the native population would be crapping rainbows and blowing unicorns.
 
It was what the kings and queens determined was legal, but not much more.
And?
If it wasn't illegal for him to do it wasn't illegal for him to do.
End of story.



fast forward to, say, the birth of the United States and its free speech, while slavery was still legal you suddenly became fully aware of the dissent against slavery. That should be telling.
Telling of what?
Dissent of slavery has always been expressed.

I think what is more telling are the supposed numbers of it today.
 
Routinely? I surely believe that.:lol:
I care not what you believe.


When people toss out their IQ's so fast that is generally a sure fire indication that they are full of ****.
Funny, as that is what a person with a low IQ says.
It is also what someone who would lie about their actual IQ would say as well.

And it wasn't really that fast.
You have tried to be insulting towards my age, and now towards my intelligence.
It is an appropriate reply to quell you asinine juvenile antics.

And yes. I did see the IQ thread.
I do not believe you one bit.
Your responses here, and your displayed inability to reason are not indicative of one who has a high IQ as you profess.


Even if it is true there is more critical thinking, recognition, humility, etc than a person's IQ
You don't say?
Please, do go on, and on, and on.... Really, push on, or stop with your juvenile antics.


And you just called me childish. Doesn't the one wanting to alter a behaviour model what they constitute appropriate behaviour?
Still not paying attention to what has been said huh?
To what was that said in response?

I did tell you I was going to respond in kind. Did I not?


Sure thing scooter...
Absolutely that is a sure thing scooter.
You just complained about it above.

As I already stated.

that is throwing them back in your face.
It points out how juvenile you are being, and leaves no mistake how your own words are meant to be taken.
And make no mistake, I am going to continue to do it.
If you don't like it, your best bet is act like an adult and not throw them out there to begin with.

Yet you continue on with your juvenile antics.
Act like an adult and stop throwing them out there. You will get none in reply.
It is very simply.



Still confused...
Yes you are still showing you are
It is a well known fact that the act of killing is not murder without a law making it so.


That is not what I said...
Yeah it is. Quoted even.
And that is not the only time.


Laws are based off of a societies morals. There have been murder laws since the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Mesopotamia. Really, you argument is pathetic.
Your argument is what is pathetic as Columbus's action were not illegal and therefore not Murder.
What you said has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of his actions.
He was allowed to do as he did.


Not Murder under US Legal Code to Columbus as it was not written yet and as argued by you.
Yes Murder as in the immoral killing of other humans that has been recognized probably since cave men chilled back in the day...
Wrong again.
You even have your arguments messed up.
Not illegal period.

It wasn't murder.
It was killing.
He was allowed to do what he did.
That is the distinction that you fail to make.


So no state sponsored declaration of war was declared. Got it.
You haven't yet shown that there was You lost. And worse, you fail to see the analogy I provided.
No you obviously don't get it.
I have shown he declared war. The information provided said that he was allowed to do so.

You haven't shown that he wasn't allowed, so you have failed.
Your analogy isn't relevant to any point you are trying to make that is because you are assuming something that you do not know.


US Constitution. "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Showing you are confused again.
This does not support any of your claims.
Your analogy failed.
Did you have trouble understanding what you quoted?
Do you not know how to stay in context?

First of all, this is your failure.
I stated that "He declared war", which is clearly supported by the information I provided.
That information states that the "King Ferdinand ... gave him anything he needed to break and conquer the natives."
Wtf do you think that means? Huh? Conquer. Is this another word you need explained to you?

When the report stated that "his demands were met with surprising defiance which allowed him to then declare war" what the heck do you think "allowed him to declare war means?

You are the one assuming and alleging that he needed the Queens approval. That is on you to support. So please provide proof of it.
I supported what I said. It is now up to you to support what you say.
But I know you wont.
Because you failed to support any of your claims that you have been asked to thus far.

In context your reply is nonsense.


Who siad it was illegal? I said it was an undeclared war. "The Vietnam War was not a declared war... " 160 my ass... you are so full of crap.

They had to create the War Powers Act to reign in Nixon after they repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution back in '71 or '72.
Yeah routinely above 160. But it doesn't appear that you even reach 110.
You clearly display a lack of reasoning.
Back to the claim.

You have yet to provide any proof that it wasn't a "real war." Not Vietnam, Do'h! as your analogy fails. But the war Columbus was allowed to declare.
You keep trying to doge the question.
That is because you can't show he wasn't allowed to do so.


Hence the undeclared war. You just love shooting yourself in the foot, don't you? That is not a crack at your disability status, BTW.
No. :naughty
You are the only one shooting themselves in the foot, and mouth.

There is no hence.
The only equivalency between them is that they were both allowed to do as they did.
It was legal.


Without declaring war he was really an illegal immigrant...
Wrong!
Absurdly wrong.
He was there to conquer.


I am distinguishing between your "today it's murder and before it wasn't". And initially he was a visitor attempting to get to India. He broke their laws, undoubtedly.
No, they broke their conquerors laws.
Like you said (if true); "There were no murder laws against Natives."

You are not distinguishing anything.

He was allowed to do as he did. Therefore is was not murder.
Which is again why the Truman comparison is apt.
Under today's laws doing what you are allowed to do is legal and not murder.


Keep up the brilliant analysis...
As presented, you have no clue as to what you have argued. So yeah, it is brilliant analysis.


You are bringing up abortion? WTF? Yeah, I think I will drop it as you are clearly delusional... wish I had seen this last part before I wasted my time above. :roll:
Delusional?
Ha. The delusion is all yours.

Are you saying it isn't true?
Are you saying that you don't call abortion murder, when it is not.
Which is the same thing here, you are calling legal killing murder, and it just isn't.
Your actions and assertions here are what have been delusional.


Laws are subjective... that is why you fail.

Great argument for keeping separate but equal as a law...
Oy Vey!
:naughty
This is again your failure... to reason.

Your argument that laws are subjective is also a great argument for keeping separate but equal as a law as well.
Duh!

No, Laws are not subjective. They are the Law.
And are supposed to be black and white without and any vagueness.
Which would be objective.

How they come to be a law is what is subjective.
 
I think it's universal personal opinion (except for perhaps a MURDERER) to consider the unwarranted murder of a whole bunch of people in a brutal and painful way, not to mention the rape and mutilations, wrong.
You have yet to show that it was unwarranted and/or that it was murder.
And back then it was obviously allowed and therefore not wrong.





Slavery is only wrong because of the law.
Hurts!
OMG!
:lol:
Wtf?
We were speaking in terms of what is legal and illegal.
Not morals and ethics (which are personal) as ChrisL is now attempting.


Murder laws have been around for 4,000 years. It isn't a difficult concept... well, not to most.
Another ridiculous comment, from the guy who said he wasn't arguing the legality of it. :doh

Yes murders have been around since time immemorial, just as legal killing has.
What Columbus did was legal.
Learn to distinguish between the two.
 
And?
If it wasn't illegal for him to do it wasn't illegal for him to do.
End of story.

Well, I gotta say your participation would be welcome by many in the abortion forum. :lol:


Telling of what?
Dissent of slavery has always been expressed.

I think what is more telling are the supposed numbers of it today.

Oh, I agree. We're light years ahead in that department. What I'm arguing against is any notion that it was a different time in the sense that slavery was seen as generally acceptable, as there were no democracies then any dissenting opinions on the topic would be told to jump off the nearest pier. So what is "legal" then has a very different connotation, because today what is legal is at least partly (usually) a representation of the majority of mainstream attitudes, and therefore (usually) has greater validity. When examples of the opposite exist (laws that have little to no public backing) we tend to see those laws ill founded and illegitimate.
 
Why do people act as if Columbus is the sole cause of the downfall of the native culture in this hemisphere? It was a group effort and if he wasn't leading that first group that was able to remain established, then it would've been somebody else within a few years. People act as if it weren't for Columbus, this hemisphere would still be "undiscovered" and the native population would be crapping rainbows and blowing unicorns.

I missed those posts. I believe the main point was that we didn't have to go so far as to celebrate Columbus and use him as a role model.
 
I don't know what that is, but in any event, no, I would like our nation to stop celebrating genocide.

Or you know...you could look at it as a celebration of one of the most important voyages of any explorer ever. Life Erikson didn't stay in America. Columbus started the race. This country would certainly not be what we know it a today without Columbus. Nor would any South American or Caribbean nation.
 
Or you know...you could look at it as a celebration of one of the most important voyages of any explorer ever. Life Erikson didn't stay in America. Columbus started the race. This country would certainly not be what we know it a today without Columbus. Nor would any South American or Caribbean nation.

What we should celebrate is what we are (if celebrate-able) and how we decide to move forward. By using an ends-justify-the-means approach and raising up Columbus as some sort of role model we're communicating that Columbus's methods should be emulated, an utterly repugnant idea. It's entirely possible to say, "Yep, here we are, but our morals have evolved to the point where we can also say that the path to getting where we are shouldn't be taken in the future." History is messy like that.
 
What we should celebrate is what we are (if celebrate-able) and how we decide to move forward. By using an ends-justify-the-means approach and raising up Columbus as some sort of role model we're communicating that Columbus's methods should be emulated, an utterly repugnant idea. It's entirely possible to say, "Yep, here we are, but our morals have evolved to the point where we can also say that the path to getting where we are shouldn't be taken in the future." History is messy like that.

It isn't an "ends justify the means" at all. I am quite sick of people trying to revise history to some politically correct standard. Piss on that. We wouldn't be here without violence, blood, and death. That revisionist history tries to make native populations look peaceful and that war is an invention of white Europeans (mainly of Spanish or Northern European decent).

Now I'm not saying that it isn't a shame what happened, but the least we can do is tell the truth about it...and admit that we gained a lot out of it. We can't change it.
 
It isn't an "ends justify the means" at all. I am quite sick of people trying to revise history to some politically correct standard. Piss on that. We wouldn't be here without violence, blood, and death.

Have our ethics progressed to the point that we've sufficiently moved past glorifying that? Again, the point is not so much to flagellate ourselves silly, but to acknowledge we can choose a new way forward instead of brutalizing others as much as necessary for our economic gain.

That revisionist history tries to make native populations look peaceful and that war is an invention of white Europeans (mainly of Spanish or Northern European decent).

There is no opposing history I'm aware of that shows the Europeans as anything other than the aggressors. Even the Europeans' own accounts paint the natives as largely peaceful.

Now I'm not saying that it isn't a shame what happened, but the least we can do is tell the truth about it...and admit that we gained a lot out of it. We can't change it.

We don't disagree on this.
 
Why do people act as if Columbus is the sole cause of the downfall of the native culture in this hemisphere? It was a group effort and if he wasn't leading that first group that was able to remain established, then it would've been somebody else within a few years. People act as if it weren't for Columbus, this hemisphere would still be "undiscovered" and the native population would be crapping rainbows and blowing unicorns.

Nobody is saying that... they/we/I are saying that he was human garbage. The others stand or fall on their own merit. The Natives were doomed no matter what. The English were better than the Spanish but look at what happened there anyway...
 
I care not what you believe.


Funny, as that is what a person with a low IQ says.
It is also what someone who would lie about their actual IQ would say as well.

And it wasn't really that fast.
You have tried to be insulting towards my age, and now towards my intelligence.
It is an appropriate reply to quell you asinine juvenile antics.

And yes. I did see the IQ thread.
I do not believe you one bit.
Your responses here, and your displayed inability to reason are not indicative of one who has a high IQ as you profess.


You don't say?
Please, do go on, and on, and on.... Really, push on, or stop with your juvenile antics.


Still not paying attention to what has been said huh?
To what was that said in response?

I did tell you I was going to respond in kind. Did I not?


Absolutely that is a sure thing scooter.
You just complained about it above.

As I already stated.

that is throwing them back in your face.
It points out how juvenile you are being, and leaves no mistake how your own words are meant to be taken.
And make no mistake, I am going to continue to do it.
If you don't like it, your best bet is act like an adult and not throw them out there to begin with.

Yet you continue on with your juvenile antics.
Act like an adult and stop throwing them out there. You will get none in reply.
It is very simply.




Yes you are still showing you are
It is a well known fact that the act of killing is not murder without a law making it so.



Yeah it is. Quoted even.
And that is not the only time.


Your argument is what is pathetic as Columbus's action were not illegal and therefore not Murder.
What you said has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of his actions.
He was allowed to do as he did.


Wrong again.
You even have your arguments messed up.
Not illegal period.

It wasn't murder.
It was killing.
He was allowed to do what he did.
That is the distinction that you fail to make.


No you obviously don't get it.
I have shown he declared war. The information provided said that he was allowed to do so.

You haven't shown that he wasn't allowed, so you have failed.
Your analogy isn't relevant to any point you are trying to make that is because you are assuming something that you do not know.


Showing you are confused again.
This does not support any of your claims.
Your analogy failed.
Did you have trouble understanding what you quoted?
Do you not know how to stay in context?



In context your reply is nonsense.


Yeah routinely above 160. But it doesn't appear that you even reach 110.
You clearly display a lack of reasoning.
Back to the claim.

You have yet to provide any proof that it wasn't a "real war." Not Vietnam, Do'h! as your analogy fails. But the war Columbus was allowed to declare.
You keep trying to doge the question.
That is because you can't show he wasn't allowed to do so.


No. :naughty
You are the only one shooting themselves in the foot, and mouth.

There is no hence.
The only equivalency between them is that they were both allowed to do as they did.
It was legal.


Wrong!
Absurdly wrong.
He was there to conquer.


No, they broke their conquerors laws.
Like you said (if true); "There were no murder laws against Natives."

You are not distinguishing anything.

He was allowed to do as he did. Therefore is was not murder.
Which is again why the Truman comparison is apt.
Under today's laws doing what you are allowed to do is legal and not murder.



As presented, you have no clue as to what you have argued. So yeah, it is brilliant analysis.


Delusional?
Ha. The delusion is all yours.

Are you saying it isn't true?
Are you saying that you don't call abortion murder, when it is not.
Which is the same thing here, you are calling legal killing murder, and it just isn't.
Your actions and assertions here are what have been delusional.



Oy Vey!
:naughty
This is again your failure... to reason.

Your argument that laws are subjective is also a great argument for keeping separate but equal as a law as well.
Duh!

No, Laws are not subjective. They are the Law.
And are supposed to be black and white without and any vagueness.
Which would be objective.

How they come to be a law is what is subjective.

Holy Crap! :lol:

You are turning into a bore... everything is wrong? Everything? :lol:

Whatever bud.
 
You have yet to show that it was unwarranted and/or that it was murder.
And back then it was obviously allowed and therefore not wrong.





Wtf?
We were speaking in terms of what is legal and illegal.
Not morals and ethics (which are personal) as ChrisL is now attempting.


Another ridiculous comment, from the guy who said he wasn't arguing the legality of it. :doh

Yes murders have been around since time immemorial, just as legal killing has.
What Columbus did was legal.
Learn to distinguish between the two.

:lol: Slavery is only wrong because of the law! :lol:
 
Funny, as that is what a person with a low IQ says.
It is also what someone who would lie about their actual IQ would say as well.

What about a person with no IQ?

Yeah routinely above 160. But it doesn't appear that you even reach 110.
You clearly display a lack of reasoning.
Back to the claim.

I tested 146 and 127 so I just split the difference and say 137. I figure top 1% is fine.
Besides, IQ isn't as important as emotional happiness when it comes to living a good life.

But... you don't believe me. What can I do to change your mind!! I need your approval!

Twit. :lol:
 
:lol: Slavery is only wrong because of the law! :lol:
I am speaking about definitively wrong.
You may have a personal opinion on it, but that in no way makes it wrong.
Look at how many are supposedly enslaved today. Somebody (obviously quite a few of the world's population) doesn't view it as personally wrong.
So yeah, the only thing that makes it wrong is the law.
 
Sorry ...based on that retort, maybe you really are about 9 years old:lamo

Buckewer is the fourth person that I know of who suspects Excon of being...well...of less than voting age. A lesser person might take the hint.
 
I am speaking about definitively wrong.
You may have a personal opinion on it, but that in no way makes it wrong.
Look at how many are supposedly enslaved today. Somebody (obviously quite a few of the world's population) doesn't view it as personally wrong.
So yeah, the only thing that makes it wrong is the law.

You are only giving credit to emotionally and psychologically people.

Many people think that child abduction, murder, rape and cannibalism is fine too... to give any credit to their ****ed up opinion is idiotic.
 
Nah.

Columbus was a conqueror, everyone knows that. He wasn't nice, and that's fine. It's just a celebration of the dawning of the Age of Exploration which brought western civilization to the Americas. Keep it around, as the US is a western nation.
 
Buckewer is the fourth person that I know of who suspects Excon of being...well...of less than voting age. A lesser person might take the hint.
:doh The hint being that juveniles oft speak of that which they know not.
Especially as it has already been established that I am much older.
So welcome to that club.
You have many like minded juveniles to buddy up with. :mrgreen:
 
Maybe he is not speaking about your biological age...ever think of that? Nope...
 
:doh The hint being that juveniles oft speak of that which they know not.
Especially as it has already been established that I am much older.
So welcome to that club.
You have many like minded juveniles to buddy up with. :mrgreen:

Well, I won't pretend to know how you were eventually able to establish your age, but I'm going to guess it wasn't due to your seeming inability to respond without a steady stream of taunts and insults.
 
Back
Top Bottom