Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
165 comments

  • by voting to become a state - especially to such an overwhelming majority - you can hardly argue a dispositive attitude towards the US being there or towards joining the union. so, not only have you moved the goalposts, you’re arguing a straw man and your own emotions.

    I’m sticking with provable facts.

    • Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory. Not for independence. It'd be like offering a scrap of bread to a starving man in exchange for the man legitimizing your ability to keep him malnourished.

      The ole adage of "the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited " comes to mind.

      Since you can't be assed to read your own damn wiki article I assume you're just in bad faith.

      • Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory

        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.

        • 🐷 💩 🥎

          Lol your mind sure is something.

        • Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

          • Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

            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

              Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

              Is false

              So to quote you

              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.

              • Is false

                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.

                • 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.

                  • 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

                      • doesn’t represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians

                        1. that was never my argument
                        2. 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
                        3. 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.

        • 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.

          • You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state

            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.

165 comments