Longermonger: That wasn't a lame-stream media gotcha question. But it did getcha.
RED HERRING
Whether this was a gotcha question or not is beside the point. They asked her a question, and she gave a response that came closer to the truth than what most Americans know.
Longermonger: You can't answer it, so you choose to dismiss it as a red herring. Play dumb if you want, but I know you know the importance of a timeline.
First, you don't know what my cognitive processes are. Your speculation of what I'm doing has no resemblance to the thought processes I have when I address you. I dropped hints of what I actually think of the issue, read them instead of assuming that I'm thinking along the same lines you think.
Accepting the facts surrounding English Common Law would allow you to not only get a hint of my thought process… but would also allow you to be able to summarize what I'm arguing. That hint would make it glaringly obvious that I'm not "playing dumb," and I don't see your "timeline" argument as being a key player in this debate.
Second, it's a RED HERRING because the timeline isn't being debated here. What's being debated is whether Sarah Palin was wrong or not. Those who're not familiar with American History, beyond what's commonly known, or assumed, argue that she got it wrong. Those who're more familiar than the basics would know that she came closer to the truth than those that criticized her.
Third, the timeline didn't need to be answered, because my side of the argument, and most of those arguing on your side of the argument, already knew the "timeline." Both sides, in their responses, hinted directly, and indirectly, about the timeline. Common sense would tell you what the timeline was… it went without saying.
Fourth, your tactic is similar to a court room tactic where the defense tries to "shift blame," or bring an off the wall variable into the argument, to try to get the defendant off the hook. "But Your Honor! If the victim didn't wear provocative clothing, my client would never had selected her, and she'd still be alive!"
You need to stay focused here, and quit trying to introduce ego soothing aspects to the argument.
Longermonger: It wasn't a "what if" question. There is no "what if" in it.
I labeled your statement as a "what if," as you utilized the above court room tactics that I talked about. You speculated about the Regulars that captured Paul Revere. Then, you followed that speculation with a question related to that speculation.
Either you're deliberately moving the goal posts back, or you honest to God don't even have a grasp of the common knowledge American Revolution.
Longermonger: "Led to a chain reaction" isn't the same as Paul Revere directly doing something like warning the Regulars. The burden of proof is on you to show how and when Paul Revere warned the Regulars. If, as you state, Paul Revere warned them via the alarm system...then he can't have also warned the Regulars that took him as prisoner. They would have already been forewarned.
First, despite my constantly telling you what I actually meant, you're holding your assumptions of what I said, or meant, with a death grip. You're also refusing to break away from the surface explanation of the Revolutionary War, and trying to apply my responses to that, rather than keeping it consistent with the additional facts that I presented in this thread.
Again:
1. "The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair
2. "The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand." - herfacechair
3. "The secondary purpose that I talked about wasn't an "accidental" event. It was used in the same sense that a home owner, refusing to be evicted with out due process, would stand on his porch with his weapons… to warn, without saying or writing something." - herfacechair
4. "Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example." - herfacechair
Regardless of whether he went up to them, and gave them a verbal warning, or if he activated the alarm system, a chain reaction got set off. That chain reaction provides the timeline that you're demanding, a timeline that you'd find in my posts, as well as in the quotes that I listed here.
The argument isn't about whether Paul Revere verbally warned them, or did he do so via causing the alarm system to go off. The argument is about whether Paul Revere Warned the Regulars, with the ringing of the bells and firing of the guns, or not.
The complete facts, surrounding that period, indicate that he did warn the Regulars… by causing the alarm system to be activated:
That was one of the implied intents of his mission.
People must see this from our founding father's eyes, not from our 21st Century interpretation of things.
Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law.
In the UK, and throughout her domains, you understood that you could never walk unto someone's property, and confiscate it without due process of the law. This property included the right to bear arms... a concept we also inherited from the British.
Originally Posted by herfacechair
Again, read my "man on porch" example.
I've consistently proven, throughout this thread, using facts that you consistently ignore because they don't fit your agenda, that Paul Revere did warn the Regulars… and he did so via activating the alarm system… with English Common Law being the communication medium.
Longermonger: So all of your nonsense about English Common Law is moot because the Regulars never heard the alarm.
INDUCTIVE FALLACY + STRAWMAN ARGUMENT
This comment, as well as the other comments that you've made in your recent post, makes you look desperate.
Here's why. You said:
"4. From accounts, it seems as though the Regulars
that captured PR never heard the alarm" - longermonger
What I argued:
"Not only that, but the Regulars knew that the sound of gunfire, bells and drums at the village meant that they were not just going to walk in there and take what they wanted to take. They didn't have cellphones, telephones, internet... heck, they didn't even have phones. So, when people in the countryside heard gunfire, bells and drums, they knew something was up. If they had a gun, or were close to a bell, they also made some noise... to warn those living further away from the town." - herfacechair
Even you, with your death grip hold on the most basic, Revolutionary War information, would know that there were more Regulars involved with the incidents that took place that night.
The Regulars that captured Paul Revere (what you're narrowing yourself down to) were obviously operating independently of the light infantry elements that the Continentals/Colonials eventually clashed with (the ones that I'm talking about.)
Your reasoning amounts to inductive fallacy. It assumes that if the Regulars that captured Paul Revere didn't hear the alarms, then I "don't" have an argument. It completely ignores the Regulars that I'm actually talking about.
Your reasoning is also a strawman argument, on the account that you apply, what happens with regards to the Regulars that captured Paul Revere, to the entire Regular military that operated that night.
Simply put
I advance "X," my argument on this thread.
You advance "Y," a distorted version of what I'm saying.
You argue against point "Y."
You conclude that "Y" is wrong.
Since "Y" is wrong, then "X" is "wrong."
I'm smiling at your acts of desperation here. Regardless of how many times you harp against English Common Law in this argument…
My argument, about English Common Law, is very applicable to this thread, and to what happened the night of Paul Revere's ride.
No amount of denial, on your part, will change that fact.
Longermonger: So say you. I beg to differ.
You and I have been debating on this thread, I've consistently dismantled your replies to me. So it's obvious that we're "begging to differ" with the other.
Under English Common Law, if one person posts a disagreement against what another person says, that first person is "begging" to differ with the second person. You were already telling me that just from your actions on this thread.
Longermonger: Produce a timeline or be considered defeated.
First, I defeated you the moment I countered your argument on this thread. You've been fighting a losing argument since then. Also, you've been getting more desperate with each reply.
Second, the timeline has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread, by both sides of the argument. All you need to do is read what's being said. Picture the events that you're reading about, in your head, and you'll see timelines. You'll see those timelines in the quotes that I produced in my reply to you.
Third, the timeline isn't anywhere near to being one of the main factors in this argument as to what's being argued… mainly… was Sarah Palin right, or was she wrong? I've argued, and proven, in this thread that Sarah Palin came closer to the truth than those going in overdrive to criticize her.
THAT's what you have to focus on. You're focusing on something else.
If someone played chess the way you debated on this thread, that person would lose. Your argument is like someone trying to capture the opposition's bishop to win the game, while completely ignoring the opposition's king, and the opposition's moves to capture his king.
Longermonger: You say: Paul Revere was one of many links in a chain of events that was supposed to have caused a secondary effect, but did not.
First, WHERE, in MY posts, do I make that EXACT statement? Until you accept the facts that I've introduced in this thread, to include the role that English Common Law played, you're not qualified to even attempt to summarize what I'm arguing.
Your summation oversimplifies my argument into something that I'm not arguing. Here's a sample of what I'm arguing:
1. "The intent of her explanation still stood... One of Paul Rever's message was to cause the alarm systems to go off, in order to get the militia ready to respond to the advancing regular army. Those bells, drums and gunfire did another thing... it sent a message to the regulars that the colonials had no intentions of giving up their arms." - herfacechair
2. "The colonials activating their alarm system served the primary purpose of getting the colonials in line. It also had a secondary purpose… to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to walk in and take our arms easily. This is similar to someone, refusing to be evicted from his own home, sitting in his front porch with his weapon in hand." - herfacechair
Longermonger: I say: The Regulars were not effectively 'warned' by the alarm system before they captured Paul Revere.
Again, the Regulars weren't just in one location. You had the Regulars that captured Paul Revere, and you had the other Regulars who were moving toward other objectives in this area to disarm the colonials.
The Regulars that moved in on the towns did hear the alarm system, hence Paul Revere's causing the alarm system to go off warned the Regulars, "ala man on porch with gun" that they weren't going to confiscate the colonial's weapons.
Longermonger: So your speculation about how the alarm system 'warned' the enemy and it's implied meaning under English Common Law is moot.
That's snot speculation, but fact. English Common Law is a very big variable behind our founders' actions before and during the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, its amendments, etc, reek of English Common Law.
Anybody that dismisses the role that English Common Law played, in our founders' actions, makes a moot argument. Said person isn't even qualified to participate in this debate.
The ringing of the bells, beating of the drums, and firing of the guns clearly communicated to the Regulars that they weren't going to disarm the colonials without due process of the law. The Regulars understood this, as they also operated with the English Common Law philosophy.
Again, it'd be like the man, sitting on his porch with his weapon, as a visual warning to those about to take his property that he isn't going to give it up.
Longermonger: Your only hope
I don't need hope or luck in this argument. The facts are on my side, the fact that I'm right in this argument, and that I've destroyed the opposition, is a no brainer.
Your only hope in this argument is that I turn away from the facts and embrace your illogical argument… time to destroy your hope… that's NOT happening.
Longermonger: for Paul Revere to 'warn' the Regulars is after he is captured.
Wrong. The moment Paul Revere activated the town's alarm systems, he caused the Regulars to be warned, via the ringing of the bells, that they weren't going to capture the Colonial's weapons.
Longermonger: But, since PR never rode out to be taken prisoner you can't consider that a warning, either.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT
That's not relevant to the argument I'm making… which is… did Paul Revere warn the Regulars, by ringing the bells and firing those shots, that they weren't going to be taking the Colonial's weapons? Per English Common Law, that's precisely what he did as a secondary mission. It was implied.
Like that guy sitting on his porch, he doesn't need to send you an email, text, or call you, to tell you what he could easily communicate by making sure that you see him, on his porch, with his gun.
Again, you stubbornly ignore one of the large variables driving the Patriots' actions that night. You refuse to consider English Common Law simply because that variable thoroughly proves your argument wrong. So, by ignoring that, and by focusing on your inductive fallacy argument, you hope to make this something it isn't.
What you're doing is attempting to redefine the debate to something that it isn't, in a futile attempt to achieve a victory… got news for you, others tried this game over the past few years, and they failed… you'll fare the same way they did.
I wouldn't be surprised if you've been accused of integrity related violations in your real world life.
" - herfacechair
