|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 20, 2024 8:37:31 GMT
I replied to much of what you asked but I do need to know what in your eyes makes a Ruler, a King, a Lord legitimate? you have barely replied to anything I have said , you ignored many of my questions and points , and generally evaded the thrust of my arguments . This is what you do in many threads. You disagree , but spend the thread prevaricating without offering any sort of substance as to why . I dont need to prove to you Henry the second was king of England. That is an undeniable historical fact. You are the one challenging that fact , and his right , as king of England , to impose treaties annexing ireland to the English crown. Its down to you to disprove the treaty of Windsor, or show Henry the second was not king of England. If you can't , then by default your. whole argument falls flat on its face. No amount of bullshit , or filling threads with unmitigated waffle will change that. If I may recap, and correct me if I am wrong. You state Ireland was England's first colony because Henry was King of England and as a sovereign Kingdom it was his kingdom that invaded and colonised Ireland and the Treaty of Windsor annexes Ireland to England. I say it is not as straightforward as that as England was itself a colony of the Normans and was still under effective colonisation when the invasion, by Normans, occurred and is complicated by the Papal Fief that allowed Henry to invade. So to say Ireland was England's first colony is wrong as there were many ifs ands and buts in there not least that the English themselves were an oppressed people by the colonial power as confirmed by historians. To make a direct statement that implies the English are at fault is both wrong and mischievous. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 8:14:33 GMT
you have barely replied to anything I have said , you ignored many of my questions and points , and generally evaded the thrust of my arguments . This is what you do in many threads. You disagree , but spend the thread prevaricating without offering any sort of substance as to why . I dont need to prove to you Henry the second was king of England. That is an undeniable historical fact. You are the one challenging that fact , and his right , as king of England , to impose treaties annexing ireland to the English crown. Its down to you to disprove the treaty of Windsor, or show Henry the second was not king of England. If you can't , then by default your. whole argument falls flat on its face. No amount of bullshit , or filling threads with unmitigated waffle will change that. If I may recap, and correct me if I am wrong. You state Ireland was England's first colony because Henry was King of England and as a sovereign Kingdom it was his kingdom that invaded and colonised Ireland and the Treaty of Windsor annexes Ireland to England. I say it is not as straightforward as that as England was itself a colony of the Normans Then under your rule , England could not have been a colony of the normans , as the Frankish normans themselves were a colony of the Scandinavians. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 8:34:38 GMT
If I may recap, and correct me if I am wrong. You state Ireland was England's first colony because Henry was King of England and as a sovereign Kingdom it was his kingdom that invaded and colonised Ireland and the Treaty of Windsor annexes Ireland to England. I say it is not as straightforward as that as England was itself a colony of the Normans Then under your rule , England could not have been a colony of the normans , as the Frankish normans themselves were a colony of the Scandinavians. It is not my rule it was from your definition of a colony. England was always a colony, you can argue who the coloniser was but that does not alter the basic fact they were colonised. I have not argued the basic fact that Ireland was colonised all I did was say was that it was not by the English which calling Ireland England's first colony is doing by implication. I said, and hold, that history is far more complicated than simple sound bites that pit groups against each other. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 8:41:12 GMT
Then under your rule , England could not have been a colony of the normans , as the Frankish normans themselves were a colony of the Scandinavians. It is not my rule it was from your definition of a colony. dont try and pass the buck back to me old son. You have spent the whole thread arguing ireland could not have been colonised by England in 1175 and subsequently , which you argue was a colony till 1485 . im simply applying your pathetic rule to normandy , which was a Scandinavian colony. Back to you . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 8:56:16 GMT
It is not my rule it was from your definition of a colony. dont try and pass the buck back to me old son. You have spent the whole thread arguing ireland could not have been colonised by England in 1175 and subsequently , which you argue was a colony till 1485 . im simply applying your pathetic rule to normandy , which was a Scandinavian colony. Back to you . Just stating the facts, you introduced the definition I only worked within the parameters you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 8:59:32 GMT
dont try and pass the buck back to me old son. You have spent the whole thread arguing ireland could not have been colonised by England in 1175 and subsequently , which you argue was a colony till 1485 . im simply applying your pathetic rule to normandy , which was a Scandinavian colony. Back to you . Just stating the facts, you introduced the definition I only worked within the parameters you posted. sandy debating rule on history. When skewered on a point , run away blaming history being complicated , or pass the buck onto someone else for the main plank of his argument across pages of a thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 9:06:40 GMT
Just stating the facts, you introduced the definition I only worked within the parameters you posted. sandy debating rule on history. When skewered on a point , run away blaming history being complicated , or pass the buck onto someone else for the main plank of his argument across pages of a thread. I am not clear what I am 'skewered' on, I was working logically through the definitions of colony and country you provided to show how England was a colony of another country at the time of the invasion of Ireland. I would stand by my statement that history is in indeed very complex with no simple 'goodies' and 'baddies' type scenarios much loved by those determined to reduce it to such simple narratives. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 9:08:59 GMT
sandy debating rule on history. When skewered on a point , run away blaming history being complicated , or pass the buck onto someone else for the main plank of his argument across pages of a thread. I am not clear what I am 'skewered' on, I was working logically through the definitions of colony and country you provided to show how England was a colony of another country at the time of the invasion of Ireland. I would stand by my statement that history is in indeed very complex with no simple 'goodies' and 'baddies' type scenarios much loved by those determined to reduce it to such simple narratives. you are bullshitting , and once again trying to waffle your way out of another beating. Im pointing out the stupidity of your argument . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 9:12:12 GMT
sandy debating rule on history. When skewered on a point , run away blaming history being complicated , or pass the buck onto someone else for the main plank of his argument across pages of a thread. I am not clear what I am 'skewered' on, I was working logically through the definitions of colony and country you provided to show how England was a colony of another country at the time of the invasion of Ireland. I would stand by my statement that history is in indeed very complex with no simple 'goodies' and 'baddies' type scenarios much loved by those determined to reduce it to such simple narratives. In 1066 , was normandy a colony of the Scandinavians. Yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 9:22:22 GMT
I am not clear what I am 'skewered' on, I was working logically through the definitions of colony and country you provided to show how England was a colony of another country at the time of the invasion of Ireland. I would stand by my statement that history is in indeed very complex with no simple 'goodies' and 'baddies' type scenarios much loved by those determined to reduce it to such simple narratives. you are bullshitting , and once again trying to waffle your way out of another beating. Im pointing out the stupidity of your argument . Stupidity of my argument? Are you saying England was not a colony of the Normans (who may in turn also have been colonised). I thought we were past that stage. Your premise seems to rest, and I agree that is consistent, that the English Crown was the directing force and therefore it was England that was the coloniser. All I am doing is pointing out that that premise is too simplistic by half as it assumes that Norman colonisation was England by 1175 yet it was the colonial group that held the reins of power in all respects and it was that power that undertook the invasion of Ireland with the permission of the Papacy and with the collusion of some of the Irish. These are all factors that have an effect on what happened and upon whom the responsibility lies. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 9:23:07 GMT
you are bullshitting , and once again trying to waffle your way out of another beating. Im pointing out the stupidity of your argument . Stupidity of my argument? Was normandy a colony of the Scandinavians in 1066? Yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 9:31:36 GMT
I am not clear what I am 'skewered' on, I was working logically through the definitions of colony and country you provided to show how England was a colony of another country at the time of the invasion of Ireland. I would stand by my statement that history is in indeed very complex with no simple 'goodies' and 'baddies' type scenarios much loved by those determined to reduce it to such simple narratives. In 1066 , was normandy a colony of the Scandinavians. Yes or no? I cannot answer yes or no because i do not know many of the details, what I do know, and it is what history clearly tells us, is that the Normans, whoever they were, invaded England, took hold of the Crown of England by force and settled themselves and their descendants into all positions of power. That fits precisely with your definition of a colony. Why should that be complicated. History is not a yes or no exercise it is an assessment of all that is known. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 9:34:58 GMT
In 1066 , was normandy a colony of the Scandinavians. Yes or no? I cannot answer yes or no because i do not know many of the details, It's a simple question. I often find with bullshitters like you sandy , you tell that much crap and spin such a web of deceit that you can't keep up with your own argument. It's no more difficult a question to answer than you proposing England was a colony in 1175. Was normandy a scandinanvian colony in 1066. ? please answer the question yes or no. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 21, 2024 19:32:24 GMT
I cannot answer yes or no because i do not know many of the details, It's a simple question. I often find with bullshitters like you sandy , you tell that much crap and spin such a web of deceit that you can't keep up with your own argument. It's no more difficult a question to answer than you proposing England was a colony in 1175. Was normandy a scandinanvian colony in 1066. ? please answer the question yes or no. I am not proposing, I am stating that according to your definition then England was a colony of the Normans. I have no idea what the relationships as regards Normandy was with Scandinavia and who was doing what as that is not the point being discussed. You could ask was Ghenghis Khan gay. It really has no bearing on the discussion as it does not change the relationship between Normandy and England nor between Ireland and Normans. Why would it? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 21, 2024 19:41:36 GMT
It's a simple question. I often find with bullshitters like you sandy , you tell that much crap and spin such a web of deceit that you can't keep up with your own argument. It's no more difficult a question to answer than you proposing England was a colony in 1175. Was normandy a scandinanvian colony in 1066. ? please answer the question yes or no. I am not proposing, I am stating that according to your definition then England was a colony of the Normans. I have no idea what the relationships as regards Normandy was with Scandinavia and who was doing what as that is not the point being discussed. You could ask was Ghenghis Khan gay. It really has no bearing on the discussion as it does not change the relationship between Normandy and England nor between Ireland and Normans. Why would it? It's not my definition. I gave you a simple online dictionary definition that you asked for . The Norman invasion of 1066 is a key part of children education curriculum across scotland and England , and has been for decades. I learned about duke William , and his forebear , the viking duke rollo , in primary school .Pleading ignorance is no excuse. |
|
