When you make accusations against someone, you lose credibility when you use the wrong words. I believe you mean portion, not proportion, or 'porportion'.
Actually, most Americans don't think that. We only get stereotyped as thinking that, which is why people believe it. Sorry to disappoint, the average American person isn't as greedy as you think.
But you did use the wrong word...You used it right the second time, but not the first time.
Do you have proof that a lot of us are uneducated about the world in relation to everyone else? I have proof that we're not, and it's the fact that I live here, I've traveled around the country, and people aren't as dumb as you would like to believe.
I could start stereotyping Canadians, but I won't, because I don't buy into stereotypes and chances are, you're nice people.
Of course something like this could never been proven in a report.
For the record, I never once stated Americans were dumb. I know you're not. In fact, the majority of the world's best Universities ARE in the States.
My point was that there are a lot of Americans that are ignorant of the world around them. This can be proven with statistics like the fact that a mere 30% or so of Americans actually own a passport. Without a passport, Americans can't even DRIVE to Canada, let alone fly anywhere.
The question raised is: What does it say about the 70% of Americans that feel they DON'T need a passport?
And of course, there is also the question posed to Miss Teen South Carolina 2007. What was it again? About the percentage of Americans that can't locate their OWN country on a map? ;)
It's a FACT that only 30% of Americans own a passport compared to, for example, 70% of Britons and over 50% of Canadians. It's a FACT that one-fifth can't locate their OWN country on a map. It's a FACT that compared to other developed countries, Americans, in general, are not as educated about the world.
Actually, my first response was all about my use of the word "proportion."
For the record, I reply to just about every comment I recieve. People have a right to tell me their opinion in response to my opinion, and I have a right to continue the pattern.
It's not a matter of defending anything. It's an exchange of opinions. Usually, you learn a thing or two. At the very least, you learn how others think.
There is a difference between replying and defending, just saying. And ok, I wasn't responding to your first response to someone that wasn't me, I generally respond to the original comment. I don't know how you could think "quit trying to find excuses to be an ignorant stereotyping dumbass" was a response to your usage of a word.
I responded to your first post in a manner that indicated that I knew you were responding to my reply to another poster.
Then you made a reference to my first post, so I in turn, explained my first post.
Then you said I've been "trying to defend it" and since we were still talking about my first post, I understood this to mean that all my posts after my original post were made defensively.
In response to THAT, I explained why this was not the case.
So, that's what /I/ was talking about. What the hell are YOU trying to say? :-/
I don't own a passport because I'm fucking broke. I realize there's no way in hell I'm gonna be vacationing in Paris anytime soon. I'm pretty sure most Americans are just as broke. Bad economy, you know. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how that has anything to do with being ignorant of the world, necessarily.
70% of Americans not having their passport means that AT LEAST 70% of Americans have never gone beyond the borders of their own country.
Of course, this doesn't mean that you have to visit EVERY single country in order to be educated about the world. But it is definitely true that if you've never left your own country, you don't even know how ONE culture differs from yours.
Yes, not everyone can afford to travel. But, with the relatively new law in place, 70% of Americans aren't even able to visit Canada - a relatively cheap trip.
No, it isn't cheap. It would only be "relatively" cheap if you lived right by Canada. I don't think you realize how much traveling (even close proximity) actually costs. :/
I do know how much it costs and believe me, the economy isn't great here either. :)
I'm just as poor as most Americans and believe me, when I travel, I can only afford to go to the States and I ALWAYS have a great time.
I know everyone probably hates me by now [laughs], but the points I was trying make were partly because of personal experiences, partly from other people's experiences and zero to do with any prejudices.
Oh well.. You can't always get an accurate picture across on the Internet and even teasing can be skewed. :)
Attitudes like yours are probably the reason Americans don't want to get a passport so they can go to Canada.
But seriously, it costs $110 a person for a passport, some people just don't have that kind of money to spend, plus traveling fees. Why do 70% of British people have passports? Look at their proximity to other countries. It's a common thing for them to visit other countries simply because of how close they are. America's close to Canada and Mexico. A lot of Americans don't have a desire to go to Mexico, while it was only recently that a passport was required to get into Canada.
Plus, how are the number of Americans with passports relevant to thinking the world is theirs? Stop bringing in irrelevant information.
People tend to think that the most vocal members of a group represent the majority, but I can assure you that most people I know (here in America) don't think that we own the world.
I know there [are] plenty of Americans who don't think this way and who aren't ignorant of the world around them[,] but a large [number] are especially in PROPORTION to the [worldly] education of most other developed countries.
FTFY
Sorry to get all Native American philosophy-esque on you, but I truly don't think people can OWN land. I mean.. it's earth (or in this case, moon). It will be around for ages, you know? We're so temporary compared to everything we claim to control... I don't know. I feel like humans are just really full of themselves.
I do agree with you that nations and country are social and political constructs - there is no real natural line that separates the United States from Mexico, or France from Italy - and that said nationalising can be harmful - both when colonising land from native people, and when citizens get caught in political constructs.
But, having nations and nationalities is useful, in a legal way more than anything else. People can own land - obviously temporarily, as everyone's existence is only temporary.
I'm not trying to be annoying or anything, but there is a natural line between the US and Mexico: Rio Grande. I'm not quite sure how far it goes, but at the very least it is there at the Texas-Mexico border.
But I did mean, that the fact that the Mexico ends there and the US starts there isn't a natural occurrence, or set in stone. Kinda like how Hawaii was part of Oceania, before it was bought or something (?) by the US.
Neither am I, but on maps you can see that Hawaii is in the same region as other Oceanic islands and I think it was bought sometime, or became a US state somehow, like, it wasn't part of the US when the US first became a country.
My 5 min. research has told me the Hawaii is the newest state and was annexed into the country, which sounds about right. I'm not quite sure if anyone cares, but whatever.
When the US first became a country there were only 13 states, all on the east coast. The last state admitted was Hawaii in 1959. It's also a possibility that within our lifetime, Puerto Rico may become a state. We let them vote on it every 10 years, but they've yet to want to be a part of the US.
I do believe the Native American Indians 'landed' on USA soil first and i also believe that the British 'put their flag' on USA soil first, but by no means at all does that mean that the Native OR Britain own the USA.
You make a fair point,
however just because an American citizen was the first to take steps on the moon and place a flag it does not cause it to become the USA's property.
Thank you. I think most of the No ways are on principle. It seems unfair for someone to own the moon, which I agree with. But this has been going on for centuries. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, French, British, etc. They've all done it. They send out their explorers an claim land that isn't inhabited yet. If it is, they kill and enslave the natives and claim the land as theirs. If this didn't happen, there wouldn't be an America.
You don't own something cuz you planted a flag on it. Not quite how the law works.
It's only technically America's if the important members of the international community acknowledge such an ownership and of course, they don't. In fact, they prohibited national, corporate, or any kind of private ownership of the moon through the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty - ratified by everyone in the UN. The treaty goes on to establish outer space to be the province of all mankind.
So, technically, the moon belongs to all of us. At least for now.
guys, you are clearly all wrong about this. nazi germany CLEARLY had a complete working society on the moon, complete with housing and graveyards. they were also doing tests that went terribly wrong and turned everyone into zombies... on the moon.
I wish I was popular enough for people to guess it was me when I trolled :(
Also, I've been here since May 2010. One of my previous work with a similar troll name: #259983 I can't post links unless I log in :/
I can't remember the others because it's been so long since I've trolled America.
I disagree but it does make you wonder what we (everyone on Earth) would do if we started to live on the moon. Would there be wars to claim land like when Europeans "discovered" America?
That wasn't actually proper use of a semicolon. A semicolon seperates two independent clauses and "since they landed on it first and put their flag on it" isn't an idependent clause; it couldn't be a sentence on its own.
Tbh from what I understand the vikings found amercan soil before British, French, Spanish and the natives (the natives are aztecs ect who moved up) so Europe still discovered America XD
No, it's not used properly; if they took out the 'since' it would be proper, however the 'since' creates a dependent clause and a semicolon requires an independent clause.
Even though I put my dick in a girl doesn't necessarily mean I own her too. Jk lol I do.
Just because you can't take a joke doesn't mean it isn't
Lets get married
Fine, but I get alllllllll the rights
And half his stuff if you two divorce.
please, if (s?)hes the woman, he would get more like 90% of the stuff. n
A large porportion of Americans seem to the think the WORLD belongs to them. It's a losing battle so what the hell, have the moon as well.
When you make accusations against someone, you lose credibility when you use the wrong words. I believe you mean portion, not proportion, or 'porportion'.
Actually, most Americans don't think that. We only get stereotyped as thinking that, which is why people believe it. Sorry to disappoint, the average American person isn't as greedy as you think.
But you did use the wrong word...You used it right the second time, but not the first time.
Do you have proof that a lot of us are uneducated about the world in relation to everyone else? I have proof that we're not, and it's the fact that I live here, I've traveled around the country, and people aren't as dumb as you would like to believe.
I could start stereotyping Canadians, but I won't, because I don't buy into stereotypes and chances are, you're nice people.
Of course something like this could never been proven in a report.
For the record, I never once stated Americans were dumb. I know you're not. In fact, the majority of the world's best Universities ARE in the States.
My point was that there are a lot of Americans that are ignorant of the world around them. This can be proven with statistics like the fact that a mere 30% or so of Americans actually own a passport. Without a passport, Americans can't even DRIVE to Canada, let alone fly anywhere.
The question raised is: What does it say about the 70% of Americans that feel they DON'T need a passport?
And of course, there is also the question posed to Miss Teen South Carolina 2007. What was it again? About the percentage of Americans that can't locate their OWN country on a map? ;)
Quit trying to find excuses to be an ignorant stereotyping dumbass.
Facts aren't excuses.
It's a FACT that only 30% of Americans own a passport compared to, for example, 70% of Britons and over 50% of Canadians. It's a FACT that one-fifth can't locate their OWN country on a map. It's a FACT that compared to other developed countries, Americans, in general, are not as educated about the world.
I really don't see how any of these are valid excuses for why Americans think they own the world.
That was a joke.
An exaggeration on some Americans not being as educated about the world around them.
Kind of like how this is also a joke based on the same line of thought:
Right. It was a JOKE. That's why you've been trying to defend it.
Actually, my first response was all about my use of the word "proportion."
For the record, I reply to just about every comment I recieve. People have a right to tell me their opinion in response to my opinion, and I have a right to continue the pattern.
It's not a matter of defending anything. It's an exchange of opinions. Usually, you learn a thing or two. At the very least, you learn how others think.
There is a difference between replying and defending, just saying. And ok, I wasn't responding to your first response to someone that wasn't me, I generally respond to the original comment. I don't know how you could think "quit trying to find excuses to be an ignorant stereotyping dumbass" was a response to your usage of a word.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
I responded to your first post in a manner that indicated that I knew you were responding to my reply to another poster.
Then you made a reference to my first post, so I in turn, explained my first post.
Then you said I've been "trying to defend it" and since we were still talking about my first post, I understood this to mean that all my posts after my original post were made defensively.
In response to THAT, I explained why this was not the case.
So, that's what /I/ was talking about. What the hell are YOU trying to say? :-/
You know what? tl'dr
I have a feeling you just like to be disagreeable anyway. Have a nice one:)
Yep. For the record, trying to understand someone's point is the opposite of being disagreeable.
Okay dokay. I'm done arguing with you.
Citation needed.
I don't own a passport because I'm fucking broke. I realize there's no way in hell I'm gonna be vacationing in Paris anytime soon. I'm pretty sure most Americans are just as broke. Bad economy, you know. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't see how that has anything to do with being ignorant of the world, necessarily.
70% of Americans not having their passport means that AT LEAST 70% of Americans have never gone beyond the borders of their own country.
Of course, this doesn't mean that you have to visit EVERY single country in order to be educated about the world. But it is definitely true that if you've never left your own country, you don't even know how ONE culture differs from yours.
Yes, not everyone can afford to travel. But, with the relatively new law in place, 70% of Americans aren't even able to visit Canada - a relatively cheap trip.
No, it isn't cheap. It would only be "relatively" cheap if you lived right by Canada. I don't think you realize how much traveling (even close proximity) actually costs. :/
I do know how much it costs and believe me, the economy isn't great here either. :)
I'm just as poor as most Americans and believe me, when I travel, I can only afford to go to the States and I ALWAYS have a great time.
I know everyone probably hates me by now [laughs], but the points I was trying make were partly because of personal experiences, partly from other people's experiences and zero to do with any prejudices.
Oh well.. You can't always get an accurate picture across on the Internet and even teasing can be skewed. :)
Peace, ya'll! :)
Attitudes like yours are probably the reason Americans don't want to get a passport so they can go to Canada.
But seriously, it costs $110 a person for a passport, some people just don't have that kind of money to spend, plus traveling fees. Why do 70% of British people have passports? Look at their proximity to other countries. It's a common thing for them to visit other countries simply because of how close they are. America's close to Canada and Mexico. A lot of Americans don't have a desire to go to Mexico, while it was only recently that a passport was required to get into Canada.
Plus, how are the number of Americans with passports relevant to thinking the world is theirs? Stop bringing in irrelevant information.
Saying that you've travelled around the country, isn't "proof", at least not for us.
People tend to think that the most vocal members of a group represent the majority, but I can assure you that most people I know (here in America) don't think that we own the world.
I know there [are] plenty of Americans who don't think this way and who aren't ignorant of the world around them[,] but a large [number] are especially in PROPORTION to the [worldly] education of most other developed countries.
FTFY
... I hate to say it, but you made another typo. Just pointing out the irony. "There are plenty of Americans" is what you should have said.
insert hostile accusation here
am I doin' it rite?
I'm pretty sure most of us only think that the United States belong to us. But what do I know, I only live in the US.
this
Sorry to get all Native American philosophy-esque on you, but I truly don't think people can OWN land. I mean.. it's earth (or in this case, moon). It will be around for ages, you know? We're so temporary compared to everything we claim to control... I don't know. I feel like humans are just really full of themselves.
THANK YOU FOR ESTABLISHING THIS POINT!!! We really all are full of ourselves.
I do agree with you that nations and country are social and political constructs - there is no real natural line that separates the United States from Mexico, or France from Italy - and that said nationalising can be harmful - both when colonising land from native people, and when citizens get caught in political constructs.
But, having nations and nationalities is useful, in a legal way more than anything else. People can own land - obviously temporarily, as everyone's existence is only temporary.
I'm not trying to be annoying or anything, but there is a natural line between the US and Mexico: Rio Grande. I'm not quite sure how far it goes, but at the very least it is there at the Texas-Mexico border.
No problem, I didn't know that :P
But I did mean, that the fact that the Mexico ends there and the US starts there isn't a natural occurrence, or set in stone. Kinda like how Hawaii was part of Oceania, before it was bought or something (?) by the US.
I'm actually not sure about Hawaii. I just know about out southern border because I'm Texan.
But, yeah, I understand what you mean now and I agree with you.
Neither am I, but on maps you can see that Hawaii is in the same region as other Oceanic islands
and I think it was bought sometime, or became a US state somehow, like, it wasn't part of the US when the US first became a country.
My 5 min. research has told me the Hawaii is the newest state and was annexed into the country, which sounds about right. I'm not quite sure if anyone cares, but whatever.
When the US first became a country there were only 13 states, all on the east coast. The last state admitted was Hawaii in 1959. It's also a possibility that within our lifetime, Puerto Rico may become a state. We let them vote on it every 10 years, but they've yet to want to be a part of the US.
I do believe the Native American Indians 'landed' on USA soil first and i also believe that the British 'put their flag' on USA soil first, but by no means at all does that mean that the Native OR Britain own the USA.
But the US won the land through war. So it's there's now. If someone wants the moon, they have to fight the US for it. Simple as that.
You make a fair point,
however just because an American citizen was the first to take steps on the moon and place a flag it does not cause it to become the USA's property.
Well isn't that how countries claim previously unoccupied land? You send explorers, then you put your flag on it and it's yours...
(America Fuck Yeah): He's got a very convincing arguement.
Thank you. I think most of the No ways are on principle. It seems unfair for someone to own the moon, which I agree with. But this has been going on for centuries. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, French, British, etc. They've all done it. They send out their explorers an claim land that isn't inhabited yet. If it is, they kill and enslave the natives and claim the land as theirs. If this didn't happen, there wouldn't be an America.
This is why the rest of the world perceives us as ignorant.
only if the moon is made of american cheese
You don't own something cuz you planted a flag on it. Not quite how the law works.
It's only technically America's if the important members of the international community acknowledge such an ownership and of course, they don't. In fact, they prohibited national, corporate, or any kind of private ownership of the moon through the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty - ratified by everyone in the UN. The treaty goes on to establish outer space to be the province of all mankind.
So, technically, the moon belongs to all of us. At least for now.
Darn you beat me to it, I was scanning this whole thread to see if anyone brought this up and you got it with the last post. sadface.
How old are you?
What f*ckery is this? The moon clearly belongs to the universe.
guys, you are clearly all wrong about this. nazi germany CLEARLY had a complete working society on the moon, complete with housing and graveyards. they were also doing tests that went terribly wrong and turned everyone into zombies... on the moon.
Yeah, I've been there before!
trolololol
I have a feeling that this is Simon
or Courageous_Wolf. They both make stupid posts like these all the time.
You want some cheese with that whine?
You want a bag for all that douche? I wasn't even fucking complaining retard. I was just stating a fact.
Rightio. I'm a bat.
It isn't, actually - this impostor stole my troll name/theme.
I wish I was popular enough for people to guess it was me when I trolled :(
Also, I've been here since May 2010. One of my previous work with a similar troll name: #259983 I can't post links unless I log in :/
I can't remember the others because it's been so long since I've trolled America.
Sorry.
I'm really curious as to who you are now.
And it wasn't so much people blind guessing - I used to use the Anon name AMERICAFUCKYEAH.
wtf, simon?
Yeah.
I felt like changing my account a bit.
I disagree but it does make you wonder what we (everyone on Earth) would do if we started to live on the moon. Would there be wars to claim land like when Europeans "discovered" America?
"No flag, no country, can't have one. That's according to the rules I've just made up." ~Eddie Izzard
This American knows that there actually is a law in place that states the no organization, country or person can own the moon.
That wasn't actually proper use of a semicolon. A semicolon seperates two independent clauses and "since they landed on it first and put their flag on it" isn't an idependent clause; it couldn't be a sentence on its own.
Number one, there's a reply button for a reason.
Number two, I already explained it.
Sorry, I was typing kind of slow and didn't refrsh the page so I didn't see that you had posted as well.
Oh, understandable. (: I'm glad somebody else noticed though. Lol.
I feel the same way :)
So America really belongs to native Americans? And by that logic they then also own the moon...
Tbh from what I understand the vikings found amercan soil before British, French, Spanish and the natives (the natives are aztecs ect who moved up) so Europe still discovered America XD
Well then Vikings own the moon
I'll drink to that.
No. Just no.
'MURICA FUCK YEAH
WTF IS UP WITH THIS!
Luna owns the funking moon!
Can we not start this?
The is just the epitome of the American stereotype. Even the name; "America Fuck Yeah"
FUCK Y'ALL I own everything
All your base. Are belong to us.
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al...e_belong_to_us
Ok I understand now
You just made me extremely upset that I am an American.
To all non-Americans,
Let them have the moon. We'll find something else that supports life and then we'll pray for life on Earth to end. :)
It's like mars, if it had an atmosphere
I heard some crazy chinese has started to 'sell' the lands on the Moon. So it's Chineses' ?
..China's?
If by America, you mean the Soviet Union, you are correct.
Lol you upvoted your own comment. Just a heads up by the way, the Soviet Union had the first man in space, not on the moon. Get your shit straight.
Then the soviet union owns space.
In theory this means they also own the earth :S
lol calm down. I was testing you.
I bet you were...
I will give you credit for properly using a semicolon.
No, it's not used properly; if they took out the 'since' it would be proper, however the 'since' creates a dependent clause and a semicolon requires an independent clause.