broken record much, trollie.

1) This is a French-bashing blog. Main concern = French bashing. Deal with it.
Stop whining.  What you call American/British bashing on this blog are just histrionics thrown right back at the trolls who come here to lecture us out of the goodness of their hearts.
And it pales in comparison with real French-bashing which consists of  well documented ethnic slurs such as the French are cowards, dirty, lazy etc.
You’ll rarely see a French person start the histrionics throwing or bash the American/British out of the blue. That’s  a fact.

2)If you don’t care about French-bashing then your presence on an anti-French blog is de facto suspicious. How’d you wind up here by the way ?
See 1) about American/British bashing.

3) French or non French people don’t have to do anything. But if you’re gonna contribute to an anti French-bashing blog, then of course you are expected to at least care about the issue. If you only come here to complain about British/American British, then that makes you obviously a troll.

4) As miquelon has said. People shouldn’t be held perpetually guilty of past crimes committed by their ancestors. French, British Americans or otherwise. The rest is conjecture on your part.
See 1) about American/British bashing.

5) You have come up with a completely imaginary scenario there.
Anyway see 4) and 1).

Your post #180 summarizes your entire contribution to miquelon.org.
You are entitled to your opinion, however misguided it might be.
I think we got it by now.

So If you got nothing else to contribute. Will you finally leave ?

From Wikipedia’s pages on logical fallacies.

Tu quoque, from Latin for “You, too” or “You, also”) is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Like many fallacies, it typically appears as the hidden major premise in an enthymeme—an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. This is an example of an informal fallacy.

Oh yeah sure. A joke like you defending the HMQ. I’m so offended. lol

[[Yet sharon has yet to tell us what he/she has done in his/her country of residence to fight anti-Americanism [if he/she is not a resident of the USA ... ].]]

It would be even funnier to ask it what it has done to fight anti-French sentiments in its country.

1. One cannot fight discrimination in country P against Q if we don’t also equally denounce anti-P in Q, even if we live in P. Yet sharon has yet to tell us what he/she has done in his/her country of residence to fight anti-Americanism [if he/she is not a resident of the USA ... ]. This is known as the Symmetrical Argument.
2. There is such a thing as collective and perpetual guilt, most notably for the French.
3. Historical injustices should be forgotten, except those perpetrated by the French.
4. Historical injustices should also be forgiven, except in the case of the French.
5. One should live in the present, except the French who should be held to greater self-examination.
6. One can be more Irish/French/whatever than others based on genetic heritage. Blood trumps culture?

You can live in historical amnesia if you wish, and you can put forth the Balkan extreme to discredit my desire to forgive yet not forget, but I still believe the Monarchy – the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis – is an antiquated and undemocratic concept.

There is no longer a French King, Emperor or president lording over the Colonies d’Afrique Occidentale as a symbolic head of state. The fact the Queen remains the head of state of Canada is more than symbolism. How many old fogeys have I heard in Ontario, arguing for the banning of the French language because “you lost the war”.

Will you deny that it was impossible to run for political office in Ontario if you were not a member of the Orange Order into the late seventies? Will you deny that the Monarchist league of Canada no longer exists? Will you deny that the Union Jack is frequently flown over the Parliamentary building of Ontario, will you deny the Union Jack is still part of the provincial flags of many provinces, will you deny the symbolism of the British Monarchy to not me omnipresent in many police and governmental institutions?

Will you also deny the rampant anti-Americanism that is so present in Ontario?

If a French contributor wrote something about how they didn’t like Cricket, trollie, as a great defender of the Anglo sphere, would respond by writing a lengthy rant about the evils of the Napoleonic Wars. If we don’t like baseball, trollie will rave about the Algerian War.

And yes there is a such a thing as ’symbolic domination’.
Canada’s head of state being the Queen of England is a perfect example of that.
Words have meaning, troll. And the word symbolic has a definition. Look it up.

Why does every subject have to be met with an ad-hoc symmetrical counter-argument? The issue I raised briefly is the undemocratic and symbolic domination of the Crown over other cultures. Deal with that issue, take it, look at it, deal with it. That is such a troll-like move.

a) It’s ’s a troll seeking confrontation and conflict

b) it suffers from brain defects and never realized its analogy made absolutely no sense

c) It means well and only brings up yet another negative “fact” about France out of the goodness of its heart.