keithl wrote:More recent ancestors got on dangerous little boats to cross the Atlantic and get away from those parasitic bastards, coming here to America to work their asses off dawn to dusk and KEEP most of what they gathered.
That's not how it went, actually. Your ancestors were religious fanatics who got on dangerous little boats to cross the Atlantic because the parasitic bastards didn't let them oppress non-Protestants.
Statistically speaking, you're more likely wrong than right. The Mayflower carried about 100 religious fanatics over, but to keep things simple, I'll credit the entire colony of Massachusetts as religious fanatics descended from Plymouth colony. The great Puritian migration brought over somewhere on the order of 20,000 to various English colonies in North America. Pennsylvania later became a refuge for persecuted religious groups. The largest group was the Quakers. To be honest, I think you'd be wrong to characterizing Quakers as wanting to come to America to "oppress non-Protestants." As a community, they are fairly insular and not prone to proselytizing. However, I'm going to be nice and give you Pennsylvania since other Protestant groups also settled there.
On the other side of things, New Amsterdam was founded by the Dutch West India Company for largely commercial reasons. The settlement of Virginia was driven by settlers and investors primarily motivated by economic reasons. Georgia was settled largely under the principles of the Oglethorpe plan, which called for a government under the principles of secular humanism fostering the development of science and an economy of free men. The first colonists to Georgia weren't religious refugees at all, but were in fact directly supported by the Crown, which wanted to establish a buffer colony between Spanish Florida and the rest of the English colonies. I think Carolina province was originally conceived as a Huguenot settlement, but that never really happened, and the colonies were largely settled by Anglicans there for the good farming. Maryland was founded by Catholic English lords with the backing of the Crown, to prove that Catholics and Protestants could coexist in a self-sustaining colony. Pretty much every Canadian colony I can remember was established primarily for the purposes of trade with the natives, fur trapping, and/or gold speculation. I've never been a huge Canadian history buff however, and if anyone can think of a Puritan colony in Canada I'll gladly concede that point.
What is most telling however is what the colonies looked like in 1776. Some colonies like Massachusetts largely held on to much of the Puritan character of its founders. However, many, perhaps even a majority, of our founding fathers were basically deists. The new Continental government was centered around economic independence from the Crown and preserving the unfettered market economy of the colonies. The rising political class wasn't comprised of religious leaders most successful and oppressing other religions, it was largely drawn from the economic elite who had been most successful in exploiting the opportunities the new world had presented.
This is all predicated on the assumption that Keithl's ancestors have been here since colonial times. After 1776, people from Europe still got on crappy little boats to come to America, and I would guess that the vast majority of them were more worried about escaping their proscribed places at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder than finding some non-Protestants to oppress.
Of course, it is possible that you know for a fact that Keithl is descended from religious fanatics because 1) you're a close personal friend, in which case I apologize for my presumption or 2) you've used less scrupulous means to determine the identity of some guy on the internet who posted something that annoyed you somehow, in which case, wow that's kind of creepy.
A lot of Solarn being a jerk to other posters for no discernible reason
Please, enumerate the ways that Whizbang is wrong.
INTP wrote:between 13-24 your brain is not fully developed yet
Quotes please, this sounds like bullshit to me. Why 24? Why 13? What happens before 13?
Before thirteen, the average child hasn't hit puberty yet. Most people find it obvious that a child's brain isn't fully developed. By thirteen, most people are sexually mature, and sometime from the late teens to the early twenties, most people have grown into their "adult" bodies in terms of height, facial hair. Take for example, an average 17 year old girl who is as tall and as physically developed as she'll ever be, and who is comparable to an adult in many metrics of mental development (reading ability, spoken language, hand eye coordination, various metrics of intelligence). Because she looks like an adult woman and can, I dunno, do math and play chess as well as any adult woman, many uneducated lay persons such as yourself make the assumption that the 17 year old brain is as developed as any average 25 to 50 year old adult, and that any differences in behavior between the average 17 year old and the average 27 year old can be explained solely by the intervening years of education and life experience. This is not true. While many areas of the brain become more or less fully mature soon after puberty, some are not fully developed until well into the twenties--most notably areas of the frontal lobe associated with judgment.