Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Conveniently after they were dead. It is accurate to say their annihilation was core to creating the "Nation of Immigrants", and there is no way around that fact.
    I'm more than a little skeptical of that claim. Estimate diverge, but there were something on the order of ~5 million natives in all of the North American in the pre-Columbian era. That doesn't strike me as a quantity that couldn't have coexisted with colonists if it had been a priority for natives and Europeans alike.

    I will say that I think it's worth drawing some lessons about ethnic replacement from that era though...

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I'm more than a little skeptical of that claim. Estimate diverge, but there were something on the order of ~5 million natives in all of the North American in the pre-Columbian era. That doesn't strike me as a quantity that couldn't have coexisted with colonists if it had been a priority for natives and Europeans alike.

    I will say that I think it's worth drawing some lessons about ethnic replacement from that era though...
    So it's okay to invade and dispossess a population because it is small?
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    You can't deny a genocide if it never happened.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    So it's okay to invade and dispossess a population because it is small?
    I'm not all that interested in whether it's OK or not. I'm saying that I don't think displacement was actually necessary - it was a choice that was made based on convenience. On net, I'm glad it happened because I think the world is a better place for having the United States exist for the past couple centuries, but I wouldn't actually make an argument in favor of displacement as a reasonable ethical choice.

    Anyway, the specific statement I'm quibbling with is whether annihilation was core to creating the United States - I don't think it was necessary. Hard to test the counterfactual though.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I'm not all that interested in whether it's OK or not. I'm saying that I don't think displacement was actually necessary - it was a choice that was made based on convenience. On net, I'm glad it happened because I think the world is a better place for having the United States exist for the past couple centuries, but I wouldn't actually make an argument in favor of displacement as a reasonable ethical choice.

    Anyway, the specific statement I'm quibbling with is whether annihilation was core to creating the United States - I don't think it was necessary. Hard to test the counterfactual thought.
    I think there is no version of the American story that would not involve displacement and dispossession. America as presently constituted could not exist without the horror that preceded it. AND once more, even if you argue that it wasn't necessary; you then have to reckon with the fact that the founders and foundation layers of this country DID choose that path if in your mind there was an alternative. I think that is rather handwavey. More over there is an uncomfortable utilitarianism in your words that in your mind the good America may or may not do makes past sins acceptable, as if their annihilation is just a necessary sacrifice. I don't think that really obsolves anything and if anything reveals more about you than it does about history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    You can't deny a genocide if it never happened.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    So it's okay to invade and dispossess a population because it is small?
    I think most conflict comes from resource scarcity and saturation. There were obviously many areas where pioneers came in attacked and stole already inhabited regions. There were also many regions where nothing was going on, no development, no people, no local economy. If you value the growth of civilization then you have to say the former is bad, the latter is good. Though you recently said something about "deep ecology", so it could be that you are not very pro-homo sapien.

  6. #126
    looking from some posts in other topics, he would almost fire in the head of a children in public and some would argue than the children was about to attack him and was right to use self defense.

    Joke aside, nothing, except going to war and losing, i dont think he can be doing anything so much extreme to loose people who are actually choosing him because of their rejection of others (politics, huh), it would be too hard on self pride for these people to see its a scumbag or not (and on this point, dont argue whatever, liberals did the same with dark hillarydor, i mean what the fuck, she would have never gone to presidency).

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    I think there is no version of the American story that would not involve displacement and dispossession. America as presently constituted could not exist without the horror that preceded it. AND once more, even if you argue that it wasn't necessary; you then have to reckon with the fact that the founders and foundation layers of this country DID choose that path if in your mind there was an alternative. I think that is rather handwavey. More over there is an uncomfortable utilitarianism in your words that in your mind the good America may or may not do makes past sins acceptable, as if their annihilation is just a necessary sacrifice. I don't think that really obsolves anything and if anything reveals more about you than it does about history.
    Yeah, I'm not a utilitarian (somewhere between deontological and virtue ethics preferences, very little weight on consequentialism), which is why I said that I don't think there's actual a good ethical argument on this front. I'm glad that an immoral thing occurred because the net impact has been excellent for humanity, but that doesn't actually justify the immoral thing.

    But yes, I agree that it's a pointless hypothetical. The reality is that the land was cleared by a deliberate program of systemic displacement and violence.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Yeah, I'm not a utilitarian (somewhere between deontological and virtue ethics preferences, very little weight on consequentialism), which is why I said that I don't think there's actual a good ethical argument on this front. I'm glad that an immoral thing occurred because the net impact has been excellent for humanity, but that doesn't actually justify the immoral thing.

    But yes, I agree that it's a pointless hypothetical. The reality is that the land was cleared by a deliberate program of systemic displacement and violence.
    Your first phrase undercuts the second thing. Ultimately you make a utilitarian calculation that the loses were less important than what was built from it; thus you don't hazard any ethical considerations for what was done and what could be done in the future. You are either okay with this act of human sacrifice in the name of self-enrichment or not. Clearly you are okay with it becuase you did not pay any price but reaped the bountiful reward.

    If some dark day you are on the chopping block, I wonder if your thoughts might change. It's easy to be the executioner or to be the one that gets the executed land and property. It's another matter to be the one to be executed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    I think most conflict comes from resource scarcity and saturation. There were obviously many areas where pioneers came in attacked and stole already inhabited regions. There were also many regions where nothing was going on, no development, no people, no local economy. If you value the growth of civilization then you have to say the former is bad, the latter is good. Though you recently said something about "deep ecology", so it could be that you are not very pro-homo sapien.
    So dispossession is okay if the population is depopulated by a plague brought. Either way you are still admitting to be over all point; that their destruction was of paramount importance to your success.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    You can't deny a genocide if it never happened.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    Your first phrase undercuts the second thing. Ultimately you make a utilitarian calculation that the loses were less important than what was built from it; thus you don't hazard any ethical considerations for what was done and what could be done in the future. You are either okay with this act of human sacrifice in the name of self-enrichment or not. Clearly you are okay with it becuase you did not pay any price but reaped the bountiful reward.

    If some dark day you are on the chopping block, I wonder if your thoughts might change. It's easy to be the executioner or to be the one that gets the executed land and property. It's another matter to be the one to be executed.
    I don't really see where you're getting the notion that I think it's ethically acceptable. Are you really suggesting that post-hoc utilitarian calculations can't be used to evaluate the outcome of something that you're sure is unethical from a principled perspective? That strikes me as silly.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I don't really see where you're getting the notion that I think it's ethically acceptable. Are you really suggesting that post-hoc utilitarian calculations can't be used to evaluate the outcome of something that you're sure is unethical from a principled perspective? That strikes me as silly.
    Because of your statement that "I'm glad it happened", which either amounts to "I'm okay it wasn't me and I got rich" which is equally terrible. If you are prepared to celebrate in the bountiful harvest of human sacrifice, why get defensive when people point out the bloody cruelty? Once more there is a serious question of a repetition, if this ghastly act is acceptable, why not another? Afterall you are glad it happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    You can't deny a genocide if it never happened.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    So dispossession is okay if the population is depopulated by a plague brought. Either way you are still admitting to be over all point; that their destruction was of paramount importance to your success.
    Intentional dispossession is not a good act. The problem is that ownership of land outside of infrastructure hotspots was very fuzzy before there was documents, deeds, detailed cartography. For example if there was two separate Amerindian tribes one on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic. Would that automatically mean they have sovereignty over everything in between? Imo, they had to be utilizing a given acre at least yearly to claim sovereignty.

  12. #132
    Banned BuckSparkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Planning Next Vacation
    Posts
    9,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Malvalen View Post
    Why does it make you happy to see people angry or upset or afraid? Why does other people's misery make you feel good? I genuinely don't understand this. I've felt some degree of schadenfreude in situations where I felt someone got their just desserts, but I've never just wanted other people to be miserable, even if they don't agree with my ideals.
    Consider it payback. All 8 years of the Obama years having smug and condescending liberals tended to get a bit old. I consider many liberals to be elitist bullies. So naturally I want them to get their just reward. Many folks on here are embodiment's of the type of liberals I truly detest. As long as they continue to act like they are superior to their fellow lesser humans, I will continue to want people in power that makes them lose their cool and freak out.
    Last edited by BuckSparkles; 2018-01-13 at 08:10 PM.

  13. #133
    Pandaren Monk Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Intentional dispossession is not a good act. The problem is that ownership of land outside of infrastructure hotspots was very fuzzy before there was documents, deeds, detailed cartography. For example if there was two separate Amerindian tribes one on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic. Would that automatically mean they have sovereignty over everything in between? Imo, they had to be utilizing a given acre at least yearly to claim sovereignty.
    Isn't there somehow the question included: Why should indigenous people comply with the perception and laws of foreign invaders?

    I mean... Indians having to adhere to european land-ownership is a bit like people in europe being forced to adhere to sharia law (which, btw. contrary to what you hear is NOT happening)

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    Isn't there somehow the question included: Why should indigenous people comply with the perception and laws of foreign invaders?

    I mean... Indians having to adhere to european land-ownership is a bit like people in europe being forced to adhere to sharia law (which, btw. contrary to what you hear is NOT happening)
    They shouldn't automatically comply with any laws, they should try to reason about the merit of the concepts objectively. The merit of law and the concept of ownership is independent of where it came from.

    Early Americans didn't think Amerindians or blacks were full people of the same kind, so in that case the law wasn't the problem in most cases, there just wasn't scientific backing behind the interpretation. Thus they could legally take inhabited land and enslave for a while.
    Last edited by PrimaryColor; 2018-01-13 at 08:39 PM.

  15. #135
    Pandaren Monk Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    They shouldn't automatically comply with any laws, they should try to reason about the merit of the concepts objectively. The merit of law and the concept of ownership is independent of where it came from.
    ????

    "the merit of law and the concept of ownership" is not some universal truth but something that rooted in western culture and in its value system. Societies can exist without this concept. Again - why should they bother if they already live there?

    And yeah, Blacks and Indians weren'z seen as equal, but what does that lead us to? It was okay back then, so it is okay now? You know, when the Nazis confiscated all the jewish property it was fully legal. Somehow the world seemed to think afterwards it wasn't okay and one of the conditions of peace was to give people back their stuff (which sadly didn't happen fast enough) - so ... where does that leave us? If we really believe in morality - then probably you should all leave and come back to europe - we can find a few bunks for you.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    ????

    "the merit of law and the concept of ownership" is not some universal truth but something that rooted in western culture and in its value system. Societies can exist without this concept. Again - why should they bother if they already live there?

    And yeah, Blacks and Indians weren'z seen as equal, but what does that lead us to? It was okay back then, so it is okay now? You know, when the Nazis confiscated all the jewish property it was fully legal. Somehow the world seemed to think afterwards it wasn't okay and one of the conditions of peace was to give people back their stuff (which sadly didn't happen fast enough) - so ... where does that leave us? If we really believe in morality - then probably you should all leave and come back to europe - we can find a few bunks for you.
    I can't claim that it is "universal truth", I'm just arguing that codifying laws and clear ownership is a measurably good idea for a society. If you look at all the societies who kept what they value in their heads and didn't write about laws and personal ownership, they pretty much never flourished. Most all of their lives were short with a lot of suffering.
    Last edited by PrimaryColor; 2018-01-13 at 09:20 PM.

  17. #137
    Banned Lei Shi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Terrace of Endless Spring
    Posts
    10,077
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    This actually might be the best, legit answer. If Trump went for the guns, he'd be out. IMO at least.
    No, any sane rational person would support him if he did that.

  18. #138
    Pandaren Monk Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    I can't claim that it is "universal truth", I'm just arguing that codifying laws and clear ownership is a measurably good idea for a society. If you look at all the societies who kept what they value in their heads and didn't write about laws and personal ownership, they pretty much never flourished. Most all of their lives were short with a lot of suffering.
    That's a bold claim without any sources. I mean, yeah their lives were short and with a lot of suffering, like all around the world at this time. Personally i don't know it exactly, as native american societies were never a topic i delved into deeply, but afaik a lot of the american constitution was influenced by the federation of indian tribes, so... that cannot flourish? Afaik there was no land ownership as land wasn't something that could be owned. Personally i would argue without landownership a lot of crisis or developments would never have happened (maybe the world would be better of without feudalism? There would have been no roman civil war without land ownership and subsequent end of the Republic. Of course maybe there wouldn't have been a republic in the first place - but we BOTH don't know that.)

    I don't claim anything like that, but you claim land ownership is something that is necessary - so... deliver - i eagerly await the sources for your claims.
    Last edited by Pannonian; 2018-01-13 at 09:12 PM.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    He'd have to stop being a middle ground President with fairly sane stances on Immigration.
    Wait, you are crazy enough to think that Trump is a middle ground President? And his stances aren't sane on immigration, they are flat out racist.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    When Trump was shown to be a very obvious Populist who holds very centrist views in mind. I mean honestly, Trump isn't removing anything apart from weird overly leftist things like DACA and other stupid things the democrats passed.
    Centrist to racists, that is it.
    Master List of Why Trump is a Misogynist, Racist, Fascist, Homophobic Criminal:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrump...se_megathread/

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    Intentional dispossession is not a good act. The problem is that ownership of land outside of infrastructure hotspots was very fuzzy before there was documents, deeds, detailed cartography. For example if there was two separate Amerindian tribes one on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic. Would that automatically mean they have sovereignty over everything in between? Imo, they had to be utilizing a given acre at least yearly to claim sovereignty.
    Ownership in accordance with ones own concept of ownership. It was the dispossession of another. Much as if someone holds you to the standards of say a foreign or alien legal culture. An alien legal culture enforced through violance I might add.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    i think I have my posse filled out now. Mars is Theo, Jupiter is Vanyali, Linadra is Venus, and Heather is Mercury. Dragon can be Pluto.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    You can't deny a genocide if it never happened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •