telsor
Hall of Famer
*shhh*
Don't let facts spoil the argument.
Unless of course, LG is arguing that aboriginals aren't actually homo sapiens (doubtless they're even more evolved).
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 8 Winner: bearweger
Yindindji, Australias newest state.
- Thread starter little graham
- Start date
- Tagged users None
*shhh*
Don't let facts spoil the argument.
Unless of course, LG is arguing that aboriginals aren't actually homo sapiens (doubtless they're even more evolved).
Why has theft and murder, in civil societies, always been punishable offences? If you have an attractive neighbour, and you can overpower them, why can't you rape them repeatedly, and with impunity? Why can't you murder people and take their stuff at will? What stops you from carrying out your most base desires, and why?
'Natural law' might be well and good if you're a lion or a tiger - but in the human world? It would be chaos. Nothing could function in a world where only the strong survived. Even though its application seems to be selective according to social strata at times, we hold to concepts like law and order for a reason.
Or at least we're supposed to.
telsor
Hall of Famer
and like all 'supposed to's, there are a great many exceptions, and power 'excuses' a great deal of them.
While nobody knows for sure, I would be surprised if the aboriginals didn't fight at times over the better hunting grounds, etc. Even now there are disputes at times over which tribe occupied various pieces of land.
Very true, unfortunately.
I have no doubt the different tribes fought each other at times, even though most of their weaponry seems to be dual-use in that they could be used hunting as well as fighting.
http://www.mbantua.com.au/aboriginal-weapons/
telsor
Hall of Famer
Being a hunter gatherer society, there was very little specialisation of anything to do with them.
- Banned
- #181
Its not an extreme example.
Going to one posters house. Hypothetically. Taking his house, killing his family.
Is significantly less extreme. That taking a entire country. And claiming being here first is not natural form of ownership. And might is right.
1948.. Should the Arabs get the land back , if dems the rules?
Last edited:
like it or not to the victor go the spoils. eventually israel will fall back into control of the palestinians its a matter of time really the numbers and the political disdain for israeli war crimes will eventually lead to the US no longer supporting them. once that happens, numbers merely decides the final outcome. in 100 years time displaced jews would have no more right to the land than the arabs do now.
In the end might makes right. once someone takes power and retains it thats it. its "their land"
and in any case all of these hamfisted examples do not accurately apply to our current situation here in australia.
the simple fact is the land is not under contention. as much as horrible events occurred, so did good ones. we built this country together. certainly there are still some problems and recognition and understanding are key steps to resolving them.
But at the end of the day what australia is meant to represent as an Idea, a model is that everybody is equal. now whether that's always applied historically is irrelevant. whether it applies now is irrelevant. It's something we should all be striving towards.
And that means it doesn't matter how long you've lived in this country who your parents were or where they come from. be it 70,000 years ago or you took the citizenship test 2 days ago. Your an aussie an equal in this land or at least you should be. If you don't believe that your campaigner! there's no other way to put it. If you want give one group of people based on ethnicity greater rights than others, or promote segregation you are a campaigner plain and simple.
the fact is these separatists are no different than the much lamented bogans expunging "* off we're full stickers" on the back of their utes. they are racists they are bigots and a complete detriment to society and reconciliation.
It's time people started seeing these pricks for who they are, this isn't a white vs black thing this is separatists vs everybody thing. asian, arab, african, british. it doesn't matter your all "lesser" and "invaders" to these people, whether you have done anything untowards anyone or not. This is about securing rights of one group and one group only to the determent of all others.
What they are advocating is that rights, laws, representation should be decided by how many generations your family has lived in this country.
this is something we are supposed to be moving away from. Not racing towards!
Actually stop and have a think about what's being called for here. think not about the PR but what it represents change out the ethnicity for any other group and instantly it becomes a horrible request.
and anyone that supports this idea ask yourself this? which nation and movement is most well known for expunging these racial ideals? Yes i'm godwining the s**t out of this. NAZI ******* germany, where someone who wasn't X generations german was considered a detriment to society. Only true "pure" germans were fit to rule the land.
- Banned
- #183
no chance.
they have a nuclear arsenal and are not piss parting around -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
- Banned
- #184
Overall, I do (somewhat) agree with you. The course of human history has proven might is indeed right. The quote comes to mind, possible from Stalin if you kill one you are a murder, if you kill a million you are a hero, or something to that effect.
I am merely highlighting; it is indeed identical to come to someones house and kill his family, as it is to come to someones country and kill its inhabitants. and live in the house/country. the only difference is my example is on a far less grand scale. and in reality you would expect the consequences of murder, house theft to result in going to jail. Where are the British Imperial colonization adventure had some such equivalent of a police force to punish them for the crimes.
There was already a country here and build before the colonization. The idea of bringing to the aboriginals liberation, democracy human rights is a nice concept but its a bit far fetched for mine. You can preach about how Australia is an equal society but in reality it is far from it.
I would suggest isreal's supposed arsenal are no more real the sadams. they don't confirm it they don't deny it, they make veiled threats and promotant pollies and leaders will "let it slip" without making it official.
and when they lose US support it will likely be the very reason they get invaded. possibly by the yanks themselves.
Nukes are power, pretending you have them gives you power......... at least until someone calls your bluff.
pokerspiv
Premiership Player
- Jun 23, 2013
- 4,714
- 2,713
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #186
"Natural Law" doesn't mean law of the jungle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Most modern legal systems were originally based on "Natural Law".
pokerspiv
Premiership Player
- Jun 23, 2013
- 4,714
- 2,713
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #187
You live in a fantasy world. If the conflict in the middle east ever comes to war, Israel won't lose. Even without the US they could obliterate every Arab nation in the middle east, and they will not allow any of them to build their own nuclear arsenal, they will strike first if they need to.
All nations fall eventually, without US backing they are on borrowed time. when the us pulls it won't allow israel to throw its weight around, they'll be sanctioned and crippled for attempting such a thing.
then its only a matter of time.
in time they will call that bluff.
pokerspiv
Premiership Player
- Jun 23, 2013
- 4,714
- 2,713
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #192
Again, you live in a fantasy world. Israel doesn't need the US, it could easily obliterate the entire middle east on its own.
And the US isn't going anywhere, that is again just your fantasy scenario. Do you dream about another holocaust every night, or only occasionally?
Cheers for that - I didn't know the distinction between the two
I was reacting to Trevelyan's "Natural law says ownership goes to those most powerful enough to take and control it", as I'd always thought that a "might = right" ideology reflected how animals behaved, and therefore it was indeed a 'natural' law. Whereas us, by virtue of being human, have developed ideas of morality, justice and a host of other values that separates us to the point where a human acting without empathy or regard, such as a serial rapist, is regarded as a danger to the civilised community rather than one whose 'might' in overpowering others makes him 'right'.
I guess he got the two confused as well.
pokerspiv
Premiership Player
- Jun 23, 2013
- 4,714
- 2,713
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #194
Well, no, because our system of property ownership pretty much *is* based on the principle of who is powerful enough to control it. The most powerful person happens to be the government in this case, and they are benevolent enough to allow others to pretend to own things. If they want to build a freeway or an airport or something though......well, be prepared to find out exactly who owns what and who is more powerful.
Of course...governments in Western countries rarely need to roll tanks out against their own civilians to enforce their claim. They have already taken away any means you have to defend yourself from them.
Except in America, where some people take the concept of defending themselves from government very seriously, and as a result the government sometimes does need to roll out tanks to show who's boss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
Of course...governments in Western countries rarely need to roll tanks out against their own civilians to enforce their claim. They have already taken away any means you have to defend yourself from them.
Except in America, where some people take the concept of defending themselves from government very seriously, and as a result the government sometimes does need to roll out tanks to show who's boss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
Last edited:
Yeah. 'Eminent domain' and all that. Not everyone can just become mates with a Q.C like Mr Kerrigan...
pokerspiv
Premiership Player
- Jun 23, 2013
- 4,714
- 2,713
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #196
The process of how countries are formed hasn't really changed much 10,000 years. Someone stakes a claim, and then says to everyone else "Come and take it from me if you can". That's effectively what Britain was saying to France when stuck the first flag in the soil in Sydney. The French declined the challenge so Australia was created.
The same thing still goes on today, in fact it's going on right now in the Middle East where ISIS is staking a claim. They won't be able to defend it but they'll likely die trying.
When it happens on a smaller scale it can be quite interesting. There are 2 pretty recent examples of individuals or small groups of people staking a claim to a country. One was successful, the other wasn't.
http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva
The republic of Minerva was basically a small group of investors who tried to stake a claim to a lagoon near Tonga. They were eventually driven off by the Tongan army, who were probably also the national rugby team.
http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Sealand
Sealand was more successful. The British tried to take it back, but were bound by agreed principles of international law that says they couldn't. Another group of private individuals tried to take it by force, but they were not successful and so the nation remains.
The same thing still goes on today, in fact it's going on right now in the Middle East where ISIS is staking a claim. They won't be able to defend it but they'll likely die trying.
When it happens on a smaller scale it can be quite interesting. There are 2 pretty recent examples of individuals or small groups of people staking a claim to a country. One was successful, the other wasn't.
http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva
The republic of Minerva was basically a small group of investors who tried to stake a claim to a lagoon near Tonga. They were eventually driven off by the Tongan army, who were probably also the national rugby team.
http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Sealand
Sealand was more successful. The British tried to take it back, but were bound by agreed principles of international law that says they couldn't. Another group of private individuals tried to take it by force, but they were not successful and so the nation remains.
dream? your an idiot. i don't wish to see it happen, it simply will. your the one thats so quick to declare great massacres.
the simple fact is all nations fall it happens. allegiances change, so do circumstance.
the simple fact is western demographics are changing, globalisation free movement of people, etc, etc.
arabs are becoming a larger player on the world scene and becoming significant factors at election.
Support for israel will only become harder in time. you act as if this going to happen in our life times. or at least mine. of course its not going to occur in next 50 years or so. but it will happen. no nation stands forever particularly not when they continue to piss off literally everyone around them.
it is not whether i want it or not (and if you pull your head out of your arse, you'd see overall i support israel and often are at loggerheads with those constantly blaming them for everything and don't think they have a right to defend themselves) fact is they are surrounded by enemies and that old tale of israel dominance was rattled when they invaded lebanon and lost.
the division is not as wide as you think. back in the 70's and 80's yes but today? war has changed and israel's dominance is not what it once was. which is why they have these "leaks" about nukes becoming louder and louder. just as like when sanctions crippled saddam's regime he started playing cat and mouse with UN inspectors to give the appearance of power.
Israel is fighting a losing battle full stop, eventually it will fall, both israel and its neighbours continue to move further and further away from each other. there's no chance of peace and the only thing stopping a large scale conflict is western support. the simple fact is the israeli lobby is shrinking while the palestinian lobby is growing and politicians could give a * about anything other then being elected.
the outcome is inevitable.
- Banned
- #198
na they have nukes
yes the most "top secret" project leaks, time and time and time again and a country that uses assassination as foreign relations platform. just lets it continue to leak.
Similar threads
