|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 7:32:00 GMT -5
So if they were to return with the Royal Army, that would be cool too, right? Absolutely not. Trying to obtain things you don't own by force is theft. But the society of Zimbabwe does own Zimbabwe. I guarantee you that at one point that land was taken by force from another group. Every bit of land has been taken by force at one point or another. That may not be right, but in the end the people that can hold the land keep it. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:41:10 GMT -5
Absolutely not. Trying to obtain things you don't own by force is theft. But the society of Zimbabwe does own Zimbabwe. I guarantee you that at one point that land was taken by force from another group. Every bit of land has been taken by force at one point or another. That may not be right, but in the end the people that can hold the land keep it. I am aware that you believe might makes right. But I disagree, I think that there is such thing as morality. I think that property taken by force is always theft (unless you own it). Therefore, societies (not individuals) own land and resources in common. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 7:46:21 GMT -5
So if they were to return with the Royal Army, that would be cool too, right? Absolutely not. Trying to obtain things you don't own by force is theft. But the society of Zimbabwe does own Zimbabwe. So basically you've no right to complain about your land being taken by force if your ancestors did it, but if you do it than it's absolutely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:52:00 GMT -5
Absolutely not. Trying to obtain things you don't own by force is theft. But the society of Zimbabwe does own Zimbabwe. So basically you've no right to complain about your land being taken by force if your ancestors did it, but if you do it than it's absolutely wrong. An individual cannot own land. In particular, these individuals do not own land, they took it by force. The real owner (the society of Zimbabwe) has the right to take it back the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 7:57:46 GMT -5
So basically you've no right to complain about your land being taken by force if your ancestors did it, but if you do it than it's absolutely wrong. An individual cannot own land. In particular, these individuals do not own land, they took it by force. The real owner (the society of Zimbabwe) has the right to take it back the same way. Yeah, individuals can own land actually. Ask any real estate agents. It seems reality and your own convictions are at an impasse my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 7:58:52 GMT -5
An individual cannot own land. In particular, these individuals do not own land, they took it by force. The real owner (the society of Zimbabwe) has the right to take it back the same way. Yeah, individuals can own land actually. Ask any real estate agents. It seems reality and your own convictions are at an impasse my friend. Not legitimately. You're engaged in the old naturalistic fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 8:05:36 GMT -5
Yeah, individuals can own land actually. Ask any real estate agents. It seems reality and your own convictions are at an impasse my friend. Not legitimately. You're engaged in the old naturalistic fallacy. No actually. I'm saying individuals can own land because there exists individuals in the world who own land. It exists, therefore your claims that it can't happen are asinine. As for "legitimately", I think you're confusing your own subjective opinions for objective fact there pal. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 15:54:11 GMT -5
Not legitimately. You're engaged in the old naturalistic fallacy. No actually. I'm saying individuals can own land because there exists individuals in the world who own land. X is the case, therefore X is good. Naturalistic fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 14, 2011 17:45:02 GMT -5
Nobody anywhere owns any land. It's all obtained by force, not labour. In Zimbabwe, it just so happens that a) everyone remembers the specific circumstances because they were b) so memorably awful. Now that the former slaves have taken over, it's hardly legitimate for the white 'owners' to complain about their own force being turned back against them. So if they were to return with the Royal Army, that would be cool too, right? What is this Royal Army of which you speak? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 21:51:36 GMT -5
No actually. I'm saying individuals can own land because there exists individuals in the world who own land. X is the case, therefore X is good. Naturalistic fallacy. No, I'm not saying it's good just because it exists, I'm saying you claiming it's "illegitimate" as if that's an objective fact is asinine. Understand? So if they were to return with the Royal Army, that would be cool too, right? What is this Royal Army of which you speak? The army of the former colonial masters of Zimbabwe. I trust you know who that is? |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 15, 2011 4:51:02 GMT -5
What is this Royal Army of which you speak? The army of the former colonial masters of Zimbabwe. I trust you know who that is?[/quote] Having served in it, yes. And I take you don't know it's not called the 'Royal Army' anywhere outside the limited imaginations of Hollywood screenwriters? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 15, 2011 5:00:39 GMT -5
Ah, close enough. In my defence, I'm not British.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 15, 2011 10:03:58 GMT -5
I can't believe this, but I, like LHM before me, have been driven to a point where I actually agree with Fred. Sylvana, I will be right up straight with you, I have no sympathy for South Africa's problems. Unlike empathy, sympathy has to be deserved, and your country clearly does not deserve it. Apartheid ended what, decades ago? And yet there is still racial violence? Clearly neither side is capable of seeing past superficial skin color, which is why I have no sympathy for you. Even if the black Africans were completely noble and all like Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, I would still have no sympathy for the white people because, quite frankly, they started it. Apartheid was so brutal that Jim Crow laws over here and whatever racist policy Australia used to have were completely egalitarian by comparison. And don't even think about using the "but we aren't responsible for the crimes of our ancestors" canard. Apartheid ended in 1994. It wasn't just your ancestors who did it! You yourself were certainly alive then, and certainly reaped the benefits when it was not just a law, but the law of South Africa. As for your claims about the blacks, as Fred pointed out, that's basically a South African version of the "poor people are poor because they're lazy" argument, with some casual racism thrown in. You lost all credibility when you used it. Interesting how the white South Africans could call the native black people "kaffirs" and "savage brutes who want to kill our men and rape our women" but then when black people (completely accurately) call whites "oppressors" and "thieves" it's suddenly an unforgivable outrage! Reap what you fucking sow. I'm not claiming that you in particular are doing it, but you would definitely have more to gain from a reinstatement of apartheid than you'd like to admit. Of course, it's not your fault that you were born into a society which, in order to sustain itself, propagated the belief that black people were mindless savages more akin to gorillas than human beings who must be stopped before they destroy all of civilization, but in the days of globalization that is no excuse for this behavior. Of course the blacks are just as racist as the whites, and I'm not denying that, but if you were in their shoes, wouldn't you do exactly the same thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 15, 2011 18:04:47 GMT -5
Ah, close enough. In my defence, I'm not British. As an extra point, it's worth pointing out that the modern British army was really started under Crowmwell, now you'd hardly call something 'Royal' around him..... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 15, 2011 18:10:45 GMT -5
I've never really heard it be referred to as "New Model" though, at least not in recent times...
|
|
