- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 47,684
- Reaction score
- 53,463
- Location
- Dixie
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Oh for pete's sake. There you go trying to bring reason to an argument.
....
Probably futile I know, but I can't help myself.

Oh for pete's sake. There you go trying to bring reason to an argument.
....
So, in your mind, shoplifting is ok as long as some items are bought or "ceded". I disagree.And again.
The point of my replies have been that you are exaggerating.
What about that do you not understand?
Which again has nothing to do with the absurdity you now bring up.
Ceded and bought is not stolen.
This is self-evident. Of course land is almost always stolen from someone. The American natives, however, were actually removed. It's a less usual case because of that. Eviction is not conquering.Practically every square foot of ground on Earth inhabited by human beings was, at some point (probably several points), "stolen" by force from someone else who was living there.
Native Americans are no exception. The tribes warred among themselves for various reasons, including control of prime hunting grounds, and drove other tribes off and took over.
Such is the history of the world and of humanity, and comparing the actions of nations and ethnic groups to individual theft is an "apples to atom bombs" comparison.
Nations, by their very nature, exercise "sovereignty". Sovereignty over a territory is accomplished by force and includes exclusion. It isn't nice and pretty, but it is reality; we don't live in a perfect world, never have and never will.
Let those who condemn it be the first to give their own personal property to a Native... I'm some small part Cherokee and Creek so consider my hat in the ring there... :mrgreen:
:dohSo, in your mind, shoplifting is ok as long as some items are bought or "ceded". I disagree.
We do live in a country which was stolen. Much of what was bought, be it the Midwest or Alaska, was still stolen. Just because we handed money to the French and Russians doesn't mean we didn't steal it from the natives.:doh
You are not making any sense.
A bought item is not an item that is shoplifted.
Stop with your silly games and idiotic attempts to put words in my mouth.
You said: "You live in a country that was stolen." That is an egregious exaggeration.
The majority was bought and ceded.
Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.
The Country wasn't stolen. :lamoWe do live in a country which was stolen. Much of what was bought, be it the Midwest or Alaska, was still stolen. Just because we handed money to the French and Russians doesn't mean we didn't steal it from the natives.
As soon as the indigenous were removed, the land was stolen. That's what you aren't understanding. Removal is theft.
BTW: Buying stolen land is no different than me handing a thief $50 for a bicycle he stole from Fred.
You are simply wrong.
:naughtyNo, you are.
:naughty
Wrong again.
Your exaggerations clearly put you in the camp of being wrong.
Indians were removed from every state in the union. In fact, even the place were they were initially sent: Oklahoma, was stolen from them.
Ergo, the country was clearly stolen.
Shakes head.The Country wasn't stolen. :lamo
The majority of the land was obtained legally. Not stolen.
You are simply wrong and exaggerating.
The majority was bought and ceded.
Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.
The Country wasn't stolen. :lamo
The majority of the land was obtained legally. Not stolen.
You are simply wrong and exaggerating.
The majority was bought and ceded.
Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.
Most people will make exceptions when it comes to killing of some kind or another in whether they feel it is morally okay or not to kill, even when it comes to taking human life. The most common exception is "in self defense", but others include in defense of others, during war, to end a person's suffering, or even the death penalty (to name really just a few).
However, there aren't too many times people would say it wouldn't be morally wrong to steal. I think a good number of people might say in general "when a person is starving", but even then, it is going to be greatly limiting and may not actually be morally right, but rather simply not as big of a wrong as stealing for other reasons.
I personally can think of a few extreme cases where it would be morally okay to steal (trapped in a country with little hope of getting back, and little other choice but to steal because of many possible complications in trying to actually earn food, when escaping wrongful detainment of some kind, when protecting yourself against another person, the general "when starving", etc.). There are even likely many others where I would probably say that it would be okay to steal, but it would take having a very specific set of circumstances presented to me to decide that.
On the flip side of that though, there would be circumstances where some would say a person/entity is "stealing" from them eventhough it isn't truly against the law because they have a difference of opinion on ownership and whether ownership of certain property should have transferred to a particular other party or at all.
I think stealing may be the hardest to make exceptions for when it comes to right or wrong because stealing involves a man-made concept of ownership. Life is clearly, scientifically defined.
So, I ask, what, do you feel is morally okay when it comes to stealing or is it always morally wrong to steal, no matter the specific circumstances?
Morally okay, never. But more "morally" forgivable or understandable, several.
Why is it "bad" to begin with to steal for a purpose that saves your life or someone else's life and has nothing to do with greed, when that is the main reason most people believe stealing is morally wrong?
As I've asked others, why only more forgivable, and not just an exception to your moral beliefs?
Shakes head and sighs.What we bought came from people who had stolen it. And, what we did not buy we stole outright. The whole country was stolen.
The whole of my argument is that he is exaggerating.As your argument clearly shows, there is some disagreement about whether the land was truly owned by the Native Americans and/or whether the methods used to obtain that land were actually stealing or not.
When you look to the past and what happen, you place it in context of the standards of the time.Plus, even if you say "just a little bit" was stolen, that still wouldn't make it "okay" to everyone. That "little bit" is enough, for some. It is just like when people use sneaky and dirty tactics, some of which may not be legal, but still too hard to prove, it can be viewed as "stealing" eventhough the person using those tactics and obtaining that property may never face consequences of any kind (at least in this life) for doing it.
Shakes head and sighs.
Wrong.
The whole of my argument is that he is exaggerating.
And he is.
When you look to the past and what happen, you place it in context of the standards of the time.
Which does not change the fact that he is exaggerating.
Shakes head and sighs.
Wrong.
The whole of my argument is that he is exaggerating.
And he is.
When you look to the past and what happen, you place it in context of the standards of the time.
Which does not change the fact that he is exaggerating.
No, you look do all those things when looking to the past and see a different picture, apparently than others do. It doesn't matter if or what might be being exaggerated in your opinion. He appears to be saying that he believes the country could be said to be stolen because of the manner in which we obtained it. As I've said, this is not a unique position, even when talking about other things.
My family believes (and you can include me in this) that my grandparents' house was "stolen" from them by other relatives due to a will being changed while the person whose will it was had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's (which isn't exactly legal). However, due to other reasons, my grandfather could not bring the case to court. There are many others who would say that taxes, especially certain types of taxes, are stealing because they are unfair. Unfair practices lead many to consider
Still trying to deflect from your exaggeration. Figures.Obviously you believe it's morally acceptable to steal land from Indians. So much so, in fact, that you've minimized the deed, redefining theft to mean bought and ceded, even though we all know the Indians were forcibly removed from the land, which clearly indicates that it was stolen.
Wrong.No, you look do all those things when looking to the past and see a different picture, apparently than others do. It doesn't matter if or what might be being exaggerated in your opinion. He appears to be saying that he believes the country could be said to be stolen because of the manner in which we obtained it.
Wrong.
He is not saying "It could be said to be ...", he is saying it was. That is objectively wrong.
Wrong. He is exaggerating as the land was not stolen in whole nor was the Country.His view is that it is. It is a subjective belief. It can't be objectively wrong. He did not bring the law into it. He simply stated that it was stolen. That is not objectively wrong because there is no way to truly measure what is stealing or not when ownership can be subjective depending on how a person feels about it, as can be whether transfer of property was done in a way that was fair and right. If not, then a transaction can easily be seen as stealing.
Wrong. He is exaggerating as the land was not stolen in whole nor was the Country.
The majority of the land was objectively bought and ceded. Not stolen.
And subjective opinions can and are objectively wrong all the time.
Wrong.Again, what is an exaggeration when it comes to determining if something was stolen is subjective.