When, if ever, do you feel stealing is morally okay?

[calamity]

Still trying to deflect from your exaggeration. Figures.

Still in denial? OK.

 

[Excon]

Still in denial? OK.

iLOL
I have nothing to deny. The majority of the land was bought or ceded not stolen.
All you have is denial and exaggeration.

 

[calamity]

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.

There is no doubt that the people living in almost every state, from say Connecticut to Indiana and Ohio clear on over to the Dakotas and Idaho, all the way down into California, were forcibly removed. Their land was taken against their will. IMO, there is nothing to debate--of course that's stealing.

 

[calamity]

iLOL
I have nothing to deny. The majority of the land was bought or ceded not stolen.
All you have is denial and exaggeration.

Were people removed against their will?

 

[Excon]

Were people removed against their will?

WTF?
Some.
Which matters not to your exaggeration.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

 

[calamity]

WTF?
Some.
Which matters not to your exaggeration.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

Some? Minimize much?

Sad thing is once removed from the East and resettled to OK, it did not take long for the whites to steal their land again. So, many tribes had their lands stolen multiple times.

only 49 years after removal to Indian Territory, Native people found themselves in danger of losing their “homes”, once again, to white greed and land theft. Between 1879 and 1884, David L. Payne, an ex-captain for the 4th Kansas Cavalry, hailed Indian Territory as “the promised land,” and began leading illegal expeditions into Indian Territory with bands of followers setting up camps near the “Oklahoma River.” These excursions into restricted lands became known as the “Boomer movement.” Payne and his followers were arrested and removed each time they entered the lands by the U.S. 4th Cavalry. Then, Payne died from a massive heart attack in 1884 and William Couch took over as the leader of the Boomer movement prompting four more illegal expeditions into the lands. Couch ended the excursions in 1885. However, the yearning to invade the lands increased in popularity and in 1886, the Santa Fe Railroad Company began construction on a railroad that stretched from Kansas to Texas right through Indian Territory. This action combined with the Boomer movement’s illegal excursions and support from Kansas businessmen led to the “Springer Amendment.”

This amendment was authored by Illinois Rep. William Springer and was signed into effect by President Cleveland March 2nd, 1889, only two days before he left office. Afterward, the “new” President Harrison declared the lands open for white invasion and thus, the stage was set for the great land thefts of 1889 to 1895 known as the “Land Run.”

The Oklahoma Land Runs - Oklahoma City Native American Community | Examiner.com

You've clearly demonstrated though exactly when stealing is morally OK. Bravo/

 

[Excon]

Some? Minimize much?

Sad thing is once removed from the East and resettled to OK, it did not take long for the whites to steal their land again. So, many tribes had their lands stolen multiple times.



You've clearly demonstrated though exactly when stealing is morally OK. Bravo/

Wrong.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.
You simply want to exaggerate. That is all.

 

[calamity]

Wrong.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.
You simply want to exaggerate. That is all.

It was not. The Indians were removed.

You're in denial and are minimizing the theft by trying to justify it. It's a classic case of moral justification for when stealing is OK.

 

[Excon]

It was not. The Indians were removed.

You're in denial and are minimizing the theft by trying to justify it. It's a classic case of moral justification for when stealing is OK.

Wrong.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.
You simply want to exaggerate. That is all.

 

[calamity]

Wrong.
The majority of the land was bought and ceded.
You simply want to exaggerate. That is all.

I proved my assertion by showing that the Indians were removed from all over the SE, sent to Oklahoma, and then had that land stolen from them as well.

You're minimizing and denying. Better yet, you are showing us when you feel stealing is morally okay.

 

[Excon]

I proved my assertion by showing that the Indians were removed from all over the SE, sent to Oklahoma, and then had that land stolen from them as well.

You're minimizing and denying. Better yet, you are showing us when you feel stealing is morally okay.

No you did not prove your exaggeration, as you can not.
The majority of the land was not stolen. It was bought and ceded.

 

[calamity]

No you did not prove your exaggeration, as you can not.
The majority of the land was not stolen. It was bought and ceded.

I proved it. My posts substantiating my claim contain much more information than your posts, which contain nothing but denial and minimalization. We'll let whomever reads them decide.

Hey, at least you showed us all exactly when stealing is morally OK.

 

[Excon]

I proved it. My posts substantiating my claim contain much more information than your posts, which contain nothing but denial and minimalization. We'll let whomever reads them decide.

Hey, at least you showed us all exactly when stealing is morally OK.

:naughty
No, you have proved no such thing, especially as you can not.
Your claim was, and still is, nothing more than an exaggeration. It can not be proven true.
The Country was not stolen. The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

 

[calamity]

:naughty
No, you have proved no such thing, especially as you can not.
Your claim was, and still is, nothing more than an exaggeration. It can not be proven true.
The Country was not stolen. The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

Incorrect. Is property "ceded" when a robber holds a gun to your head demanding the wallet?

No. The wallet was stolen.

 

[Excon]

Incorrect. Is property "ceded" when a robber holds a gun to your head demanding the wallet?

No. The wallet was stolen.

More exaggeration on your part.
Figures.

The majority of the land was bought or ceded.

Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.

 

[calamity]

More exaggeration on your part.
Figures.

The majority of the land was bought or ceded.

Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.

Quit dodging. Answer my question. If a gun is held to your head, are you ceding your wallet or is it being stolen?

 

[Excon]

Quit dodging. Answer my question. If a gun is held to your head, are you ceding your wallet or is it being stolen?

I do not need to answer your stupid question as that is not what happened.
You are again exaggerating.


The majority of the land was bought or ceded.

Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.

 

[calamity]

I do not need to answer your stupid question as that is not what happened.
You are again exaggerating.


The majority of the land was bought or ceded.

Stop exaggerating and there is no issue.

You're afraid to answer it because you know your "ceding" excuse is crap.

The land was stolen.

 

[Excon]

You're afraid to answer it because you know your "ceding" excuse is crap.

The land was stolen.

Pay attention!
I do not need to answer your stupid question as that is not what happened.
Do you really not understand that?

The land was stolen.

That is an exaggeration. The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

 

[calamity]

Pay attention!
I do not need to answer your stupid question as that is not what happened.
Do you really not understand that?

You're weaseling out of answering because you know damned well that when you cede your wallet to an armed robber holding a gun to your head, said wallet is being stolen.

That is an exaggeration. The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

Weasel words. The land was stolen.

 

[Excon]

You're weaseling out of answering because you know damned well that when you cede your wallet to an armed robber holding a gun to your head, said wallet is being stolen.

Wrong again.

Pay attention!
I do not need to answer your stupid question as that is not what happened.
Do you really not understand that?

Weasel words. The land was stolen.

Wrong.
Your words are those of dishonesty.
Your exaggeration makes you wrong.

The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

 

[calamity]

Wrong again.

Pay attention!
I do not need to answer your stupid question as that is not what happened.
Do you really not understand that?

They were forced off their land under the threat of violence. Fact.

But, feel free to dodge though. It's not like you're winning this argument.

Wrong.
Your words are those of dishonesty.
Your exaggeration makes you wrong.

The majority of the land was bought and ceded.

Wrong.

 

[Excon]

They were forced off their land under the threat of violence. Fact.

But, feel free to dodge though. It's not like you're winning this argument.

Wrong.

:lamo

Yes you are wrong.
Your words are those of dishonesty.
Your exaggeration makes you wrong.

And because you exagerate, I already won.
Because, as already pointed out, the majority of the land was bought and ceded.

 

[calamity]

:lamo

Yes you are wrong.
Your words are those of dishonesty.
Your exaggeration makes you wrong.

And because you exagerate, I already won.
Because, as already pointed out, the majority of the land was bought and ceded.

You're afraid to explain why having your wallet taken away by an armed robber is not ceding it but having land taken away is. If you can't answer this, I accept your surrender, meaning you ceded the argument.

 

[Excon]

You're afraid to explain why having your wallet taken away by an armed robber is not ceding it but having land taken away is. If you can't answer this, I accept your surrender, meaning you ceded the argument.

:doh
Still presenting an irrelevant comparison, huh?
Figures that is what a person who exaggerates would do. :lamo