China hungry. Antarctica stuffed.

[mmm....shiney!]

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

 

[Ghost]

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

* In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,

* any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property.

* It's a view I can morally justify

* by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme.

Game, set, match!

 

[SpacePete]

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

Which part of your quote doesn't apply to traditional aboriginal culture?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

If you're a political poster on social media, you have had your share of infuriating arguments. Here's a guide to tell if the person you're arguing with is worth your time. If the person you're debating commits these debate sins, they may just be an idiot.

You are ticking box 2 and 4 SP.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-clues-that-you-might-be-debating-an-idiot/

 

[SpacePete]

If you're a political poster on social media, you have had your share of infuriating arguments. Here's a guide to tell if the person you're arguing with is worth your time. If the person you're debating commits these debate sins, they may just be an idiot.

You are ticking box 2 and 4 SP.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-clues-that-you-might-be-debating-an-idiot/

But it seems you refuse to accept your own logic when inconvenient.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

The Fallacy Ref!

See you later SilverPete, I'm not sure who you are trying to impress but I hope it works out for you.

 

[SpacePete]

The Fallacy Ref!

See you later SilverPete, I'm not sure who you are trying to impress but I hope it works out for you.

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_11742810_1460581477594766_3033158729229346365_n.jpg

Hmmm, that's strange, I don't seem to have been ejected by Shiney's obviously powerful meming interjection.

I guess logic wins out.

 

[col0016]

The Fallacy Ref!

See you later SilverPete, I'm not sure who you are trying to impress but I hope it works out for you.

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_11742810_1460581477594766_3033158729229346365_n.jpg

Haha just accept you've been inconsistent for once

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Fk off col

 

[whinfell]

The Fallacy Ref!

See you later SilverPete, I'm not sure who you are trying to impress but I hope it works out for you.

http://forums.silverstackers.com/uploads/753_11742810_1460581477594766_3033158729229346365_n.jpg

Haha just accept you've been inconsistent for once

Shiney won't let that happen - it would tarnish his silver-plated ego! :lol:

 

[SpacePete]

Fk off col

Lol

 

[bordsilver]

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

Which part of your quote doesn't apply to traditional aboriginal culture?

I'm with shiney here. Reading through what he said, his position does not justify a violent occupation of Australia. If anything it simply justifies opposition to the predominant socio-political culture of the time (or simply ignoring its claims of authority).

I hadn't read it before, but in the other thread the problem lies in you twisting what is resistance to immoral use of force to what is initiating force.

 

[SpacePete]

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

Which part of your quote doesn't apply to traditional aboriginal culture?

I'm with shiney here. Reading through what he said, his position does not justify a violent occupation of Australia. If anything it simply justifies opposition to the predominant socio-political culture of the time (or simply ignoring its claims of authority).

Ok, I'm open to hearing which part of his quote doesn't apply to the traditional owners of the Australian land prior to white settlement.

(a) "In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,"

(b) "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property."

(c) "It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that"

(d) "a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme."

 

[JulieW]

Source: Miles from the O.P.

 

[bordsilver]

Which part of your quote doesn't apply to traditional aboriginal culture?

I'm with shiney here. Reading through what he said, his position does not justify a violent occupation of Australia. If anything it simply justifies opposition to the predominant socio-political culture of the time (or simply ignoring its claims of authority).

Ok, I'm open to hearing which part of his quote doesn't apply to the traditional owners of the Australian land prior to white settlement.

(a) "In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,"

(b) "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property."

(c) "It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that"

(d) "a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme."

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

 

[SpacePete]

I'm with shiney here. Reading through what he said, his position does not justify a violent occupation of Australia. If anything it simply justifies opposition to the predominant socio-political culture of the time (or simply ignoring its claims of authority).

Ok, I'm open to hearing which part of his quote doesn't apply to the traditional owners of the Australian land prior to white settlement.

(a) "In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed,"

(b) "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property."

(c) "It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that"

(d) "a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme."

What part of that quote justifies a violent occupation of Australia?

Locked :lol:

 

[SpacePete]

Time for gardens in the yard to change to vegetables and home grown produce?
If you do and live in an inner city area you might also have extensive lead pollution in your soils. Be aware and either get your soils tested or use raised garden beds.

If you don't want creepy Chinese noodles there is always Indonesian noodles.

To complement the extensive lead pollution, I also have a nice dusting of asbestos. The daycare centre outside of which asbestos was dumped a few years ago is a couple of hundred meters from my apartment, just near a nice little community garden. There are numerous building sites here in inner Sydney that don't bother with dust & airborne pollution control. There was also mention of uncovered trucks taking away asbestos waste and it was blowing off in the wind.

Have you seen how seriously the UK treats asbestos? And here the standard is basically spray some water laced with PVA glue on it, she'll be right. So scary.

Well, at least it should minimize the dust.

 

[bordsilver]

Shiney has previously argued that the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents because their traditional cultural system of land ownership was immoral and was preventing them from achieving their full potential, preventing them from becoming "fully human" whatever that means.

This is the unsubstantiated assertion that you made. Whether or not other quotes by shiney that you keep posting apply to indigenous is irrelevant. Nothing in his quotes seem to argue that the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aborigines.

 

[SpacePete]

Shiney has previously argued that the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aboriginal residents because their traditional cultural system of land ownership was immoral and was preventing them from achieving their full potential, preventing them from becoming "fully human" whatever that means.

This is the unsubstantiated assertion that you made. Whether or not other quotes by shiney that you keep posting apply to indigenous is irrelevant. Nothing in his quotes seem to argue that the British were justified in violently taking land from the Aborigines.

So you are saying the quotes by Shiney are not absolute, that there are exceptions? So, while he argued that Aboriginals were subject to a collectivist system that was preventing them from becoming fully human, and that subjection to such a system overrode any right to freedom from aggression, it doesn't count in this case?

You see, here's where things go wrong...

...the problem lies in you twisting what is resistance to immoral use of force to what is initiating force.

Is the following an argument only for resistance to force?

...any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property.

Now, any reasonable person would read that "freedom from aggression" because... that is what was written. It states that any right to freedom from aggression is no longer valid in the presence of a collectivist system.

"any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system"" <- i.e., 60,000 of traditional owndership of the land

"overrides the fundamental right" <-- overrides any fundamental right

"to freedom from aggression" <-- to freedom from aggression.