Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Poor Metakron.. all caught up in his own fantasies. lol
Is it right to put people first?
- Thread starter MetaKron
- Start date
Poor Metakron.. all caught up in his own fantasies. lol
Mostly, yeah, that's true. The Native American population was so small that the land could effectively be called "wilderness". And, James, even if not, it's an accepted term in historical accounts.
Ha! That's so fuckin' easy that I can't believe you asked it!! James, those "brave, selfless" sometimes didn't know! Hey, ask yourself this; "Who do you think those "brave, selfless" men were fighting?"
When I used the term "hard, rough men", I never implied, nor intended it to mean "brave, selfless". So how did you turn that around like that?
So you see, it's only because of hard, rough men with guns that you're even able to sit there and type messages. They brought about the changes, and they stand by daily, ready and able, to protect your rights. And they protect your freedom to denigrate those same hard, rough men at every chance you get.
Baron Max
And just who, mostly UN-intentionally, brought those diseases to the native populations? Yep, those same hard, rough men who were carving out a civilization in the wilderness.
Baron Max
Ha! That's so fuckin' easy that I can't believe you asked it!! James, those "brave, selfless" sometimes didn't know! Hey, ask yourself this; "Who do you think those "brave, selfless" men were fighting?"
You didn't answer my question:
How did these men know that the causes they fought for were right?
Want to try again?
Most American "beer" must be made from piss. Unfortunately, good beer is too expensive for me.
1111
Militaries have done much more harm than good. Most of the people claimed to have fought for our rights did no such thing.
1 person's wilderness is another's homeland.
1111
1 person's wilderness is another's homeland.
1111
If it is so easily ignored, what exactly is its value?
Actually the entire continent was populated from end to end with millions of native peoples. They lacked the large urban centers of south and central America, but there were planty of people here.
Actually they systematically spread diseases such as small pox via such means as trading infected blankets. Just as an example of the devistation, Hawaii went from a population of 3,000,000 to about 100,000 in a period of few decades.
They didn't do anything to each other before the white people came?
I believed that story for a long time, but it's pretty easy to debunk. As a reader points out in a letter to "The Straight Dope", the whites would have gotten infected by the blankets themselves. The story that Cecil Adams has points to the fact that they were thinking about it but evidence that they actually did this was rather vague.
Yes, I realize that one of the last things that people want to hear is that the white European invaders may have been innocent of some atrocities that were alleged during the 19th century. A lot of people don't want to hear anything good about the human race or anything that indicates that the human race is more than pond scum. So what? There is another valid viewpoint besides the idea that one human is worse than the other.
Lots of things are ignored by some.
If somebody has no interest in atomic physics, does that mean atomic physics is useless? If somebody has no interest in baseball, does that mean baseball is useless?
Why should morality be any different?
This stupid animal rights garbage is "white shame" in one of its nastiest forms. Here's another essay debunking the smallpox plan. The native Americans got it from attacking white settlers. They hate each other a lot.
In the wild animals routinely kill each other's babies and fight to the death, within and without their own species. In human hands the same enemies often find some kind of reconciliation or outright friendship. They gain something from living with humans. So I definitely refuse to feel "white shame" about our relations with other animals.
In the wild animals routinely kill each other's babies and fight to the death, within and without their own species. In human hands the same enemies often find some kind of reconciliation or outright friendship. They gain something from living with humans. So I definitely refuse to feel "white shame" about our relations with other animals.
I most certainly did answer it ...you're just didn't see it ...and oddly enough, you actually copied it in your own stupid reply!
Originally Posted by Baron Max: "Ha! That's so fuckin' easy that I can't believe you asked it!! James, those "brave, selfless" sometimes didn't know! Hey, ask yourself this; "Who do you think those "brave, selfless" men were fighting?"
See now? Those hard, rough men who fought for Nazi Germany "thought" they were fighting for the right causes. The hard, rough men of the allies also thought they were fighting for the right causes. In the case of WW II, the "good guys" won and restored your precious "rights".
Had Nazi Germany won the war, I'm certain that your precious "rights" would have taken a major stumble, don't you?
See, James? It's the stronger, the most powerful, the side with the best and biggest guns that determine those precious "rights". Had the allies lost the war, you would NOT be enjoying those precious "rights".
And, James, if the Muslim extremists get the biggest guns and finally take over the world, what do you think they'll do with your precious "rights"? And, James, please don't give me a silly answer like, "Well, that'll never happen." It you do, it just shows that you don't understand at all. The reason it will never happen is that hard, rough men stand ready to defend you and your precious "rights" ....even as you openly denigrate them for their efforts and dedication to preserve your precious "rights".
Baron Max
At best, there were only a few hundred thousand on the entire, present-day America. If you have info that claims "millions", please provide it.
Baron Max
So if the allies had just let Hitler conquer Europe and the Middle East, that would have been better than to have fought WW II? What do you think Hitler would have done to your precious "rights"?
Baron Max
Baron Max:
I'm not so sure. But let's assume you're right, and they did in fact believe they were fighting for a just cause.
My question still stands: how did they know they were fighting for a just cause?
See, my problem is that you appear to have claimed that anybody who has a big gun has the only "rights" or "ethics" that matter. In other words, what you're saying is that a man with a gun can never be wrong about a moral judgement, because his gun somehow makes what he does right and good.
This is a strange idea of morality - one that I would venture is not shared by many people. Most people would say that you must first decide whether a cause is morally right, and only then would you (possibly) be justified in using a gun to fight for that right cause.
You appear to suggest that German soldiers in World War II had a belief that they were fighting for a just cause on a basis other than that they had, at one time, the military might to dictate terms to, say, Poland or Austria. I am wondering what you think the basis of that belief might have been.
Having a right and "enjoying" it are two separate questions. For example, there is a commonly accepted right not to be tortured. However, this does not mean that nobody is ever tortured. People who are tortured are the victims of crimes against humanity - violations of their basic human rights.
This is not the same thing as having no rights in the first place.
Max said:
I'm not so sure. But let's assume you're right, and they did in fact believe they were fighting for a just cause.
My question still stands: how did they know they were fighting for a just cause?
See, my problem is that you appear to have claimed that anybody who has a big gun has the only "rights" or "ethics" that matter. In other words, what you're saying is that a man with a gun can never be wrong about a moral judgement, because his gun somehow makes what he does right and good.
This is a strange idea of morality - one that I would venture is not shared by many people. Most people would say that you must first decide whether a cause is morally right, and only then would you (possibly) be justified in using a gun to fight for that right cause.
You appear to suggest that German soldiers in World War II had a belief that they were fighting for a just cause on a basis other than that they had, at one time, the military might to dictate terms to, say, Poland or Austria. I am wondering what you think the basis of that belief might have been.
Having a right and "enjoying" it are two separate questions. For example, there is a commonly accepted right not to be tortured. However, this does not mean that nobody is ever tortured. People who are tortured are the victims of crimes against humanity - violations of their basic human rights.
This is not the same thing as having no rights in the first place.
lol ? You are joking right ?
No, no I'm not. Burning is the only way a forest has of cleaning up ground litter. That is besides humans.
So if they stop us from clearing brush and cutting firebreaks, every fire is a lot worse than it has to be. Humans using deadwood for fire is actually a great service to the forests.
Did you even read what he said?
At any rate, documented spreading of small pox from that period...
It is also during the eighteenth century that we find written reports of American Indians being intentionally exposed to smallpox by Europeans. In 1763 in Pennsylvania, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander of the British forces....wrote in the postscript of a letter to Bouquet the suggestion that smallpox be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a postscript,
"I will try to innoculate the[m]...with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not get the disease myself."
....To Bouquet's postscript, Amherst replied,
"You will do well as to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this exorable race."
On June 24, Captain Ecuyer, of the Royal Americans, noted in his journal:
"Out of our regard for them (i.e. two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
(quoted from Stearn, E. and Stearn, A. "Smallpox Immunization of the Amerindian.", Bulletin of the History of Medicine 13:601-13.)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/smallpox1.html
More on early germ warfare:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IUN/is_2004_Oct/ai_n7069349