MedVision ad

If Uzbekistan invades Australia... (2 Viewers)

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
But no one said they are necessarily trying to 'justify' themselves, pointing at Australia's past may just be a way to 'nullify' our displeasure. Namely, 'we're both evil invaders, that's how the world works'. That wouldn't be an ignoratio elenchi, would it?
that won't "nullify" anything. obviously they wish to gain the moral high ground in order to pacify resistance both at home and in australia, but when they put it that way then there's no reason why they shouldn't be opposed. no country is dumb enough to adopt that line of reasoning.



Is there a way to not be pandantic and still condemn invasions? What would be the basis of such theory?
an individual can condemn the invasion of a state by another all he wants but that won't achieve anything. All I'm saying is that not a single country have the moral high ground to critise another when it comes to violence and coercion.

here, from David Hume's Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary
II.XII.6

But philosophers, who have embraced a party (if that be not a contradiction in terms) are not contented with these concessions. They assert, not only that government in its earliest infancy arose from consent or rather the voluntary acquiescence of the people; but also, that, even at present, when it has attained full maturity, it rests on no other foundation. They affirm, that all men are still born equal, and owe allegiance to no prince or government, unless bound by the obligation and sanction of a promise. And as no man, without some equivalent, would forego the advantages of his native liberty, and subject himself to the will of another; this promise is always understood to be conditional, and imposes on him no obligation, unless he meet with justice and protection from his sovereign. These advantages the sovereign promises him in return; and if he fail in the execution, he has broken, on his part, the articles of engagement, and has thereby freed his subject from all obligations to allegiance. Such, according to these philosophers, is the foundation of authority in every government; and such the right of resistance, possessed by every subject.

II.XII.7
But would these reasoners look abroad into the world, they would meet with nothing that, in the least, corresponds to their ideas, or can warrant so refined and philosophical a system. On the contrary, we find, every where, princes, who claim their subjects as their property, and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession. We find also, every where, subjects, who acknowledge this right in their prince, and suppose themselves born under obligations of obedience to a certain sovereign, as much as under the ties of reverence and duty to certain parents. These connexions are always conceived to be equally independent of our consent, in PERSIA and CHINA; in FRANCE and SPAIN; and even in HOLLAND and ENGLAND, wherever the doctrines above-mentioned have not been carefully inculcated. Obedience or subjection becomes so familiar, that most men never make any enquiry about its origin or cause, more than about the principle of gravity, resistance, or the most universal laws of nature. Or if curiosity ever move them; as soon as they learn, that they themselves and their ancestors have, for several ages, or from time immemorial, been subject to such a form of government or such a family; they immediately acquiesce, and acknowledge their obligation to allegiance. Were you to preach, in most parts of the world, that political connexions are founded altogether on voluntary consent or a mutual promise, the magistrate would soon imprison you, as seditious, for loosening the ties of obedience; if your friends did not before shut you up as delirious, for advancing such absurdities. It is strange, that an act of the mind, which every individual is supposed to have formed, and after he came to the use of reason too, otherwise it could have no authority; that this act, I say, should be so much unknown to all of them, that, over the face of the whole earth, there scarcely remain any traces or memory of it.

II.XII.8
But the contract, on which government is founded, is said to be the original contract; and consequently may be supposed too old to fall under the knowledge of the present generation. If the agreement, by which savage men first associated and conjoined their force, be here meant, this is acknowledged to be real; but being so ancient, and being obliterated by a thousand changes of government and princes, it cannot now be supposed to retain any authority. If we would say any thing to the purpose, we must assert, that every particular government, which is lawful, and which imposes any duty of allegiance on the subject, was, at first, founded on consent and a voluntary compact. But besides that this supposes the consent of the fathers to bind the children, even to the most remote generations, (which republican writers will never allow) besides this, I say, it is not justified by history or experience, in any age or country of the world.

II.XII.9
Almost all the governments, which exist at present, or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally, either on usurpation or conquest, or both, without any pretence of a fair consent, or voluntary subjection of the people. When an artful and bold man is placed at the head of an army or faction, it is often easy for him, by employing, sometimes violence, sometimes false pretences, to establish his dominion over a people a hundred times more numerous than his partizans. He allows no such open communication, that his enemies can know, with certainty, their number or force. He gives them no leisure to assemble together in a body to oppose him. Even all those, who are the instruments of his usurpation, may wish his fall; but their ignorance of each other's intention keeps them in awe, and is the sole cause of his security. By such arts as these, many governments have been established; and this is all the original contract, which they have to boast of.

II.XII.10
The face of the earth is continually changing, by the encrease of small kingdoms into great empires, by the dissolution of great empires into smaller kingdoms, by the planting of colonies, by the migration of tribes. Is there any thing discoverable in all these events, but force and violence? Where is the mutual agreement or voluntary association so much talked of?

II.XII.11
Even the smoothest way, by which a nation may receive a foreign master, by marriage or a will, is not extremely honourable for the people; but supposes them to be disposed of, like a dowry or a legacy, according to the pleasure or interest of their rulers.

II.XII.12
But where no force interposes, and election takes place; what is this election so highly vaunted? It is either the combination of a few great men, who decide for the whole, and will allow of no opposition: Or it is the fury of a multitude, that follow a seditious ringleader, who is not known, perhaps, to a dozen among them, and who owes his advancement merely to his own impudence, or to the momentary caprice of his fellows.

II.XII.13
Are these disorderly elections, which are rare too, of such mighty authority, as to be the only lawful foundation of all government and allegiance?

II.XII.14
In reality, there is not a more terrible event, than a total dissolution of government, which gives liberty to the multitude, and makes the determination or choice of a new establishment depend upon a number, which nearly approaches to that of the body of the people: For it never comes entirely to the whole body of them. Every wise man, then, wishes to see, at the head of a powerful and obedient army, a general, who may speedily seize the prize, and give to the people a master, which they are so unfit to chuse for themselves. So little correspondent is fact and reality to those philosophical notions.

II.XII.15
Let not the establishment at the Revolution deceive us, or make us so much in love with a philosophical origin to government, as to imagine all others monstrous and irregular. Even that event was far from corresponding to these refined ideas. It was only the succession, and that only in the regal part of the government, which was then changed: And it was only the majority of seven hundred, who determined that change for near ten millions. I doubt not, indeed, but the bulk of those ten millions acquiesced willingly in the determination: But was the matter left, in the least, to their choice? Was it not justly supposed to be, from that moment, decided, and every man punished, who refused to submit to the new sovereign? How otherwise could the matter have ever been brought to any issue or conclusion?

II.XII.16
The republic of ATHENS was, I believe, the most extensive democracy, that we read of in history: Yet if we make the requisite allowances for the women, the slaves, and the strangers, we shall find, that that establishment was not, at first, made, nor any law ever voted, by a tenth part of those who were bound to pay obedience to it: Not to mention the islands and foreign dominions, which the ATHENIANS claimed as theirs by right of conquest. And as it is well known, that popular assemblies in that city were always full of licence and disorder, notwithstanding the institutions and laws by which they were checked: How much more disorderly must they prove, where they form not the established constitution, but meet tumultuously on the dissolution of the ancient government, in order to give rise to a new one? How chimerical must it be to talk of a choice in such circumstances?

II.XII.17
The ACHÆANS enjoyed the freest and most perfect democracy of all antiquity; yet they employed force to oblige some cities to enter into their league, as we learn from POLYBIUS.

II.XII.18
HARRY the IVth and HARRY the VIIth of ENGLAND, had really no title to the throne but a parliamentary election; yet they never would acknowledge it, lest they should thereby weaken their authority. Strange, if the only real foundation of all authority be consent and promise!

II.XII.19
It is in vain to say, that all governments are or should be, at first, founded on popular consent, as much as the necessity of human affairs will admit. This favours entirely my pretension. I maintain, that human affairs will never admit of this consent; seldom of the appearance of it. But that conquest or usurpation, that is, in plain terms, force, by dissolving the ancient governments, is the origin of almost all the new ones, which were ever established in the world. And that in the few cases, where consent may seem to have taken place, it was commonly so irregular, so confined, or so much intermixed either with fraud or violence, that it cannot have any great authority.
 

Deathless

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
788
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
When confronted with such a thing you just get the US to nuke them since they're a shitty third world Muslim country and we're a glorious (socialist) White nation
I reckon if we were ever attacked, the US wouldn't do very much to help us until we're nearly all dead/defeated.
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
i've already proved my point cockhead
you still haven't told me your theory on Australia's moral standing when a nation invades another, particularly to that of the reasoning when the white settlers came.
merely asserting the truth of something =/= proving it you dumbfuck.
I can insist on the king of france being a bald unicorn but that doesn't make it true regardless of how many times I repeat my tirade.

hahahaha what reasoning

"lulz well da english had 2 dump deir convicts sumwhere so it waz tottaly legit n ok 4 dem to kill da abos n everything!11!!"

is that an argument?

"well I didn't have any money so it's totally ok for me to robbed him!11!!! I have to eat!!!!" is this an argument?

"well he was blocking my way so it's totally legit for me to kill him I have to get to work!11!" is this an argument?

really how fucking brain dead do you have to be to use the justification that because "they needed somewhere to place the convicts n other cunts" they had every right to do what they did???

I've repeatedly given my stance on the "moral standing" of nations in like 3 posts it's called open your eyes and fucking read.
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,895
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
Neither my mother's nor father's parents were born in Australia. I didn't do shit.

Sure they were treated like shit and many of them killed, but if you think a bunch of hunter-gatherers can magically "own" an entire fucking continent without ever having touched the vast majority of it then you're a fucking moron.
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
abbeyroad is just a pussy who is afraid of using power

might is right and the aboriginals were too weak to resist us

therefore we are and were within our rights to displace them
 
Last edited:

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I've never said they own the entire continent you dumb fuck. they don't own it any more than the federal government does. pretty sure I said homesteaded land so why don't you read first before you go throwing straw men around you blind fuck
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Sure they were treated like shit and many of them killed, but if you think a bunch of hunter-gatherers can magically "own" an entire fucking continent without ever having touched the vast majority of it then you're a fucking moron.
honestly how else do you think they should have been treated

think about how bad they are now

now get rid of all the non-boong in them and roll back the clock 200 years when they hadnt been socialised by civilisation AT ALL

its honestly a testament to our tolerance that they arent all dead now
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
abbeyroad is just a pussy who is afraid of using power

might is right and the aboriginals were too weak to resist us

therefore we are and were within our rights to displace them
ahahahaha I'm not afraid of power I revel in it. I have no problem exterting it on those who willingly submit to it. but as a man of reason I can never accept "might is right"
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
honestly how else do you think they should have been treated

think about how bad they are now

now get rid of all the non-boong in them and roll back the clock 200 years when they hadnt been socialised by civilisation AT ALL

its honestly a testament to our tolerance that they arent all dead now
they could've just settle on unused land. they didn't have to go out of their way to round them up and kill them just leave them the fuck alone and defend themselves when the abos come knocking
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
they could've just settle on unused land. they didn't have to go out of their way to round them up and kill them
theres no unused land in boonger land though because hey move around all the time

theyre nomads

how often did we round them up an d kill them anyway besides like tasmania

i dont think we should have killed them just set up an abo territory and moved them all there

tempt them with smock and grog to move
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
fittest=/=strongest

in darwin's theory "fittest" means most adapted to survive in the local environment. it's only in social darwinism that it becomes synonymous with strength or some other physical attributes
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
that is a satrical book written in like 1904 by (probably) an nz politician operating under a pseudonym

its pretty funny
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
theres no unused land in boonger land though because hey move around all the time

theyre nomads

how often did we round them up an d kill them anyway besides like tasmania

i dont think we should have killed them just set up an abo territory and moved them all there

tempt them with smock and grog to move
are you telling me that they've worked and lived on 100% of the land? just find some place where there is zero indication of prior use and tell them to fuck off and settle somewhere else

that is a satrical book written in like 1904 by (probably) an nz politician operating under a pseudonym

its pretty funny
what's it about
 

chewy123

OAM, FAICD, FAAS, MBBS
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
849
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
that won't "nullify" anything. obviously they wish to gain the moral high ground in order to pacify resistance both at home and in australia, but when they put it that way then there's no reason why they shouldn't be opposed. no country is dumb enough to adopt that line of reasoning.
It is certainly possible for them nullify the issue without seeking to be on a moral high ground. A good example is Nazi Germany's appeal to some form of social darwinism. But nonetheless I am unable to discern any coherence in your argument. Even if they had said outright 'we're both evil invaders', what is there to oppose? They've said nothing but the truth, albeit not well articulated.
an individual can condemn the invasion of a state by another all he wants but that won't achieve anything. All I'm saying is that not a single country have the moral high ground to critise another when it comes to violence and coercion.
You just directly contradicted yourself. The qualification you used in your previous post is that no country can have moral high ground if we are being pedantic, now you seem to accept that whether we're pedantic or not, there's still no possible moral high ground to stand on.

Taking your most recent assertion, one would have to conclude that there is no immorality in invasions (again contradicting your other posts). To paraphrase from your previous post, we've been conquering each other since the dawn of man, so all is well with the world?
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
It pains me to admit it, but Abbeyroad you're making an awful lot of sense in this thread.
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
are you telling me that they've worked and lived on 100% of the land? just find some place where there is zero indication of prior use and tell them to fuck off and settle somewhere else
problem: i dont want to live in close proximity to boongs

setting up in unsed territories would have meant we would have had less land (and less good, arable land) and boongs closer to home

not good

there were boongs in sydney harbour for instance

look at the beautiful city that we've created there

how could i trade that for anything in the world

i also happen to like the country of australia and what we ahve created here as it almost currently exists and wouldnt have wanted it to be much different from now

set up a bunch of abo territories in large unused and more isolated areas of australia (we have lots), move/encourage them to move , grab the good land and heavily restrict boonger migration from abo territories to the rest of oz

what's it about
might being right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_is_Right

(i meant 1890)
 
Last edited:

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It is certainly possible for them nullify the issue without seeking to be on a moral high ground. A good example is Nazi Germany's appeal to some form of social darwinism. But nonetheless I am unable to discern any coherence in your argument. Even if they had said outright 'we're both evil invaders', what is there to oppose? They've said nothing but the truth, albeit not well articulated.
jesus are you fucking dumb did the nazi's appeal to social darwinism "nullify" jewish resistance? did it "nullify" the french? the polish? the english? did it "nullify" the wrath of the allies? so how did the nazi's appeal to social darwnism "nullify" the issue of their invasions and massacres?

what is there to oppose? well what is there not to oppose? fucking hell do you need a reason to drink coke? is the only reason you don't break the law is because you'll get punished? what you think that people in australia would just throw down their arms and welcome their new overlord because "lulz we'er both evil lulz!11!!" you think that all the people in their country would accept that argument? "lulz yeah we're both evil so it'z total legit 4 us to invade dem k3kek333"!!

yes we're both evil, but what of that? why shouldn't we oppose you? why should we accept your dominion? "we're both evil lulzzz" does not answer the question.

You just directly contradicted yourself. The qualification you used in your previous post is that no country can have moral high ground if we are being pedantic, now you seem to accept that whether we're pedantic or not, there's still no possible moral high ground to stand on.
I think you need to look up the word "pedantic" pretty sure you'll find 'precise' 'academic' and 'focused' in the definition.

Taking your most recent assertion, one would have to conclude that there is no immorality in invasions (again contradicting your other posts). To paraphrase from your previous post, we've been conquering each other since the dawn of man, so all is well with the world?
yeah have I expressly stated that invading another country is moral? it takes a dumb fuck to conclude anything of the sort from my posts.

there's nothing moral about it, but there's nothing immoral about it either. only a subservient plebeian would cling to the traditional concept of good and evil.
 
Last edited:

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
problem: i dont want to live in close proximity to boongs

setting up in unsed territories would have meant we would have had less land (and less good, arable land) and boongs closer to home

not good

there were boongs in sydney harbour for instance

look at the beautiful city that we've created there

how could i trade that for anything in the world

i also happen to like the country of australia and what we ahve created here as it almost currently exists and wouldnt have wanted it to be much different from now

set up a bunch of abo territories in large unused and more isolated areas of australia (we have lots), move/encourage them to move , grab the good land and heavily restrict boonger migration from abo territories to the rest of oz
it's not about what you like or don't like. by kicking the abos off their homesteaded land and killing them by the dozens, australia lost all claims to the magical moral high horse.
lol
 

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
it's not about what you like or don't like.
actually it is

vae victis doctrine bitch

we conquered their land now it is ours

we made it into something great

why would anybody apologise for that

and giving them their own territory is an unprecented act of munificence rarely seen in any other time in the history of mankind

never let it be said that caesar was not generous
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top