If Uzbekistan invades Australia... (1 Viewer)

[swizzler]

 

[A_Machiavellian]

hey abbeyroad

Whites rocked up and took the land from a stone age peoples, gun powder > spears

no written language, no unified government, no wheel

Superior technology and society, they won and took what they wanted... get over it and stop being a troll

also nipples

 

[davidbarnesfan1]

glorious European civilization has been offered to them and yet they take comfort in the intoxicating fumes of petrol

 

[Funky Monk]

hey abbeyroad

Whites rocked up and took the land from a stone age peoples, gun powder > spears

no written language, no unified government, no wheel

Superior technology and society, they won and took what they wanted... get over it and stop being a troll

also nipples

stfu you reductive cunt

 

[Funky Monk]

If Uzbekistan invaded parts of Australia, and when they're asked to leave, they replied "you guys invaded the Aborigines, so suck it up". What would your response be?



One of the most common responses I hear re Israel's occupation of and settlement on Palestinian land is that 'the West did it to its indigenous', and I am at a lost word. Are we as a nation deprived of all moral standing when a nation invades another?

this retarded hypothetical is dependant upon a fallacious burden of guilt which those alive today do not bear.

dumb.

 

[Jimmy Recard]

worst hypothetical

 

[LonelyWolf]

hey abbeyroad

Whites rocked up and took the land from a stone age peoples, gun powder > spears

no written language, no unified government, no wheel

Superior technology and society, they won and took what they wanted... get over it and stop being a troll

also nipples

my point, abbey

 

[chewy123]

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?

You're answering a theoretical question with what you think would is the practical consequence. What I am asking is what would the jewish resistence be based on. Yes they did resist, but what is the theoretical basis? I put to you (without saying that it is either true or false) that when jewish resisted against the Nazis, they are being irrational. They won't accept that part of the reasons for their genocide is that they're not as strong their conquerer and that these sort of things happens all the time in history and they did the same thing to others in the past (e.g. Assyrians). Would Jewish resistent then be an ignorant thing to do? They're closing their eyes to the truth? Or are their some moral basis for their resistence?

fucking hell do you need a reason to drink coke?

Of course. I drink because it taste good. If it does no benefit to me whatsoever and I have no other reason to drink it, I will not drink it. The reasoning process may be subconsciously formed, but there is always reason - unless I am irrational. Are you irrational?

is the only reason you don't break the law is because you'll get punished?

That's one of the reasons, there are many. If there is no reason why I should obey a certain law, obvious I won't obey it, unless I am irrational. Do you usually do things for no reasons?

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"!!

I know we won't accept it - I am not asking what would the result be if we are invaded. I am asking why that result is the result.

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.

I know, I am asking you what answers the question? What is our moral basis for opposing? Because we feel like it?

I think you need to look up the word "pedantic" pretty sure you'll find 'precise' 'academic' and 'focused' in the definition.

No, you need to look it up. If you intended to use the word pedantic as a substitute for academic, you're totally wrong.

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.

You response to lonelywolf tells a different story.

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.

Hmm...so if a group of invaders came to Australia and slaughter us all, you think there's nothing immoral about it?

 

[Funky Monk]

my point, abbey

that is a lazy summary of history, not a point or a justification.

moron.

 

[abbeyroad]

You're answering a theoretical question with what you think would is the practical consequence. What I am asking is what would the jewish resistence be based on. Yes they did resist, but what is the theoretical basis? I put to you (without saying that it is either true or false) that when jewish resisted against the Nazis, they are being irrational. They won't accept that part of the reasons for their genocide is that they're not as strong their conquerer and that these sort of things happens all the time in history and they did the same thing to others in the past (e.g. Assyrians). Would Jewish resistent then be an ignorant thing to do? They're closing their eyes to the truth? Or are their some moral basis for their resistence?

Some might acted out of the religious belief that they are god's chosen people and hence their demise can only determined by god. Some of them might simply have acted out of defiance, or even a belief in liberty. I am not god nor the jewish people who opposed the nazis so how the fuck am I suppose to know what really motivated them? All inquiries concerning their motivations are mere speculations, we can only know what those motivations really were by asking those who had survived. Without doing so, all that can be said empirically is that between genocide and resistence, they chose the latter. They resisted because they chose to, which I know is a tautology.

suppose that someone were trying to murder you, would you resist? according to your own assertions, you're acting irrationally if you do. you won't accept that part of the reasons for your murder is that you're not as strong as your murderer and that these sort of things happens all the time and you did the same thing to others in the past(eg that kid you pushed around back in primary) Fighting back is really an ignorant thing to do! You're closing your eyes to the truth!!!! there's no moral basis for your resistance therefore if someone's trying to kill you, let him!!!! if someone's trying to take your stuff by force, let him!!!! Resistance is futile!!11!

Of course. I drink because it taste good. If it does no benefit to me whatsoever and I have no other reason to drink it, I will not drink it. The reasoning process may be subconsciously formed, but there is always reason - unless I am irrational. Are you irrational?

There is no "reason". you're merely rationalizing your desires and inclinations. In saying that you drink coke because it tastes good, what you're really saying is that a. its taste is agreeable and b. I want that which is agreeable in taste. All that is just a timid way of saying 'I drink coke because I want to'. Yet the more refined and eloquent reasoner would proudly pronounce that "I drink because I choose to" - as if we have a choice in the matter!

That's one of the reasons, there are many. If there is no reason why I should obey a certain law, obvious I won't obey it, unless I am irrational. Do you usually do things for no reasons?

Just as there are many "reasons" why you would follow the law, there are just as many reasons why one would choose to oppose a foreign invader. Do you usually do things for no reasons?

I know we won't accept it - I am not asking what would the result be if we are invaded. I am asking why that result is the result.

oh yes, more whys. once again, why do you drink coke, and not pepsi? why do you favor certain food over others? why do you follow certain laws, and not others? why, so many whys, but where are the answers?

I know, I am asking you what answers the question? What is our moral basis for opposing? Because we feel like it?

what is the moral basis for opposing? what a strange question. what is the moral basis for coke drinking? what is the moral basis for chocolate eating?

No, you need to look it up. If you intended to use the word pedantic as a substitute for academic, you're totally wrong.

pedantic
–adjective
1.ostentatious in one's learning.
2.overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

pedantic
-Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules

Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.


'academic' 'narrow' 'precise'
yes totally wrong indeed.

You response to lonelywolf tells a different story.

o rly? let's see

hey, they needed somewhere to place the convicts n other cunts. obviously today doing such a thing is highly condemned, but given the time period and circumstances surrounding the event - i don't see anything wrong with what they did. where's your theory on Australia's moral standing when a nation invades another?

calm down brah

hahahahahaahahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me? lulz context111!! letz look at itz!!!11!! iz ok for da robber to rub hiz victim cuz he'z nut as strong as he is!!11! context!11! on da other hand itz nut ok 4 him 2 rob sum1 whoz just az strong bcuz context!11!!!

to say that it's ok to murder a bunch of people and take their homesteaded land in one instance and not another because the context is different is fucking circular reasoning. yeah the context is different but how does that make it ok you still haven't proven it you fucking idiot

yes you're sure dem dirty abos did provoke da auzzie true blue settlers becuz u were there and for the past few hundred years you've been living near da billabong telling evrybod u come across how u were there!!11!!!

yesssss he was totally asserting that what the settlers did was absolutely immoral and I was trying to prove him wrong by showing how it was really moral!!!!! it does tell a different story indeed!!!!

Hmm...so if a group of invaders came to Australia and slaughter us all, you think there's nothing immoral about it?

you're not reading what I wrote. For the last time, there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about invading another country. It's easy to see why, just reread the beginning of this post and consider the two different circumstances in which one country invades another.

 

[Jimmy Recard]

worst thread ever

 

[RANK 1]

ill just leave this here