Why does US, Canada, and Mexico own North America?

[kumquatq3]

I am free to express my self in as long as I do not directly insult anyone.

 

There is certainly no need for your agitation / implied inferiority just google the Latin phrase if you can't understand it.

 

O the irony

 

via ironia

 

Guess what! My high school offered Latin too!

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Cyric]

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm. You do know of the defeat of Prussia in WW1 and subsequent exacting measures taken against them by their subjugators?

 

Well this was one of many pretexts for the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich.

[kumquatq3]

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm. You do know of the defeat of Prussia in WW1 and subsequent exacting measures taken against them by their subjugators?

 

Well this was one of many pretexts for the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not my question, you stated an absolute here:

 

will always seek to rectify the weaknesses of their ancestors.

 

The context you gave was in a war-like fashion

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Azarkon]

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

 

The Allies certainly thought so; that's why they demilitarized Germany and outlawed any hints of Nazism. But compared to most other nations of the world, Germany didn't have it all that bad. The Allies did rebuild the country and integrated it within the larger world economy, thus addressing one of the major grievances of a defeated nation. If every developing nation could have it as good as Germany from the West, I doubt there'd be any terrorists looking to bring down tall buildings.

[kumquatq3]

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

 

The Allies certainly thought so; that's why they demilitarized Germany and outlawed any hints of Nazism. But compared to most other nations of the world, Germany didn't have it all that bad. The Allies did rebuild the country and integrated it within the larger world economy, thus addressing one of the major grievances of a defeated nation. If every developing nation could have it as good as Germany from the West, I doubt there'd be any terrorists looking to bring down tall buildings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, not my question

 

 

EDIT:

 

Do I have to ask it in Latin?

 

Sorry had too!

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[alanschu]

This debate kind of reminds me of the time someone called Ozzy Osbourne a hypocrite when they heard him talking about how you shouldn't do drugs, because he took lots of drugs himself back in the day. Though at the same time, I would think that if anyone were a qualified person to tell me about the bad effects of drugs, it'd be him!

 

 

Is it not possible for people to learn from the mistakes of the past? No doubt we'll have to bash Italy, because the Roman Empire did lots of bad stuff. Might as well toss in most of Europe actually, with all the imperialism going on not too long ago.

 

As a final question, did the native tribes themselves not war with each other over land?

[kumquatq3]

As a final question, did the native tribes themselves not war with each other over land?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do not talk about the morally pure Indians like that.

[Azarkon]

This debate kind of reminds me of the time someone called Ozzy Osbourne a hypocrite when they heard him talking about how you shouldn't do drugs, because he took lots of drugs himself back in the day.

 

Not the same situation. Now, if Ozzy Osbourne got wads of cash selling drugs back in the day, and that got him to where he is today - and then he told other would-be drug dealers they shouldn't sell drugs, that'd be a closer analogy.

[alanschu]

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm. You do know of the defeat of Prussia in WW1 and subsequent exacting measures taken against them by their subjugators?

 

Well this was one of many pretexts for the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Prussia did not exist in WW1, and hence could not have been defeated. Prussia, along with many other states that made up parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Prussia ceased to exist in 1871, after the end of the Franco-Prussian war.

Edited December 5, 2006 by alanschu

[alanschu]

This debate kind of reminds me of the time someone called Ozzy Osbourne a hypocrite when they heard him talking about how you shouldn't do drugs, because he took lots of drugs himself back in the day.

 

Not the same situation. Now, if Ozzy Osbourne got wads of cash selling drugs back in the day, and that got him to where he is today - and then he told other would-be drug dealers they shouldn't sell drugs, that'd be a closer analogy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So the fact that Ozzy Osbourne may have actually learned that what he was doing was actually bad is moot?

 

 

Also, didn't native tribes wage war against each other for land?

[Cyric]

Not my question, you stated an absolute here:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I answered your question directly. Saying otherwise is just theatrics on your part.

 

As to the pretext for the reasons for the rise and subsequent actions of the Third Reich, history bears witness to this. It is a well documented fact. There is no need for me to hide behind

[kumquatq3]

Not my question, you stated an absolute here:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I answered your question directly. Saying otherwise is just theatrics on your part.

 

I asked about Post WW2

 

You told me about post WW1

 

 

If you can't answer it, just say so

 

 

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmm. You do know of the defeat of Prussia in WW1 and subsequent exacting measures taken against them by their subjugators?

 

Well this was one of many pretexts for the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited December 5, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Cyric]

Prussia did not exist in WW1, and hence could not have been defeated.  Prussia, along with many other states that made up parts of the Holy Roman Empire.  Prussia ceased to exist in 1871, after the end of the Franco-Prussian war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The term "Prussia" was still used to designate the political region of that time.

[Azarkon]

So the fact that Ozzy Osbourne may have actually learned that what he was doing was actually bad is moot?

 

"Yeah, drug-dealing was wrong... But I sure as hell ain't gonna relinquish the millions I've made from it!"

 

Remorse is obviously not moot, but it has to be demonstrated, not merely paid lip-service to.

[kumquatq3]

Can someone answer this one in the context of our debate?

 

 

alanschu

Also, didn't native tribes wage war against each other for land?

[Pop]

For the sake of argument, whose says a moral system needs to "satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered" to be moral as morality is subjective? It's a circular argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If morality is subjective then it doesn't matter, as you're essentially defining the question away - "it's all a matter of perspective."

 

But that's unacceptable. Moral relativism leads to dead-end arguments like "it's just as valid to kill a person as it is to hug him." For a moral system to be legitimate, it must claim to be - at least for the most part - objective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Claim to be? I claim to have a Lotus in my driveway, that doesn't make it so.

 

Neither does declaring something unacceptable make it untrue.

 

 

The only way for morality to have a base is for it to be agreed apon by a group with the ability to enforce it. It's still subjective, however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are plenty of reasons why relativism doesn't work even as a theory, though. The primary reason being that it contradicts itself. "There is no absolute truth to ethics" is itself an absolute statement. In effect, it's saying "there is absolutely no absolute". That's like saying "this statement is false".

 

On a deeper level, though, normative relativism preaches tolerance for other ethical points of view, but it contradicts itself further in that it preaches tolerance for intolerant practices, so long as those intolerant practices are accepted by a society.

 

Of course it is difficult to create an ethic that applies to all people (I don't have one), but it doesn't necessarily follow that an account that could can't exist.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Pop

[kumquatq3]

There are plenty of reasons why relativism doesn't work even as a theory, though. The primary reason being that it contradicts itself. "There is no absolute truth to ethics" is itself an absolute statement. In effect, it's saying "there is absolutely no absolute". That's like saying "this statement is false".

 

I sorry, honestly, you lost me here. Can you break down that argument? Not kidding. I'm just missing it.

[kumquatq3]

Well, I've waited awhile and no one seems to be able to answer those two outstanding question, but it's sleepy time.

 

I'm sure answers will be magically forthcoming once I leave.

[Pop]

There are plenty of reasons why relativism doesn't work even as a theory, though. The primary reason being that it contradicts itself. "There is no absolute truth to ethics" is itself an absolute statement. In effect, it's saying "there is absolutely no absolute". That's like saying "this statement is false".

 

I sorry, honestly, you lost me here. Can you break down that argument? Not kidding. I'm just missing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, "there is no absolute truth to ethics" is an ethical statement (we are describing ethics) and thus we can rephrase that statement accurately as "the absolute truth about ethics is that there is no absolute truth to ethics". We are, in effect, saying that something is both true and false at the same time. How can it be absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true? It's like saying the truth is false. The truth can't be false, it's true. It's a contradiction.

 

That doesn't strike you as a bit odd?

Edited December 5, 2006 by Pop

[Gorth]

You know what, it's agree to disagree time, except to say that "history" does not "define that people and their identity". Their actions do. I suppose the break is right there.

 

 

That is a contradiction in terms. History is essentially the catalogue of actions perpetuated by individuals / groups of individuals/ nations in the past.

 

In the past, correct. I was pointing out that the statement could not be correct and as far as I can tell, you seem to agree.

 

While history may influence the present, it does not do so nearly to the point of eliminating free will.

 

By this I essentially mean the descendants of a people who in the past have been conquered, will always seek to rectify the weaknesses of their ancestors.

 

Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

Why not? Grudges can last a very long time. You only need to look at Greek/Turkish relations, the former Yugoslav states, Chechnia, Armenia, Kurdistan, Hans Island, You name it.

 

Grudges can last several generations without breaking a sweat. Don't be surprised if a newly militarised Germany becomes way more bellingerent (Sp?) against Russia over things like Koeningsberg/Kaliningrad etc.

 

Seriously, people are still filing lawsuits against the german state demanding recompensation for wrongdoings almost two generations ago. Some day they might just be fed up with that image and start flexing their muscles a bit. Stranger things has happened.

[Checkpoint]

Prussia did not exist in WW1, and hence could not have been defeated.  Prussia, along with many other states that made up parts of the Holy Roman Empire.  Prussia ceased to exist in 1871, after the end of the Franco-Prussian war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The term "Prussia" was still used to designate the political region of that time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Germany lost the war, not Prussia. I'm not too up-to-date on how the Germans name(d) their regions, but the territory of Prussia varied quite a bit and mostly grew larger. Prussia included regions such as Brandenburg, K

[metadigital]

For the sake of argument, whose says a moral system needs to "satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered" to be moral as morality is subjective? It's a circular argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If morality is subjective then it doesn't matter, as you're essentially defining the question away - "it's all a matter of perspective."

 

But that's unacceptable. Moral relativism leads to dead-end arguments like "it's just as valid to kill a person as it is to hug him." For a moral system to be legitimate, it must claim to be - at least for the most part - objective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a point (following up what alanschu touched on, previously) and not specifically in response to the above comment and more general in scope; despite all the personification of nations and giving them moods and feelings (which may or may not be a useful and accurate model) and liberal hand-wringing posturing, there is (at least) one elephant in the room. Even if we agree (for argument's sake) that the USA, say, is hypocritical in trying to implement "moral" standards in the current worldview (zeitgeist?), then I put it to you that perhaps the End Justifies The Means

[Gromnir]

Can someone answer this one in the context of our debate?

 

 

alanschu

Also, didn't native tribes wage war against each other for land?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

already did so. already has been stated that Gromnir's peoples would have gladly committed genocide on Crow if we could have managed it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

Can someone answer this one in the context of our debate?

 

 

alanschu

Also, didn't native tribes wage war against each other for land?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

People do seem to be avoiding this. I think it's rather important since we're tossing around the hypocrisy label.

 

 

 

Remorse is obviously not moot, but it has to be demonstrated, not merely paid lip-service to.

 

I disagree. Forcing someone to give up the millions still doesn't make the situation any better. All it really demonstrates is some macabre desire making sure people get their due. In the lawsuit happy continent we live on, it's no surprise that people are looking for the quick fix when it comes to demanding financial compensation for past transgressions.

 

 

 

As a funny anecdote, I remember a great episode of John Szafron Versus God where he put peoples ideals where their mouth is. He got some Australian aboriginals to dress up in traditional garb complete with face paint, and went to one of the houses marked with the sign "We recognize that this house is built on aboriginal land." So the aborginals and John knocked on their door, and stated that they were claiming the house since it's on their land. Needless to say the owners of the house were quite surprised. Though they did invite them in for some tea! It was pretty damn funny.

[Atreides]

Lol yeah, I watched that one.