Christianity

[Harry Baird]

..*nonsense*...

I must apologise for my terrible language last night Harry.

Atto=instant arsehole (just add alcohol and talk nonsense to him)

Apology accepted, although I wouldn't have required and didn't expect one. It's generous of you to provide it.

I have to clarify a little, because I misspoke when I wrote, in the post in which you've quoted me above as talking "*nonsense*", that: "[Skin colour] seems to be the basis upon which the colonising Europeans mistreated indigenous Australians. Etc etc."

That's of course so much of an over-simplification as to be mistaken, so I get why you objected to it so strongly.

The reality of course is that the basis upon which the colonising Europeans mistreated indigenous Australians is that the indigenous folk had land which the Europeans wanted, and lived according to a different culture. Skin colour was (and continues to be - just ask Andrew Bolt) simply one way in which those indigenous folk were identified for special treatment: being herded off their land and onto missions; being subjected via legislation to "protection" acts; being identified in the Constitution as flora and fauna rather than as human beings; etc etc.

It's not racist itself to recognise the racism to which these "others" were subject, who in part (but of course not in whole) were, and continue to be, identified by their skin colour.

Of course, you and VT are right that one group of people can mistreat another group of people even if they do have the same skin colour.

I don't think, though, that it can be denied that skin colour becomes for certain folk with negative views of certain other folk the primary means of identifying those other folk who are the target of their negative views. Take the KKK, for example. Without skin colour, how would they know who to target?

Or do you deny this?

[iambiguous]

Please explain wherein lies the irony.

Well, from my point of view, few are as fierce as you are in mocking those who dare not to share your own moral and political prejudices. You embody the woke mentality in post after post. So, you go after only those you insist need to wake up. And to be wide-awake for those of your ilk is to think about this or that issue as you do.

Or, rather, so it seems to those of my ilk.

And that strikes me as ironic. This, and hypocritical too.

Nothing to do with 'morality'. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Oooh. Is that a 'wokie' expression? What a fucking idiot you are.

Okay, so back to this then:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean/lorikeetian caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that she needs to make scapegoats of those she construes to be part of whatever she is outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn't that be far more fascinating to explore?

Unless, of course, it's a "condition".

[Harry Baird]

That doesn't answer my question, and, moreover it assumes not only that land theft after land theft after land theft - into the indeterminate past - on all lands is the reality, but also that land theft is thereby justified. It isn't.

So, I ask you again: why do you preference the view of the thief over that of the thieved-from in determining the "unrevised" history of land theft?

In order to examine the issue and the problem that, according to my determination, has you in its grip, I have to try to explain where it originates.

Let's, then, bracket the question for now until you - finally, after great lengths - return to it.

The catch-all term is 'the Woke' is it not?

I don't self-identify as "woke". The term has connotations of some sort of enlightenment. I wouldn't presume to declare myself enlightened, and nor do I share every belief of those who are typically labelled with the term, but if you consider me to be enlightened, then please feel free to continue to honour me as such.

But then I have to state, as a sort of preamble, that I do not, and cannot, subscribe to the ethical system that informs you.

Let's, then, explore more explicitly and carefully exactly what you're rejecting and why. Here's a direct question to start with:

Do you recognise the basic principles that (1) it is wrong (tautologically; by definition) to steal property, and that (2) property that is anyway stolen should, where possible, be returned to its rightful owner(s)?

If not, why not, and under what circumstances, according to what principles of exception?

And with that I have to them sharpen my statement, the one that is forming, into something more solid, more concrete: this sort of thinking is bad thinking.

You are probably aware that the basis of my position is largely encapsulated in the two principles on which I questioned you above. It seems like very reasonable thinking to me. What, in your view, makes it bad?

If I were to adopt it I feel I would be taking on a sickness.

Is it sick to think that property shouldn't be stolen, and that, when it is anyway, it should be returned?

It seems sick to me to think otherwise.

Yet according to your views, if they were non-contradictory, you should rally to the defense of those who say they are being 'displaced' and 'replaced'.

Those people are themselves displacing the original inhabitants of the land. That has to be the primary consideration. I don't see how it couldn't be.

'war against whiteness' [...] 'replacement theory'

These deserve their own light-hearted mockery, but I don't have the patience for it at the moment. Maybe in a later post.

You become walking self-negation.

Advocating for what you believe in is empowering, not self-negating.

Your central activity must be in *righting the wrong* but in fact this is quite impossible.

If it is impossible, then we fight for the best that we can achieve, even if we can't achieve the ideal - negotiations have to begin from the strongest demand.

It does not matter what the indigenous decide or do not decide. You have the moral responsibility to, allow me to put it plainly, annihilate yourself.

This is where you become a little unhinged, losing touch with reality.

There is nothing - literally nothing - in my political views that entails or even suggests at any need for me to commit suicide. Perhaps you have overdosed on that delightful mushrooms-n-meth combo?

My position is consistent in its recognition of self-determination: that the legitimate sovereigns of this land have the right to decide its future - and thus that I should not presume the nature of that decision in advance. It is realistic in that even if I, personally, were to leave this country - and even if I convinced others to join me - nothing much would change, and, thus, a realistic solution requires agreement and recognition at a collective (political) level.

Granted, I allowed for the possibility that the collective agreement might involve depopulation (via emigration, birth control, or some other reasonable means - *not*, I think I need to emphasis, by any *lethal* means) of non-indigenous people. That was largely for consistency. I don't actually expect that it would be part of a realistic agreement. As I wrote though: I would respect it if it was to be.

Harry wrote: So, I ask you again: why do you preference the view of the thief over that of the thieved-from in determining the "unrevised" history of land theft?

In respect to, let's say, the establishment of South Africa (a convoluted history involving also war between two European peoples), my answer is I absolutely *support* (to use that tacky word) the establishment of the European colony in that area of southern Africa.

Here's how that looks from my perspective: you like what the thieves did with the stolen property, so you don't care that stealing is wrong.

In many instances their occupation involved displacement (of the Zulus for example) not annihilation.

This is just a euphemistic way of acknowledging that land was stolen from the Zulus.

How then does my attitude differ from yours? How is it that I can take the attitude that I do which, according to you, involves an immoral stance and position? That is the question, isn't it? Well the answer is that I have to *overcome* everything in your view that is inhibitive and self-destructive.

You seem to be saying here that your attitude differs from mine in that mine is inhibitive and self-destructive, and yours is not, or at least that you are developing it so as not to be (in more or less explicit reaction to mine).

Obviously, I don't see my view as inhibitive and self-destructive. I don't see how righting wrongs could meaningfully be described in that way. Your answer, then, makes little sense to me.

[Harry Baird]

Consider this . . .

I'm curious to know what conclusions and assessments you think we should draw after considering that video (which I have just watched). In other words, what contribution do you think it makes to the ongoing conversation in this thread?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Consider this . . .

I'm curious to know what conclusions and assessments you think we should draw after considering that video (which I have just watched). In other words, what contribution do you think it makes to the ongoing conversation in this thread?

Perhaps that you should return there and leave Australia to the indigenous people? I don't think SA has compulsory military service any more so you should be good to go. Get paddling...

[Harry Baird]

Whereas, in a No God world, I argue that individual moral convictions are rooted existentially -- subjectively -- in dasein.

I don't consider the existence of God to be relevant in this area except to the extent that God conceivably has designed reality in such a way that certain behaviours lead to well-being more than others, which is a moral issue.

Oh. Well, then, I still don't particularly understand what you mean by "dasein". If you could provide a succinct definitional statement such as mine which you've quoted above, that might help me to better get it.

Once again:

I encompassed what I mean by dasein in the OPs of these two threads in particular:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

You will either be willing to read them, to ponder them...

Yeah, I was willing, and I'd already done that. That's how I came up with my proposed succinct definitional statement of "dasein-according-to-iambiguous": by reading the OPs of the threads to which you'd directed me, contemplating them, and then trying to summarise them.

It seems that you think that my summary fails. OK. Redirecting me to content that I've already considered isn't of much use though.

Surely, where I have failed, you can succeed. That's why I asked you to provide me with your own succinct definitional statement of dasein given that you're best placed to do so.

[Harry Baird]

Consider this . . .

I'm curious to know what conclusions and assessments you think we should draw after considering that video (which I have just watched). In other words, what contribution do you think it makes to the ongoing conversation in this thread?

Perhaps that you should return there and leave Australia to the indigenous people?

Come now, VT, let's allow AJ to speak for himself. Maybe you should return to your lair, rest your fearsome scales upon your golden treasure, and leave this forum to its indigenous occupants?

[attofishpi]

..*nonsense*...

I must apologise for my terrible language last night Harry.

Atto=instant arsehole (just add alcohol and talk nonsense to him)

Apology accepted, although I wouldn't have required and didn't expect one. It's generous of you to provide it.

I have to clarify a little, because I misspoke when I wrote, in the post in which you've quoted me above as talking "*nonsense*", that: "[Skin colour] seems to be the basis upon which the colonising Europeans mistreated indigenous Australians. Etc etc."

That's of course so much of an over-simplification as to be mistaken, so I get why you objected to it so strongly.

The reality of course is that the basis upon which the colonising Europeans mistreated indigenous Australians is that the indigenous folk had land which the Europeans wanted, and lived according to a different culture. Skin colour was (and continues to be - just ask Andrew Bolt) simply one way in which those indigenous folk were identified for special treatment: being herded off their land and onto missions; being subjected via legislation to "protection" acts; being identified in the Constitution as flora and fauna rather than as human beings; etc etc.

It's not racist itself to recognise the racism to which these "others" were subject, who in part (but of course not in whole) were, and continue to be, identified by their skin colour.

Of course, you and VT are right that one group of people can mistreat another group of people even if they do have the same skin colour.

I don't think, though, that it can be denied that skin colour becomes for certain folk with negative views of certain other folk the primary means of identifying those other folk who are the target of their negative views. Take the KKK, for example. Without skin colour, how would they know who to target?

Two words, BIG NOSES. (I don't think they like Jews either, so I gotta be careful in KKK territory courtesy of my enormous gonk)


I pinched the below from your conversation with AJ:-

Do you recognise the basic principles that (1) it is wrong (tautologically; by definition) to steal property, and that (2) property that is anyway stolen should, where possible, be returned to its rightful owner(s)?

Is this what you think about Australia and its land?

[Harry Baird]

Two words, BIG NOSES.

Oh, right - that's a much better basis on which to discriminate against people than skin colour. I'm glad we cleared that up.

I pinched the below from your conversation with AJ:-

Do you recognise the basic principles that (1) it is wrong (tautologically; by definition) to steal property, and that (2) property that is anyway stolen should, where possible, be returned to its rightful owner(s)?

Is this what you think about Australia and its land?

Yes.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't think, though, that it can be denied that skin colour becomes for certain folk with negative views of certain other folk the primary means of identifying those other folk who are the target of their negative views. Take the KKK, for example. Without skin colour, how would they know who to target?

Or do you deny this?

The KKK hate eveyone who isn't from their own very specific group (bible belt white kristian trailer trash).

''The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[c] commonly shortened to the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist, right-wing terrorist, and hate group whose primary targets are African Americans, Jews, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans,[39] and Catholics, as well as immigrants, leftists, homosexuals,[40][41] Muslims,[42] abortion providers[43][44] and atheists''.

Anyone left out?

[Harry Baird]

I was talking to one old white South African immigrant from a neighbouring property who kept referring to 'bleck' people as 'gorillas'.

But nope, skin colour has nothing to do with racism.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I was talking to one old white South African immigrant from a neighbouring property who kept referring to 'bleck' people as 'gorillas'.

But nope, skin colour has nothing to do with racism.

Who said it never does?

[Harry Baird]

I was talking to one old white South African immigrant from a neighbouring property who kept referring to 'bleck' people as 'gorillas'.

But nope, skin colour has nothing to do with racism.

Who said it never does?

That's so disingenuous, because it's clearly the import of your previous post. If that's not what you were implying, then what was the point of your post?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But nope, skin colour has nothing to do with racism.

Who said it never does?

That's so disingenuous, because it's clearly the import of your previous post. If that's not what you were implying, then what was the point of your post?

I knew you would use the 'I' word I never 'imply'. Why would I bother? My 'point' was exactly what I posted. Idiot.

[Harry Baird]

I never 'imply'.

Oh, right. You quote words of mine in your response but of course you don't mean to imply anything by that.

I wrote:

"I don't think, though, that it can be denied that skin colour becomes for certain folk with negative views of certain other folk the primary means of identifying those other folk who are the target of their negative views."

I provided the KKK as an example when it comes to "bleck" folk.

You quoted all of this, claiming implicitly that the KKK have other criteria than skin colour, but now you disclaim that you were attempting to refute my primary claim.

Try that on with a noob, dude.

I provided a counter-example based on your own words. Deal with it or return to your dark and fiery chamber of golden treasures.