Posted on 04/12/2014 9:30:55 PM PDT by Rashputin
Nothing's changed.
Did America unlawfully seize land from the Indians or not?
The only possible answer to the question is Yes.
Following your logic, they would be justified in slaughtering Americans in order to reclaim their land.
That you can’t follow your own logic offers a crystal-clear repudiation of your own thought process. Logic and reasoning are not things that vary by situation.
I have enjoyed playing with you, much like a cat with a rodent. Thank you for that.
I never said they were condoned by the Vatican. I said that the Crusades resulted in the slaughter of Jews and had a direct effect on growing anti-Semitism.
No ... you didn’t. I did. To which you responded ...
“Did the Crusades result in countless attacks and murders of Jews?
Tell me no, and I am forced to choose between you don’t know the facts or you are a liar.”
“Did America unlawfully seize land from the Indians or not?”
Yes.
“The only possible answer to the question is Yes.”
And?
“Following your logic, they would be justified in slaughtering Americans in order to reclaim their land.”
False. 1) They all agreed to recognize the seizures after the fact in various treaties. Thus, they have no claim. 2) The re-taking of land from Muslim invaders was justified not only because Christians never recognized the seizures by treaty but also because the Muslim invaders - by their own ;aw - mistreated Christians and denied them rights which it was immoral to deny. American Indians were made U.S. citizens in the 1920s by law and are not denied any of the basic human rights.
“That you can’t follow your own logic offers a crystal-clear repudiation of your own thought process.”
Actually I have no problem whatsoever following my own logic in all cases. The problem is not my logic but your apparent poor grasp of history or its details.
“Logic and reasoning are not things that vary by situation.”
No, and mine has not either. The problem is that you are not making proper distinctions. After all, by your own logic you have participated in theft after the fact. When will you turn yourself into the local Indian tribunal for judgment? Or will you just be a hypocrite?
“I have enjoyed playing with you, much like a cat with a rodent. Thank you for that.”
In this case, I am the cat. You really seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/indian-treaties
So treaties forced upon a country being exterminated are righteous? Interesting viewpoint.
Even under logic as stupid as that, America still managed to violate these treaties.
Your assertion is merely that might makes right. Kind of what America fought against at its inception.
“So treaties forced upon a country being exterminated are righteous?”
No, and I never said that, but a treaty is a treaty.
“Interesting viewpoint.”
Interesting or not it is correct.
“Even under logic as stupid as that, America still managed to violate these treaties.”
At times it did, but all of that became essentially null and void with the tacit agreement of all the parties involved. That wasn’t the situation in 1095.
“Your assertion is merely that might makes right.”
Again, no. It is just the opposite. Muslims were the “might”. They were not right.
“Kind of what America fought against at its inception.”
And there you go contradicting yourself. What is worse is that you accuse me of what you yourself are now saying is right. I have been logically consistent throughout and will continue to be. You apparently have have no logical center.
Logically consistent?
First you tell us that the Crusades were fine because no treaties were broken..
When I point out that America broke treaties with the Indians, it’s okay.
Very logically consistent.
There is either an adherence to law or there isn’t. You take both sides of the argument and argue that both are correct. It all depends on your view on the combatants.
“Logically consistent?”
“First you tell us that the Crusades were fine because no treaties were broken..”
That’s not what I said. I showed that your comparison of the Christians’ response to Islamic conquest was different than your hypothetical about American Indians being morally justified to commit acts of terrorism. Apparently you can’t even get straight what was discussed and how - even regarding your own claims.
“When I point out that America broke treaties with the Indians, it’s okay.”
No, it isn’t okay. And I never said it was. Once again we see you can’t even get right what was said.
“Very logically consistent.”
Always. You’re actually attacking things I’ve never even said. You can’t even seem to notice the hypocrisy of attacking me for supposedly not being logically consistent all the while you attack things I’ve never even said.
“There is either an adherence to law or there isn’t.”
Incredible. What law among Christian states in the Middle Ages recognized Islamic conquest as morally justified and legally binding on the consciences and actions of Christians (while it is still going on no less!)? None. None at all. This is a clear example of how you seemingly have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“You take both sides of the argument and argue that both are correct.”
That’s completely false. I have done no such thing. What I do is make proper distinctions. You make none.
“It all depends on your view on the combatants.”
No. It all depends on having a clue - and you’ve shown you don’t have one.
You are now denying that you wrote in this thread that America not honoring their treaties with the Indians was no big deal?
Re-read what you wrote.
“You are now denying that you wrote in this thread that America not honoring their treaties with the Indians was no big deal?”
I never said it was no big deal. There you go again saying I said something I never said. Why don’t you actually deal with what is posted rather than making things up that no one has posted?
I posted, for instance, the following:
“False. 1) They all agreed to recognize the seizures after the fact in various treaties. Thus, they have no claim.”
Notice that in no way is anything like the claim you made about what I posted.
And when you inferred or implied I said this: “So treaties forced upon a country being exterminated are righteous?” I responded with:
“No, and I never said that, but a treaty is a treaty.”
Do you see that? So, I wrote that “a treaty is a treaty” and yet here you are saying I said, “You are now denying that you wrote in this thread that America not honoring their treaties with the Indians was no big deal?” You’re making things up out of thin air and that is not an intellectually honest way to do this.
“Re-read what you wrote.”
No, you re-read it. All you’ll see is that I said the treaties are essentially null and void (”At times it did, but all of that became essentially null and void with the tacit agreement of all the parties involved. That wasn’t the situation in 1095.”) That is not the law, but this is the effect ultimately.
I’m going to go ahead and assume - until shown otherwise - that you’ll just make up more things I never, ever said.
You have made yourself crystal-clear now.
The Crusades were justified to reclaim land, but if a country tells another they will be exterminated unless they agree to sign a treaty, the signing of that treaty is legal.
Imagine if that logic was applied to all legal proceedings.
A man rapes a woman but afterwards gets her to sign a legal document saying that she cannot prosecute him while holding a gun to her head. Hey, it would be a legal document. Of course it would not hold up in court, but if a country does it, it must be honored.
Why should something be sacred if it potentially hurts millions but be a useless piece of paper if it affects one person?
A treaty signed under duress should be treated the same as anything signed under duress.
You have made yourself crystal-clear now.
The Crusades were justified to reclaim land, but if a country tells another they will be exterminated unless they agree to sign a treaty, the signing of that treaty is legal.
Imagine if that logic was applied to all legal proceedings.
A man rapes a woman but afterwards gets her to sign a legal document saying that she cannot prosecute him while holding a gun to her head. Hey, it would be a legal document. Of course it would not hold up in court, but if a country does it, it must be honored.
Why should something be sacred if it potentially hurts millions but be a useless piece of paper if it affects one person?
A treaty signed under duress should be treated the same as anything signed under duress.
Then there is my original point that the Crusades resulted at least indirectly in the murder of millions of Jews and yet it is to be viewed as a good thing.
“You have made yourself crystal-clear now.”
It have always been crystal clear.
“The Crusades were justified to reclaim land, but if a country tells another they will be exterminated unless they agree to sign a treaty, the signing of that treaty is legal.”
The crusades were justified because Muslim conquest of peaceful Christians was not justified.
“Imagine if that logic was applied to all legal proceedings.”
It is - but only as I have said it and not as you consistently caricature it.
“A man rapes a woman but afterwards gets her to sign a legal document saying that she cannot prosecute him while holding a gun to her head. Hey, it would be a legal document. Of course it would not hold up in court, but if a country does it, it must be honored.”
And you’re wrong as always - and hypocritical. Do you live in the U.S.? How can you stand knowing you live on “stolen” land?
“Why should something be sacred if it potentially hurts millions but be a useless piece of paper if it affects one person?”
Why should you ask questions that don’t even make sense?
“A treaty signed under duress should be treated the same as anything signed under duress.”
Okay, so did the Germans and Japanese sign treaties under duress to end World War II or in complete freedom? Do you even think about what you post before you post it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.