[Decky]

I find it interesting that people tend to ignore the continuing break up of families in order to focus on the relatively small and unimportant aspect of military efforts during the era of settlement.

You are the one who started that argument and kept it going, it was you who took this whole thread off topic in the first place.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are the one who started that argument and kept it going, it was you who took this whole thread off topic in the first place.

Sure.

It wasn't Rejn who first brought up Right of conquest.

And colliric didn't also start discussing it with me.

And Fasces didn't argue that might makes right, thus Australia belongs to settlers because they conquered it.

And it was not you who brought it up yet again an hour and a half after I stopped arguing the point.

Instead, I somehow managed to subtly influence these four people into bringing up the subject. With my magical powers, no doubt.

------------------------------

Back to the subject, this article was linked to on the first page about Aboriginal crime:

http://news.yahoo.com/australia-confron ... 12521.html

I will quote part of the text:

The 346-page parliamentary report by a committee of seven government and opposition lawmakers specializing in indigenous issues makes 40 recommendations to attack underlying causes for young Aborigines getting in trouble with police such as high unemployment, low education and alcoholism.

It found that alcohol set many Aborigines on a course toward prison even before they were born — one in 40 Aborigines is estimated to suffer from brain damage, known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as a result of their mothers drinking alcohol while pregnant, it said.

Such children have difficulty concentrating and are prone to behavioral problems. Most teenagers who suffer the disorder get in trouble with police, the report said.

It recommended the government recognize the disorder as a registered disability, opening it up to government funding.

Now, do you think the gov't recognised fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) as a registered disability?

No, They have not.

[Fasces]

I brought up that the oppression of the aboriginals was unimportant because Australia isn't an aboriginal state.

You're the one who decided we needed an absurd semantic argument about whether or not the aboriginals were conquered, rather than focusing on the actual meat of the statement - that conquered peoples deserve to be systematically marginalized. You're the one that made conquest the focus of discussion. In my statement, whether the aboriginals were technically conquered or not is the least important part.

[Pants-of-dog]

I brought up that the oppression of the aboriginals was unimportant because Australia isn't an aboriginal state.

That makes no sense as far as I can tell.

It seems like you are simply excusing oppression because the oppressed are a minority, which is not logical.

You're the one who decided we needed an absurd semantic argument about whether or not the aboriginals were conquered, rather than focusing on the actual meat of the statement - that conquered peoples deserve to be systematically marginalized. You're the one that made conquest the focus of discussion. In my statement, whether the aboriginals were technically conquered or not is the least important part.

Your claim that people deserve oppression is not logical and is too close to rule three violation for me to bother addressing. It is, in my opinion, trolling.

Like I said, Australia is a liberal democracy, not an imaginary fascists state as you seem to pretend. Thus, according to the rules of liberal democracy, Aboriginals do not deserve to be systematically marginalised. This racism that you are advocating breaks the laws of Australia.

[Fasces]

That makes no sense as far as I can tell.

That's on you, man.

It seems like you are simply excusing oppression because the oppressed are a minority, which is not logical.

It is very obvious you have no idea what 'logical' means if you're misusing the term to mean "an argument that agrees with my views." A logical argument only must present a conclusion that doesn't contradict the premises.

PREMISE: Any authentic national society must be monocultural. This has been my position for years.

PREMISE: History doesn't matter - the dead are less important than the living. A people lose claim to their land when they no longer inhabit it or are the dominant culture in that region. Serbia has lost its claim to Kosovo. Ukraine has lost its claim to Crimea. Palestine has lost its claim to Israel. The aboriginals have lost their claim to Australia. You can use the libertarian homestead principle as a rough analogy, though applied to communities rather than individuals.

PREMISE: Life has no meaning or inherent value.

CONCLUSION: To create monocultural societies, national communities must be separated from each other - this means giving natives in the Americas independence in Canada or America, for example, so that they do not exist in a white European society. In Australia, this would mean the creation of a separate aboriginal state in aboriginal majority areas, and their complete expulsion in non-majority areas. The Australian state would have no obligation whatsoever to the sovereign aboriginal community, no more so than it has an obligation to the people of Burkina Faso.

CONCLUSION: In a monocultural Australian state, there is no room for any aboriginals. Their oppression is unimportant - they do not belong. Similarly, white Christians do not belong in Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe (so you can stop pushing the "racist" card, it really doesn't apply). There is absolutely no racism here, though subtlety can be a challenging concept to master. Aboriginals do not belong because Australia is a white British society. This was accomplished with systematic clearance of land through several unsavory means that I do not care about because the victims and perpetrators are long since dead. The Australian people have every right to use every means necessary to maintain their society - by which I mean their faith, culture, and race, all of which are alien to the expression of an authentic
aboriginal society. Forcing aboriginals to assimilate is worse than genocide, because their assimilation naturally changes the makeup of the Australian community.

Where, exactly, is the logical break between my premises and conclusions?

Keep in mind that the logical continuity of an argument does not rest on the accuracy or validity of its premise. If you want to prove my argument is illogical, you must show how my premises fail to support my conclusion.

Australia is a liberal democracy, not an imaginary fascists state as you seem to pretend. Thus, according to the rules of liberal democracy, Aboriginals do not deserve to be systematically marginalized. This racism that you are advocating breaks the laws of Australia.

I didn't realize that in this forum we don't discuss ideas or worldviews - just stated facts.

I don't see how the fact that Australia is, in 2014, a liberal democracy, has any impact on an ethical argument. Drugs are currently illegal in Canada and the United States - am I not allowed to argue in favor of their legalization?

It is, in my opinion, trolling.

If you don't want to argue the point, don't - but don't try to fulfill your compulsive need to get the last word if you won't actually say anything interesting or substantive.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's on you, man.

Sure.

It is very obvious you have no idea what 'logical' means if you're misusing the term to mean "an argument that agrees with my views." A logical argument only must present a conclusion that doesn't contradict the premises.

PREMISE: Any authentic national society must be monocultural. This has been my position for years.

Then you do not consider Australian society, at any point in its history, to be authentic. Neither the Australian society nor Aboriginal society (as opposed to Aboriginal communities) are authentic.

Do you consider Australian society to be authentic?

PREMISE: History doesn't matter - the dead are less important than the living. A people lose claim to their land when they no longer inhabit it or are the dominant culture in that region. Serbia has lost its claim to Kosovo. Ukraine has lost its claim to Crimea. Palestine has lost its claim to Israel. The aboriginals have lost their claim to Australia. You can use the libertarian homestead principle as a rough analogy, though applied to communities rather than individuals.

Libertarians, like the Crown, believe they own land because they are claiming that there were no previous inhabitants.

We agree that there are.

You seem to be claiming that anyone should be able to justifiably claim land as long as they got it somehow, even if it breaks the law of the community who owns the land.

PREMISE: Life has no meaning or inherent value.

No, it does not. It has only those values that we claim it to have. For the purposes of this discussion, the values that we should try to live by and decide the issue by would be the values of modern Australia and the Aboriginal communities affected. Your position seems to be inconsistent with those paradigms.

CONCLUSION: To create monocultural societies, national communities must be separated from each other - this means giving natives in the Americas independence in Canada or America, for example, so that they do not exist in a white European society. In Australia, this would mean the creation of a separate aboriginal state in aboriginal majority areas, and their complete expulsion in non-majority areas. The Australian state would have no obligation whatsoever to the sovereign aboriginal community, no more so than it has an obligation to the people of Burkina Faso.

I find this idea of yours is consistent with your previous ideas, but it is highly unrealistic. Also, it completely ignores the real issues and attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society. Like libertarians, you are devising how you would do it if you magically were able to rule the world right now. Aboriginals and Australians do not live in that world. They live in the real world.

In the real world, the vast majority (perhaps all) of developed nations have multicultural societies and consider themselves authentic.

CONCLUSION: In a monocultural Australian state, there is no room for any aboriginals. Their oppression is unimportant - they do not belong. Similarly, white Christians do not belong in Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe (so you can stop pushing the "racist" card, it really doesn't apply). There is absolutely no racism here, though subtlety can be a challenging concept to master. Aboriginals do not belong because Australia is a white British society. This was accomplished with systematic clearance of land through several unsavory means that I do not care about because the victims and perpetrators are long since dead. The Australian people have every right to use every means necessary to maintain their society - by which I mean their faith, culture, and race, all of which are alien to the expression of an authentic
aboriginal society. Forcing aboriginals to assimilate is worse than genocide, because their assimilation naturally changes the makeup of the Australian community.

This may be logically derived from your premises, but your premises are not true.

Multicultural societies are authentic.
History does matter.
And while life has no objective value, that does not mean that your particular values must therefore be accepted.

Please note that the victims and perpetrators of Aboriginal oppression are not long since dead. If you require evidence of this claim, please read the OP.

I find it interesting that you consider oppression by settler society to be an organic change within Aboriginal society.

Where, exactly, is the logical break between my premises and conclusions?

Keep in mind that the logical continuity of an argument does not rest on the accuracy or validity of its premise. If you want to prove my argument is illogical, you must show how my premises fail to support my conclusion.

This is the first time you are bringing this up, so I hope you understand that my criticisms of not being logical do not apply to this particular argument.

Before you were claiming that the Australians have the right to exterminate, oppress, and otherwise destroy Aboriginal peoples and cultures, because Aboriginals deserved it, and the Aboriginals deserved it because they did not win some war of conquest that you feel was important.

I didn't realize that in this forum we don't discuss ideas or worldviews - just stated facts.

I don't see how the fact that Australia is, in 2014, a liberal democracy, has any impact on an ethical argument. Drugs are currently illegal in Canada and the United States - am I not allowed to argue in favor of their legalization?

If you are only able to talk about how things would work in Happy fascist Land, then you have no place in a thread that is about attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society.

You can argue for the legalisation of drugs by showing how drug criminalisation runs counter to the ideas of a liberal democracy. In the same vein, I can point out that Australians do not have the right to exterminate, oppress, and otherwise destroy Aboriginal peoples and cultures because that would be contrary to the fundamental ideas of a liberal democracy.

If you don't want to argue the point, don't - but don't try to fulfill your compulsive need to get the last word if you won't actually say anything interesting or substantive.

I fail to see how this comment of yours was interesting or substantive.

[Fasces]

Do you consider Australian society to be authentic?

Nope.

You seem to be claiming that anyone should be able to justifiably claim land as long as they got it somehow, even if it breaks the law of the community who owns the land.

Yes. Might makes right.

It has only those values that we claim it to have.

Ergo, it has no inherent meaning or value.

For the purposes of this discussion, the values that we should try to live by and decide the issue by would be the values of modern Australia and the Aboriginal communities affected.

The values of the Australian people have nothing to do with my claim, in the same way that someone might argue against the practice of female circumcision in east Africa despite the fact that it is a tradition of the Sudanese people, and it does not violate their moral or ethical system.

I find this idea of yours is consistent with your previous ideas, but it is highly unrealistic. Also, it completely ignores the real issues and attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society. Like libertarians, you are devising how you would do it if you magically were able to rule the world right now. Aboriginals and Australians do not live in that world. They live in the real world.

My statement did not go that far. You are reading too much into it. It merely stated that how the Australians choose to treat the aboriginals is entirely up to the Australians.

In the real world, the vast majority (perhaps all) of developed nations have multicultural societies and consider themselves authentic.

What they consider themselves is irrelevant to how the term has been defined in this conversation. The only authentic national societies in the world that arguably exist in accordance with this definition are found in Eritrea and North Korea.

This may be logically derived from your premises, but your premises are not true.

Regardless of whether you believe my premises or not is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is logical. You claimed I was being illogical. I am not.

Please note that the victims and perpetrators of Aboriginal oppression are not long since dead.

I was talking about those individuals which created the Commonwealth of Australia. Once Australia was created and the original populations removed from specific tracts of land, their former inhabitants lose all rights to that land. There is no such thing as a right of return. You do not have the right to inhabit the land your grandfather lost.

I find it interesting that you consider oppression by settler society to be an organic change within Aboriginal society.

It isn't. Its the replacement of one society with another. They are discrete communities.

This is the first time you are bringing this up, so I hope you understand that my criticisms of not being logical do not apply to this particular argument.

This has been my entire argument from my first post.

Before you were claiming that the Australians have the right to exterminate, oppress, and otherwise destroy Aboriginal peoples and cultures, because Aboriginals deserved it, and the Aboriginals deserved it because they did not win some war of conquest that you feel was important.

Australians have the right to exterminate, oppress, and otherwise destroy ALL PEOPLES within THEIR TERRITORY that are not AUTHENTIC AUSTRALIANS. This includes aboriginals. It includes Indonesian boat people. It includes German immigrants.

The fact that aboriginals do not get a fair shot at participation in Australian society is irrelevant - Australian society is not obligated to provide equal opportunity to non-Australians (Australian defined as consistent with above usage, not temporary legal codes that may or may not exist).

If you are only able to talk about how things would work in Happy fascist Land, then you have no place in a thread that is about attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society.

The original article makes the moral claim that the treatment of aboriginals in wider Australian society is unethical. I reject that claim. It may be hypocritical, and presents a contradiction with the stated values of the Australian state, but the Australian people are within their rights to do whatever they want to the aboriginal people. There is no moral deficiency or ethical issue.

In the same vein, I can point out that Australians do not have the right to exterminate, oppress, and otherwise destroy Aboriginal peoples and cultures because that would be contrary to the fundamental ideas of a liberal democracy.

The Australian nation and the Australian state are two different things. Australia is a liberal democracy today. It might not be tomorrow. If Australia, tomorrow, became a Nazi state, would you defend their right to ethnically cleanse their land of all aborigines, because it no longer presents a contradiction? Do you believe Hitler was right to perpetrate the Holocaust because Nazi Germany did not prohibit Holocausts?

Or do you have an underlying ethical belief that would still allow you to criticize them in that case? If so, what does the contemporary governing situation in Australia matter? We're discussing whether an action is right or justifiable, not whether or not something it is legal.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope.

If Australia is not authentic, then what is the point of whether or not it is authentic?

Yes. Might makes right.

So, if the mightiest gang in the land decides that one of the rules is "the rights of even those with no might will be respected", then their might makes it right.

Ergo, it has no inherent meaning or value.

Yes, we have agreed that there is no objective or inherent value to life.

The values of the Australian people have nothing to do with my claim, in the same way that someone might argue against the practice of female circumcision in east Africa despite the fact that it is a tradition of the Sudanese people, and it does not violate their moral or ethical system.

Yes, your claim is based on your own particular set of values that you have given to life, and these values are not actually part of the modern relationship between Aboriginals and settlers.

My statement did not go that far. You are reading too much into it. It merely stated that how the Australians choose to treat the aboriginals is entirely up to the Australians.

Yes and no.

Australia has signed certain treaties (such as UNDRIP) which limit their actions if they do not wish to appear hypocritical on the world stage. This is not a very strong limit on their actions, but it is a limit nonetheless. Let us say it is an insignificant one.

On a more significant level, Australia's own laws prohibit the gov't from doing certain things, like rounding up Aboriginals and putting them into death camps.

There are also internal myths, such as white man's burden, that also keep Australian gov't behaviour within certain bounds. This cuts both ways. On the one hand, they won't exterminate Aborigines out of hand, while on the other, they will continue the paternalism.

What they consider themselves is irrelevant to how the term has been defined in this conversation. The only authentic national societies in the world that arguably exist in accordance with this definition are found in Eritrea and North Korea.

This is true, and is is just as true to say that how the term has been defined in this conversation is irrelevant to what they consider themselves.

Regardless of whether you believe my premises or not is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is logical. You claimed I was being illogical. I am not.

This has been my entire argument from my first post.

Then I will simply say that you had not introduced these premises at the time of that I said you were illogical.

I was talking about those individuals which created the Commonwealth of Australia.

And the people who are continuing the Commonwealth of Australia are perpetrators of Aboriginal oppression, and their targets are also still with us today.

Once Australia was created and the original populations removed from specific tracts of land, their former inhabitants lose all rights to that land. There is no such thing as a right of return. You do not have the right to inhabit the land your grandfather lost.

I disagree.

It isn't. Its the replacement of one society with another. They are discrete communities.

Then it has been a particularly ineffective one, as the old communities are still here despite centuries of being targeted by the settler community for "replacement".

Australians have the right to exterminate, oppress, and otherwise destroy ALL PEOPLES within THEIR TERRITORY that are not AUTHENTIC AUSTRALIANS. This includes aboriginals. It includes Indonesian boat people. It includes German immigrants.

Since you have agreed that there is no authentic Australian society, this claim seems ludicrous, as there is no authentic society who then has the right to kill all the immigrants, even if we accept your xenophobic philosophy.

And since Australia is a liberal democracy, they also do not ascribe to your xenophobic philosophy and in fact have written laws that expressly contradict your idea. So even if we were to imagine an "authentic" Australian society, it would still not accept your idea if it had the same style of gov't as it does now.

The fact that aboriginals do not get a fair shot at participation in Australian society is irrelevant - Australian society is not obligated to provide equal opportunity to non-Australians (Australian defined as consistent with above usage, not temporary legal codes that may or may not exist).

It is not relevant in your world where an "authentic" and xenophobic Australian society rules. In reality, it is relevant, because current treatment of Aboriginals under the Australian gov't is also inconsistent with Australian law.

The original article makes the moral claim that the treatment of aboriginals in wider Australian society is unethical. I reject that claim. It may be hypocritical, and presents a contradiction with the stated values of the Australian state, but the Australian people are within their rights to do whatever they want to the aboriginal people. There is no moral deficiency or ethical issue.

Again, there is no moral deficiency or ethical issue in your imaginary "authentic" and xenophobic Australian society.

The fact that the article has appeared and is being discussed suggests that in our reality, it is possible (I would say true) that the Australian gov't and the wider settler society are guilty of immorality or unethical behaviour.

The Australian nation and the Australian state are two different things. Australia is a liberal democracy today. It might not be tomorrow. If Australia, tomorrow, became a Nazi state, would you defend their right to ethnically cleanse their land of all aborigines, because it no longer presents a contradiction?

You apparently would support such a state, because it would then be "authentic" and xenophobic.

Do you believe Hitler was right to perpetrate the Holocaust because Nazi Germany did not prohibit Holocausts? Or do you have an underlying ethical belief that would still allow you to criticize them in that case? If so, what does the contemporary governing situation in Australia matter?

As for your point, I would not support such a Nazi state. That is irrelevant to the fact that Australia has to act within certain parameters if it wants to consider itself a liberal democracy.

We're discussing whether an action is right or justifiable, not whether or not something it is legal.

We are discussing both.

[Fasces]

If Australia is not authentic, then what is the point of whether or not it is authentic?

An authentic society can be developed going forward.

So, if the mightiest gang in the land decides that one of the rules is "the rights of even those with no might will be respected", then their might makes it right.

Yes - as long as they are able to enforce it. If, at any time, another mighty gang arises, removes the first mighty gang, and decides that one of the rules is "the weak should die", then their might makes it right.

It isn't permanent.

these values are not actually part of the modern relationship between Aboriginals and settlers.

They are a commentary on the modern relationship between aboriginals and settlers. This is a forum where we comment on things. I was commenting. Expressing my view. Having an opinion. Vocalizing a thought.

Australia has signed certain treaties (such as UNDRIP) which limit their actions if they do not wish to appear hypocritical on the world stage.

And they have the right to wipe their ass with those treaties at any time (and deal with the consequences of doing so).

This is not a very strong limit on their actions, but it is a limit nonetheless.

A self imposed limit is not a limit - though this isn't really self-imposed as a constraint of participating in the international system led by the militarily hegemonic power of the United States. In any case, I've always argued that the modern commitment to the expression of human rights comes from American might. It arose under Jimmy Carter, after the USSR became less able to compete with the USA, and will fall again as we slide back into a multipolar war - as shown by the disdain nations like Russia, Iran, or China have for the international human rights system and the inability of any power to actually enforce it. Only the weak, which Australia is, politically, are constrained by these beliefs. This is why Milosovic went to the ICC and Bush never would, no matter how many Arabs' rights he may or may not have violated.

This is why I brought up China and the Westphalian international order - to express that the contemporary propagation of human rights ideology is transient and ultimately dependent on the ability of the West to enforce it.

Australia's own laws prohibit the gov't from doing certain things, like rounding up Aboriginals and putting them into death camps.

Laws can change.

There are also internal myths, such as white man's burden, that also keep Australian gov't behaviour within certain bounds.

Absolutely - this is their identity, and something I overwhelmingly support. Each nation should be able to determine for itself how it chooses to govern itself. This is what sovereignty means.

Identity, however, is fluid. If the Australians want to treat the aboriginal people kindly, then they can. If they choose to treat them poorly, then they can. These acts are morally equivalent, because the Australian people have no intrinsic obligation to the aboriginals, only the obligation they choose to assume - and can choose to discard.

is just as true to say that how the term has been defined in this conversation is irrelevant to what they consider themselves.

My statement is about the right of Australians to treat the aboriginals however they want.

Then I will simply say that you had not introduced these premises at the time of that I said you were illogical.

My argument has been consistent and logical - the conclusion comes from these premises, which are consistent with my previous posts. Your interpretation of my argument may have been illogical, but those were ultimately your words, not mine.

Since you have agreed that there is no authentic Australian society, this claim seems ludicrous, as there is no authentic society who then has the right to kill all the immigrants, even if we accept your xenophobic philosophy.

The authentic Australian society exists as a platonic form. We can identify what is meant by it - when you think of an "Australian", does he speak Mandarin natively? Does he have Yupik phenotypes? Is he a proud Buddhist? Does he wear a sarong? Does he eat whale?

Stereotypes are important because they reveal patterns and allow for the categorization and definition of groups of people, whether by how they adhere to those stereotypes or avert them. They are a crude platonic form for specific identities. From weaboos to jihadists.

So even if we were to imagine an "authentic" Australian society, it would still not accept your idea if it had the same style of gov't as it does now.

I agree. I also do not support the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in the United States because it would not be an authentic national movement, but a foreign import. I'm not saying that Australia should oppress aboriginals. I'm saying they have the right to treat them however they choose to do so, and the aboriginals deserve this because they failed to protect their sovereignty. They were unable to compete with the society that supplanted their own. Since no people deserve special rights or protections beyond that which they can secure for themselves, if the Australian state oppresses them, they deserve that oppression. If Australia wants to try to correct it, that's all well and good, but they have no ethical obligation to do so.

In reality, it is relevant, because current treatment of Aboriginals under the Australian gov't is also inconsistent with Australian law.

The whole point I am trying to make is that if it were no longer inconsistent, because the laws protecting them were repealed, this would not be a bad thing. Australia should always act in accordance with the values of her people, but those values are fluid.

that the Australian gov't and the wider settler society are guilty of immorality or unethical behaviour.

They are guilty only of hypocrisy - of failing to live up to their own values. In a relativistic sense, they behave immorally because their own value system dictates as such, but in absolute terms, removed from the relativistic mores of each society, they are not guilty of immoral or unethical behavior.

You apparently would support such a state, because it would then be "authentic" and xenophobic.

On a personal level, it would contradict my own moral values and I would not condone those acts, but I am not so arrogant as to presume that my particular set of socially ingrained moral positions is universal. They have the right to determine what is right for themselves without my input or critique. No single moral position is "more true" than any other.

As for your point, I would not support such a Nazi state. That is irrelevant to the fact that Australia has to act within certain parameters if it wants to consider itself a liberal democracy.

It doesn't have to consider itself a liberal democracy. Your moral code is absolute - you believe in the value system of most liberal democracies whether or not most societies are liberal democratic. You would, for example, support the expansion of the rights of women in Afghanistan, or the right to an abortion in heavily Catholic societies. Your view of what is "good" is independent of the conditions on the ground or the value systems of the people you critique. Mine is not. I would not critique the Nazis for acting like Nazis, assuming they represent an authentic national movement arising out of organic social development, even if I would oppose them to the end of the Earth should they try to export their value system abroad.

Similarly, while my personal moral positions strongly reflect the secular, liberal, Western society in which I was raised, I am vehemently opposed to their export abroad. If the Sudanese want to cut labias off their daughters, that is no one's business but the Sudanese.

We are discussing both.

I'm not, which means as long as you're discussing my views, you're not.

[Pants-of-dog]

An authentic society can be developed going forward.

Yes, it could be. How is that relevant? What is the point? Do only "authentic" nations get to use the might makes right argument?

Yes - as long as they are able to enforce it. If, at any time, another mighty gang arises, removes the first mighty gang, and decides that one of the rules is "the weak should die", then their might makes it right.

It isn't permanent.

So, in terms of what is actually happening today, Australia's liberal democracy is the set of dominant values and thus are the relevant ones.

They are a commentary on the modern relationship between aboriginals and settlers. This is a forum where we comment on things. I was commenting. Expressing my view. Having an opinion. Vocalizing a thought.

That's good and all, but I still fail to see why these comments are more useful than claiming the moon is made of green cheese.

And they have the right to wipe their ass with those treaties at any time (and deal with the consequences of doing so).

Yes, they do.

A self imposed limit is not a limit - though this isn't really self-imposed as a constraint of participating in the international system led by the militarily hegemonic power of the United States. In any case, I've always argued that the modern commitment to the expression of human rights comes from American might. It arose under Jimmy Carter, after the USSR became less able to compete with the USA, and will fall again as we slide back into a multipolar war - as shown by the disdain nations like Russia, Iran, or China have for the international human rights system and the inability of any power to actually enforce it. Only the weak, which Australia is, politically, are constrained by these beliefs. This is why Milosovic went to the ICC and Bush never would, no matter how many Arabs' rights he may or may not have violated.

Your musings on American might may be relevant. I doubt they are relevant as the history of the British Empire. You said earlier that history does not matter. Yet here you seem to be contradicting that by suggesting that the history that created the US as the sole superpower does matter.

Respect for human rights goes back farther than Carter, and can be seen in indigenous forms of governance such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. And to be honest, your musings as to what might happen in the future also do not seem relevant to modern attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society.

This is why I brought up China and the Westphalian international order - to express that the contemporary propagation of human rights ideology is transient and ultimately dependent on the ability of the West to enforce it.

I realise that, but since the Westphalian international order is not here or right around the corner, I hope you understand why I do not consider it relevant.

Laws can change.

Yes, they can.

I assume that since this is the only criticism to my claim, that you agree that Australia's own laws prohibit the gov't from doing certain things, like rounding up Aboriginals and putting them into death camps.

Absolutely - this is their identity, and something I overwhelmingly support. Each nation should be able to determine for itself how it chooses to govern itself. This is what sovereignty means.

Great, but we are discussing how one group governs another, which is a different thing.

Identity, however, is fluid. If the Australians want to treat the aboriginal people kindly, then they can. If they choose to treat them poorly, then they can. These acts are morally equivalent, because the Australian people have no intrinsic obligation to the aboriginals, only the obligation they choose to assume - and can choose to discard.

Yes. This does not contradict my claim that their own mythology will also limit their options.

My statement is about the right of Australians to treat the aboriginals however they want.

And it is not relevant, since Australia is not an "authentic" nation anyway, by your definition.

The authentic Australian society exists as a platonic form. We can identify what is meant by it - when you think of an "Australian", does he speak Mandarin natively? Does he have Yupik phenotypes? Is he a proud Buddhist? Does he wear a sarong? Does he eat whale?

Stereotypes are important because they reveal patterns and allow for the categorization and definition of groups of people, whether by how they adhere to those stereotypes or avert them. They are a crude platonic form for specific identities. From weaboos to jihadists.

Lol. No. The idea of an isosceles triangle exists on some sort of idealised level, but not the platonically ideal Australian. That is so out there and unverifiable that I am going to dismiss it as religious claptrap.

I agree. I also do not support the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in the United States because it would not be an authentic national movement, but a foreign import. I'm not saying that Australia should oppress aboriginals. I'm saying they have the right to treat them however they choose to do so, and the aboriginals deserve this because they failed to protect their sovereignty. They were unable to compete with the society that supplanted their own. Since no people deserve special rights or protections beyond that which they can secure for themselves, if the Australian state oppresses them, they deserve that oppression. If Australia wants to try to correct it, that's all well and good, but they have no ethical obligation to do so.

I disagree.

The whole point I am trying to make is that if it were no longer inconsistent, because the laws protecting them were repealed, this would not be a bad thing. Australia should always act in accordance with the values of her people, but those values are fluid.

Which is your personal opinion, and you are welcome to it.

They are guilty only of hypocrisy - of failing to live up to their own values. In a relativistic sense, they behave immorally because their own value system dictates as such, but in absolute terms, removed from the relativistic mores of each society, they are not guilty of immoral or unethical behavior.

They seem to be guilty of hypocrisy, dispossessing people of their land, separating families, stealing children, slavery, massacres, unequal treatment by the gov't, police brutality, and trying to destroy Aboriginal cultures.

On a personal level, it would contradict my own moral values and I would not condone those acts, but I am not so arrogant as to presume that my particular set of socially ingrained moral positions is universal. They have the right to determine what is right for themselves without my input or critique. No single moral position is "more true" than any other.

I agree that no single moral position is "more true" than any other, but a Nazi Australian state would be more consistent with your stated beliefs concerning "authenticity" and monoculturalism than modern Australia.

It doesn't have to consider itself a liberal democracy.

But it does, thus your musings as to what it would do if it wasn't are not germane.

Your moral code is absolute - you believe in the value system of most liberal democracies whether or not most societies are liberal democratic. You would, for example, support the expansion of the rights of women in Afghanistan, or the right to an abortion in heavily Catholic societies. Your view of what is "good" is independent of the conditions on the ground or the value systems of the people you critique. Mine is not. I would not critique the Nazis for acting like Nazis, assuming they represent an authentic national movement arising out of organic social development, even if I would oppose them to the end of the Earth should they try to export their value system abroad.

No. You have misunderstood.

I am pointing out that Australian oppression of Aboriginals is wrong according to their own laws.

My own beliefs or opinions have not been part of my argument at all. You have confused my claim that Australia's laws are relevant with the strawman that I somehow uphold Australia's laws.

I'm not, which means as long as you're discussing my views, you're not.

I am not allowing you to frame the debate however you wish.

[Fasces]

Yes, it could be. How is that relevant? What is the point? Do only "authentic" nations get to use the might makes right argument?

So, in terms of what is actually happening today, Australia's liberal democracy is the set of dominant values and thus are the relevant ones.

When talking about the failure of the Australian state to meets its obligations toward the aboriginal people, sure. My comment was not about that. You chose to respond to my comment, so I couldn't care less whether or not you think its on topic - you cannot claim I have said otherwise.

That's good and all, but I still fail to see why these comments are more useful than claiming the moon is made of green cheese.

Why did you choose to comment? You're a nobody living somewhere in Canada. You won't be reforming the Australian government or making any practical difference to the material and social living conditions of the aborigines in Australia. Your comments are as useful as mine. In fact, let's shut down the forum entirely - its a complete waste of time. All we ever do is voice our opinions on current events. Our opinions aren't useful. None of this matters. Nothing will change because someone said something on PoFo once.

Yet here you seem to be contradicting that by suggesting that the history that created the US as the sole superpower does matter.

The US is still the sole superpower. No country has the ability to project power on an equivalent basis, and no other country play acts as the world policeman. The US enforcement of the international human rights regime, through the UN and NATO, is a present, not historical, issue.

Respect for human rights goes back farther than Carter

Not as the guiding principle of US foreign relations. As a Chilean, I'm sure you're more than familiar with the Pinochets and Gatlieris of America's historical foreign policy. It was under Carter first that US foreign policy adopted a moralistic character.

your musings as to what might happen in the future also do not seem relevant to modern attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society.

Racism toward aboriginals does not exist in Australia? The aborigines are not seen as an "other" in mainstream Australian society?

But you're right - they're not important to the present condition. Talking about the past and future was a device to illustrate the transient nature of moral positions, and show how it is the ability to enforce a moral code that ultimately creates it: might makes right.

This does matter in the present. The aboriginals are, without question, the weaker community. As a result, Australian attitudes toward the aboriginals or treatment of the aboriginals is by default justifiable regardless of what they may be on May 27th, 2014.

like rounding up Aboriginals and putting them into death camps.

Sure, but that doesn't make it wrong, in an absolute sense, to do so because there is no right or wrong. There is no intrinsically ethical standard of behavior. Death camps are only evil as long as Australian attitudes toward the aboriginal population remain benevolent.

Whatever the contemporary attitude towards aboriginals in wider Australian society is justified. Where the law runs contrary to these attitudes, the law is wrong and represents an inauthentic expression of state power.

Great, but we are discussing how one group governs another, which is a different thing.

And my point is clear - the group that is governing can do whatever the fuck they want to the group that capitulated.

Lol. No. The idea of an isosceles triangle exists on some sort of idealised level, but not the platonically ideal Australian. That is so out there and unverifiable that I am going to dismiss it as religious claptrap.

Religious? I have absolutely no idea where you got God from.

They seem to be guilty of hypocrisy, dispossessing people of their land, separating families, stealing children, slavery, massacres, unequal treatment by the gov't, police brutality, and trying to destroy Aboriginal cultures.

If the Aborigines want this to stop, they need to become sovereign. They need to get guns and shoot Australian children. They need to fight for their right to govern themselves. Until then, they deserve what they get. Which brings me back to my first post in this thread.

I am pointing out that Australian oppression of Aboriginals is wrong according to their own laws.

Where laws contradict the will of the people, the law is wrong. It is inauthentic. If the people of Australia's attitudes toward the aboriginals and the law s of Australia concerning the aboriginals contradict, the law should not exist.

You have confused my claim that Australia's laws are relevant with the strawman that I somehow uphold Australia's laws.

They aren't relevant for the purpose of discussing my claim.

[Pants-of-dog]

When talking about the failure of the Australian state to meets its obligations toward the aboriginal people, sure. My comment was not about that. You chose to respond to my comment, so I couldn't care less whether or not you think its on topic - you cannot claim I have said otherwise.

Why did you choose to comment? You're a nobody living somewhere in Canada. You won't be reforming the Australian government or making any practical difference to the material and social living conditions of the aborigines in Australia. Your comments are as useful as mine. In fact, let's shut down the forum entirely - its a complete waste of time. All we ever do is voice our opinions on current events. Our opinions aren't useful. None of this matters. Nothing will change because someone said something on PoFo once.

Let me put it this way: my comments are a critical commentary on the actual conditions of the existing relationship between Australians and Aborigines. Yours seem to be about a possible option in an improbable future.

The US is still the sole superpower. No country has the ability to project power on an equivalent basis, and no other country play acts as the world policeman. The US enforcement of the international human rights regime, through the UN and NATO, is a present, not historical, issue.

Sure. But the process through which they became the sole superpower is a historical one.

Not as the guiding principle of US foreign relations. As a Chilean, I'm sure you're more than familiar with the Pinochets and Gatlieris of America's historical foreign policy. It was under Carter first that US foreign policy adopted a moralistic character.

And since the US continues to meddle in the sovereign affairs of other nations, mostly for the enrichment of the US and to the detriment of the other nation, I don't think Carter did all that much.

Racism toward aboriginals does not exist in Australia? The aborigines are not seen as an "other" in mainstream Australian society?

Yes, but that was not my criticism.

But you're right - they're not important to the present condition. Talking about the past and future was a device to illustrate the transient nature of moral positions, and show how it is the ability to enforce a moral code that ultimately creates it: might makes right.

This does matter in the present. The aboriginals are, without question, the weaker community. As a result, Australian attitudes toward the aboriginals or treatment of the aboriginals is by default justifiable regardless of what they may be on May 27th, 2014.

You are confusing a moral or normative position (bad deeds are justifiable) with the fact that an actor could theoretically do this bad deed (a description of a fact). In other words, you are confusing a reason for doing something with a good excuse for doing something.

Women are weaker than men in many regards in our society. That does not justify sexism or rape. It merely explains it.

Sure, but that doesn't make it wrong, in an absolute sense, to do so because there is no right or wrong. There is no intrinsically ethical standard of behavior. Death camps are only evil as long as Australian attitudes toward the aboriginal population remain benevolent.

Yes, we already agreed on the non-objective nature of morality. This is why we then had a discussion about which moral paradigm seems the most relevant. You have your argument (might makes right and Australia is justified no matter what), and I have mine, which claims that we should judge the situation according to the standards of modern Australian society and the affected Aboriginal communities.

Whatever the contemporary attitude towards aboriginals in wider Australian society is justified. Where the law runs contrary to these attitudes, the law is wrong and represents an inauthentic expression of state power.

And my point is clear - the group that is governing can do whatever the fuck they want to the group that capitulated.

I don't think the Aborigines ever capitulated.

And this does not follow from your premises. From your premises, Australians have the right to forcibly remove each other according to race until everyone is balkanised into different skin-toned communities. They do not have the right to then fuck up the lives of people in those other communities.

There is nothing in your argument that supports the idea that one sovereign nation gets to do what it wants with another sovereign nation.

Religious? I have absolutely no idea where you got God from.

You believe in some unverifiable, illogical, irrational being on a different plane of existence that is ideal and immortal and unaffected by us but who somehow affects us, by teaching us that Irish are really drunks.

You don't call it god. You call it the ideal Irishman (or Aborigine or whatever).

If the Aborigines want this to stop, they need to become sovereign. They need to get guns and shoot Australian children. They need to fight for their right to govern themselves. Until then, they deserve what they get. Which brings me back to my first post in this thread.

And you believe this because of your ideology. However, I do not think that it is a realistic idea, nor do I think that Aborigines want a bloodbath, no matter how attractive the idea is to an observer.

Where laws contradict the will of the people, the law is wrong. It is inauthentic. If the people of Australia's attitudes toward the aboriginals and the laws of Australia concerning the aboriginals contradict, the law should not exist.

I disagree.

More importantly, that is not how the Australian gov't nor the Aboriginal communities see things.

They aren't relevant for the purpose of discussing my claim.

They are relevant in the real world, unlike your claim.

However, the point I was making was that my personal beliefs are not the subject of the discussion.

You are debating my point. I didn't come into here to debate yours, because frankly, I don't care one iota about any of your beliefs. If you want to have a conversation with me about my point, a conversation you chose to initiate, then yes, you will limit yourself to the parameters of my view. Because again - I don't want to discuss yours. You offer no meaningful deviation from mainstream orthodoxy. I have heard your ideas before from hundreds of other sources and I'm not interested in listening to it again. I will defend the logic of my position if you want to discuss it, but don't confuse this as being some sort of dialog or debate when it very clearly isn't.

I am debating your point as well as bringing up my own points. You can refuse to discuss my points. I will still make them. I have no obligation to limit myself to your point. For example, you seem to ignore the fact that oppression and marginalisation continue to be perpetrated on Aboriginal people and communities and focus on a history that you claim does not matter.

You also ignore the fact that this oppression is actually against the laws of Australia as they stand now.

Again, my beliefs are immaterial to the discussion, so the fact that you do not care about them is perfectly fine with me.

[Fasces]

Let me put it this way: my comments are a critical commentary on the actual conditions of the existing relationship between Australians and Aborigines. Yours seem to be about a possible option in an improbable future.

I haven't read a single one of your comments in this post that doesn't relate to what I said because I do not care. I am not discussing your comments, I am defending mine.

Sure. But the process through which they became the sole superpower is a historical one.

Thank God we have someone here willing to point that out.

And since the US continues to meddle in the sovereign affairs of other nations, mostly for the enrichment of the US and to the detriment of the other nation, I don't think Carter did all that much.

I forgot that George Bush justified the invasion of Iraq because "we can conquer it and steal their oil".

You are confusing a moral or normative position (bad deeds are justifiable) with the fact that an actor could theoretically do this bad deed (a description of a fact). In other words, you are confusing a reason for doing something with a good excuse for doing something.

Women are weaker than men in many regards in our society. That does not justify sexism or rape. It merely explains it.

Only because our current social mores criticize rape. If authorities did not teach us that rape was immoral, we would rape in greater numbers.

If I were a Roman in 750 BC, I could absolutely justify rape.

The way you formed this question is also absurd. You beg the question in your first fucking sentence. I am not trying to justify bad deeds. Deeds are neither good nor bad, they are deeds. Good and bad do not exist.

This is why we then had a discussion about which moral paradigm seems the most relevant. You have your argument (might makes right and Australia is justified no matter what), and I have mine, which claims that we should judge the situation according to the standards of modern Australian society and the affected Aboriginal communities.

Should we judge Australian society in 1801 by the standards of modern Australian society?

I don't think the Aborigines ever capitulated.

Yeah, I hear about those violent Aboriginal insurgents all the time. Can you believe they blew up that bus?

They do not have the right to then fuck up the lives of people in those other communities.

There is no independent aboriginal community. Or was the Aboriginal Tent Embassy officially recognized when I wasn't looking? Can I vote in the Aboriginal Parliament and serve in the Aboriginal Air Force, while buying goods with my Aboriginal Dollars?

Aboriginals live within the Australian community, a community that does not belong to them, but to the Australian people (again, the definition of this being consistent with usage in my previous posts).

You believe in some unverifiable, illogical, irrational being on a different plane of existence that is ideal and immortal and unaffected by us but who somehow affects us,

I do not believe in any God of any sort, and I have no idea where you're getting this from. I would ask that you not invent anything. I also do not believe in the literal existence of Platonic Forms, since I presume that this is coming from your confusion from looking it up on wikipedia, but used it as an analogy to describe authenticity. Please read this article instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Particularly, the points relating to psychology, ethics, society and politics, and historiography.

However, I do not think that it is a realistic idea, nor do I think that Aborigines want a bloodbath, no matter how attractive the idea is to an observer.

The idea is not attractive to me. This is all to create peace. Homogeneous states engage in less inter and intra state violence.

You're delusional, however, if you think progress or change is effected by participating in the system which is systematically stacked against you and your people, rather than the creation of parallel systems that can force the point. We should disband all tribal governments in North America, by your logic.

More importantly, that is not how the Australian gov't nor the Aboriginal communities see things.

I don't care how they see things, because I was only expressing my beliefs - beliefs you chose to ask me to defend, and which I will.

For example, you seem to ignore the fact that oppression and marginalisation continue to be perpetrated on Aboriginal people and communities

I ignore this? I've said explicitly that this occurs. And I've stated why. And what I believe the aboriginal people should do to stop it.

You also ignore the fact that this oppression is actually against the laws of Australia as they stand now.

I haven't ignored this either.

[Pants-of-dog]

I haven't read a single one of your comments in this post that doesn't relate to what I said because I do not care. I am not discussing your comments, I am defending mine.

You are fiercely apathetic. This is the second time I have had the opportunity to use that phrase today.

Be that as it may, your emotional motivations for not rebutting my posts are not the topic.

The topic I am discussing is that Australian mistreatment of Aboriginals is wrong for many reasons, including the fact that it is contrary to Australian law, the values upon which Australian society is supposedly built, and Aboriginal needs.

Thank God we have someone here willing to point that out.

So you agree that history matters. good.

I forgot that George Bush justified the invasion of Iraq because "we can conquer it and steal their oil".

Who cares what he said? What he did was invade Iraq so that the US could control Iraqi oil.

Only because our current social mores criticize rape. If authorities did not teach us that rape was immoral, we would rape in greater numbers.

If I were a Roman in 750 BC, I could absolutely justify rape.

That has nothing to do with your claim that the act of being able to do it somehow justifies it.

In fact, it supports my point. The ability to rape does not justify rape. What "justifies" rape is cultural mores.

The way you formed this question is also absurd. You beg the question in your first fucking sentence. I am not trying to justify bad deeds. Deeds are neither good nor bad, they are deeds. Good and bad do not exist.

They do not exist on an objective level, but morality still exists, and we can still judge bad behaviour by comparing it to our culutral mores, laws, etc. Thus Australian mistreatment of Aboriginals is wrong because it is contrary to Australian law, the values upon which Australian society is supposedly built, and Aboriginal values.

Should we judge Australian society in 1801 by the standards of modern Australian society?

I don't know nor do I care.

I am judging modern Australia by modern Australian standards.

Yeah, I hear about those violent Aboriginal insurgents all the time. Can you believe they blew up that bus?

Please provide evidence that Aboriginals capitulated. For example, some sort of signed declaration of surrender would be nice.

There is no independent aboriginal community. Or was the Aboriginal Tent Embassy officially recognized when I wasn't looking? Can I vote in the Aboriginal Parliament and serve in the Aboriginal Air Force, while buying goods with my Aboriginal Dollars?

Aboriginals live within the Australian community, a community that does not belong to them, but to the Australian people (again, the definition of this being consistent with usage in my previous posts).

I like the way you flicker back and forth from Happy Fascist land (HFL) and reality.

In HFL, which is what we were discussing, they would be a sovereign community and then they would not then be subject to Australian society. Thus, the Australians would not have the right to then fuck up the lives of people in those other communities.

If you are now discussing reality, then Aboriginals live partly within Australian society, and partly within their own community. The Australian part is not allowed to exterminate the Aboriginals. They do not have the right to then fuck up the lives of people in those other communities, according to their own laws.

I do not believe in any God of any sort, and I have no idea where you're getting this from. I would ask that you not invent anything. I also do not believe in the literal existence of Platonic Forms, since I presume that this is coming from your confusion from looking it up on wikipedia, but used it as an analogy to describe authenticity. Please read this article instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Particularly, the points relating to psychology, ethics, society and politics, and historiography.

You said Platonic. I assumed you meant that the Drunken Irish stereotype existed as a Platonic ideal that then creates imperfect shadows in our current world, such as sober Irishmen.

When you use the word "authentic" here, are you using it the same way as you did previously in the thread, where we decided there is no authentic Australian society?

Since Australia does not have, and has never had, an "authentic" society, how does this "authentic Australian society exist as a platonic form"? According to your link, essentialism is not qualitatively different from Platonic ideals. Thus, my criticism of it as religious claptrap seems to be valid.

Also, essentialism is also the idea behind the notion that Aboriginals are lazy drunks who deserve to have their land stolen.

The idea is not attractive to me. This is all to create peace. Homogeneous states engage in less inter and intra state violence.

Yes, those heterogeneous Europeans never waged war and colonised other nations. So peaceful.

You're delusional, however, if you think progress or change is effected by participating in the system which is systematically stacked against you and your people, rather than the creation of parallel systems that can force the point. We should disband all tribal governments in North America, by your logic.

I have no idea how you built that strawman out of what I said.

I don't care how they see things, because I was only expressing my beliefs - beliefs you chose to ask me to defend, and which I will.

And one of my criticisms is that your beliefs are irrelevant. Your rebuttal (that you don't care) does not somehow disprove my criticism.

I ignore this? I've said explicitly that this occurs. And I've stated why. And what I believe the aboriginal people should do to stop it.

Yes, you ignore it to talk about how things would work in HFL or talk about how you don't care or how about might makes right.

I haven't ignored this either.

I have yet to see you agree with it or try to rebut it or comment on it in any way other than to tell me you don't care.

[Fasces]

The topic I am discussing is that Australian mistreatment of Aboriginals is wrong for many reasons, including the fact that it is contrary to Australian law, the values upon which Australian society is supposedly built, and Aboriginal needs.

What came first - Australian people or Australian laws? You seem confused about the order here.

Who cares what he said? What he did was invade Iraq so that the US could control Iraqi oil.

Everything else aside, YOU care about what people say. Wasn't that the whole point of the "they never invoked the right of conquest" bullshit earlier?

So - was Iraq invaded for oil even though Bush never invoked the "right of economic neocolonialism"?

I am judging modern Australia by modern Australian standards.

You're not though - unless you would defend the mistreatment of aboriginals if the law allowed them too.

Would you? Would you judge Australia, the hypothetical genocidal version of it, to be good for acting in accordance with their hypothetical genocidal laws?

Please provide evidence that Aboriginals capitulated. For example, some sort of signed declaration of surrender would be nice.

Every single aboriginal that carries an Australian passport is a sign that they accept the domination of Anglo settlers over the continent they have inhabited for thousands of years.

In HFL, which is what we were discussing, they would be a sovereign community and then they would not then be subject to Australian society. Thus, the Australians would not have the right to then fuck up the lives of people in those other communities.

Yep. In HFL, Aboriginals would not be oppressed or marginalized by Australian society - mostly because they would not be part of Australian society.

If you are now discussing reality, then Aboriginals live partly within Australian society, and partly within their own community. The Australian part is not allowed to exterminate the Aboriginals. They do not have the right to then fuck up the lives of people in those other communities, according to their own laws.

The aboriginals are subject to Australian society. Their alienation and marginalization clearly demonstrates they are not a part of it.

When you use the word "authentic" here, are you using it the same way as you did previously in the thread, where we decided there is no authentic Australian society?

Yes. As a hypothetical ideal. As an essentialist construct. As a platonic form without the metaphysical baggage. In the same way that I can discuss the concept of a fusion generator, even though they do not exist, or a perpetual motion machine. In the same way that I can think about being on the surface of Pluto even though I will never be there.

According to your link, essentialism is not qualitatively different from Platonic ideals. According to your link, essentialism is not qualitatively different from Platonic ideals.

What a fucking joke.

Yes, those heterogeneous Europeans never waged war and colonised other nations. So peaceful.

Glad we're on the same page - heterogeneous societies are incredibly violent.

And one of my criticisms is that your beliefs are irrelevant.

Then why debate them? I didn't ask you to give me your inane commentary about what I said or what you think I said.

Yes, you ignore it to talk about how things would work in HFL or talk about how you don't care or how about might makes right.

I'll say it again.

Aboriginals are oppressed.
They deserve that oppression as long as they do not resist the state.

We've been talking about the 'deserve' bit.

I have yet to see you agree with it or try to rebut it or comment on it in any way other than to tell me you don't care.

Australian law prohibits the oppression of aboriginals.

Australian law is informed by the value system of the community it governs.

Values can change.

Australian law can change.

Whether something is good or not does not depend on a law stating it as such (it depends on the value system of the community).

For the fourth time in this thread - if the law said that the Australians could put aboriginals in concentration camps, would you defend the goodness of those who engage in that action?

[Pants-of-dog]

What came first - Australian people or Australian laws? You seem confused about the order here.

The laws came first, though I don't see how this is relevant.

Everything else aside, YOU care about what people say. Wasn't that the whole point of the "they never invoked the right of conquest" bullshit earlier?

So - was Iraq invaded for oil even though Bush never invoked the "right of economic neocolonialism"?

Because I was discussing the legal justifications for stealing the Aboriginals' land. The actual reason why they did it was to get rich off someone else.

You're not though - unless you would defend the mistreatment of aboriginals if the law allowed them too.

Would you? Would you judge Australia, the hypothetical genocidal version of it, to be good for acting in accordance with their hypothetical genocidal laws?

This is not the case, though. Right now, in reality, the law doesn't say that. So I am discussing modern Australia's behaviour by their own standards. Please do not assume that I would make the same argument if the case was otherwise.

Every single aboriginal that carries an Australian passport is a sign that they accept the domination of Anglo settlers over the continent they have inhabited for thousands of years.

So, if they don't have a passport they have never capitulated? Because there are probably thousands of people like that.

By the way, does this mean you support Aboriginal passports as used by Aboriginal sovereignists in Australia?

Yep. In HFL, Aboriginals would not be oppressed or marginalized by Australian society - mostly because they would not be part of Australian society.

So, we agree that after they separate, as they logicaly would in HFL, the Australians cannot do "whatever the fuck they want" to the Aborigines.

The aboriginals are subject to Australian society. Their alienation and marginalization clearly demonstrates they are not a part of it.

That's true. However, my point was that the Australians cannot do "whatever the fuck they want" to the Aborigines. Since you have not denied this point, can we assume you agree with it?

Yes. As a hypothetical ideal. As an essentialist construct. As a platonic form without the metaphysical baggage. In the same way that I can discuss the concept of a fusion generator, even though they do not exist, or a perpetual motion machine. In the same way that I can think about being on the surface of Pluto even though I will never be there.

These things are qualitatively different from the Platonic Ideal of the Drunk Irishman.

A fusion generator is a logical application of a series of scientific truths that have been empirically verified. Your Essence of Drunk Irishman is not.

A perpetual motion machine may be closer, since we both know they are fictional things.

The surface of Pluto is an empirical fact. Your Essence of Drunk Irishman is not.

What a fucking joke.

Yes. Essentialism is a fucking joke.

Glad we're on the same page - heterogeneous societies are incredibly violent.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

No. Historically, it is homogeneous societies who have waged war on other societies. The British Empire is one relevant example.

Then why debate them? I didn't ask you to give me your inane commentary about what I said or what you think I said.

I think that pointing out that your argument is irrelevant is a useful criticism.

I'll say it again.

Aboriginals are oppressed.
They deserve that oppression as long as they do not resist the state.

This does not logically flow from your premises.

We've been talking about the 'deserve' bit.

Yes. I pointed out that having the ability to be a rapist does not justify rape. Cultural mores do. And the cultural mores of the Australians and the Aborigines do not justify this mistreatment. So no, they do not deserve it. Unless you mean they deserve it according to some objective morality, which you claim does not exist.

Australian law prohibits the oppression of aboriginals.

Australian law is informed by the value system of the community it governs.

Values can change.

Australian law can change.

Whether something is good or not does not depend on a law stating it as such (it depends on the value system of the community).

For the fourth time in this thread - if the law said that the Australians could put aboriginals in concentration camps, would you defend the goodness of those who engage in that action?

And for the nth time, my personal opinions on the issue don't matter.

You do understand that my personal morality is not relevant to whether or not the mistreatment is consistent with Australian and Aboriginal mores?

By the same logic, I hope you also understand that the morality of some unlikely future Australia is also not relevant to whether or not the mistreatment is consistent with modern Australian and Aboriginal mores?

[Fasces]

The laws came first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... lonisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... ia#History

Really?

Because I was discussing the legal justifications for stealing the Aboriginals' land.

And what were the legal justifications used by the United States for its most recent batch of nation building exercises (eg: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan)?

This is not the case, though. Right now, in reality, the law doesn't say that. So I am discussing modern Australia's behaviour by their own standards. Please do not assume that I would make the same argument if the case was otherwise.

So you don't care about being logically consistent?

So, if they don't have a passport they have never capitulated? Because there are probably thousands of people like that.

By the way, does this mean you support Aboriginal passports as used by Aboriginal sovereignists in Australia?

Can I use an aboriginal passport for its intended purpose, ie: to exercise my right to visit foreign countries and return to my home country afterward without detention?

So, we agree that after they separate, as they logicaly would in HFL, the Australians cannot do "whatever the fuck they want" to the Aborigines.

They could do whatever the fuck they want to any aboriginals which live in Australia (the state for non-aboriginal Australians). To use an example - Israel can do whatever it want to Arabs living in Israel. It cannot do whatever it wants to Arabs living in Saudi Arabia.

However, my point was that the Australians cannot do "whatever the fuck they want" to the Aborigines.

From the metaethical perspective, which is all I am discussing and all I will discuss, anything Australians do to aboriginals is morally equivalent. Whether they're building them homes or feasting on their innards.

Your Essence of Drunk Irishman is not.

I'll reiterate. I do not believe in the literal existence of a metaphysical reality inhabited by the essences of objects.

I'll simplify. Do you know what a stereotype is? Do they exist? Do you think that there is a parallel reality inhabited by stereotypes?

The essence of an object is nothing more than a synonym for a stereotype, without the "may not be true" part of it. It is the minimum requirements by which we define something.

Take milk. Is it's essence that it is a liquid? No - there are many varieties of liquids, most of which are not milk products. Is it's essence that it is a white liquid? No. There are white liquids that are not milk. Is it's essence that it is a white liquid produced in the mammary glands of a mammal? Maybe. Are any other white liquids produced in the mammary glands of a mammal? If not, that is the essence of milk.

Maybe the milk comes from a goat. Maybe from a cow. Maybe its in a bottle, or a cup, or in a vapor. It may be skim. It may be whole. But it remains milk, because the essence of milk goes unchanged.

No. Historically, it is homogeneous societies who have waged war on other societies. The British Empire is one relevant example.

The British Empire isn't homogeneous. Britain isn't homogeneous - there are at least four nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland), and maybe even more (Manx, Cornish, Highland vs Lowland Scot, Protestant Irish vs Catholic Irish, etc).

In any case, quite simply, you're wrong. Homogeneous societies have lower crime rates and higher HDIs than heterogeneous societies.

I think that pointing out that your argument is irrelevant

It's not irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to attitudes toward aboriginals by Australian society. It may be irrelevant to what you want to focus on, but I don't give a fuck. I don't post for you.

This does not logically flow from your premises.

Where does it contradict my premises?

You do understand that my personal morality is not relevant to whether or not the mistreatment is consistent with Australian and Aboriginal mores?

I don't care about the aboriginal's mores because they are not the party in control in this scenario.

I do not believe that law is the primary determinant of a nation's moral beliefs.

The fact that Australian behavior contradicts Australian law is meaningless, because the laws may not be an authentic expression of Australian ethics.

[Pants-of-dog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... lonisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia

Really?

Yes, really.

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

And what were the legal justifications used by the United States for its most recent batch of nation building exercises (eg: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan)?

God knows.

So you don't care about being logically consistent?

As long as we agree that modern Australia has no laws like that nor any real way to create such laws, you can believe whatever you want about what I would answer in such a hypothetical universe.

I also thought your passport criteria was odd.

Can I use an aboriginal passport for its intended purpose, ie: to exercise my right to visit foreign countries and return to my home country afterward without detention?

That doesn't answer my question.

By the way, does this mean you support Aboriginal passports as used by Aboriginal sovereignists in Australia?

They could do whatever the fuck they want to any aboriginals which live in Australia (the state for non-aboriginal Australians). To use an example - Israel can do whatever it want to Arabs living in Israel. It cannot do whatever it wants to Arabs living in Saudi Arabia.

And so we agree that one nation cannot act against another nation in that way. Excellent.

From the metaethical perspective, which is all I am discussing and all I will discuss, anything Australians do to aboriginals is morally equivalent. Whether they're building them homes or feasting on their innards.

That's nice.

From a perspective that involves not only the real world, but also your HFL, Australians cannot do that.

I'll reiterate. I do not believe in the literal existence of a metaphysical reality inhabited by the essences of objects.

I'll simplify. Do you know what a stereotype is? Do they exist? Do you think that there is a parallel reality inhabited by stereotypes?

The essence of an object is nothing more than a synonym for a stereotype, without the "may not be true" part of it. It is the minimum requirements by which we define something.

Take milk. Is it's essence that it is a liquid? No - there are many varieties of liquids, most of which are not milk products. Is it's essence that it is a white liquid? No. There are white liquids that are not milk. Is it's essence that it is a white liquid produced in the mammary glands of a mammal? Maybe. Are any other white liquids produced in the mammary glands of a mammal? If not, that is the essence of milk.

Maybe the milk comes from a goat. Maybe from a cow. Maybe its in a bottle, or a cup, or in a vapor. It may be skim. It may be whole. But it remains milk, because the essence of milk goes unchanged.

I understand essentialism. i simply dismiss it as religious claptrap, mostly because you are assuming the existence of an unverifiable thing (an essence) that somehow affects the real world. Stereotypes don't exist outside of culture.

The British Empire isn't homogeneous. Britain isn't homogeneous - there are at least four nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland), and maybe even more (Manx, Cornish, Highland vs Lowland Scot, Protestant Irish vs Catholic Irish, etc).

In any case, quite simply, you're wrong. Homogeneous societies have lower crime rates and higher HDIs than heterogeneous societies.

Lol. The English, then.

I don't actually, care, agree, or think it's relevant.

It's not irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to attitudes toward aboriginals by Australian society. It may be irrelevant to what you want to focus on, but I don't give a fuck. I don't post for you.

Actually, yes, talking about what Australians might be able to do in some future HFL is irrelevant.

Where does it contradict my premises?

I don't know if it does. It just doesn't proceed logically from your premises. Just like a recipe for Peking Duck does not contradict your premises but is not a valid conclusion either.

I don't care about the aboriginal's mores because they are not the party in control in this scenario.

Your apathy is noted.

however, your apathy does not mean that Aboriginal mores are not relevant.

I do not believe that law is the primary determinant of a nation's moral beliefs.

Nor do I. This is why I also mentioned cultural mores.

The fact that Australian behavior contradicts Australian law is meaningless, because the laws may not be an authentic expression of Australian ethics.

There can be no authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there is no authentic Australian society and never has been (again, according to you).

[Fasces]

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

Every British person spontaneously materialized in 1497?

Let's go ahead and skip a few generations.

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

That's the King who created what many historians regard as writing the world's earliest legal code in written history.

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

That's the guy who came before him.

We can go further back - do animals have legal codes? Specifically, do other apes have legal codes?

Do these same apes have communities?

God knows.

They're the subject of public record. You can look them up. There were debates and committees.

By the way, does this mean you support Aboriginal passports as used by Aboriginal sovereignists in Australia?

Support doesn't enter into it. Individuals cannot issue passports by [url]definition.[/url]

Only states can. The aboriginal people are stateless.

And so we agree that one nation cannot act against another nation in that way. Excellent.

One state shouldn't act against another state in that way.

From a perspective that involves not only the real world, but also your HFL, Australians cannot do that.

Not on May 28th, 2014; no. That was never my claim.

I understand essentialism. i simply dismiss it as religious claptrap, mostly because you are assuming the existence of an unverifiable thing (an essence) that somehow affects the real world. Stereotypes don't exist outside of culture.

I also do not believe in the literal existence of Platonic Forms
viewtopic.php?p=14413874#p14413874

I do not believe in the literal existence of a metaphysical reality inhabited by the essences of objects.
viewtopic.php?p=14413992#p14413992

To be frank, you're bringing your literacy into question here.

I don't actually, care, agree, or think it's relevant.

It's a true fact, regardless.

Lava is hot.

Homogenous states have higher HDI's, lower crime rates, and fewer instances of intrastate conflict than heterogeneous ones.

2+2=4.

It just doesn't proceed logically from your premises.

From the ones posted, sure. It wasn't an exhaustive list, but w/e.

They are hinted at, though:

Any authentic national society must be monocultural

A people lose claim to their land when they no longer inhabit it or are the dominant culture in that region.

If the aborigines want to be free, they must create a national state in which they are the dominant culture. Since their claimed territory overlaps with the claimed territory of Australia, and a state is defined as a government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a territory, a sovereign Aboriginal state cannot exist within an Australian state. Either through compromise or force of arms, the aboriginal man, if he does not want the survival of his people to be determined by the continued goodwill of the Australian people (and here is where discussing a hypothetical future becomes relevant) must secure sovereignty for his people.

however, your apathy does not mean that Aboriginal mores are not relevant.

They are for the claim being made: Aborigines lost. Might makes right.

There can be no authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there is no authentic Australian society and never has been (again, according to you).

A sinless man can be thought of. The concept exists.
No man is without sin. The reality does not exist.

similarly

An authentic Australian society can be thought of. The concept exists (but not in a metaphysical plane of existence).
An authentic Australian society is not extant. The reality does not exist.

To say that a society cannot aspire to be more authentic is to say that a man cannot aspire to be without sin.

[Pants-of-dog]

Every British person spontaneously materialized in 1497?

Let's go ahead and skip a few generations.

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

That's the King who created what many historians regard as writing the world's earliest legal code in written history.

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

That's the guy who came before him.

We can go further back - do animals have legal codes? Specifically, do other apes have legal codes?

Do these same apes have communities?

I was only discussing the laws that govern the relationships between the Australian society and the Aborigines.

They're the subject of public record. You can look them up. There were debates and committees.

Sure.

Support doesn't enter into it. Individuals cannot issue passports by [url]definition.[/url]

Only states can. The aboriginal people are stateless.

Laws can change.

One state shouldn't act against another state in that way.

And in HFL, each nation has its own state, so we agree.

Not on May 28th, 2014; no. That was never my claim.

Then we agree that the idea that Australians can do whatever they want to Aboriginals only makes sense if we assume that Australia has turned into some xenophobic and fascist country and the Aborigines have chosen to stay in those parts of modern Australia that are now (in HFL) white Australia.

To be frank, you're bringing your literacy into question here.

To be frank, I don't really care what you think about what I think of some metaphysical topic that does not affect relationships between settlers and Aborigines.

It's a true fact, regardless.

Lava is hot.

Homogenous states have higher HDI's, lower crime rates, and fewer instances of intrastate conflict than heterogeneous ones.

2+2=4.

Feel free to provide evidence for your claim in another thread that you start for the purpose of discussing it.

Any authentic national society must be monocultural
A people lose claim to their land when they no longer inhabit it or are the dominant culture in that region.

If the aborigines want to be free, they must create a national state in which they are the dominant culture. Since their claimed territory overlaps with the claimed territory of Australia, and a state is defined as a government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a territory, a sovereign Aboriginal state cannot exist within an Australian state. Either through compromise or force of arms, the aboriginal man, if he does not want the survival of his people to be determined by the continued goodwill of the Australian people (and here is where discussing a hypothetical future becomes relevant) must secure sovereignty for his people.

I agree that sovereignty is a good idea, and I believe that many Aborigines agree.

I would, however, caution against assuming that you know what is best for Aboriginal people and their communities. After all, the Stolen Generations and the cultural genocide inflicted on Aborigines is (partly) a result of such paternalist notions.

I am not sure that they need to follow the more or less modern European invention of a nation-state.

They are for the claim being made: Aborigines lost. Might makes right.

And we have already agreed that that claim only makes sense if (a) Australia turns into a fascist and xenophobic nation and (b) Aborigines decide to stay a part of this nation instead of building their own nation in their own areas.

A sinless man can be thought of. The concept exists.
No man is without sin. The reality does not exist.

similarly

An authentic Australian society can be thought of. The concept exists (but not in a metaphysical plane of existence).
An authentic Australian society is not extant. The reality does not exist.

To say that a society cannot aspire to be more authentic is to say that a man cannot aspire to be without sin.

So, there can be no authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there is no authentic Australian society and never has been (again, according to you).

But there could be an authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there can be an authentic Australian society even though there never has been (again, according to you) because they can somehow "get in touch" with their "inner essence of Authentic Australian", as defined by stereotypes about Australians.

Or, Australians could simply follow their own laws as they are and establish a relationship of mutual respect with Aboriginal communities.

One thing they could do is stop separating families, and they could also start teaching Aboriginal languages in all Australian public schools.