-->
@Best.Korea
Yes paper > tomahawk.
People say America is built on stolen land
Posts
Total:
87
The piece of paper makes no difference if people still attack each other, so common now
It's actually extremely rare nowadays. People view war as a spectator sport. Too many signed papers.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes paper > tomahawk
You are for the third time ignoring the fact that Europe also resolved and still resolves its conflicts with violence.
So since your premise is "those who do violence should be eradicated", the only logical conclusion is that you think everyone should be eradicated.
So unless you have some actual argument, I think we are done here.
-->
@Best.Korea
Paper beat your rock, sorry.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's actually extremely rare nowadays. People view war as a spectator sport. Too many signed papers.
Europe and USA fought wars all over the world, and still do, and they have many crimes in the countries too. So no, its not "rare violence".
-->
@Best.Korea
USA is mostly destroying barbarians in the Middle East that refuse to sign and abide by papers. See Hamas.
-->
@Greyparrot
Paper beat your rock, sorry.
No, you just cant make proper arguments and think that Europe who gave us 2 world wars and killed 100 million people in them is "civilized" and "justified" in killing 99% of native Americans because native Americans "kill each other".
Its a self contradicting argument, because the ones you view as "justified because they prevent killings" have killed the most people in history.
-->
@Greyparrot
USA is mostly destroying barbarians in the Middle East that refuse to sign and abide by papers. See Hamas.
Your original argument was "if they fight each other, they should all be eradicated". So by your logic USA and Hamas should be eradicated because they fight each other.
And piece of paper still makes no moral difference.
-->
@Best.Korea
WW3 is fought today with subversive means such as sanctions, illegal immigration, crypto, tariffs, joint resolutions, economic alliances, starting civil wars with foreign aid, and propaganda.
This is the direct result of the evolution of using paper to resolve conflicts.
And piece of paper still makes no moral difference.
Well, I guess if you think a tomahawk to the head is the same as a slow internal death to the TikTok gods.
-->
@Greyparrot
WW3 is fought today with subversive means like sanctions, illegal immigration, crypto, tariffs, joint resolutions, economic alliances, and propaganda.
You have actual war being fought in Ukraine, you forgot.
Now again, your original argument was "eradicating them was justified because they fought each other".
And now you are trying to change that to "People dont fight as much today", which is false, you have wars and crimes all over the world. In USA alone, 300,000 people get murdered every 10 years.
So again, your argument is self defeating.
-->
@Best.Korea
Ukraine isn't WW3, it's a civil war the USA purchased with foreign aid in 2014.
Pieces of paper.
-->
@Greyparrot
Paper beat your rock, sorry.
“The pen is mightier”
However, when one tries to cut up that paper with scissors, then the rock inevitably rears its ugly head…
-->
@Greyparrot
Ukraine isn't WW3, it's a civil war the USA purchased with foreign aid in 2014.
I guess you have no response to my arguments, and now have just moved the goalpost from "violence" to "WW3" for some greatly delusional reason.
Your knowledge of native Americans obviously comes from racist cartoons and racist movies, and you ignore all the violence happening in the world right now let alone 400 years ago in Europe.
-->
@Best.Korea
Lol, you were the one making the argument that tomahawk violence pre-colonial America was morally superior to paper resolutions of conflicts. I just didn't want to stop you when you were wasting so much time falling over yourself.
But paper still beats tomahawks made with a stone head.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you were the one making the argument that tomahawk violence pre-colonial America was morally superior to paper resolutions of conflicts.
No, I was saying that violence exists with or without paper, and thinking that Europeans were justified in eradicating 99% of native Americans because Europeans had piece of paper is probably the dumbest argument anyone ever made on the issue, so good work.
-->
@Best.Korea
There's objectively less violence when resolving conflicts with paper instead of tomahawks.
You can stop tripping over rocks by laying pieces of paper over them.
-->
@Greyparrot
You are free to believe that, but millions of deaths per year today and the killing of 99% of native Americans by Europeans dont exactly support your case.
-->
@Best.Korea
Ukraine war barely tops 30,000 deaths per year out of 38 million people. It's yawn-worthy.
-->
@Greyparrot
Ukraine war barely tops 30,000 deaths per year
Thats 300,000 in 10 years, and thats just for war. Not to mention crimes such as rape and murder.
-->
@Best.Korea
"If you have a shotgun, you can rob people who dont have a shotgun." - cristo71
I mean, it's true. You can do that.
-->
@Savant
Or you can just use your shotgun to enforce a piece of paper.
-->
@Savant
I mean, it's true. You can do that.
Yes, even when he twists one’s words (which is almost all of the time), the strawman is STILL an undeniable truism in this case.
-->
@cristo71
even when he twists one’s words
No one twisted your words. Maybe you dont understand your own words, but thats more of a your problem.
"how IS land owned?.....
I’ve got a shotgun
And you don’t got one"
Yeah, you set a pretty clear standard.
-->
@Best.Korea
How do you propose to debunk that? Snarkiness does not a refutation make…
-->
@cristo71
How do you propose to debunk that?
I dont need to debunk a person who thinks its morally justified to steal property just because you have a shot gun and the other guy doesnt.
I just need to point at that person so people laugh at him.
-->
@Best.Korea
Yet you insist that you aren’t twisting my words. That is the laughable bit. I never, anywhere used the words “morally justified.” That’s your twist.
As you refuse to get it, I will spell it out for you: I am describing the world as it IS in reality, not as you, me, nor anyone WISHES it were. Do you see the difference?
-->
@cristo71
I never, anywhere used the words “morally justified.”
Oh, so your argument is irrelevant to the topic of if European invaders were morally justified.
I love when people refute themselves. This was fun. Do it again sometimes.
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh, you get to define the topic now? How convenient for you, not even being the OP and all. At BK, you can have it your way!
Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?
-->
@cristo71
I am glad you concede that European invaders were not morally justified, or at least that your argument which was previously mentioned doesnt make them morally justified.
Thats really all I needed to hear. Once again, thank you.
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think the allies won WWII because they were morally justified?
*crickets*
Your concession by silence to the inefficacy of moral justification is noted. If you are ever carjacked— or bicycle or tricycle jacked as the case may be— you will no doubt be shouting “Hey, this is theft! You are NOT morally justified in doing this!!” Yes, you will no longer have your ride, but you will have the deep satisfaction of knowing that the thief was clearly not morally justified.