BREAKING NEWS: I own the US.

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
Consider the following syllogism about how Italian explorer Christopher Columbus came into possession of America. 

p1. Columbus landed on American soil for the first time in 1942, which was already inhabited by indigenous people. 
p2. Columbus took possession of America, regardless of the inhabitants. 
c1. Thus the presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land. 

Using this conclusion. 

p1. I travel to America right now. 
p2. The presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land
c1. I possess America

#2
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
ah yes, the Great Columbus Landing of 1942.




Seriously though, your understanding of history is so flawed. 
#3
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@MisterChris
WHAT? You don't remember the time that Columbus said to America during WWII to evade the Nazi's? That's American history man
#4
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@MisterChris
I mean he's not technically wrong. Columbus sort of walked onto natives land and claimed it as his own. Someone could do that today and say they own America, but they'd probably be dismissed as insane or shot if they start entering someone's property
#5
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
They had no papers to fight for ownership in court, had no guns, and Columbus was ruthless. Today people could fight you in court or just call the police.  Not really the same. Not to mention we are a sovereign nation now. 
#6
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Vader
I mean he's not technically wrong. Columbus sort of walked onto natives land and claimed it as his own. Someone could do that today and say they own America, but they'd probably be dismissed as insane or shot if they start entering someone's property

It wasn't organized territory and the populations were sparse and similarly unorganized. Coming and claiming what was seemingly empty land for Spain wasn't the equivalent of marching into New York City and claiming it for yourself. The way Columbus saw it, he was simply bringing civilization to a stone age world. Moreover, whenever people speak of  Columbus "stealing" land, they don't seem to recognize that nearly all land expansion in history was done through CONQUERING land, which is exactly what Spain did. This wasn't a uniquely terrible act. It wasn't good, but it wasn't something uniquely heinous by any means.
#7
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
Consider the following syllogism about how Italian explorer Christopher Columbus came into possession of America. 

p1. Columbus landed on American soil for the first time in 1942, which was already inhabited by indigenous people. 
p2. Columbus took possession of America, regardless of the inhabitants. 
c1. Thus the presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land. 

Using this conclusion. 

p1. I travel to America right now. 
p2. The presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land
c1. I possess America

Let's break this down:
p1. Columbus landed on American soil for the first time in 1942, which was already inhabited by indigenous people. 
Are you referring to central America or North America? Because Columbus never touched what we consider "the USA" today. He landed in current-day Central America. 


p2. Columbus took possession of America, regardless of the inhabitants. 
No... he claimed that it was his.. .question, if you went to Mexico, put a flag down, then claimed that it was yours, would that make it yours?


c1. Thus the presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land. 
Not necessarily no - the conclusion is a non-sequitur - it is possible that these particular people's presence doesn't inhibit possessing land, not in general, its possible that Columbus killed the people there? The conclusion just doesn't follow. 

Topic's author
#8
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@MisterChris
Ah, a typo. 1492, not 1942. Nevertheless, this typography does not effect the syllogism. 
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
Syllogisms are not syllogisms simply because one can string 3 sentences together. P1& 2 must, themselves always be true. C must follow from P1 & 2.

Your P1, in spite of being centuries off, is still not true because Columbus, in four separate voyages, never set foot on what is now sovereign U.S. soil. Your topic indicates "US."

Your P2 is not correct, either. Columbus did not even take possession of the Caribbean Islands where he did set foot. His claim was made in the name of the King and Queen of Spain, although Columbus was, himself, Italian. He certainly did not take possession of what is now sovereign U.S. soil in anyone's name.

Therefore, C is not correct, either, because the US Constitution forbids foreign claim on US sovereignty. See Article VI and common law understanding of sovereignty..

Your second syllogism, therefore , fails, since its dependence is on the first.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Plus.

You cannot put it in a box and take it home.
#11
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10

Though I'm not sure if it's worth watching, there's a reaction video, then a reaction video to the reaction video, then a reaction video to the reaction video of the reaction video.
Get's tedious.
#12
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I just expected Oromagi to be the author of this page.
#13
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Bones
I know you are jokin' around, I am too.

When Columbus arrived, nobody "owned" the land. Columbus claimed the land by force and possibly bought it. You did not.

That is why you own your house, but not the other state farm a few kilometers next to your city
#14
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Bones
In short, you're missing centuries worth of steps (basically enough to match the typo in your OP).

But hypothetically, yes, you could go to the USA today with vastly better technology, kill or otherwise drive everyone from the lands you want, and colonize it in the name of wherever. It's just not as easy as declaring possession with stepping foot on occupied lands (well technically you could declare it, but it would not make the ownership valid and free of conflicting claims).
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
If all there was to sovereignty were occupation of land,  then most of our designations of political boundaries would be uncontested. As that is not the case, something more than physical occupation is in play.