BREAKING NEWS: I actually own the US.

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 20
Topic's author
#1
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
I blundered last time and posted a forum which conjured up in about 5 minutes. Nevertheless, I still own the US. Consider the following. 

An interesting switch was pulled in Rome yesterday by Adam Nordwell, an American Chippewa chief. As he descended his plane from California dressed in full tribal regalia, Nordwell announced in the name of the American Indian people that he was taking possession of Italy "by right of discovery" in the same way that Christopher Columbus did in America. "I proclaim this day the day of the discovery of Italy" said Nordwell. "What right did Columbus have to discover America when it had already been inhabited for thousands of years?  The same right I now have to come to Italy and proclaim the discovery of your country".
Nordwell suggests that his "discovery" of Italy is like Columbus's "discovery" of America in one important way: both Nordwell and Columbus claimed a country that alrelady had been inhabited by its own people for centuries. Thus, Nordwell insists that he has as much right to claim Italy as Columbus had to claim America. Of course, Nordwell has no right to claim Italy as his discovery. Therefore, it must follow that Columbus had no right to claim America either. Consider the following syllogism, but with myself. 

P1. I claim America "by right of discovery" similar (in the most important aspect) to Columbus's claim to America.

P2. Columbus's claim to America "by right of discovery" is similar (in the most important aspect) to Norwell's claim to Italy.

P3. I have has no right to America.

C1. Columbus has no right to America. 

P1 and P2 are objectively factual statements, nothing controversial. The last time I posted this, I had some people nit pick and say "well technically Columbus didn't actually touch down to America yadayada". This is no issue to what I am asserting. I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's. It matters not if there are technical disputes with who exactly took over America, the fact is that Indigenous America was taken over by X party and the current society see's no issue in such an act. Let X be whoever you think took over America, whether that be Columbus or whoever. 

P3 is also obviously true, therefore the conclusion must also be true. 

REPLYING TO OBJECTIONS:

Polytheist-Witch STATED: 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. 
Not having a mean of proving your existence does not mean that you do not exist. Just because you do not have guns to defend yourself, doesn't mean the taking of your land is right. That would be like me planning a home invasion and taking care to find someone who doesn't own a gun, as this would somehow make it "just". Just because I have more firepower and am able to overtake your land, doesn't mean the overtaking is actually right. 

MisterChris STATED: It wasn't organized territory and the populations were sparse and similarly unorganized. 
So as long as a civilisation is unorganised, it becomes alright to invade it? What if I dropped a bomb on Vatican City, thereby disorganizing it and then decided to invade it and claim it as mine? Would this be moral, on the basis that they were "sparse and unorganised". 

Intelligence_06 STATED: When Columbus arrived, nobody "owned" the land.

==

You'll be surprised to learn that I am generally conservative on the issue of the Columbus landing, I just also happen to be open minded.  I dislike people who hate on Columbus (get out of America if you don't like it) but came across this comparison which was too good not to share to a debating community. I believe Mr.Chris makes a good point in stating "all land expansion in history was done through CONQUERING land, which is exactly what Spain did." That would also be my response. My answer to this Columbus issue would be "I don't care, they were weak and during the era of the invasion, they couldn't hold there grounds". However, I initially made this forum in hopes of funding a more substantial answer than "I don't care". Though the conservative part of myself is telling me this, there's just something about invading and taking over a helpless and wholesome community which was otherwise enjoying themselves. 




Topic's author
#2
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@MisterChris
@Intelligence_06
@Theweakeredge
Take a crack. 
#3
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Here is the crucial point where your syllogism falls apart, which was pointed out to you in the last thread but you apparently glossed over: The European monarchies did not come into possession of American lands by right of discovery. They did so by right of conquest. Re-examine your argument under this light and you will see where it falls apart.
Topic's author
#4
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If only that were the case. 



I'm not too sure what you are talking about, truth be told. 
#5
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
I'm not too sure what you are talking about, truth be told. 
Conquest (n) - The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.

My question: If settlers did not use military force to subdue the population, would they have ended up in control of the land?

A) Yes
B) No

Your answer: ______
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
I'm not sure that Columbus ever got to North America.

He seemed to prefer Caribbean holidays.

And the previous inhabitants of the Americas, were the ones that got there first.

And then someone else came along.

And ownership is an assumption.
#7
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
I repeat my criticism, post #9,  of your original claim three weeks ago, noting that you have updated this "syllogism" with a 3P, and, that you have not dated the Columbian expedition this time. Neither change matters; it's still flawed, and much for the same reasons:

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.
 I will add that, since you claim no country in your profile, I conclude you have none, violating Article VI of the Constitution, or, as it states, literally, that you don't know. Okay; just reading the text for what it is. By what else should I draw conclusion?
Topic's author
#8
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
There seems to be some miscommunication. How/when and by who do you think America was seized by?

Topic's author
#9
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Conquest (n) - The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.

My question: If settlers did not use military force to subdue the population, would they have ended up in control of the land?

A) Yes
B) No

Your answer: ______
ANSWER: Yes. 

However, you miss the point. I am aware that America was taken over via military force, but the fact is that America "claimed" by "discovery", hence the doctrine, the Doctrine of Discovery. 

I hardly see how this is relevant. If you are willing to admit that America was taken by force, then you are admitting that what occurred is wrong. After all, if I invaded your house "by right of conquest", that would hardly stand up in court. 


#10
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
The miscommunication, my friend, is between you and your advising sock puppet. In a syllogism, each of your propositions must be true for the conclusion to be true. You don't just strings sentences together and expect the result to be any logical conclusion.

Your P1 is false. Columbus never set foot in America, i.e. The United States of America, your original proposal and still your stated topic: "I actually own the U.S."

Your P2 is false.  Since Columbus never set foot in what is now the sovereign U.S., he has no claim on it.

You P3, coincidentally, is true, but its singular truth is not sufficient to yield the logic you seek.

Your Ci, also coincidentally, is true, but not because of any basis in your propositions. In fact, it combats your P1.

Your logic, Bones, is utterly flawed. I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?
Topic's author
#11
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Your P1 is false. Columbus never set foot in America, i.e. The United States of America, your original proposal and still your stated topic: "I actually own the U.S."

Your P2 is false.  Since Columbus never set foot in what is now the sovereign U.S., he has no claim on it.

You P3, coincidentally, is true, but its singular truth is not sufficient to yield the logic you seek.

Your Ci, also coincidentally, is true, but not because of any basis in your propositions. In fact, it combats your P1.
Again with this! "Columbus never set foot in America". Your understanding in history is astoundingly inaccurate. 




Clearly, Columbus did set foot on America. For all practical purposes it was Columbus, on behalf of the Spanish kingdom of Castille, on October 12th, 1492 who discovered America. All other interpretations are not valid from the point of view of what changed for good the history of America and the world .Moreover, by discovery it is not mean just to arrive to some point in the planet but to make it known to the rest of the world and to stablish permanent settlements there. No one but Columbus and Spain did this before. I am aware that there were Anglo-Saxon societies or English speaking countries which resent this fact and write about theories about who was the first to discover America: the answer is simple: Spain and Columbus. Full Stop. Moreover, sources 

published American courts hold that Columbus's landing was legally justified as the land being seized was not inhabited by Christians. Obviously the doctrine of Discovery was used to defend the actions of Columbus, not whatever Vikings where there beforehand. 

Moreover, I clearly stated in my post that "I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's". Even if you do not have the ability to wrap your head around who discovered America, I have clearly compensated for this deficiency and stated that Columbus is simply a variable. This historical accuracy of who discovered does not impact my  syllogism. Why? Consider the following dumbed down version of my initial deductive argument. 

p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited. 

p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabited 

p3. When I do it, it's wrong 

c1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong. 

I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?
There there, calm down Richy. You're a 78 year old man who writes childrens books and am the second most active member on an online forum where you insult people 4 times younger than you. No need for the aggression, please, let's keep this civil!


#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,083
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
America was already there....It didn't need discovering.

Discovery is another assumption, like ownership.

The current inhabitants of the North American mainland are there because that is how things have panned out over the past few hundred years.

And things and people change, irrespective of force or aggression.....Though such actions can make significant changes in the short term.

The U.S is nominally the U.S.....In a thousand years time, the region currently known as the U.S. might be named differently.

Though the genetic remnants of it's current peoples will probably persist somewhere.

The Earth is the Earth.... And organic fluff clings precariously on, for the time being.
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Your first source:

Truth was, he was in the Bahamas. 
The list of the United States [your topic] does not include the Bahamas
Your second source:

your third source: first voyage

Columbus sailed from island to island in what we now know as the Caribbean,
third source, second voyage

He found the Hispaniola settlement destroyed
settlement from firs voyage, not what is now U.S.

third source, third voyage

visited Trinidad and the South American mainland before returning to the ill-fated Hispaniola settlement,
still not the U.S.

third source, fourth voyage

This time, Columbus made it all the way to Panama
still not the U.S. Last voyage of Columbus. Yes, he set foot on islands and mainland of the Americas, the Continents, but not evewr on sovereign U.S. soil. Face it bud, you set the topic on the United States, specifically, not the Americas. We are the United States of America, but the U.S. does not comprise the total land mass of the two continents, and not even the total of one continent. A knowledge of history would teach you that. Skipped that day?

AS for my age, it demonstrates that you skim poorly. and that is apparently how you read, or I would not need to correct your research. I am clearly not the second-most active forum member. More skimming.  
Topic's author
#14
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
You have a talent for ignoring what people say, so I am left with no choice but to repeat myself.

For all practical purposes it was Columbus, on behalf of the Spanish kingdom of Castille, on October 12th, 1492 who discovered America. All other interpretations are not valid from the point of view of what changed for good the history of America and the world .Moreover, by discovery it is not mean just to arrive to some point in the planet but to make it known to the rest of the world and to stablish permanent settlements there. No one but Columbus and Spain did this before. I am aware that there were Anglo-Saxon societies or English speaking countries which resent this fact and write about theories about who was the first to discover America: the answer is simple: Spain and Columbus. Full Stop. Moreover, sources 

Moreover, I clearly stated in my post that "I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's". Even if you do not have the ability to wrap your head around who discovered America, I have clearly compensated for this deficiency and stated that Columbus is simply a variable. This historical accuracy of who discovered does not impact my  syllogism. Why? Consider the following dumbed down version of my initial deductive argument. 

p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited. 

p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabited 

p3. When I do it, it's wrong 

c1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong. 

Face it bud, you set the topic on the United States, specifically, not the Americas. 
You may be to old to understand, but there's something called shortening words.  Anyone who can decipher simple social ques are able to understand that the US refers to America. Moreover, I initially used the term US in hopes of fitting the title so that it is people scanning the forums can see it and perhaps be interested. Nevertheless, it seems that I need to do a little bit more simplifying for you. Again, I stress 

p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited. 

p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabited 

p3. When I do it, it's wrong 

c1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong. 

AS for my age, it demonstrates that you skim poorly. and that is apparently how you read, or I would not need to correct your research.
Sorry, you are 71 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and 2 days happy? I, unlike you, have a social life to attend to, and treat debateart as a hobby, not a job. Personally, I am not inclined to furiously fact check every single claim that I make. 

I am clearly not the second-most active forum member. More skimming.  
Sorry, THE most active forum member. In case you didn't know, scroll to the bottom of the forums tab and you'll find your name proudly displayed on the bottom of the page. 
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
You may be to old to understand, but there's something called shortening words.  
So, I'll give you a short word:   map.

Look at virtually any map of the world. How is the portion of the North American Continent that is the U.S. named? America? Nope, because the continent is a greater land mass than the United States, the name of the map of what you claim. The full name of teh country is the United States of America; we are a smaller portion of the large whole that is North America. Not to mention, as reminded before, the object of your topis is NOT America, but the U.S., specifically. Ignore it if you will, but it was your short words.

Then observe the map that Columbus probably used in the voyage of 1492, and likely the following three voyages. That map was produced in 12491 by a cartographer named Henricus Martellus. Look it up. Is there an "America" named on that map? No.

The observe a amp that Columbus had no access to; it was produced in 1507, the year following Chris' death. It does have a land mass on it called "America," but is completely incorrect, having n o relation to the actual landmasses that are North and South American continents, and there is no recognition of what wold be come the U.S.


#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
@Bones
Sorry, you are 71 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and 2 days happy? I, unlike you,
Is your 'social life' dedicated to internet scoping? Seems you know more of me than is revealed on my DArt profile, and that is dangerous ground, my friend. I suggest you back off. This is a website of exchange of ideas, not personal investigation.

Ragnar, make note, please.
Topic's author
#17
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
Is your 'social life' dedicated to internet scoping?
I have done nothing which violates the code of conduct. Merely relaying information which is on your public profile does not (or at least should not) be a breach in any reasonable rule. If you do not want people to tell you that you are 71 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and 2 days old, maybe keep your profile clean.

Seems you know more of me than is revealed on my DArt profile, and that is dangerous ground, my friend.
Yes, through my expert use of doxing and trojan attacking your private email address, I was able to obtain information FROM YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE. 

not personal investigation
If all a personal investigator needs to do is look at someone's profile, then I suppose my career is set. 

==

You, however, are not as clean as I am. 

Clearly 

 I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?

treat others as you wish to be treated
Your speculation about me surely is not something you would like to go through. For all you know, I could be the son of a billionaire, typing this from the luxury of my castle waiting for my helicopter to pick my up. On the other hand, I could be a homeless boy on a pre-paid phone sitting outside the library to access free internet, visiting this website to fuel my dreams of one day becoming a respected debater, who because of your taunt of my financial state, am contemplating suicide. Who knows? 

To recall, this exchange began with you stating 

 I will add that, since you claim no country in your profile, I conclude you have none
to which I turned a blind eye stating 

There seems to be some miscommunication. 
Ungracefully, you replied 

The miscommunication, my friend, is between you and your advising sock puppet...

...your logic, Bones, is utterly flawed. I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?
As you can see, I in no way initiated this taunting exchange, I in fact ignored your first little jab at me to which you replied with the following. In fact I am so nice that I do not exercise my right as documented by the Dart code of conduct, subsection "harassment" point 2, which states that 

criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
Technically, I could have a little jab at you but I am above petty insults over the internet, something you cannot say. However, if you continue this pattern of taunting, I will retaliate with vicious force.  

Ragnar, make note, please.
Topic's author
#18
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Again with this ignorance! I really do hate repeating myself, by 

For all practical purposes it was Columbus, on behalf of the Spanish kingdom of Castille, on October 12th, 1492 who discovered America. All other interpretations are not valid from the point of view of what changed for good the history of America and the world .Moreover, by discovery it is not mean just to arrive to some point in the planet but to make it known to the rest of the world and to stablish permanent settlements there. No one but Columbus and Spain did this before. I am aware that there were Anglo-Saxon societies or English speaking countries which resent this fact and write about theories about who was the first to discover America: the answer is simple: Spain and Columbus. Full Stop. Moreover, sources 

Moreover, I clearly stated in my post that "I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's". Even if you do not have the ability to wrap your head around who discovered America, I have clearly compensated for this deficiency and stated that Columbus is simply a variable. This historical accuracy of who discovered does not impact my  syllogism. Why? Consider the following dumbed down version of my initial deductive argument. 

p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited. 

p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabited 

p3. When I do it, it's wrong 

c1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong. 
Address the syllogism.
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
Never encountered such a glutton for punishment of poor logic.

Fine:

Your P2 is false, once again, because your claim, now, violates Article VI of the Constitution, and, obviously has since the Constitution was ratified just a few years ago. You may not realize that making such a claim, yu arer, on fact, claiming sovereign citizenship, which is also illegal.

Since any one of the propositions, being false, fails the logic, your "syllogism" isn't, so it fails.
Topic's author
#20
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for FINALLY addressing my argument, instead of committing ad hominem after ad hominem. 

Your P2 is false, once again, because your claim, now, violates Article VI of the Constitution, and, obviously has since the Constitution was ratified just a few years ago. You may not realize that making such a claim, yu arer, on fact, claiming sovereign citizenship, which is also illegal.
This response essentially dodges the question by appealing to an authority. It is like saying "slavery is wrong because article blah blah blah of the constitution says so". No, slavery is not wrong because of a court ruling, it is wrong because it is fundamentally immoral. 

The same can be said for the situation in hand. I believe that it would be wrong for me to go to America, kill everyone who disobeys me and enslave the rest not because  Article  VI of the Constitution says so, but because it is the wrong thing to do. Your reference to said article only delays the question, for then I can ask, why is it wrong for me to disobey Article VI, what rule or moral right does it uphold? What is is the purpose of Article VI. 

Murder is not wrong because the law says it is, murder is wrong because it is morally wrong.