- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Conquered lands aren’t the same thing as stolen lands
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:09 pm to weagle1999
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:09 pm to weagle1999
quote:
A group who is in possession of land that another group wants has the ability to compete and maintain possession. If they lose this competition then the land wasn’t stolen.
So is this now their grocery store and Burger King?
0
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:10 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Conquered lands aren’t the same thing as stolen lands
Good to know. In just a few years, I can say my country was conquered and not stolen
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:15 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
So if Mexico invaded and took your house you’d say, “To the victor go the spoils”?
So dumb. Can you not understand the OPs point? It isn’t that complicated.
I think I understand, but maybe it’s deeper than I’m capable of plumbing. I think he means that any country who takes land from another country did not steal it. Is that right?
If so, I’ll ask him to answer my question, which is on point given that understanding. But maybe THAT is too complicated for you?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:17 pm to Penrod
quote:
I think I understand, but maybe it’s deeper than I’m capable of plumbing.
Clearly.
quote:
If so, I’ll ask him to answer my question, which is on point given that understanding.
you think equating Europeans to conquering North America to Mexico taking a persons house is on point. You’re a complete moron. And you’re doubling down. Beautiful. Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:19 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
you think equating Europeans to conquering North America to Mexico taking a persons house is on point.
Well, I assumed you would infer that the Mexicans took his house as part of a conquest, not just some landscapers squatting.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:21 pm to Penrod
quote:
Well, I assumed you would infer that the Mexicans took his house as part of a conquest, not just some landscapers squatting.
So. If Mexico invades the US and wins. That’s your comparison? Brilliant. Tripled down.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:24 pm to weagle1999
The Indians had flock cameras and anti racism laws to where the conquerors could kill them without getting in trouble but the Indians weren’t allowed to fight back
Spanish: the original “teens”
Spanish: the original “teens”
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:28 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
So when someone mugs you, they aren’t stealing from you?
Yes, they are. You and the thief live under a mutually defined civil society governed by laws that articulate and protect certain rights, and prohibit behavior deemed illegal within clear and well-defined borders.
These social contracts and overlying enforcement authority do not exist between foreign actors in war. They certainly didn't 500 years ago.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:31 pm to weagle1999
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:33 pm to weagle1999
Nobody is telling the Normans to give England back to the Saxons (Angles and Jutes).
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:52 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
So. If Mexico invades the US and wins. That’s your comparison? Brilliant.
It’s a hypothetical. It doesn’t have to be likely. In fact, that is a common technique in argument: to exaggerate a situation to an improbable point in order to illustrate it. It’s called reductio ad absurdum
quote:
In this technique, you temporarily accept an opponent's premise and carry it out to its logical, ultimate conclusion. By showing that the premise inevitably leads to a ridiculous, impractical, or absurd scenario, you prove that the original argument must be flawed.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:57 pm to LSUbest
Like the way the tribes did to each other.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:24 pm to Penrod
If Mexico itself invaded and siezed my house, it wouldn't be my place to do anything about it. The government would wreck shite if they were blatantly invaded and not just the wink wink nudge nudge type that illegal immigration does.. or that china does when it purchases land.
It would move well beyond just my house being siezed by a foreign government. It would be a legit invasion by a foreign military on American soil.
Maybe the natives should've had a ruling central power that protected them from invasion.
It would move well beyond just my house being siezed by a foreign government. It would be a legit invasion by a foreign military on American soil.
Maybe the natives should've had a ruling central power that protected them from invasion.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:32 pm to Penrod
quote:
So if Mexico invaded and took your house
I'll play along.
If that happened, who would I appeal to to make them give it back?
Ans: somebody more powerful then Mexico (if that somebody exists). And if not, I'm out of luck and to the victors go the spoils.
And that's why we form nations - two or more people who pledge their mutual support for one another. Or to put in the Founder's jargon, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
And I will hasten to add, the things that strengthen those bonds include common land, standards (worldview), ethnos, language, and struggles. This is why "diversity is our strength" is such an egregious lie.
Posted on 9/5/26 at 2:53 am to Hateradedrink
You dont own it if you cannot defend it.
Posted on 9/5/26 at 6:43 am to Penrod
quote:
So if Mexico invaded and took your house you’d say, “To the victor go the spoils”?
I guess the point is if they did invade, beat the US armed forces, local wolverines partisan group, you, and took your house, yes to the victor goes the spoils.
Posted on 9/5/26 at 7:05 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
If that happened, who would I appeal to to make them give it back?
Ans: somebody more powerful then Mexico (if that somebody exists). And if not, I'm out of luck and to the victors go the spoils.
Yep. But that isn’t what this debate is about. It’s about terminology. Was it “stolen” or “conquered”. Both, really. To the victor it is spoils of rightful conquest. To the former homeowner it is stolen. Since the “victor writes the history books” it is conquered. But none of that changes whet really happened.
Ask all of the Cubans who fled Cuba to Miami in the early 60’s; their homes were “stolen”. Ask the commies who rule there still: they were “expropriated from the exploiters”.
Posted on 9/5/26 at 7:18 am to weagle1999
Isn’t anyone walking around in America today who actively did the “land stealing” and isn’t anyone walking around in America today who had “the land” actively “stolen” from them.
Anyone who comes to me with that argument is going to get the same response as someone trying to hold me accountable today for their great, great, great, great granddaddy having been captured by a different African tribe and sold to someone who brought him here to America:
A big yawn.
Anyone who comes to me with that argument is going to get the same response as someone trying to hold me accountable today for their great, great, great, great granddaddy having been captured by a different African tribe and sold to someone who brought him here to America:
A big yawn.
Posted on 9/5/26 at 1:19 pm to Penrod
quote:
It’s about terminology. Was it “stolen” or “conquered”.
If it's an inside job, it's stolen. If invaders from the other side of the border, it's conquered.
quote:
Ask all of the Cubans who fled Cuba to Miami in the early 60’s; their homes were “stolen”
I know several Cuban ex-pats. Next time I interface with them, I'll try to ask them.
Posted on 9/5/26 at 1:52 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:who were the What is the social contract that we have now? When exactly did it come into existence and who are parties that agreed to this? The only reason that I ask these questions is that the phrase "social contract" is overused and misused. The correct term here is moral imperative.
What was the agreed upon social contract we had with Native Americans?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News