Search Results
8/7/2025, 4:15:08 PM
>>512453899
You don't seem to understand. It devolves to who was here first. Which is far less arbitrary than who is here now.
History, legality, if you'd ever bother to read, not that I think you get much out of the activity, you specifically seem much better at day dreaming, all revolve around territory and power over it. I don't ascribe to such ideals, you seem intent on taking it there.
Sure if not me than who?
Its not a dog whistle, I clearly said I serve any cause that is against the jews. The jews are the most prolific mass murderers of the last 100 years (arguably 10,000 years).
Just as a simple test, what classification of humans are we arguing about? Could you arrange for us a list of your purported indigenous by population? Because it seems you define dominance strictly by population.
But if you could elaborate on your notions of dominance we could theoretically have a discussion.
Just pointing out, the hoenfeldian rights analysis you're doing is quite modern, but is born out from those supposed settler populations. You argue for the supplantation own claim rights by those of the displaced, who by necessity were never discarded in the first place, their blood is the fertile soil upon which settlers grow. You argue they were made mute by colonization, instead of noble and honorable sacrifices who would have done the same had they been victorious. We would have been under their jurisprudence, pale faced children would be discriminated against, their children would have played, Sun Warriors vs Sea Villains.
displacement, marginalization, and legal claims are all words for territorial control.
this is who is here, this is who was here, this is who writes the words of peace here.
your whole thing deontology, implies a moral duty, a compulsion to act. The only action you've elucidated is territorial control. But don't expect anyone to respect, king of the hill, as a good and moral game.
You don't seem to understand. It devolves to who was here first. Which is far less arbitrary than who is here now.
History, legality, if you'd ever bother to read, not that I think you get much out of the activity, you specifically seem much better at day dreaming, all revolve around territory and power over it. I don't ascribe to such ideals, you seem intent on taking it there.
Sure if not me than who?
Its not a dog whistle, I clearly said I serve any cause that is against the jews. The jews are the most prolific mass murderers of the last 100 years (arguably 10,000 years).
Just as a simple test, what classification of humans are we arguing about? Could you arrange for us a list of your purported indigenous by population? Because it seems you define dominance strictly by population.
But if you could elaborate on your notions of dominance we could theoretically have a discussion.
Just pointing out, the hoenfeldian rights analysis you're doing is quite modern, but is born out from those supposed settler populations. You argue for the supplantation own claim rights by those of the displaced, who by necessity were never discarded in the first place, their blood is the fertile soil upon which settlers grow. You argue they were made mute by colonization, instead of noble and honorable sacrifices who would have done the same had they been victorious. We would have been under their jurisprudence, pale faced children would be discriminated against, their children would have played, Sun Warriors vs Sea Villains.
displacement, marginalization, and legal claims are all words for territorial control.
this is who is here, this is who was here, this is who writes the words of peace here.
your whole thing deontology, implies a moral duty, a compulsion to act. The only action you've elucidated is territorial control. But don't expect anyone to respect, king of the hill, as a good and moral game.
Page 1