.
by TurncoatDoes being first really denote ownership?
What happened to them was terrible and all, but "I was here first" hasn't worked for more than just them.
I know. But if being first isn't accepted as an ethical principle of land ownership, what can be? Perhaps the answer is that nobody has the "right" to own land (which he hasn't made). But we are a long way from abolishing ownership of land. In the meantime, what principle serves?
At one point, the European colonists used the justification that the Native Americans weren't making enough use of the land so they had the right to civilize it.
Abolishing the concept of having a right to own something doesn't abolish ownership itself. Even in a civilized society, it comes down to being able to defend your ownership. If someone stronger than you decides your house is where they intend to build a highway, or doesn't like your use of chemical weapons on your citizens, they will make it very clear that might makes right in their eyes.
You sound like a needy 6 year old. My age and line of work have been laid out in my previous thread "And when i say Niggers i am speaking of people in general who fail to fit into society and contribute to the better good."
Careful now, stupidity like this might make joshua jealous
He would never admit he hates black people in public.
He'd get fucked up by the nearest minority in the area.
He's a coward who has to hide his closet beliefs, he probably has black co-workers and colleagues who he has casual conversations with on a daily basis.
He knows the repercussions for being ignorant, even though he so valiantly defends his cause here on the Internet like so many have done before him, he'll never express who he truely is.
He is weak.