(no subject)

Jeff Wilson · 20 May 2009, 19:21 · from 2009-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jwilson at io.com (Jeff Wilson)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:21:17 -0500
Subject: (urth) (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <2985.67.142.130.24.1242846262.squirrel at brunians.org>
References: <63FB9AC7E0AEC7459DBCC99DC44247CA031FA6A4 at BOSIDEXDB.Bankofscotland.ie>	<7405.67.142.130.46.1242826103.squirrel at brunians.org>	<4A1412BC.2040606 at io.com>	<12331.67.142.130.32.1242836941.squirrel at brunians.org>	<4A144AFC.9050502 at io.com>
	<2985.67.142.130.24.1242846262.squirrel at brunians.org>
Message-ID: <4A14582D.9050904 at io.com>

brunians at brunians.org wrote:
>> [Jefferson] continued to own slaves, to keep men made by that same
>> Creator from their liberty and their pursuit of happiness for *fifty
>> years* after he wrote those words. Who could take such a moral criminal
>> seriously?
> 
> Books have been written about this. All I will say at this time is that I
> am satisfied that Jefferson's conduct was mediated by necessity.

Why can you take Jefferson's word seriously enough to determine that his 
necessity was valid, but dismiss Rosseau out of hand? If Rosseau came 
out and admitted later that he had no good reason to to get rid of ths 
babies, and it was a bad bad thing, acknowledging the moral crime, he's 
still unworthy of creedence? Isn't that a double standard piled atop a 
perverse moral incentive?

>>> I have no idea what you mean by 'native title'. Perhaps you will choose
>>> to enlighten me: in any case I wish you joy of your superior knowledge.
> 
>> briefly, that native peoples can retain an interest in the land that
>> survives redistribution by colonizing polities.
> 
> I believe that they have treaty rights, which should be enforced.

What about the ones that were driven off their land without the pretense 
of a treaty?

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net