|
| Thread: If I hire mostly black women, then I'm trying to improve the lives of the downtrodden |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 11, 2009 02:35 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 02:37, 11 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Doesn't matter, he paid for it. It's his house for which he worked. He didn't kick out the jews, nor did he have anything to do with the war.
I'm gonna pay an assassin to kill somebody.
My hard work is in that money. Honest work. (no really)
I'm innocent.
That's all I had to say. 
Quote:
So if something is wrongfully disowned the noone should have it according to you. That is how I understand it. If your parent gave you food that he took from someone else, you should give back that food?
Absolutely, are you joking me? Of course.
Say your daddy steals an expensive laptop. He then gives it to you and goes into a fight with the owner and both are dead.
The owner's son wants his laptop (by inheritance) back.
You seriously say you wouldn't give it to him? Don't you see how open to exploits this is? This is just the top of the iceberg.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 02:38 AM |
|
|
The fact he paid for that house didn't hurt anyone, so I have a hard time seeing how that is relevant
In this particular example we are also assuming heearned the money in an honest way, because the issue is complex enough as is.
Also, I seriously wouldn't give it t him, since many people aren't prone to dying for property. And I would give back the lap top because I would pity the chap who lost his dad over something astrivial as this and because a laptop is a luxury item. However, that is an emotional argument. But if he, say, gave me a house or food or something I need, I wouldn't give it back. I'd apologise for my father, say it was a stupid feud and try to recompensate if I was well off, but if I wasn't well off, then I would keep the house/ food/ car.
I'm not rich and can't give away my property to anyone who claimsthat my ancestor wronged him in someway, because what's done is done. The law didn't stop my father and he didn't do enough to get things back from my father, so it is mine, now, I'm sorry!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 03:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The fact he paid for that house didn't hurt anyone, so I have a hard time seeing how that is relevant
You buy the house -- you pay a criminal, in my example (a Nazi who killed the inhabitants of that house) -- the chain can go on and on (doesn't have to be the direct person, but in that case, we will start with the first element in the chain beside the criminal which wouldn't be you, fortunately for you).
You pay an assassion -- you also pay a criminal.
Both can do "bad things" with it (the Nazi already did).
Basically put, you can't just say "I don't like what Nazis did, but I enjoy the house they made possible for me to live in and that not one of those Jews inhabits it and they were killed/kicked out, so yeah!" and claim you are innocent (obviously since you won't like it if their kids come knocking on your door).
Quote:
And I would give back the lap top because I would pity the chap who lost his dad over something astrivial as this and because a laptop is a luxury item.
That shouldn't even be a choice you should be forced to give it back (even if you want). AFAIK that's how it is today too, but somehow, we just draw lines where we please sometimes and say "ignore anything up to this point" bleh. 
Quote:
I'm not rich and can't give away my property to anyone who claimsthat my ancestor wronged him in someway, because what's done is done. The law didn't stop my father and he didn't do enough to get things back from my father, so it is mine, now, I'm sorry!
Well obviously he can't just claim, he needs some arguments (or prove it, if it's modern times with a lawyer-driven society rather than fist or guns ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 03:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You buy the house -- you pay a criminal
No, I pay for the house, I don't pay for the actions of the criminal who doesn't need to justify himself to me.
I mean, paying bad people doesn't make you responsible for their actions, nor do you have to recompense the people he wrongs with your money. If I let my bike be repaired and I give 100 euros to the repairman (example) and he uses it to buy a gun and shoot people, I don't have to recompensate the people, since the guy who shot the people are responsible. The bike I got out of it won't be given either.
I buy house from nazis (however he got them. I don't care, I pay for the house, not for the way they got the house). Nazis use part of my money to build death camps and kill jewish people and the like. I do not give the house to consolate the people who are wronged by the nazis, because it's MY house, it's my property, because I rightfully gained it in an honest way(we're falling into repetition, I know). I also do not give the house back, because it is my house, I worked for it, spent my life in it and probably improved it over the years (if even just a little). I'm sorry, but they have to ask the german government or the vile nazis for some form of recompensation, because they were unrightfully disowned.
See that? disowned? As in: no longer their property. It is stealing, but once the thief resold it legally, it's no longer yours and you can only claim recompensation from the thief, not of the innocent who paid good money for it. Why involve the innocent party? why not cut out the middle man and ask for recompensation? The wrongdoer is dead, Well, then, I'm sorry, but if you claim back the property of someone else this way, then you're actually doing something not very different from stealing, since the guy who paid for it, now lost his money and his property.
Life is unfair, but that's why we have insurance
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 03:29 AM |
|
|
Ah, Death, in your comparison to assassination, you make one critical mistake. In hiring the assassin, you're not doing anything wrong, per se. It's the action of the assassin that's wrong. So, according to the law (or, rather, what the law should be), you are not doing anything wrong by hiring the assassin - you're not harming anybody. But the assassin can't do his job, because in order to do it, he has to kill someone. Thus, it is the assassin's action that is wrong - but not yours. (And, since the assassin can't stay within the law and fulfil his contract with you, he gets squeezed out of existence.)
Murder is illegal and wrong. Just giving someone money isn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 03:34 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 03:37, 11 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
No, I pay for the house, I don't pay for the actions of the criminal who doesn't need to justify himself to me.
Someone robs a bank and gives you 1 million $.
Police comes to you and says it's stolen.
You give it? Or rather, are you FORCED to give it? After all, you didn't steal it, right? Why should you give it away? 
See? You are not guilty of stealing it, but YOU WILL BE CHARGED IF YOU DECIDE TO KEEP IT. You can't just say "robbing banks is wrong" and "I enjoy the money stolen from the banks" at the same time lmao.
And by the way, for the last time, you don't pay for his actions, you are not guilty for him murdering the people in the house. You are guilty for reaping what he harvested (his harvest is full of guilt). But you don't buy the house from its owners (or former owners), because you buy it from a thug in that case, a criminal.
Quote:
But the assassin can't do his job, because in order to do it, he has to kill someone. Thus, it is the assassin's action that is wrong - but not yours.
You don't make any sense. You do realize in real life you would get charged for that right?
And do you even know what innocent means?
What you say is open to abuse.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You do realize in real life you would get charged for that right?
Yes, of course, but look at it from an objective point of view . In this process, there are two distinct actions: the transfer of money from the employer to the assassin - and the assassination. Which is the objectionable action? The second, as it's murder. What about the first? Objectively, it's no different from giving money to your doctor, your brother, or a charity. Giving money to someone is not wrong. What they may do for that money may be - as it is in this case.
But we kind of got sidetracked from the main point. Can we all at least agree that regardless of whether or not the Indians should get their land back, their ethnicity should have nothing to do with it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:30 AM |
|
|
I *really* hate to resort to using nazis to get a point across, but I've had a long, long day and I don't have the energy to be more creative. Use any dictator you want; point's the same. Anyway, here goes:
Quote:
In hiring the assassin, you're not doing anything wrong,
So why do we demonize Hitler? Did he actually kill anyone?
(Note, I haven't really read the whole thread. I just saw this one post near the end, so I don't really know the context.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, of course, but look at it from an objective point of view . In this process, there are two distinct actions: the transfer of money from the employer to the assassin - and the assassination. Which is the objectionable action? The second, as it's murder. What about the first? Objectively, it's no different from giving money to your doctor, your brother, or a charity. Giving money to someone is not wrong. What they may do for that money may be - as it is in this case.
Mvass, let me use layman terms (it may sound silly).
Stuff has memory, it becomes 'tainted', objectively, with results. If said results were guilty, using such stuff (and for your purpose enjoying that 'guilt') will transfer and taint you for that
Quote:
But we kind of got sidetracked from the main point. Can we all at least agree that regardless of whether or not the Indians should get their land back, their ethnicity should have nothing to do with it?
I agree of course, it could have been white people (with let's say indian culture or some other culture; just to give a reason for the europeans to exploit them, that's all) there just as well.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 08:07 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 08:09, 11 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
But if you refuse to let go of what those actions led him to give you, then you are guilty not of his actions but of USING THE BYPRODUCT OF THOSE ACTIONS.
It is not possible for modern whites to not use these inherited benefits. You can refuse to buy blood diamonds, but you cannot refuse opportunity. The opportunity is there whether you like it or not. Even if I lived my life doing only as a black could have, they would still say I have opportunities they don't. Inheriting these opportunities is not a blessing; it is a curse.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
|
I don't really hate to say it, but OBVIOUSLY Death is right. The laws are pretty clear-cut:
If you steal something, let's say a piece of jewellery, and you sell it to someone else, with the new buyer buying in good faith, if the thief is caught and the object can be traced the original owner gets it back. Period. The buyer has to get his money back from the thief, if he can't, tough luck.
Of course, the more complex the "stolen" issue is, the more complex the problem. A house may have been changed.
In case of what this thread is all about, compensation, if any, is obviously quite open to quite a lot of discussion.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 10:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Say your daddy steals an expensive laptop. He then gives it to you and goes into a fight with the owner and both are dead.
The laptop was not your and never was. In this case the timeline is even far to short to even give an argument to keep the laptop.
As with the jews stolen house, its a matter of time. The criminal or his bloodline must be found.
If the new owners has completely changed the house, they may keep it if the criminals money is found and the poor people who are stolen from do not desire the house.
The jews still got a key fitting to the front door? Out!
Look at this another way, when you sell of stolen property or items your reselling something you do not own. Which makes it a invalid purchase and sale.
Mvass: Hireing a sniper to kill somebody? Then i AM guilty for that murder.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 12:00 PM |
|
|
People are talking about the legal concept of receiving stolen property. In the legal sense you can't really compare past ownership of slaves to stolen property. The reason being that slavery was a legal practice at the time. From the legal standpoint, recompense for slavery would be equivalent to an ex post facto law. Ex post facto laws are usually considered to be both illegal and immoral. How can you criminally punish, or find civilly liable, actions that were completely legal at the time?
It's way too late and I'm too tired to go into the larger issue of this thread, but I think it should be discussed from the moral point of view rather than the legal point of view. I'll just say that when we talk about the past, we are probably all guilty of the "sins of thy father". Yet at the same time we are most likely descendants of the victims of some past sin.
How recent does the sin of thy father need to be to "owe" some form of recompense from one person to another due to the color of their skin or their religion or their ethnicity or their geographic origin?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 12:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
From the legal standpoint, recompense for slavery would be equivalent to an ex post facto law. Ex post facto laws are usually considered to be both illegal and immoral. How can you criminally punish, or find civilly liable, actions that were completely legal at the time?
The trouble with this is, that mainly the US have made a precedence for that with Germany in 1945. US laws are based on precedence cases, and in this matter the Nazi government with a lot of its "laws" has been made one.
So while that point is certainly debatable, in reality the actual events have constitued a certain legal factuality.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:09 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
The reason we demonise Hitler is because he was the head (and public face) of the German government and the Nazi party. The true guilty party is the one that carried out the genocide: the German government - of which Hitler was a part, of course. (Plus, except for reparations/fines, it's difficult to punish a government.)
Death:
Quote:
Stuff has memory, it becomes 'tainted', objectively, with results.
I understand what you're saying. I just don't agree that the stuff becomes "tainted".
Oh, and since I'm a descendant of generations of serfs, does that mean I deserve some reparations from the descendants of noblemen?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus:
The reason we demonise Hitler is because he was the head (and public face) of the German government and the Nazi party. The true guilty party is the one that carried out the genocide: the German government - of which Hitler was a part, of course. (Plus, except for reparations/fines, it's difficult to punish a government.)
I don't think I agree with that, neither factually-historically, nor opinion-wise.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus:
The reason we demonise Hitler is because he was the head (and public face) of the German government and the Nazi party. The true guilty party is the one that carried out the genocide: the German government - of which Hitler was a part, of course. (Plus, except for reparations/fines, it's difficult to punish a government.)
The government didn't kill anyone. Individuals did. Hitler wasn't one of those individuals, as far as I know. Therefore, Hitler didn't do anything wrong.
Right?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:24 PM |
|
|
The individuals were acting as a part of the government.  After all, if the tax collector leaves your house with money, he's not considered to be stealing it himself - it's the government that's taking your money. Same here.
And, of course, another reason we demonise Hitler is because he stirred up negative attitudes very effectively.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The individuals were acting as a part of the government. After all, if the tax collector leaves your house with money, he's not considered to be stealing it himself - it's the government that's taking your money. Same here.
Ok, so let me see if I get this straight.
A businessman hires an assassin to kill someone, and he isn't guilty of any wrongdoing because he (the businessman) didn't actually pull the trigger.
A government leader orders someone killed, but he IS guilty of wrongdoing even though he (the government leader) didn't actually pull the trigger.
So here we have two people, neither of whom actually (personally) killed anyone, and in one case you think the person is guilty of wrongdoing and in the other, you don't. I fail to see the distinction.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 11, 2009 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I fail to see the distinction.
Quite simple.
Hitler wasn't capitalist enough.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
