thumper

Why is it impossible to tackle the fundamental question of this thread?

Why is self determination morally wrong when applied to a group of white people? If you don't agree with their principles, how does it do you harm if they choose to live in their own communities? Why isn't this standard applied to the Tibetans? Or the Amish? Do you find it impossibly hard to tolerate their separateness as well?

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From thumper:
It's been tackled and explained several times.

Because we are not dealing with self determination. Self determination is a principle that is applied to nations or large national groups. Whites are neither.

The category that you are dealing with is not called self determination. It's called racail segregation. White people practiced it for centuries. It has been found to be based on racism and is repugnant.

Tibet is al nation.

I'm not aware of anyone preaching self determination for the Amish.

As far as I know, the Amish do not practice housing segregation. If they do, it's illegal. The Tibetans are not trying to be separate. They are asking for true self determination.

Like I said in my post, thumper. I think you're over your head in these debates. You need to study history and see what kind of company you're hanging out in. You are in denial about the truth of your own ideas and their murderous virulence in history.

RED DAVE

Sarpedon

Actually Red Dave, your post is definately off topic and a derail. Please start a new thread or something if you want to have an in-depth discussion of thumper, or I'll split it and make it for you. And I would hope that thumper would agree to participate, because no mod would allow a thread simply devoted to ripping on another's views unless the latter invited it.

Not that I disagree with you or anything.

Here's another point. What is a white person? is it any european? Are we including the swarthy folk of Greece? or are we referring to Americans of European descent? What is this mysterious bond of whiteness that links me to such folk as Britney Spears, Pope Rat, and Vladimir Putin. The thing that makes Tibetans different from "White People" is that the term "Tibetan" is more specific, whereas "White Person" is not. Also, Tibet used to be an independent nation. When was there ever a "White Nation?" Certainly, there have been countries made up of exclusively white people, but never an all encompassing white-country. There is no historical context for your claims of ethnic independence.

on an unrelated note:
thumper and his neighbors are vampires

thumper

I'm not an ethnic anthropologist :Cheeky:

I think anyone who wants self determination may do so on any basis they choose, whether it be race, religion, hair color, height, weight, etc.

Of course, whether they want to be part of said group is entirely voluntary.

edit: getting caught up in the minutiae of "what is a white person" or "what is a Christian" I think is a little bit irrelavent.

Who are we to determine whose identity is true or false? Who are we to validate those things? Must things like this be granted from on high? Do things like this hang suspended in the air until an accredited group defines what is a politcally correct 'identity'? how about we just let people lives their lives and choose their own destiny :huh:

IsItJustMe

Well, thumper, they do say the devil is in the details. You have advanced a very vague principle and said this is all that needs to be said. Other people have advanced numerous problems with this principle. And you haven't really responded to them.

But, thumper, to declare sovereignity is to say that you have the right to form a state. A state is nothing more or less than a device for imposing your will on others. So to say I can form a state because no one has a right to tell me what to do is self-contradictory: If no one has a right to tell you what to do, then you have no right to tell anyone else what to do, and thus no right to form a state.

thumper

I think people are confused about my principle. It's not based on phenotypes or genes, but self determination, and not being regulated for it.

That's like me saying that a group of goth kids have no right to self expression or determination because *I* don't consider it a legitimate identity, and so it must not exist. Isn't that a bit mean? And what does it matter to me if these Goth kids do their own thing, separate from me?

Which begs the question, who shall be the best judge of what is legitimate and what is not? Why the people in the group of course
This has nothing to do with imposing my will or anyone will on anyone else. I already said I'm a libertarian

We make voluntary associations, and discriminate based on anything we like

thumper

I think the best analogy for this is a club, or a fraternity.

IsItJustMe

A group of goth kids has all the rights that the goth kids had before they became a group and no more. A goth kid can dress, act and speak how he likes, whether he is with a group of goth kids or not. But ten goth kids getting together do not thereby have the right to arrest non-goths and punish them for infractions of the goth enacted laws. That is, the mere fact that ten of them agree gives them no right to form a state.

Libertarians believe in imposing their will on other people. They just wish to do so only in certain cases. For instance, they wish to impose the principle of not stealing or trespassing on other people, and the principle of holding to your contracts. To do that, they need a state, i.e. policemen, laws courts, jails, etc.

If you were an anarchist, then you would not believe in imposing your will on others. But then there would be no question of separate countries because countries would not exist, would they?

thumper

stay out of gothland? :huh:I think you're making a bit of a logical jump here. How do you figure that freedom of association suddenly means the abolishment of things like policement, law courts, jails, etc?

IsItJustMe

Exactly. It's funny. And no, they can't do that. Right? Just because they decide they're a separate country doesn't make it so.

Well, we are dealing with two separate questions here, aren't we? One is, say, Fred Phelps, where the Phelps clan all buys houses near each other and lives in that same neighborhood, but they are still subject to the same laws as the rest of Topeka. The other is, say, the Republic of Ireland, where they declared themselves independent of England, stopped recognising British courts, and passed and started enforcing their own laws.

So why don't you clarify which of these you mean, and then we'll discuss it.