zapatos

Har! That was great.

You are treating your opinion of how things should be as a position of authority rather than merely an opinion. Eminent domain cases have failed. You act like land can be taken from one person and given to another person for private use in all cases. From your own link, there must be a "public use" of the land taken. How can you possibly know the millions of cases that would be brought to court over the use of eminent domain to take land from one person for private use and give it to another person for private use will be successful? It is only your opinion. Your goalposts seemed to have moved. You've added the line about "The U.S. govt... specifically made". Your original post on this subject said...

Yes it is arbitrary. The US can give back Manhattan back as it is part of the US. Stolen property does not stop being stolen simply because it changes hands multiple times. If your car is stolen you don't lose your moral or legal right to retrieve it simply because it has passed through multiple hands. Choosing the line at which the US government made the promise is arbitrary, as would be any line you pick. It's a fine place to start but that doesn't give it some unassailable quality. The government has a limited right to take property (see the 5th Amendment). They cannot arbitrarily take what they want and use it for any purpose they want. Nice of you to declare this part of the discussion off limits as you've made your ruling.

Your line is arbitrary and your footing is weak on whether or not land was "given" or "stolen using the pretext of trade with people who had a different understanding of land ownership or understood the implications of what they were agreeing to". Even if you could get the government to pursue and the electorate to accept, you'll never get past the ownership rights of people today. It is still a non-starter.

Not only would returning the land never be acceptable to the electorate, it would probably be illegal. If we returned all the land previously belonging to the natives the rest of us would have to leave the continent. It's a non-starter.

Grind your axe elsewhere.

I suspect the decision had more to do with normal moderator actions than something as nefarious as censorship.

Seems to be an ad hoc system where it is understood everyone has some security clearance otherwise they cannot do their jobs. Some Representatives do jobs requiring more security than others. https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/

What I'm asking for is your evidence that a "real" God would be bound by the same laws that we are as you asserted.

I'm anxious to see your evidence for that assertion. It sounds suspiciously faith-based to me.

Just happened to run across this picture.

I played during first year of University also. Our slogan was "rugby players eat their dead". I had a tee-shirt with a sketch of a scrum and the scrum-half tossing out the ball. But the ball turned out to be one of the player's heads. We played our games on Saturday. I didn't recover until Thursday. I got the hell beat out of me every week. One year was all I could take. We also had kegs at every game, Thursday night practice was at a bar and the only thing we practiced was rugby songs. Loved every minute of it.

In the days of Imperialism certainly. I believe England was much involved in that era. The Middle Ages of course. Again, England periodically did quite well economically waging war on the Continent. And any time during the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

Citation?

So the quantum foam has an effect on stuff? Doesn't that imply it is not 'nothing', but only the closest thing to nothing that we might be able to achieve in nature?

That makes no sense to me. You are essentially saying 'nothing equals something (foam)'.

What do you mean?

As long as slavery was legal I don't think it is reasonable to expect that any assets derived from it should be subject to forfeiture. Not all segregation has been legal and if someone can prove harm I would imagine they could make an argument in court for compensation.

You can just avoid the site. No one will use your account. You can also ask to be banned so that you can't have a moment of weakness later and return. Either way all your posts remain.

Don't mean to brag, but I have no problem at all understanding "nothing".

Reparations is not about assigning guilt. It is about, among other things, making up for a wrong that was done. No one is asking only the sons of slave owners to pay reparations. No one is asking only white people to pay reparations. This is largely about the government taking responsibility for policies it allowed which resulted in problems faced by blacks today, and in some small way, making it up to them.

Did you read the article? Your comments seem misplaced.

I'll dispute it. If conditions permanently change, and those conditions were necessary for something specific to happen, then it can't happen again.

Ten oz - Can you please explain why you think Wikipedia doesn't correct their article on Affirmative Action when they say "...affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as...redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances."

I generally believe that if we are responsible for harm to others, then we are responsible for making them whole again. Since government policies meant many blacks were not prepared for college, and since we cannot go back in time correct those policies, the way to make them whole again was to ensure they received preferential treatment in admissions. Unfortunately it is an impossible task to know precisely who was harmed and by how much. Statistically we know the population was harmed, but how do you decide which individuals were harmed and to what extent? Equity of outcome means preferential treatment, and there is no way to ensure that works. Years of AA did not ensure equal salaries for blacks as compared to whites. If we only ensure equality for all at all levels, we will eventually reach equity in outcomes. It may be slower than adding in preferential treatment, but it will be less controversial. I don't think you and I disagree on what would be best. I'm just not sure we agree on whether going after 'the best' is the preferred strategy.