The Falklands penguins that would not explode

How's life?
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

The Falklands penguins that would not explode

Post by maurvir »

User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

Argentina really should own those islands.
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30661
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

obvs wrote: Argentina really should own those islands.


The people living in the islands have repeatedly disagreed with you.

Western Imperialists are only usually the bad guys.
Image
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

You mean the people living in the islands now?
User avatar
juice
Posts: 12004
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:26 am
Title: Inadvertently correct

Post by juice »

The penguins have been much better caretakers than any humans will be.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?


You do realize that, other than a brief period where they dropped landmines everywhere, Argentinians haven't ever occupied the place, right? Also, the current occupants would prefer to stay British. Seems simple enough to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/blog/201 ... nd-islands
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39287
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?


the only people to have lived on the islands, ever, i believe
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Séamas
Posts: 6884
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
Title: Honorary Consul General
Location: Where am I?

Post by Séamas »

Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?

Hmmm.
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
User avatar
juice
Posts: 12004
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:26 am
Title: Inadvertently correct

Post by juice »

Séamas wrote: Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?

Hmmm.

Which is which?
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

juice wrote:
Séamas wrote: Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?

Hmmm.

Which is which?


BoJo may be ridiculous, and right-wing, but as far as I know, he isn't a dictator.
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33223
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Post by DukeofNuke »

Séamas wrote: Not a hard choice.
Ruled by a modern first-world stable democracy or some ridiculous right wing dictator?

Hmmm.


Odd, how strangely familiar that choice seems ...
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

TOS wrote:
obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?


the only people to have lived on the islands, ever, i believe
What's your opinion on uninhabited lands right next to indigenous people's settlements in Canada, but which were claimed by the indigenous people?
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39287
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

obvs wrote:
TOS wrote:
obvs wrote: You mean the people living in the islands now?


the only people to have lived on the islands, ever, i believe
What's your opinion on uninhabited lands right next to indigenous people's settlements in Canada, but which were claimed by the indigenous people?


now you know i hate arguing hypotheticals and metaphors
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

It's easy for outsiders to say that the Falklands should belong to the UK, because you're not part of the indigenous population of a country with another country claiming a tiny piece of land that by all geographic reasoning should be part of your country, land that was only gotten by the other country because it was an invading force in your land.

Okay, so a part of the population of Argentina isn't indigenous, or doesn't consider themselves indigenous. And okay, that land wasn't considered to be part of Argentina when Argentina was created. That's because the reason that Argentina exists in the first place is because of the invaders coming.

You can't claim that land doesn't inherently belong to a country (because it wasn't considered to be part of said country when said country was created) if the country was only created as part of a chain of events that was set in motion by you destroying the groups that originally had a claim to said land.

After hundreds of years, the indigenous population are counted within the Argentinian population. Even if the "native" groups don't consider themselves to be part of that, even a given average latino person has some native ancestry.

The population of the Falkland Islands is less than 3000 people. It would not be a major difficulty to resettle those people, even for England to compensate them for the land they held while they were there. This is a bit of a different situation than in the U.S. and Canada, which have tens or hundreds of millions of people, and many of whom themselves do have some indigenous ancestry.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39287
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

sadly, i don't care enough to debate the issue
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.
User avatar
Old Yoda
Posts: 4303
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:36 am
Title: agitator
Location: Terminus

Post by Old Yoda »

obvs wrote: It's easy for outsiders to say that the Falklands should belong to the UK, . . . . . . .

The Falklands belong to the UK.
The Malvinas belong to Argentina.
Unlimited Growth is the Ideology of a Cancer Cell
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.


We are in the middle of abandoning that as a universal precept, while having to deal with the ramifications of a world built off it. Sometimes it's best to let history be history. A forced relocation of thousands of people with hundreds of years of history in a location, that'd be another scar, not healing.
User avatar
juice
Posts: 12004
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:26 am
Title: Inadvertently correct

Post by juice »

TOS wrote: sadly, i don't care enough to debate the issue

This is the most important development
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.


So, what would you call forcibly removing the islanders at the hands of the Argentinians? Oh, wait - Argentina tried that once and got their asses kicked. In other words, they tried the might makes right thing and it didn't work out so well for them.

Let them be British if they want. Argentina has no real claim to the land other than what some knuckle-headed pope said centuries ago.
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

Borders are all made up blatherskite anyways. ;)
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39287
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

jkahless wrote:
obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.


We are in the middle of abandoning that as a universal precept


we're what?
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

maurvir wrote:
obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.


So, what would you call forcibly removing the islanders at the hands of the Argentinians? Oh, wait - Argentina tried that once and got their asses kicked. In other words, they tried the might makes right thing and it didn't work out so well for them.

Let them be British if they want. Argentina has no real claim to the land other than what some knuckle-headed pope said centuries ago.
You really do subscribe to the Euro-centric view of the world, don'tcha.
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

TOS wrote:
jkahless wrote:
obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.


We are in the middle of abandoning that as a universal precept


we're what?


Never said we were doing it very quickly or successfully, but every expansion of rule of law, every expansion of human rights is a move away from might means right. The world is slowly becoming a better place.

The world moves slower than we think, as far as I'm concerned we still haven't finished the first industrial revolution.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote:
obvs wrote:
maurvir wrote: Or, you know, you could respect the rights of the people living there and tell Argentina to go screw themselves in the corner. Which, incidentally, is what the rest of the world settled on.

After all, the people there consider themselves Britons, Britain has a valid claim to the land, and has actively defended it. I'm not sure why this is controversial, other than the land is physically closer to Argentina than the UK.
Might makes right, and all.


So, what would you call forcibly removing the islanders at the hands of the Argentinians? Oh, wait - Argentina tried that once and got their asses kicked. In other words, they tried the might makes right thing and it didn't work out so well for them.

Let them be British if they want. Argentina has no real claim to the land other than what some knuckle-headed pope said centuries ago.
You really do subscribe to the Euro-centric view of the world, don'tcha.


No, I believe that there is no good reason to upset the apple cart here. The people on the island are happy being British. If they wanted to be Argentinians, I wouldn't have an issue with Argentina taking over the place.
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.

And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

obvs wrote: The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.

And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.


Tell that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and see it as first their home. :shrug:

You can't invade an uninhabited perhaps even unvisited island.
User avatar
Pariah
Posts: 22676
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:45 pm
Title: Know Your Enemy

Post by Pariah »

Argentina is just an imperialist European power once removed. Just exactly like every other government in the Americas.
Every country in the Americas is ruled by an invading, foreign culture. No government has a clean claim to power over any land or any people.
Not even duct tape will fix stupid, but it can muffle the sound.
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

The question isn't about the government of Argentina.

The question is about the people of Argentina.
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

jkahless wrote:
obvs wrote: The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.

And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.


Tell that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and see it as first their home. :shrug:

You can't invade an uninhabited perhaps even unvisited island.
They found canoes and arrowheads on the Falkland Islands. They were not unvisited.

And I really question invading forces' accounts that an island is uninhabited.
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

obvs wrote:
jkahless wrote:
obvs wrote: The importance of the Falkland Islands isn't as a location for homes. It's as a location for natural resources.

And those natural resources should not inherently belong to a country for only the fact that it happened to go around invading every other country.


Tell that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and see it as first their home. :shrug:

You can't invade an uninhabited perhaps even unvisited island.
They found canoes and arrowheads on the Falkland Islands. They were not unvisited.

And I really question invading forces' accounts that an island is uninhabited.


As I understand it, there's multiple theories as to the source and time line of those artifacts. Which is why I said "may". We're dealing with a possibility from hundreds of years ago balanced against thousands of people's self determination today.

As for disbelieving accounts the island was uninhabited... that seems a little fantastical. Neither the Spanish nor the British had any qualms about wiping out indigenous populations and recording that they did. European's fastidious record keeping tends to support indigenous land claims.
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

I am not making an affirmative statement.

Please don't change this discussion to be about claims I've never made.
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

obvs wrote: I am not making an affirmative statement.

Please don't change this discussion to be about claims I've never made.


Am I the only one who's confused here? I'm looking at what you wrote, and I'm pretty sure I responded directly to the points you raised. :shrug:
User avatar
obvs
Posts: 27638
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:44 pm
Title: Socialist isn't an epithet;it's a badge.

Post by obvs »

Me saying that I doubt the trustworthiness of statements from invading forces who happened to rape and kill a bunch of people in other areas is not equivalent to me making an affirmative statement that there were people in this one particular area.

Is this a difficult distinction to convey?
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30661
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

The only people probably indigenous to the Falklands are the people there now. Argentina’s claim to the islands stems from colonial era Spanish occupation, not indigenous claims of precolonial occupancy. (Which are speculative at best.)

And even if that weren’t true, the people using landmines are pretty much always the bad guys,

But fiddlesticks whitey, amirite?
Image
User avatar
jkahless
Posts: 6390
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:09 pm
Title: Custom Title

Post by jkahless »

obvs wrote: Me saying that I doubt the trustworthiness of statements from invading forces who happened to rape and kill a bunch of people in other areas is not equivalent to me making an affirmative statement that there were people in this one particular area.

Is this a difficult distinction to convey?


"And I really question invading forces' accounts that an island is uninhabited."

I don't know how I could have assumed you were referring to the Falkland Islands... obviously you're just speaking of invasions and islands in general, with no bearing on this discussion.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25244
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Let's flip it around. Why should Argentina be able to kick everyone off the island and claim it as their own?
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39287
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

the brits have owned the falklands since before there was any such thing as argentina
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 43886
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Post by ukimalefu »

TOS wrote: the brits have owned the falklands since before there was any such thing as argentina


no, i don't think so

Spain crossed the Atlantic like 100 years before the british
Post Reply