Is there an Atheist preference for the Democratic party going on here?

[Ana the Ist]

What's your time limit? Let me know so we can start redrawing the maps.

I think you're making his point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ain't that the truth.

To his credit....it's not like half a dozen other posters haven't made the same insinuations.

He was honest enough to say it. That's a plus in my book.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All Crown land is accessible for claims. But not Freehold (see judges comments a few posts upstream).

That doesn't mean anything to me....

All I know is your island has its population and wealth concentrated at the coasts.

Sure I'm about 99% certain they aren't getting that back.

 

[rjs330]

That will then apply to much of the UK. Do we give it back to the Celts (that'll be me in fact). And to a lot of South America. Kick the Spaniards and Portuguese out? And Canada. And NZ. And certainly the US. Much of which was taken a lot later than the area where I actually live right now. The South West very recently indeed.

What's your time limit? Let me know so we can start redrawing the maps.

Oh good, now you are starting to see the light. Maybe.

 

[Bradskii]

I think you're making his point.

I'm not making point. I'm asking a question. You can feel free to answer it yourself.

 

[Bradskii]

That doesn't mean anything to me....

All I know is your island has its population and wealth concentrated at the coasts.

Sure I'm about 99% certain they aren't getting that back.

You've already had it explained to you.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh good, now you are starting to see the light. Maybe.

Without an answer to the question I can't comment in any meaningful way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not making point. I'm asking a question. You can feel free to answer it yourself.

Well I tend to see land ownership as a pretty complex issue. Ultimately, one of status quo.

If you can't take ownership of the land...it's probably someone else's.

That is the easiest way of figuring it out.

 

[Bradskii]

Well I tend to see land ownership as a pretty complex issue. Ultimately, one of status quo.

If you can't take ownership of the land...it's probably someone else's.

That is the easiest way of figuring it out.

It was someone else's (although not in the sense that you probably think). And as far as status quo goes, probably the longest continuous 'ownership' of land in human history. Four times as long, for example, as the 'ownership' of the US by Native Americans.

So what's the answer to the question I asked?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You've already had it explained to you.

Yeah. I don't see any disagreement on the issue.

"G'Day Mr Aborigine! Awm here to provide yoo with the training opportunities yoo signed away yoor land fah! Getcha mates, grab dem shuvuls, and I'll trayn yoo on how to remove half eh trillion digiree-dollary-doos from the ground!"

I apologize for the affect....I don't have any references for what Australians sound like outside of Crocodile Dundee 1 and 2. I think it's important people read it the way I think it though.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was someone else's (although not in the sense that you probably think).

I don't know what sense you think I think.

And as far as status quo goes, probably the longest continuous 'ownership' of land in human history. Four times as long, for example, as the 'ownership' of the US by Native Americans.

Counter point.....who cares? Length of time doesn't connect to land ownership in any way I can think.

If some guy buys some land....holds it for 50 years....and then sells it to me.....

If he comes back 2 years later and claims it's his land because he had it longer....I would inform him he's trespassing and I'm within my rights to shoot him.

Why would time length matter?

So what's the answer to the question I asked?

I thought I answered pretty clearly....but maybe I can simplify it for you.

1. What land are we talking about?
2. Who physically exists on this land right now?

 

[Bradskii]

Why would time length matter?

Then it seems that you don't think it does. Can you tell me where you live and to whom your piece of real estate you think should be returned?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then it seems that you don't think it does.

No...I don't.

Can you tell me where you live and to whom your piece of real estate you think should be returned?

I don't think that. Why would you assume I would give away what is mine?

 

[Bradskii]

No...I don't.

I don't think that. Why would you assume I would give away what is mine?

Are you confused about your own argument? Didn't it belong to someone else? Let's find out...

Where do you live? No need for a street address - a state will do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you confused about your own argument?

My argument? You're the one proudly declaring the land under your feet stolen.

Where do you live? No need for a street address - a state will do.

I'm not giving you the state lol. It wouldn't matter to me. You asked how I saw the issue....I told you my answer.

You're the one stating that you're on stolen land...not me.

 

[Bradskii]

You're the one stating that you're on stolen land...not me.

In exactly the same way as yours was taken from the original owners. If you think you should now be able to keep it and not give it back then there shouldn't be any confusion about the identical situation in Australia.

Maybe the only difference is that I accept that it was taken in the first instance. You talk around subjects so much it's hard to tell.