OK tell me all about YOUR personal responsibility for the abs. What is the list of bad things you did, for which you need to apologize? Did you rob or kill them?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

How can you have nothing to do with it if you're living in that country? You're taking part in an economy and culture and governmental law that developed a certain way in part because of the way that aboriginals were treated.

Do you just basically not believe in the concept of collective responsibility?

The idea of "collective responsibility" is just about the most EDIT irrational idea libs have ever come up with, and that is really saying something. The fundamental precept of justice is that >>>individuals<<< receive their merited rewards or punishments.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

That's actually not true. In fact, I think you just made it up on the spot just now. That's one fairly common concept of justice -- well, maybe not that common. I mean, you think it's okay to kill civilians in Iraq because they happen to be near suspected terrorists, right?

Think about it. You're saying that a voluntary apology, freely given, is a bad idea. But dropping bombs on someone because they live in the same country as someone else you don't like, that's a good idea.

I think you believe in collective responsibility just fine, when it's convenient.

OK, the next time someone commits a robbery, they should send YOU to jail.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Dude, that doesn't make any sense. It's not a good comparison. Collective responsibility does not have to include arbitrary punishment.

I doubt that I would agree with every instance of supposed collective responsibility. Or, at the very least, I reserve the right to disagree with any punishment determined thereby. Osama bin Laden might hold me partly responsible for my country's behavior on land he deems sacred. I concede he has a point but that doesn't mean I'm going to allow him to determine for me my level of responsibility or how I should make amends. Or anybody else's, for that matter.

But what we have here is the people of Australia, or at least an elected representative acting on behalf of those people, choosing voluntarily to acknowledge responsibility. This isn't aborigines firebombing the cities demanding acknowledgment. This is being done as an act of free will.

There's nothing to complain about here. If somebody says, "Y'know what, I feel responsible, I'm going to try to make amends," and they do so freely and without coercion, then this is a good thing.

Taking responsibility for what you haven't done is an indication of mental illness.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Taking responsibility for something you didn't do could mean that, but it could also mean that someone is just being silly in their pathetic attempt to make things right.

It could also be a gesture of reaching out to someone that acknowledges a wrong and wants to make some kind of effort to make it right.

It could even be a simple act of kindness and empathy.

Apologizing for having benefitted from someone else's wrongdoings, is a legitimate reason for an apology that has nothing to do with mental illness. And lastly, there can be no reconciliation without truth.

If I don't believe that blacks were mistreated in the U.S. EVER... then, I don't really understand true history and cannot be an instrument of reconciliation between the races.

To offer reparations is tantamount to cheapening the apologetic gesture, IMO. It reminds me of the man who beats his wife, then apologizes for it and hands her a fifty so she can go buy herself something nice.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

I think that it is more about apologizing on behalf of those who should have apologized long ago, but can't.

I think it's more about formally acknowledging that certain events that occured in the past were wrong and regretable.

I think it's more about pledging to change our methods for dealing with other cultures in the future than about accepting responsibility for those past wrongful policies.

Perhaps using the word "apology" was not the best choice, since it denotes a feeling of sorow over acts that one is responsible for. It may have been more accurate for him to say "I'm sorry for what has happened in the past."

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

Repeat: An apology is only required from, or appropriate for, someone who has committed a wrong. Among other bad consequences, an apology by someone who is not responsible for a wrong, or even worse, on behalf of people who have committed no wrong, can lead to demands from the persons wronged for recompensation or privileges at the expense of those who have committed no wrong - a straight-forward injustice.

One who has done no wrong can express regret for the past, he can condemn the past, he can express sympathy for victims of other people in the past, but he owes no apology.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847