Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves


Cannuck
#331
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Of course you do.


Of course I don't.
Last edited by Cannuck; Jan 25th, 2012 at 08:20 PM..
 
dumpthemonarchy
#332
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

I am a newcomer to this site and i must say that i am quite perplexed at the lack of moderation regarding name calling. How can a discussion ever bring any positive thinking or knowledge under these conditions? It appears to have strayed off topic as well but i will proceed, being that it appears to be accepted.
Having spent time to read most of this thread i find some puzzling statements made. One being that Natives do not have "rights" regarding subsistence hunting. Perhaps i have misunderstood this question for a great many years as my understanding is that those rights appear to exist regarding status Indians. Are "rights" a misnomer?
Although apparently not inalienable, these "rights" are being exercised in this country. Here i quote.......
"No Aboriginal right, even though constitutionally protected, is absolute in Canadian law. Fishing rights, for example, are not exclusive in the sense that only indigenous peoples can exercise them and they are not immune to regulation by other governments. Aboriginal title, on the other hand, may give rise to an exclusive right to use and occupy lands, but that right may be interfered with for other societal purposes such as economic development or power generation. Infringement of aboriginal rights or title must be justified by non-Aboriginal governments on the basis of a legitimate government purpose and recognition of the constitutional protection of the rights being affected. There may also...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Good point about the original intent of hunting in the old days, it was to allow aboriginals to feed themselves in remote areas, for a subsistence existence, that's all. In the 19th century, hunting rights were seen as temporary. Now, "hunting rights" ought to be extinguished because the original intent is now altered irreparably in the 21st century and modernisation.

I saw on TV, Eskimos killling a whale with speedboats, how traditional. Tradition is dead, thanks to the Scientific Revolution and progress. Animals, trees or rocks no longer talk to us.

The word rights may be a misnomer, it is more like corporate breaks, corporation meaning both a group and a business. These "rights" are not universal like we generally use the term. But in the old days of the British colonialism, equality of peoples was scoffed at, and the Crown in Canada still enacts these old attitudes. They will continue to do so until protests and opposition stop it.
 
CDNBear
+1
#333
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No it isn't. That's just one more example of how you need to put words into people's mouth in your feeble attempt at debate.

Actually, your Gish Gallop debate style and constant goal post shuffling causes confusion, as you hope it will.

First it was they aren't nations. I proved you wrong, so you claimed you were arguing from a moral position, so could look like you were right. Then you switched up to race based rights. You got served there, so you switched it to hereditary. Got served on that, now you're onto birth right.

Quote:

My issue is with birth-right.

Fine, you want to make it about a birth right now.

What's your problem re: birth right and First nations?

Highlighted so you don't miss it. Because I'd actually love to see a coherent argument from your position.

Quote:

You are the one that brought race into the discussion.

Like in the Marines Honour thread?

Quote:

After all, it was you that started to throw the racist tag around once you realized your position was flawed and you were getting your ass handed to you.

Honesty is always your first casualty. You earned that label when you started lying to try and smear a First Nations community. While implying the COO of NWW committed two counts of perjury.

I can see why you wouldn't want to be honest about why I call you a racist Jim.

Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

I saw on TV, Eskimos killling a whale with speedboats, how traditional.

Speed boats? Care to offer up some proof of that?

Quote:

Tradition is dead, thanks to the Scientific Revolution and progress.

You obviously don't know what tradition is, in the First Nations sense.

Quote:

Animals, trees or rocks no longer talk to us.

Kicked the meth habit did ya?
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 26th, 2012 at 04:42 PM..
 
Cannuck
#334
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Actually, your Gish Gallop debate style and constant goal post shuffling causes confusion, as you hope it will.

I'm not surprised you are confused.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

First it was they aren't nations. I proved you wrong,

No, you haven't. But it's okay since you've admitted you are confused.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

so you claimed you were arguing from a moral position, so could look like you were right.

You have that backwards. My position was right because I was arguing from a moral position. Again, it's okay because you are confused.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Then you switched up to race based rights. You got served there, so you switched it to hereditary. Got served on that, now you're onto birth right.

In your admitted confusion, you have yet again failed to grasp the fact that you are the one that keeps bringing up race.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Fine, you want to make it about a birth right now.

It? What is "it"? If you are referring to the way aboriginals are treated in this country, birth right is only one issue. As has been said, I have issues with regard to the way we have defined aboriginal groups as "nations". That has more to do with how the political system and the legal system have mismanaged the situation. You are desperately trying to simplify the issue (probably due to your admitted confusion)

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post


Like in the Marines Honour thread?

Honesty is always your first casualty. You earned that label when you started lying to try and smear a First Nations community. While implying the COO of NWW committed two counts of perjury.

Are you still trying to peddle that snake oil?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#335
Jim Bo is at it again
 
L Gilbert
+1
#336
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Good point about the original intent of hunting in the old days, it was to allow aboriginals to feed themselves in remote areas, for a subsistence existence, that's all. In the 19th century, hunting rights were seen as temporary. Now, "hunting rights" ought to be extinguished because the original intent is now altered irreparably in the 21st century and modernisation.

I saw on TV, Eskimos killling a whale with speedboats, how traditional. Tradition is dead, thanks to the Scientific Revolution and progress. Animals, trees or rocks no longer talk to us.

lmao
So the Inuit are still feeding themselves on whalemeat and stuff. They just use a different method of doing that. The tradition is still there. DUH
 
CDNBear
#337
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm not surprised you are confused.

Of course not, you work quite hard at making it next to impossible to nail your position down. It's not surprising, considering the fragility of your ego and limited understanding of First Nations Jim.

Quote:

It? What is "it"? If you are referring to the way aboriginals are treated in this country, birth right is only one issue. As has been said, I have issues with regard to the way we have defined aboriginal groups as "nations".

The irony aside. So which is it you want to discuss Jim, Nations or birth right?

Quote:

You are desperately trying to simplify the issue (probably due to your admitted confusion)

That's funny coming from the guy that uses generalizations to base the bulk of his arguments on.

Quote:

Are you still trying to peddle that snake oil?

That's your shtick Jim, I just point it out.
 
Cannuck
#338
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Of course not, you work quite hard at making it next to impossible to nail your position down. It's not surprising, considering the fragility of your ego and limited understanding of First Nations Jim.

My position is not hard to nail down at all. With regards your continual confusion, it really is quite simple.

1 - As I've stated numerous times, I have a problem with birth right (You may have noticed that I have expressed concerns regarding the monarchy on some other threads)

2 - I don't believe in the "infallacy" of the legal system (You may have noticed that I have pointed out other examples where freedom and equality have not been the cornerstone of the legal system)

3 - Unlike you, I do not believe "legal" equals "right" (You may have noticed that I have discussed this in the past on abortion threads)

4 - I believe the federal government should spell out how or what it uses to define what is(or what is required to recognize) a nation. (You may have notice that I have said this more times than you can probably count)

5 - I do not believe people should be treated differently based on race.

It's not really my fault that the current aboriginal situation conflicts with these views nor is it my problem that your confusion does not allow you to separate the issues. I must say though, all this time I thought your problem was that you were a special interest shill. You can imagine my surprised when you admitted that you were just confused.

Probably the biggest reason that you, Dasleeper, RCS, JLM and some of the other racists are having such a problem with this is that you can't seem to understand how, while not inherently tied together, these issues do have an effect on each other at different points. It's a complex issue. That's probably why you find it confusing.
Last edited by Cannuck; Jan 26th, 2012 at 07:55 PM..
 
CDNBear
+2
#339
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

With regards your continual confusion, it really is quite simple.

Yes it is simple, you employ Gish Gallop, among a litany of other fallacies, when you get cornered Jim.

Quote:

1 - As I've stated numerous times, I have a problem with birth right

So inheritance of any kind is immoral.

No one born in Canada is to be considered Canadian.

Gotchya Jim.

Quote:

2 - I don't believe in the "infallacy" of the legal system

Neither do I. But in regards to Nations, the legal system is but part of the proof that was presented to you, before you claimed you arguing from a moral position.

Quote:

3 - Unlike you, I do not believe "legal" equals "right"

Wrong as usual. Besides the fact that "right" is subjective, slavery was once considered right.

Given the level of hypocrisy and deceit you employ Jim, it's not that much of a stretch to consider your version of right to be quite askew. Which is why we rely in part on the legal system to aid us in maintaining a fair society.

Perhaps you should reflect upon your own words though Jim...

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I really see no reason that we need to change the legal system because it "upsets" you.

Quote:

4 - I believe the federal government should spell out how or what it uses to define what is(or what is required to recognize) a nation.

They did Jim, as I've already well established, It's based on international law, and standard, deliberated upon by the SCC and their decision rendered to Parliament.

The first time I proved that, you did the old cannuck two step and claimed you were arguing from a moral position. When it was pointed out that you moved the goalposts, you claimed to be here for entertainment. Although I'm not sure how you derive entertainment from having me make a fool of you.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:

It's not really my fault that the current aboriginal situation conflicts with these views nor is it my problem that your confusion does not allow you to separate the issues.

It's the fact that you muddle the issues in the discussions at hand, that causes any confusion.

Quote:

Probably the biggest reason that you, Dasleeper, RCS, JLM and some of the other racists are having such a problem with this is that you can't seem to understand how, while not inherently tied together, these issues do have an effect on each other at different points. It's a complex issue.

Your continued dishonesty aside. Why didn't you just quote me, I've only told you that a dozen times when you generalize the whole of First Nations.

Quote:

That's probably why you find it confusing.

Wrong as usual. I find only your position to be confusing, not the issues. Because of your use of fallacy, generalization, and deceit to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 26th, 2012 at 08:24 PM..
 
Cannuck
#340
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

So inheritance of any kind is immoral in your view? No one born in Canada should be considered Canadian?

Ultimately yes. We have to walk first before we can run though.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Neither do I. But in regards to Nations, the legal system is but part of the proof that was presented to you, before you claimed you arguing from a moral position

Proof of what? That you think because the law says so it must be right? I'm pretty sure my first response to what you lamely call "proof" was that I didn't care what the law says. Seriously, what type of argument did you think I was using? Never mind, I just remembered you are confused.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

"right" is subjective, slavery was once considered right.

Hey, you're catching on. Perhaps your fog of confusion is beginning to lift.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

They did, based on international law, standard, deliberated by the SCC and a decision rendered.

No they didn't. They just accepted the decision. There is no standard used by the federal government in place today. The decision to recognize or not recognize a nation is a political decision based on expediency and the winds of the day. Simply put, it was just political correctness. It would appear that I spoke too soon. The fog looks like it's rolling back in.
 
CDNBear
+2
#341
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Ultimately yes. We have to walk first before we can run though.

You should be a politician, oh wait, you already are eh Jim.

Quote:

Seriously, what type of argument did you think I was using?

None, since your original claim was simply, "They aren't nations".

Quote:

Never mind, I just remembered you are confused.

Quote:

No they didn't. They just accepted the decision.

This statement, makes the preceding statement palpably ironic.

You make me laugh Jim.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There is no standard used by the federal government in place today.

Sorry for the fractured reply on this, but I wanted to make sure I was right, before I laughed at you, again...

Look up the Statute of Westminster. It was considered in the SCC ruling...



Thanks for the laughs Jim.
 
Cannuck
#342
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You make me laugh Jim.

It's good you can laugh. You certainly can't debate.
 
CDNBear
#343
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It's good you can laugh. You certainly can't debate.

Says the guy that just got PWND, yet again.

I look forward to you telling me the Statute of Westminster, means nothing in regards to the Canadian Governments position on what a Nation is...

You aren't here for debate, not that I find it surprising you can't stick to your own claims. You're here for entertainment, so you say. Although I'm not sure how me making a fool out of you consistently and continuously, is entertaining to you.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 26th, 2012 at 09:01 PM..
 
Cannuck
#344
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Says the guy that just got PWND, yet again.

I look forward to you telling me the Statute of Westminster, means nothing in regards to the Canadian Governments position on what a Nation is...

You're really grasping at straws now.
 
CDNBear
+1
#345
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You're really grasping at straws now.

I would imagine your ego would force you to make that dishonest claim Jim.

Thanks again, although you're really starting to take the fun out of making you look foolish.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#346
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lmao
So the Inuit are still feeding themselves on whalemeat and stuff. They just use a different method of doing that. The tradition is still there. DUH

The tradition is still there using machines fueled by Saudi oil. Okay. The Japanese say much the same thing when they slaughter dolphins in a bloody mess. Its just ignorance in this day and age.
 
Cannuck
#347
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I would imagine your ego would force you to make that dishonest claim Jim.

Clearly you can't refute anything I have said. I accept your unconditional surrender. Thanks for playing.
 
DaSleeper
#348
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Says the guy that just got PWND, yet again.

I look forward to you telling me the Statute of Westminster, means nothing in regards to the Canadian Governments position on what a Nation is...

You aren't here for debate, not that I find it surprising you can't stick to your own claims. You're here for entertainment, so you say. Although I'm not sure how me making a fool out of you consistently and continuously, is entertaining to you.

There is wayy too much Déja-vu in his kind of entertainement...like a singer with the same tune all the time....isn't that what politicians do????
 
CDNBear
#349
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Clearly you can't refute anything I have said.

Except for all the stuff that refutes everything you said, like...

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There is no standard [Re; what constitutes a Nation] used by the federal government in place today.

Except for the standard the Government of Canada uses, which is also the international standard, which is used in the Statute of Westminster, which is the document that defines Canada as a Nation within the Commonwealth, which the SCC considered in their deliberations. When charged by the Federal Government of Canada to determine what constitutes a Nation.

But hey, that's all centuries old, time tested, globally accept, legal mumbo jumbo. You seem to think you morally know better.

If the standard defines Canada as a Nation, the same standard thus applies to First Nations, if they meet the criteria. Unless you're a morally ambiguous, logically inconsistent hypocrite.

Not everyone is a morally ambiguous, logically inconsistent hypocrite like you Jim, you should refrain from projecting.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

There is wayy too much Déja-vu in his kind of entertainement...like a singer with the same tune all the time....isn't that what politicians do????

Singers aren't masochist in general.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 27th, 2012 at 05:31 PM..
 
Cannuck
#350
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Except for all the stuff that refutes everything you said, like...

Except for the standard the Government of Canada uses, which is also the international standard, which is used in the Statute of Westminster, which is the document that defines Canada as a Nation within the Commonwealth, which the SCC considered in their deliberations. When charged by the Federal Government of Canada to determine what constitutes a Nation.

You sure are a sucker for punishment. Despite getting repeatedly PWNed, you insist on picking yourself off the floor and coming back for more. International standard....LOL. Tell that to the folks in Somaliland.
 
CDNBear
#351
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

International standard....LOL. Tell that to the folks in Somaliland.

Now you're PWN'ing yourself for me? You really do suck all the fun out of this Jim.

Who knew someone had to explain the difference between what is the standard and what it is to gain recognition, to you, Jim?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#352
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You sure are a sucker for punishment. Despite getting repeatedly PWNed, you insist on picking yourself off the floor and coming back for more. International standard....LOL. Tell that to the folks in Somaliland.

Jim Bob,,,,,so said this information minister

Iraqi Information Minister quotThe Republican Guard is in full control quot April 5 2003 - YouTube

 
Cannuck
#353
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Who knew someone had to explain the difference between what is the standard and what it is to gain recognition, to you, Jim?

LOL. Your dodges are becoming ever more predictable.
 
CDNBear
#354
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

LOL. Your dodges are becoming ever more predictable.

Your hypocrisy and the irony of that, aside. You mean dodge as in when you dodge the facts in peoples posts, and instead latch onto cherry picked words, to formulate your latest strawman argument?

Ya, you'd be an expert on dodging than Jim.

Your mention of Somaliland, without any form of context, was nothing more than your own dodge. With a built in escape route. As per your usual cowardly MO.

Feel free to offer up some context as to how Somaliland relates to the issue.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 27th, 2012 at 08:22 PM..
 
Cannuck
#355
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Feel free to offer up some context as to how Somaliland relates to the issue.

If you are unable to see how Somaliland relates than this conversation is clearly over your head. Yet again, I accept your unconditional surrender and thanks for playing.
 
CDNBear
+1
#356
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

If you are unable to see how Somaliland relates than this conversation is clearly over your head.

Before you go off on another tangent exposing your poor perception and cognitive skills, how about you explain how it relates to your following claim Jim...

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There is no standard used by the federal government in place today.

Which isn't true, since they have a legally tested standard, hinged on the moral principle of, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, or the ethic of reciprocity, which is what you are trying to evade now Jim, with your attempt to switch back to a legal argument.

If it isn't over your head and you think Somaliland applies to how you think the Government of Canada doesn't have a standard. Please feel free to explain. If you actually can that is Jim.

Unless you'd like to just go back to discussing what a Nation is, from a moral position. Although you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty differentiating legal from moral at this point, if you think the present position of Somaliland has any bearing on a moral position. And if you think so, you need to explain how, since your implication appears to be solely based on the legal precedent of international diplomatic recognition.

Perhaps if you employed some form of consistent standard, or relinquished your fears of being wrong, in an even cursory attempt to have an honest discussion, you wouldn't make such silly and juvenile errors.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 28th, 2012 at 07:05 AM..
 
SLM
+2
#357
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post


My position was right because I was arguing from a moral position.


As has been said, I have issues with regard to the way we have defined aboriginal groups as "nations". That has more to do with how the political system and the legal system have mismanaged the situation.

So is it a legal issue or a moral one?
 
CDNBear
+2
#358
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

So is it a legal issue or a moral one?

The funniest is when he uses a legal argument against a statement based on ethics and then uses an ethical argument against statement based on the law. The funny part is that I don't think he realizes he is doing it. I think he actually believes he is a great debater.
 
petros
#359
Would a self funding Rez that takes no monies from the G.O.C be considered "privatized"?

Sask. First Nation moves toward self-governance
 
DaSleeper
+3
#360
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

So is it a legal issue or a moral one?

You tell that guy that a crow is "black' and he will argue that it is "white"..

He'll even go as far as paint one white to argue his point..

Or he'll switch the argument to other birds thinking it will prove his point, which is actualy arguing for argument's sake
 

Similar Threads

29
190
Nationalize Canadian oil reserves!!!!
by Socrates the Greek | Jul 5th, 2008
2
Oil Shale Reserves
by I think not | May 8th, 2006
0
Privatizing the Apocalypse
by darkbeaver | Apr 3rd, 2006
no new posts