Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves


SLM
+2
#361
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

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

Arguing for argument's sake is such a pointless exercise. And, more generally speaking, what I find is the most frustrating aspect of online discussions. It does nothing but obscure the real issues. It just muddies the water and just means the rest of us have to wade through so much garbage to get to the real topic.
 
Cannuck
#362
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

So is it a legal issue or a moral one?

A moral one. If you are confused like CB. perhaps it would help if you explained why you are confused. Or do you think morality and politics can never be entwined?
 
CDNBear
+1
#363
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

A moral one. If you are confused like CB. perhaps it would help if you explained why you are confused. Or do you think morality and politics can never be entwined?

Already clearly explained in this post...

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

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...



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.

That you clearly ignored, because you have such great difficulty acknowledging your mistakes. Imagine my surprise,

So I say again, "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."
 
Cannuck
#364
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Already clearly explained in this post...

Clearly you haven't explained a thing. For example, I'm not "switching back to a legal argument". It's no wonder you get PWNed so often in these threads when you can't or won't follow the conversation.
 
SLM
+2
#365
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

A moral one. If you are confused like CB.

I'm not confused at all. I also don't find Bear confusing. You however seem to be all over the place and utilize a lot of cryptic rhetoric. Perhaps if you spent more time stating your thoughts as opposed to simply making statements intended to goad others you may be better understood.


Have you considered perhaps that you're simply an ineffective communicator?


Quote:

perhaps it would help if you explained why you are confused. Or do you think morality and politics can never be entwined?

Do you think morality and the legal system can never be intertwined?
 
CDNBear
+1
#366
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Clearly you haven't explained a thing. For example, I'm not "switching back to a legal argument".

I'm sure you actually believe you aren't, and at one point you might have actually been able to claim that. Or more importantly, you'd like anyone following the conversation to at least believe that.

Unfortunately though, your concept of a nation is predicated on legal parameters, not moral ones. This was made patently clear, when you chose to use Somaliland as a model in rebuttal to the sole aspect of international standard.

If you were arguing from a moral position, why would you use a legal constraint, such as diplomatic recognition?

Furthermore, a moral position would recognize the fundamental human right to self determination, since you believe in equal rights for all. Which morally wouldn't require external recognition to consider themselves a sovereign nation. But legally does, hence the present position of Somaliland. Whereas First Nations have political recognition, the Government of Canada formally recognizing First nations as such. Does recognize the power of First Nations political leaders. Not to mention the other Commonwealth and non Commonwealth nations that accept the sovereignty of such Nations as the Haudenosaunee. On the moral grounds, that they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

But then of course, your position is bound by legal convention and the belief in the legal sovereignty of the Canadian nation. This is only compounded by the fact that for that to be pertinent, you would have to establish that Canada is a Nation on moral grounds, and that all First Nations are morally Canadian. If you can establish that within the parameters of morality. I'd like to see it. But since you have already established, that you don't believe that birth should morally give one the right to be Canadian. I'm not sure you morally can.

I understand your confusion and discomfort in acknowledging that you confuse legal and moral arguments, as exampled by your simplistic dismissal of the moral position I put forward, ie; The fact that you accept Canada as it defines itself as a Nation v First Nation. If you could actually separate the two distinctive positions, legal v moral, you wouldn't feel the need to simplistically dismiss the moral argument you claimed you wanted to have.

I look forward to your dismissive reply to this post as well. It is your standard MO, when you get what you asked for and get PWND by it.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 28th, 2012 at 09:41 AM..
 
Cannuck
#367
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Furthermore, a moral position would recognize the fundamental human right to self determination, since you believe in equal rights for all. Which morally wouldn't require external recognition to consider themselves a sovereign nation.

Probably one of the first times I've seen you post something intelligent. It's too bad you undid it all with the rest of the post.
 
CDNBear
+1
#368
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Probably one of the first times I've seen you post something intelligent. It's too bad you undid it all with the rest of the post.

I wish I could predict lotto numbers with such accuracy.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I look forward to your dismissive reply to this post as well. It is your standard MO, when you get what you asked for and get PWND by it.

 
Cannuck
#369
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I'm not confused at all. I also don't find Bear confusing. You however seem to be all over the place and utilize a lot of cryptic rhetoric. Perhaps if you spent more time stating your thoughts as opposed to simply making statements intended to goad others you may be better understood.

Perhaps if you don't like the way I write you can simply not bother to read the posts.
 
SLM
+3
#370
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'm sure you actually believe you aren't, and at one point you might have actually been able to claim that. Or more importantly, you'd like anyone following the conversation to at least believe that.

The whole problem though is that no one can effectively follow the conversation because it becomes too obscured with page after page of "I've stated my position" as opposed to actually stating a position. Then when a statement, eventually, does get made it is so far away logistically from the point of origin of the topic that it can be any statement depending on the mood. If that's not purposefully obscuring then I don't know what is.

Do you know how I can follow what's going on? Because you take the time to track things back and respond to the posts that are made.

You are a patient man, I'm telling ya.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Perhaps if you don't like the way I write you can simply not bother to read the posts.

Didn't like what I said so I should just go away eh?

Hit a nerve?
 
Cannuck
#371
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Didn't like what I said so I should just go away eh?

Hit a nerve?

Of course not. I find you almost as entertaining as CB but you are the one complaining that things aren't to your liking. Maybe you're just a sucker for punishment.

You should check out post #338 before you spout anymore idiotic nonsense about stating a position.
 
CDNBear
+1
#372
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

The whole problem though is that no one can effectively follow the conversation because it becomes too obscured with page after page of "I've stated my position" as opposed to actually stating a position. Then when a statement, eventually, does get made it is so far away logistically from the point of origin of the topic that it can be any statement depending on the mood. If that's not purposefully obscuring then I don't know what is.

That's Jim's MO, when he starts to feel cornered by his own position. Or when he feels the facts are closing in and he might actually be wrong.

Funny thing is, although Jim thinks a moral argument is hard to win from my position, a legal argument is actually harder to fight than the moral one Jim asked for. He's just never encountered someone that has the patience to wade through his usual BS long enough to give it to him. Hence his utter confusion and dismissal when he gets what he asked for.

Quote:

Do you know how I can follow what's going on? Because you take the time to track things back and respond to the posts that are made.

Thanks for noticing.

Quote:

You are a patient man, I'm telling ya.

I've gained a lot of patience having worked with kids like cannuck.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

You should check out post #338 before you spout anymore idiotic nonsense about stating a position.

You mean this one?

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

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.

That's how we got to where we are, you using a legal argument to further you postion, though you claim to want to argue it from moral grounds. Then dismissing the moral argument, without any attempt at rebuttal. Because you can't formulate a reasoned rebuttal.

Maybe if you stuck to the moral argument you wanted, instead of clearly doing exactly what SLM has asserted. You wouldn't look like such a fool.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Of course not. I find you almost as entertaining as CB but you are the one complaining that things aren't to your liking. Maybe you're just a sucker for punishment.

Back to that old cop out eh.

Maybe if you actually formulated a reasoned rebuttal to the moral argument you asked for, it would actually be a comment based in reality.
 
Cannuck
#373
Who's Jim and why do have to drag him into this conversation.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#374
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Who's Jim and why do have to drag him into this conversation.

 
CDNBear
#375
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Who's Jim and why do have to drag him into this conversation.

Because you wanted to be in the conversation.

Would you like to get back to the topic Jim.

Or is the weakness of your argument going to result in the endless sidetracking you're doing now?

I'll understand if you want to keep sidetracking. It's painfully clear the topic is over your head.
 
Cannuck
#376
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Because you wanted to be in the conversation.

Would you like to get back to the topic Jim.

Or is the weakness of your argument going to result in the endless sidetracking you're doing now?

I'll understand if you want to keep sidetracking. It's painfully clear the topic is over your head.

Careful, SLM doesn't like cryptic posts.

Off to coffee. Will be back later for more entertainment.
 
CDNBear
+1
#377
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Careful, SLM doesn't like cryptic posts.

Off to coffee. Will be back later for more entertainment.

So cop out and sidetrack it is.

Thanks for admitting your position was weak, and ultimately admitting defeat. What a refreshing step in the right direction.

Better luck next time.
 
JLM
+2
#378
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Perhaps if you don't like the way I write you can simply not bother to read the posts.

That's one way of ducking out of a sticky situation.
 
Cannuck
#379
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That's one way of ducking out of a sticky situation.

LOL....only somebody that has no life would consider a thread on a web forum a sticky situation.I really hope that when I get to be old like you, I have more important things in my life.

Going for coffee = copout and sidetrack. Is it any wonder I find your alleged debate tactics so amusing?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#380
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Arguing for argument's sake is such a pointless exercise. And, more generally speaking, what I find is the most frustrating aspect of online discussions. It does nothing but obscure the real issues. It just muddies the water and just means the rest of us have to wade through so much garbage to get to the real topic.

Sounds just like the newsmedia. lol

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Do you think morality and the legal system can never be intertwined?

It certainly is in this instance.
On one hand we have the European concept the approximately 1500 year-old society that is based upon profit and the other side is the society that is based upon a 20,000 year-old spiritual connection to its habitat and it is mixed with contracts between the societies.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

The whole problem though is that no one can effectively follow the conversation because it becomes too obscured with page after page of "I've stated my position" as opposed to actually stating a position.

It's a bit baser than that actually. Seems to me it's A stating a position, B stating a position, and then one stating the other is out-to-lunch which provokes a similar retort (allbeit with evidential backup) and away we go. And about every 10th post there's actually some direct mention of the topic.
 
Cannuck
#381
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

IDo you think morality and the legal system can never be intertwined?

Not really. I think morality "can" drive politics. The political process produces laws, policies etc and the legal system deals with the fallout. Take the abortion debate for example. The morality of abortion does not and should not enter into the legal arena. That could and should be dealt with in the political arena. The only real questions that need to be answered is when does life begin and do we value human life enough to protect it.

As for cryptic rhetoric, I think the problem that you are having is that you are assuming this is a debate. I can assure you it is not. I have told CB in the past that I believe debate involves civility. Since he is not willing to do that and since the Cancon is not interested in moderating civility (or able to moderate effectively), I am not interested. I have told CB repeatedly that I am here for entertainment and to make fun of blowhards. If CB, is trying to debate, it clearly shows his limited grasp of the written word. I have given you the benefit of the doubt as I'm not sure you were aware of the situation. You are now. If you choose to follow CB to the dark side, I shall have to begin making fun of you as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

It's a bit baser than that actually. Seems to me it's A stating a position, B stating a position, and then one stating the other is out-to-lunch which provokes a similar retort (allbeit with evidential backup) and away we go. And about every 10th post there's actually some direct mention of the topic.

You are a wise one Les.
 
JLM
#382
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

LOL....only somebody that has no life would consider a thread on a web forum a sticky situation.I really hope that when I get to be old like you, I have more important things in my life.

Going for coffee = copout and sidetrack. Is it any wonder I find your alleged debate tactics so amusing?

Small minds are easily amused!
 
Cannuck
#383
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Small minds are easily amused!

Oh dear!! You sure told me!
 
CDNBear
+1
#384
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Not really. I think morality "can" drive politics. The political process produces laws, policies etc and the legal system deals with the fallout.

Here comes the inevitable Jimmy shuffle, and back peddle....lol.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

As for cryptic rhetoric, I think the problem that you are having is that you are assuming this is a debate. I can assure you it is not. I have told CB in the past that I believe debate involves civility. Since he is not willing to do that and since the Cancon is not interested in moderating civility (or able to moderate effectively), I am not interested. I have told CB repeatedly that I am here for entertainment and to make fun of blowhards. If CB, is trying to debate, it clearly shows his limited grasp of the written word. I have given you the benefit of the doubt as I'm not sure you were aware of the situation. You are now. If you choose to follow CB to the dark side, I shall have to begin making fun of you as well.

Cop out. The same one you use every time I make you look foolish. Which is nothing more than proof of your defeat.

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was made completely aware of your inability to do so, here (external - login to view). Where you employed everything you just tried to apply to me. Even though I attempted to be civil and stick to using facts. You proved to be nothing but a child, when I countered every point you put forth.

When you began to lose, you simply became insulting and childish, as you always do.

Since then, all I have ever done is just make fun of you. SLM, DaS, RCS, Gh, and a few others can attest to the fact that I have stated it in PM's time and time again, "Watch me get him going with this one", "Watch and see how he replies with [insert one of Jim's usual tactics here]". And so on.

All so we can watch you come back to this very point, each and every time...

"I'm not here to debate, CB is an idiot, I'm here for entertainment"

But for the life of me, I can not imagine how you find entertainment in engaging me, only for you to be completely made a fool of. You are either suffering from some form of dementia, or are as a I suspect, a liar, through and through. I think it's a combination of both, since your posts are littered with dishonesty, yet you still think people take you seriously.
Last edited by CDNBear; Jan 29th, 2012 at 06:55 AM..
 
SLM
+4
#385
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Not really. I think morality "can" drive politics. The political process produces laws, policies etc and the legal system deals with the fallout. Take the abortion debate for example. The morality of abortion does not and should not enter into the legal arena. That could and should be dealt with in the political arena. The only real questions that need to be answered is when does life begin and do we value human life enough to protect it.

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.
 
JLM
+1
#386
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

You got it right!
 
Cannuck
#387
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

No. The legal system does not concern itself with whether abortion is moral or immoral, whether Robert Latimer was moral or immoral. Certainly laws codify the principles but law making is the job of the politician
 
DaSleeper
+2
#388
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I disagree, the laws as written are intended to be a reflection of the values and mores of a society. Morals pertain to or are concerned with the principals of right and wrong. Laws codify those principals into a set of rules meant to govern conduct within a society. So morality absolutely enters the legal arena, they are inextricably linked.

Absolutely right....some of the laws ...eg. abortion...simply exemplify how society in general and certain people in particular are becoming morally bankrupt.
 
SLM
+2
#389
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

No. The legal system does not concern itself with whether abortion is moral or immoral, whether Robert Latimer was moral or immoral. Certainly laws codify the principles but law making is the job of the politician

It can't be compartmentalized that way. Challenges within the court system decide on the merit of the laws and the laws themselves are a direct reflection of societies values and principles, so in deciding on the merit of the law the system does concern itself with the values those laws were written to uphold.

Politics plays a role, precedents play a role, the courts play a role, the judiciary plays a role, the laws as written play a role. Big picture, it's all interwoven. It still all reflects societies values.
 
Cannuck
#390
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

It can't be compartmentalized that way.

I did just that and nothing you have said provides evidence to the contrary.
 

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