Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves

[SLM]

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:roll:

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]

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]

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...

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, :roll:

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

 

[Cannuck]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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

You mean this one?

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.

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]

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

 

[DaSleeper]

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

 

[CDNBear]

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]

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]

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]

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. :smile:

 

[Cannuck]

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

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]

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

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.

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.