kengs333

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that back in the 20s, 30s, etc. medicine hadn't advanced to the point where it could deal with diseases that have now largely been forgotten. Of course to native activists, the fact that 100s of thousands of non-Indians died from these same diseases is irrelevant. To them Europeans should not have been here in the first place, and so anyone who died from diseases that Europeans (supposedly) brought was technically "murdered". It's complete nonsense, and that's why this situation is just plain stupid.

It's a no win situation. Had the government not done it, then we'd be sitting here debating how evil our government was for allowing these people to remain ignorant and illiterate. Some of the criticism of how it was undertaken is legitimate, but at the same time one has to take into consideration that non-Natives who went to school back then also were subjected to harsh treatment, abuse; children who were non-English lost their languages and culture, too.

I think if you had the opportunity to live the way that they had to live way back when, you'd come to the conclusion pretty quickly that they were worse off.

First of all, I think just about everyone here would agree that the manner in which you (and the now absent "jennie") have argued your points has made it quite difficult for the rest of us to discuss the issue in a reasoned and rational manner. Regardless of what you or your activist friends like to believe, the reality of the matter was at the time it was a conflict between nations, in which the Indians played an active part--the Indians were defeated, and just like any other "nation" throughout history on every inhabited continent on this planet, defeat results in the loss of land, access to resources, etc. In the case of the Six Nations, the Crown set aside land for them to use along the Grand River, but from the outset the Six Nations proved themselves to be incapable of attending to their own affairs. Six Nations SOLD land in defiance of the government; the Six Nations did not use the land as had been expected by the government of Canada; and the Six Nations was virtually paralized by internal social problems. All this caused a burden on the government, and the meagre resources and authority they had at the time, the government eventually had to step in and try to find a solution to the PROBLEM. To what extent there was corruption among those who were in charge of the Indians, I don't know, but the fact of the matter is that 1) the Six Nations was largely responsible for having put itself in the position that it was in, and 2) regardless of how poorly the government managed the issue, had they not stepped in Six Nations probably wouldn't exist.

That's the whole point of this, though; if you listen to native "activists" talk, or go to their message boards, the impression that one gets is that this isn't about righting a historical wrong, or receiving what they supposedly believe in all fairness is theirs--it's about systematically deconstructing "European" Canada by "reclaiming" land that they lost, and, more significantly, robbing it of it's wealth through "compensation". No settlement will solve the issue; they will simply cook up something new in order to force the government to the table again and again, and all the while they will continue to exploit funding and programs specifically designed for them--also at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, of course. One can only wonder how many millions has been spent on Six Nations alone--our governments have essentially funded the entire process that has led up to this problem. Only in Canada will a government fund special interest groups bent on the destruction of our country...

Who cares about the senate when we need electoral reforms first; our electoral system can hardly be considered democratic since in most riding 40-75% of votes stand for nothing. There were probably only about 35-40 ridings in the last Ontario election where a candidate received 50%+1 of the vote--thats only about one-third of seats. Sad, very sad. Moreover, we need to look at a process whereby judges are elected. These people have considerable influence on law, and as it stands the Canadian public has little or no understanding of who these people are.

There's probably no more useless issue in Canadian politics than senate reform. What we really need is electoral reform first, so we can at least have an electoral system that is democratic rather than the joke FPTP system we have now.

So children who are victims of pederasty/pedophelia are not likely to engage in deviant sexual behaviour??? You're saying that lesbians and women can't be pedophiles? That's utterly ridiculous. I've stated on a number of occasions that pedophelia is a sin, as is ALL sexual deviance. I don't distinuish between heteros and homos who commit pedophelic acts, but the discussion here is about the connection between pedophelia and homosexuality, and the greater tendancy for acts of pedophelia to be homosexual--ie., this is in response the fallacious assertion that homosexuality and pedophelia are two totally different things, a myth that the gay rights movememnt spreads for their own political gain.

No, you still don't get it. Not condoning sin is not being "judgemental" as you claim it is. When the NT talks about sin, it defines what it is so Christians can recognize what it is and not engage in that behaviour. When the NT further states that there are consequences for one's sinful behaviour, this is not "judgemental" either. So when a Christian states that a non-Christian--or a person who claims to be Christian--is behaving sinfully, this does not constitute being "judgemental". Stating that a person who engages in sinful behaviour is condemning themselves to eternal damnation is not being "judgemental" either. A true Christian, in my opinion, always approaches sin and sinful behaviour from the perspective of 1) we all sin, and 2) that most sinners can change their ways. Since we all sin, Jesus states that we should not judge because on God decides who will be rewarded with eternal life; but it does not mean that the Christian cannot inform and warn sinners about the error of their ways. But Jesus also states that many who hear the word will stray and lose interest, and turn their backs on God. I think for many Christians this is difficult to accept and there is always this need to get everyone on side, since it is a very human desire to live in the comfort of a community that is supportive and like-minded, where one can feel that it is safe to go about one's life and raise one's children. But as the NT also teaches, one's faith will always lead to division and discord, both within the family and society, and ultimately one can only try to live one's own life with as much faith and Christian resolve as possible. I will always continue to voice my concern about sin and sinful people, but ultimately if the sinner chooses not to abide by the word of God, then that is a path that they have chosen and will suffer the consequences.

...

I'm not disputing the ruling to Whitefish, I'm talking about how Detlor is applying it to Six Nations which is a totally different situation.

It seems to me that things are just starting to get really ridiculous now. Not only does Six Nations want land returned to it that it surrendered and sold, now it looks as though they want to screw Canada for BILLIONS of dollars. http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/275798 http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2...007ONCA0744.htm

No it's not. Man-boy-love is a common and celebrated occurence in the gay community. I'm not a neocon--far from it. And it has nothing to do with "discrimination" rather opposition to a moral wrong. If I have an issue with incest, am I "discriminating" against people who are in incestuous relationships? Nope. Yes there is, and I've never "forgotten" that women and lesbians can be pedophiles. Is not Oprah's school in South Africa currently dealing with a scandal in which a female staff member is accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with about a DOZEN female students? The only people you should be offended by are the homosexuals who engage in pedophelic behaviour. You're trying to deny the fact that homosexuals engage in this kind of behaviour; that in itself is morally reprehensible. Since when? So do homosexuals, but instead of overcoming it they "embrace" it and try to normalize it by brainwashing people like you and advocating the homosexual lifestyle. "favorite occupation CATHOLIC PRIEST"???? Again, explain to me how a pedophile who assaults children of the SAME SEX is not a homosexual. Google "pederasty" and start reading... Where's the "persecution"? We're talking about saving people from living in sin.

My truth is based on empirical evidence and the thousands of books that I've read, tens of thousands of articles/essays etc. The Bible is one book, the most important book, but not the only book that I've read. You're sweeping generalization about "unsubstantiated" is flawed; first, you basically are saying that all ancient, early historical texts are either inaccurate or fabricated; second, it ignores the fact that biblical archeology has validated many of the events that are recorded in the Bible. Maybe you would like to explain at what point written evidence about historical events becomes reliable enough to substantiate their occurence?

I guess you missed the parts in the NT that deal with sin. I suppose I could waste my time trying to explain to you being non-judgemental and toleration of sin are not one and the same, but it would clearly be wasted on you. And I just find it so interesting how you do what every anti-Christian complains about Christians: selectively uses verses from the Bible out of context to make a point.

Again, how much tax really goes "Person X" as opposed to say spending on the military, corporate welfare? If you're trying to imply that I'm a "Person X" you are sadly mistaken.

Right, and no one has an obligation to do what you want them to do. If you're too stupid to do anything more than common employment, then that's your problem. And if you're too stupid to not make Canada a better place for your fellow citizen, then you have no right to complain. No it isn't. There would be less of a stock market if it wasn't for the fact that people on the lowest levels were allowed to have a marginally decent standard of living. Remove these people from the economy and the economy and society starts to decline. Do you really want a large group of destitute people in this country, for Canada to become like Mexico or some other place where there are large tracts of shanty towns? Of course it's a stereotype, but for those who do buy "booze and smokes" just how much of that would be tax that goes back to the government and is wasted on "corporate welfare"? But in reality, welfare is a pitance--nobody can really survive on it, so not many people really want to be on it. But if there are no jobs, or employers don't want to employ certain people, then there are few other option. It's too bad that there are so many people in Canada like you; Canada would be such a better place if there weren't.

What lies? I don't have to post a link because, as I stated, it's fairly common knowledge what effect toxins have of animals. The onus is really on you to disprove what I'm stating, but I don't see any of that happening. But it's clear what you're up to, so don't waste my time.

It's also too bad that in all that time you've spent in school and working so hard you haven't been able to develop the ability to see things from anything but your own narrow perspective. You also admit that you contribute to the problem that you complain about; the only way that the situation can change is if people with the money or ability get off their duffs and create worthwhile employment opportunities for their fellow Canadians. But you would rather rest on your laurels and go skiing on weekends. Keep in mind that much of the tax that you pay is directed towards things other than social services; and that people who are on EI, welfare, old age, etc. invariably spend that money locally on items like food, rent and clothing and in the end help support the economy better than people who are wealthy.

a) both are forms of deviant sexual behaviour. b ) homosexuals--I've never said all do this--engage in "man-boy love". c) many pedophiles are homosexuals because pedophiles tend to abuse children of the same sex. No, they don't have "gay episodes" because your concept of gayness in animals implies animals have a human-like disposition towards such behaviour. Whatever the case, it's a non-issue. Compiling a list of anything that animals do and suggesting that it justifies human behaviours has no merit. Pollutants/toxins causing deformaties/abnormal behaviours is not exactly something that is unheard of. The fact that you would even question such a thing really makes me wonder about you, and what right you think you have criticizing others for not caring for the truth.

I'm not really sure what you're babbling about with "time frame". You're basically arguing that pedophelia is okay if it is normalized in a society, right? So basically whatever society deems to be "normal" you'll go along with?

Truth is most important to me. But I assume because I don't buy into the myths and lies you do I "don't care" for the truth?

Honestly, what exactly does a position have in common with a lifestyle/orientation? So if children are groomed from infancy to serve as sex partners for adults, and this is commonplace in society and no social stigma attached, and "nobody gets hurt" it would be okay with you, you would consider it moral????

No, the "they" refers back to "founded by Jews," ie. the Jews who founded Israel, many of whom were survivors of the holocaust, right? This is about Jews who survived the holocaust and turned around and created a state that commits human rights violations. I never said they did. I stated that Irgun was a terrorist organization that helped found Israel; then there was war; then people were forced into refugee camps. Three seperate things. No, that's not what I'm doing at all. Israel is a Jewish state. It was founded by Jews, it is politically Jewish, it is populated largely by Jews. What a democratic state does usually reflects the will of a large segment of its population. What I did is no different than saying Canadians did something because of what Canada does. That said, many Jews in Canada do have a strong tie to Israel, am I not correct? Many support specific political parties in Israel, and send money to help Israel through organizations like UJA, right? I think maybe you're getting off on it, by the looks of it. MS Word tells me that your reply is 2093 "words". That's some serious writing. Truth be told I have little interest reading that much from you, so if you really want to continue, try toning it down to 200-300 words, okay?

I'm not concerned about what the "far right" thinks, and this is not about legal equality; rather the immorality of deviant sexual behaviour.