Shwa

See? Now you have succumbed to ridicule. Very predictable.

But of course! But it rests on your ability to prove that what you assert is true starting with the idea whether you truly believe what you claim to believe. Bible thumpers provide ample evidence that they believe in what they claim to believe in. Can you do the same?

I am not suggesting that at all just merely enquiring why you wish to compare apples to oranges. (In fact the only one raising doubt is you with phrases like, "maybe it's true" & "but if it is...") What I was hoping was that you might venture away from the simple logic of baking or auto repair and tackle the Bible-as-source with the same sort of attention paid to a metaphysical concept. The followers of the Bible claim that their book describes the nature of reality and beyond, yet you wish to invoke baking and auto repair? Do you have a need for me to? Mr. Schmidt raised 'faith' into the realm of knowledge and all you can answer back is with some meagre thought experiment about "massless faeries." Come on now, is that sort of comment just?

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" I think that is the only point Mr. Schmidt is trying to make. You provided what I would call an invalid definition of logic - a self-referential defintion - all the while chiding the poster on his circular logic and reluctance to discuss. Are you asking as a rhetorical question or you don't know? It is interesting to note that the areas of epistemological treatment you give are all materially based. I would have hoped that you were more inclined to epistemologically treat say morality, ethics, emotion or the theory of mind. You know, something with a little more meat than the usual fare.

Which begs the question... How would you define - without giving a self-referential definition please - the flavour of logic that you would apply to an examination of the validity of the claims of the Bible?

Canada is the founding and participatory member of the OIF, not Quebec. All things la Francophonie come through Canada via Foriegn Affairs agreements. You are continuing to be ridiculous.

Topical editorial from the Toronto Star yesterday: Much ado about Fantino ---------------------------- Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is on the hot seat again – this time over his handling of the native occupation in Caledonia. He faces a criminal charge, brought by a private citizen, of trying to influence the local council. The case was supposed to proceed last week, but it has been put over until next month to give the Crown more time to review evidence. Provincial NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who should know better, has said Fantino should step aside as OPP commissioner while the charge is before the courts. That would set a troublesome precedent. The case revolves around Gary McHale, the private citizen who brought the charge against Fantino. Usually described as an "activist," McHale heads up a group called Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality, which is dedicated to the "restoration of the rule of law in Ontario." He is not a resident of Caledonia, but he has organized demonstrations in the community against the native occupation. Fantino and the OPP, who have been working hard to lower the temperature in the Caledonia conflict, do not appreciate McHale's efforts. So in 2007, Fantino emailed the local mayor and councillors to ask them not to egg McHale on. Fantino also suggested that the OPP contract with the county would not be renewed if councillors continued to back McHale. The implied threat was perhaps ill-advised, but the thinking behind the email is understandable, given the pressures on the OPP from all sides in Caledonia. If McHale can force Fantino aside by laying a private charge in this case, then what is to stop anyone else who disagrees with the OPP from doing the same? The Caledonia situation is most regrettable and has been dragged out for far too long (four years). But it won't be resolved by prosecuting Fantino or pushing him out of the commissioner's office. Rather, it will take good-faith bargaining on the land claims and related issues by both the federal and provincial governments and the Six Nations. ----------------------------

Now you are just being ridiculous.

No I mean Canada is a founding member of la fracophonie as well as other specilaized international organizations that can provide mutual benefit: "Acknowledging the importance of the French presence within its borders and determined to support the role of its francophone community internationally, Canada was one of the first countries to promote La Francophonie by helping establish and develop its institutions." - Canada in la Francophonie - Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada Canada's membership in OIF has nothing to do with allegiances to Britain any more than our membership in the Pacific Rim or Circumpolar organizations. The OIF may have some overlapping initiatives, but differs from the Commonwealth in that they promote French as an international language. Plus all the other good stuff I wrote about earlier.

Not quite. Since a significant portion of our population is francophone - for good reason -our allegiance also lies with the francophone regions of the world as Canada is one of the founding members. "The primary mission of the organization is the promotion of the French language as an international language and the promotion of worldwide cultural and linguistic diversity in the era of economic globalisation." - Organisation_internationale_de_la_Francophonie There are many benefits for Canada in the OIF as there is with our memberships in the Inuit Circumpolar Council, APEC, etc.

Curious. Did your knee jerk a little bit when you wrote that? Canada IS "looking after our own" through all the various social programs that help "starving children, homelessness and the unemployed." You have heard of school food programs, food banks, family allowance, welfare, EI, medicare, Children's Aid, the sum costs of which dwarf a measely 110 million per year. For a partnership with France we get to use their foriegn administrative infrastructure to advance our causes and priorities with regard to foriegn aid and development. To develop our own such infrastructures would be very costly and basically re-inventing the wheel. So this could be a very good thing that we can use to deliver programs and services much cheaper than if we were to go it alone. I don't think such joint ventures - whether it is aid or capital development are a new thing with Canada as I am sure there are likely similar partnerships with Britain and the US to share delivery mechanisms. Nothing wrong with us doing the same with France especially for regions where French is the prevalent language.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Mesopotamia is a geographical region. Are you referring to a specific culture? According to the current thought, while "civilization" was in it's infancy in the Middle East & Asia, Europe was dominated by tribes and chiefdoms. They could have had some written codes of course, where writing existed. Never underestimate the Druids! Examples: Canadian Community and Restorative Justice links Community Justice Circles - London, ON Community Peacemaking Circles - Department of Justice Ontario Community Justice Association

Yep. Which goes to show that there could be many causes to consider and that educated guesses or speculative generalizations about culture groups shouldn't be confused with proven fact.

That is a very interesting thought. : No doubt about the Rockefeller's and "big oil" in their day and Carnegie had his steel industry, but made a ton of money in oil. And of course Gates was Rockefeller's right hand man. All three had a profound influence on the American Medical Association and I read something about Rockefeller looking for pharmaceutical uses for his petrochemicals. So big pharma and big oil might not have too great a degree of separation.

I get the sense that you are coming at this from a Leviathan point where indigenous North American tribal culture = man-vs-man in the wilds and life was nasty, brutish and short. That never appeared to be the case for any length of time on a consistent basis. That was just Hobbes poli-sci thought experiment. It is interesting that this view persists. It is also interesting that the notion of the 'noble savage' and the over-the-top idyllic myths surrounding the 'noble savage of the forest' were all European inventions and that this view persists in popular culture today despite the evidence to the contrary. I guess the proof is Avatar isn't it? The difficulty in making comparisons with what we have now and what came before is the lack of available information from before. Even in tribal and chieftan Europe. Not to mention the system by which we try and classify the 'evolution' of social man and then make these classifications universal. Add to the fact that 'history is written by the victors' and you get a situation where one aspect is touted as superior or more 'civilized' than the same aspect within the cultures of past peoples. I don't think tribal life was nasty, brutish and short; nor do I believe it was some lost Utopia. I would imagine that tribal people in Europe had community type justice systems, or cooperative justice systems if you prefer. I also believe that those ancient European tribal communities were regulated by custom far more than today and this could have resulted in less outbursts of violence of the types we know today. When we say tribal today that suggests a level of egalitarianism which was modified by degrees when economic specialization formed into social hierarchies and then into chiefdoms where justice was likely less cooperative and more at the whim of the chief or special advisors. I believe these types of chiefdoms were the ones that were overrun by the Roman legions. So what is better? That is where the grey area comes into play and not because of some flight of fancy from a romanticising of the past. I happen to believe that indeed we are forming into a global village where some social aspects resemble those we might attribute to tribal cultures. I am sure you are well aware of this view in culture media. If this is true, then do we continue on with the monolithic view of justice or do we allow the various moieties (as opposed to nations, states or provinces) to determine what is right for them? In Canada, we can see how "our" justice "system" is already being modified by "traditional" indigenous tribal concepts where the responsibility for some aspects of justice is being left to the community to administer. Whether we agree that this is good or not, or good at this time or not is beside the point, it is fascinating to see that it is happening.

The question still stands whenever you feel capable of the attempt to answer it. Fact is, there are countless burials in mounds all throughout the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio valleys where the remains include defleshing marks on the bones, including the skull. Some of these mounds contain dozens of burials. Some of these mounds even have pit burials. The excavations of these mounds - and hundreds of similar burials, like the Huron ossuary pits - were completed by teams of experts in the field who agree about that these defleshing marks are attributed to customary mortuary modification. Or did you not know that because it wasn't contained in Keeley's book? That whooshing sound you heard was my point sailing far over your head. The oral record does not corroborate with your assertion of the level of violence you ascribe to pre-Columbian indigenous people. There, is that a little easier for you to understand? No, for some reason you think this is a pissing contest over body counts. You are, afterall, the one that posted about the body counts to make your point. Let me refresh your memory: and finally, And all I am following is the history of your postings in this thread.

1. Too many dependencies. For instance, who is "we" and what "tribal life" are we talking about? How do we fairly measure violence, and according to what cultural standard? 2. How does one measure 'violent tendencies?" By the amount of wars, death counts, crime statistics? By the requirement for justice systems as institutions? How about the level of militarization? I think the Greeks wrote about the violent tendencies of the Spartan culture. There might have been some corroboration from the Spartans themselves. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Hun "culture" had far more "violent tendencies" than some of the pastoral peoples they vanquished and some of their other enemies who were alive long enough to write about them. And the culture of Nazi Germany during the 1930s & early 1940's were shown to have more violent tendencies towards the mainly peaceful Jews. And the objective justice system of Argentine wasn't really all that effective during the Dirty War. It may be black and white for you, but all I can achieve is grey.

Incorrect. You (not so) artfully dodged a question about interpretations of archaeological evidence. The onus is on you and all you have is one-liners. How convenient for you. But good for me. You are the one that raised the concept of evidence through oral history. I know enough about indigenous oral texts to realize that the evidence of the scale savagry known to Europeans was unknown in the indigenous oral texts that have survived to modern times. This doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened, just that from what we know, there is no comprehensive evidence of it happening in pre-columbian times. Combined with scant anthropological evidence - which is always open to interpretation - there is nothing to indicate that the indigenous people in North America experienced anything like the violence that was prevalent in Europe. So you must suffer from premature articulation. I already asked you a question about culturally centric interpretations of archaeological data which you conveniently stepped around. I extended that into the early historical records composed by the conteporaries of the culture of the religious Inquisitions in Europe? Did you miss that? Or conveniently step around it again. Inelegant and dishonest. Ouch. That would make sense given your lack of debating skills. Probably easier on your conscience too.

The "complete history" was your phrase not mine. Let me refresh: Maybe you ought to be more careful with your words. Or think before you write. Or both. I am very aware of indigenous oral history and the remarkable fact is that throughout the huge body of indigenous myth there is very little evidence of the sort of violence and mayhem that was customary in "Pre-Columbian" Europe which is evidenced by several sources of study including libraries of written texts. Not even close - even with your meagre evidence. There were wars and conflicts for sure, but nothing on the scale that Europeans waged on each other. Heck, there isn't any evidence of anything close to what they did to each other during the various religious Inquisitions. Which is interesting since the contemporaries of that time ascribed the same savage behavior to some of the unfriendly indigenous people they met in the new world. What a coincidence. Now you are just whining.

Very curious use of language. You state this: And this is taken from your cite: {my emphasis}So how did you get the "more unpredictable and unmitigated" from the above passage when the violence in the New Guinea Highlands appears to be arranged and regulated according to custom and culture? Did you mean to use the words 'predictable' and 'mitigated' instead and it was just a typo? Are you kidding me? Even with the mid-range population estimates for New World inhabitants, there is no evidence of the scale of violence in North America as associated with that of a similar population in Europe. For example, In 1086 England has a population estimate of 1 million souls. In 1066 the Battle of Hastings was fought with a death count estimated at 6 thousand. More examples. Perhaps you might want to expand your reading material a little more.

Really? And what informs this opinion? Could you cite some credible sources please? Because it seems to me that you are equating "tribal" with less or no cultural responses that would require mediation and mitigation from those cultural mechanisms or structures. I doubt that any confusion as you note above is widespread. What is not confused is that the Europeans brought an unprecedented scale violence to North America that has not been evidenced thus far - even with Keeley's meek examples. Nothing even close to the organized scale of slaughter that have been attributed to so-called civilized peoples in Europe.

So you are quoting from one book from 1996 as an example of "complete history?" Come on now, who are you trying to fool? You need to be a little more "complete" than that. Nevertheless, Keeley's examples are second hand reports of inferences that are based on an intperpretation of evidence that is formed through a particular worldview. Does Keeley also speculate about the possibility that the village suffered a major outbreak of a deadly epidemic disease and to contain the disease it was burned to the ground and the deceased were placed in a mass grave after some unknown morturary ritual? Probably not eh? Because that wouldn't fit his theory of violence among 'before civilized' peoples. Some of the memorable quotes from that passage are "seems" and "appear" and "if so." These are hardly the words of a "complete history" and more than slightly dishonest.

And exactly what "history" are you referring to? Please. Enlighten us.

That is simplism. If you believe you have no say in the 'real important choices' then you have chosen to believe that. These are the types of choices I am referring to. Instead of weighing yourself down with Orwell, read Thoreau - especially 'Walden' 'Walden' isn't and end, but a beginning. Plus it is a little lighter reading too.

Haven't you read Nietzsche? Of course, Superman is real.