The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[g_bambino]

No doubt your next response to this, if any, will just be more of the same smarmy drivel laden with emoticons to fill in for the lack of intelligent comment.

Naw, you successfully refuted yourself and then skulked into a corner with your imaginary cake. I saw it coming too, you are so predictable.

I don't think it's me that's terribly predictable.

[g_bambino]

According to whom?

According to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that was quoted here.

[Shwa]

I don't think it's me that's terribly predictable.

No, you imagined it. But again, your response: predictable. At least you are consistent, that should count for something. Now go bake us a real cake!

[Shwa]

It's not having it both ways. What we presently hold as those borders is what they actually are, regardless of what any past treaty might say. That they might still correspond is coincidence.

LOFL!

[charter.rights]

How is it that all those other people were able to settle there then?

Under Six Nations law, individual settlers of land have certain rights which all homesteading, and earning a moderate income from the land, such as farming, or resource . However those occupation rights do not extend to corporations or to where mass destruction of the land or resources takes place. Settlers can use the land for their own benefit as long as they do not damage it.

[g_bambino]

Guys, CR thinks logic, rationality and reason are a delusion. Not only is that the single most retarded thing that's EVER been said on this forum, it's also a pretty clear admission of an inability to argue intelligently.

Don't waste your time. It's like arguing with a dumb monkey.

If he and Shwa aren't the same person, they must be related.

[Remiel]

If he and Shwa aren't the same person, they must be related.

On the assumption that neither are in fact he, I miss Temagami Scourge.

[bebe]

bebe:

Does simply planting a flag wipe out any previous land rights?

smallc:

No, but it does bring (in this case) the land under the sovereignty of the Crown.

bebe:

According to whom?

According to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that was quoted here.

So ... according to the [british] Crown, when the Crown planted a flag on Canada, it wiped out aboriginal claim to the land.

So ... according to me, when I plant a flag on your lawn, it wipes out your claim to the land.

[charter.rights]

bebe:

Does simply planting a flag wipe out any previous land rights?

smallc:

No, but it does bring (in this case) the land under the sovereignty of the Crown.

bebe:

According to whom?

So ... according to the [british] Crown, when the Crown planted a flag on Canada, it wiped out aboriginal claim to the land.

So ... according to me, when I plant a flag on your lawn, it wipes out your claim to the land.

That is absolutely false.

The Royal Proclamation recognized and protected Indian Lands under the sovereignty (power and authority) of the Crown. There was no surrender on Indian Lands to the Crown, nor did they have the authority to claim it in the name of the King through conquest.

That is the myth these big boys operate under. And if they don't know or understand something they are not beyond making it up to satisfy their myths and delusions.....they call that logic....

[Bryan]

Under Six Nations law, individual settlers of land have certain rights which all homesteading, and earning a moderate income from the land, such as farming, or resource . However those occupation rights do not extend to corporations or to where mass destruction of the land or resources takes place. Settlers can use the land for their own benefit as long as they do not damage it.

So why have they not revoked those corporate rights then? They abandoned their claim by not doing anything. Corporations lose their rights all the time if they don't defend them. Even land owners under the modern system lose all rights to land they have actual deeds to if they leave it for even a couple of years. Leave it for a couple of HUNDRED years? Sorry, it's simply not yours anymore... go away.

[charter.rights]

So why have they not revoked those corporate rights then? They abandoned their claim by not doing anything. Corporations lose their rights all the time if they don't defend them. Even land owners under the modern system lose all rights to land they have actual deeds to if they leave it for even a couple of years. Leave it for a couple of HUNDRED years? Sorry, it's simply not yours anymore... go away.

Nope. Up until about 40 years ago it was illegal for lawyers to represent any First Nations. Then the government has a particular way of lying, when asked to provide information.

Protests and lands claims ARE stopping corporations. Lands are not abandoned. Land claims are just now in the last 20 years being settled - some going to the Supreme Court of Canada and others being negotiated. But in the end all the claims will be dealt with.

It is myth that Canada has any land. It doesn't. The land is under the right of First Nations, and as we have seen from the SCoC rulings, this right is a protected Charter right.

Go find somewhere else to play child. This sandbox is not in your league.

[Moonbox]

Go find somewhere else to play child. This sandbox is not in your league.

Go back to your cage monkey. That child has more reasoning power than you do.

[Hobble]

Too bad we continue to throw away millions of dollars every year towards Aboriginal issues and struggle to see any significant improvement...

[Bryan]

It is myth that Canada has any land. It doesn't. The land is under the right of First Nations, and as we have seen from the SCoC rulings, this right is a protected Charter right.

So when are the eviction notices going to be enforced then?

[Shwa]

Go back to your cage monkey. That child has more reasoning power than you do.

It's not having it both ways. What we presently hold as those borders is what they actually are, regardless of what any past treaty might say. That they might still correspond is coincidence.

Riiiiight...

[charter.rights]

Riiiiight...

And of course that puts Moonbox at the same intelligence level of Bryan.

Life of Brian

Edited July 19, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

And of course that puts Moonbox at the same intelligence level of Bryan.

Which happens to be leaps and bounds above you.

Let's not forget:

Logic is a delusion.

Followed by a list of words synonymous (I'll let you figure out what that word means) with logic:

Common sense

Reason

Thinking

Sound judgement

Sanity

Coherence

Train of thought

http://thesaurus.com

I highlighted the two I thought might be simple enough for you to understand. Logic is being able to follow an argument from start to finish in a way that makes sense given the facts you have. We tried that with the dead man lying in on the ground with the gunshot wound and the bullet nearby. You got flustered.

It's interesting that sanity is used synonymously with logic. You saying logic is a delusion leads one to the obvious conclusion about your state of mind.

Now just for fun let's look at some synonyms for illogical:

Not making sense

Absurd

Disconnected

Fallacious (look that one up it might be a biggy for you)

Far-fetched

Groundless

http://thesaurus.com

What I'm trying to get is that any attempt by you to question ANYONE else's intelligence here after

Logic is a delusion.

is simply hilarious. That's stupidity on the grandest of scales.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Moonbox

[Shwa]

Logic is a delusion.

is simply hilarious. That's stupidity on the grandest of scales.

Not as hilarious as the guy who wipes out a family because to him it was the 'logical' thing to do. History is full of such 'logic' from kings to criminals to the mentally disturbed. We only see such 'logic' as 'delusion' in hindsight, but to the person doing the acts, those acts - even despited feelings of guilt, remorse, fear or anger - might think they are being perfectly logical given the circumstances.

Go over your neat little synonym list and see how this applies.

So it could be a simply typo where C.R should have written:

Your logic is a delusion.

There. I fixed it for you.

[Remiel]

So it could be a simply typo where C.R should have written:

Your logic is a delusion.

There. I fixed it for you.

Were this the case, charter.rights has had ample opportunity to correct himself, yet he has not.

Instead, he appears to have denounced logic without understing what it really is, or its limitations. By denouncing the whole enterprise, he makes a fool of himself. It would be like saying, " Mathematics is a delusion! " There is a weak sense that that may be true, given that it is completely abstract from the real world, but at the same time anyone who gave serious credence to that and advocated abandoning mathematics would be insane.

How many people even know the difference between the meaning of " logically strong " and " logically sound " ?

[Shwa]

Were this the case, charter.rights has had ample opportunity to correct himself, yet he has not.

Instead, he appears to have denounced logic without understing what it really is, or its limitations. By denouncing the whole enterprise, he makes a fool of himself. It would be like saying, " Mathematics is a delusion! " There is a weak sense that that may be true, given that it is completely abstract from the real world, but at the same time anyone who gave serious credence to that and advocated abandoning mathematics would be insane.

How many people even know the difference between the meaning of " logically strong " and " logically sound " ?

C.R has attempted to correct himself and what did he have to say? Do you recall? I am just saying that it could be a typo or it could be some sort of derivation of meaning taken from the fact that legislation has no power without an act and such action is usually the result of contemporary interpretation. Or some other meaning - he will have to clarify.

Which takes us back to do-oh-oh-oh... no, wait, it takes us back to something like Diamond Jenness and his effect on contemporary Indian affairs policy from the 30's to the 80's. You are familiar with this yes? Because up until the 70's his 'logic' reigned supreme and was rarely questioned in the context of public policy regardless of political stripe.

[Remiel]

Which takes us back to do-oh-oh-oh... no, wait, it takes us back to something like Diamond Jenness and his effect on contemporary Indian affairs policy from the 30's to the 80's. You are familiar with this yes? Because up until the 70's his 'logic' reigned supreme and was rarely questioned in the context of public policy regardless of political stripe.

Well then, perhaps you should enlighten us as to the dubious exploits of one, Diamond Jenness. A short search of the internet turns up many references but no solid explanation of the sort you are getting at, at least to a cursory examination. Personally, I am more familiar with how the Indian Act was originally designed to screw over aboriginals

by attempting to remove their status through morally bankrupt means, such as how any native who surpassed a certain level of education had their status removed, which led to a conscious effort by many natives to not be educated in order to defeat the intentions of the government. And how if a native women married a non-native man, she lost her status, but if a non-native woman married a native man, she gained status, because the government believed this would more quickly assimilate the aboriginals as mothers were the caregivers and thus the transmitters of culture. You know, stuff like that.

[Shwa]

Well then, perhaps you should enlighten us as to the dubious exploits of one, Diamond Jenness. A short search of the internet turns up many references but no solid explanation of the sort you are getting at, at least to a cursory examination. Personally, I am more familiar with how the Indian Act was originally designed to screw over aboriginals

by attempting to remove their status through morally bankrupt means, such as how any native who surpassed a certain level of education had their status removed, which led to a conscious effort by many natives to not be educated in order to defeat the intentions of the government. And how if a native women married a non-native man, she lost her status, but if a non-native woman married a native man, she gained status, because the government believed this would more quickly assimilate the aboriginals as mothers were the caregivers and thus the transmitters of culture. You know, stuff like that.

In a nutshell, Jenness said that the Indians were a dying race. But, thankfully, he put it more eloquently in his book, The Indians of Canada. Since he was the expert is expertise helped form the 'logic' of Indian Affairs policy.

[Remiel]

In a nutshell, Jenness said that the Indians were a dying race. But, thankfully, he put it more eloquently in his book, The Indians of Canada. Since he was the expert is expertise helped form the 'logic' of Indian Affairs policy.

Do you have any suggested passages from the books? It appears it is available on Google.

[Moonbox]

C.R has attempted to correct himself and what did he have to say? Do you recall?

He didn't correct himself. He said logic was a delusion and then when presented with the definitions he called me schizo.

I am just saying that it could be a typo or it could be some sort of derivation of meaning taken from the fact that legislation has no power without an act and such action is usually the result of contemporary interpretation. Or some other meaning - he will have to clarify.

It wasn't a typo. He posted multiple times to denounce logic as a whole. CR has also basically argued that contemporary interpretation is not part of our legal system. He has indicated that the Supreme Court would not look at any Act or legislation and interpret it based on what is reasonable. He's denounced the standard of Natural Law on our legal system (the concept that any system of law should be based on what is reasonable and fair) and he's denied that Section 1 of our Charter (AKA the limitations clause) has any impact on Section 25 of the Charter (which it absolutely does).

CR has taken the position that reason and logic have no place in the discussion of Aboriginal Rights or present and future settlement claims.

Shwa I generally view you as a troll on this forum looking mostly to agitate, but even you're not dumb enough to say some of the garbage that CR has typed out.

[Bonam]

Shwa I generally view you as a troll on this forum looking mostly to agitate, but even you're not dumb enough to say some of the garbage that CR has typed out.

I dunno, I feel like they are cut from the same cloth. Have never seen them disagree on anything.