The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Shwa]

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

No, I am the same as bloodyminded and WIP and then on Thursdays, I am smallc. Now that you mention it, I do see the similarities between you and lictard. I mean, fair is fair right?

[Remiel]

If I may, in a heated argument, I think it likely that people sharing a side will often come to resemble each other much more closely than they do otherwise. It is natural to let some things you may disagree with slide when there is a bigger battle going on. I mean, I am not exactly thrilled to be debating on the same side as some of the people here, yet I have not said anything against them where in other threads I do not hesitate. Perhaps I have not being paying close enough attention, but it has always been my impression that charter.rights and Shwa are very different in other, unrelated topics.

[Moonbox]

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

They don't disagree on anything no but then Shwa's at least smart enough not to skewer himself saying something as retarded as "logic is a delusion". Rational argument is indeed beyond both of them, but Shwa at least covers up for his deficiencies with mockery and trolling. CR, however, regularly craps on his own face with some of the dumbest and most easily quoted stupidity you can find anywhere on the internet.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Moonbox

[bloodyminded]

If I may, in a heated argument, I think it likely that people sharing a side will often come to resemble each other much more closely than they do otherwise.

That's true. But I think people should take the elementary step of using their imaginaiton, so that they don't paint apparent "cohorts" as exactly the same.

I've been called a "communist"...which I decidedly am not. I have been called a "terrorist-supporter" (usually by actual, demonstrable terrorist-suppoters, interestingly enough); and it's all insane.

Aside from my lovely girlfriend, with whom I agree on virtually every single political issue you can think of, I have never met anybody from whom I don't have some deviations of analysis or ideology. The same thing applies to those with whom I usually disagree on these forums.

[Shwa]

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

Google only has the preview. But luckily I have a copy and can share the final passage from page 264, paragraph XVII 'Interactions with Indians and Whites' from the 1977 edition:

It is not possible now to determine what will be the final influence on the aborigines on the generations of Canadian people still to come. Doubtless all the tribes will disappear. Some will endure only a few years longer, others, like the Eskimo, may last several centuries. Some will merge steadily with the white race, others will bequeth to future generations only an infinitesimal fraction of their blood. Culturally they have contributed everything that was valuable for our own civilization beyond what knowledge we may gleen from their histories concerning man's ceaseless struggle to control his environment.

I think for one of Canada's "greatest early scientists" he was a titch off the mark.

[Moonbox]

He might have been wrong about how long it would take, but that appears to be exactly what's going on.

[PIK]

"Their Territory" extends from Lake Ontario and Erie to the Ottawa River and west to Lake Huron.

I live on the ottawa and years back I recieved a letter telling me that in time I will be paying my taxes to the natives and not the goverment, so I started the fire with it. lol

[Moonbox]

I live on the ottawa and years back I recieved a letter telling me that in time I will be paying my taxes to the natives and not the goverment, so I started the fire with it. lol

As would Canadians everywhere.

[Shwa]

CR, however, regularly craps on his own face with some of the dumbest and most easily quoted stupidity you can find anywhere on the internet.

And yet here you are, now staring down the face of your solid definition of "logic" and finding it completely skewered because you removed it from context. So tell me moonbox, how exactly is the fact that the government can expropriate your real property without your consent and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement - logical? Truly the ball is in your side of the court with this one.

I asked a similar question earlier and you answered with the "fact" of "revolution." Now who is bringing in the hilarity to this thread? The guy that thinks he can predict the course of the beast just because he resides in its belly? Do you understand that analogy moonbox?

So, setting the so called 'trolling' aside, why don't you enlighten us all here with how it is possible for you to predict the outcome of a course of events that are explicitly tied down to your fantasy? You know, the fantasy about unreasonable land claims and such. Tell us how the people will revolt, there will be a revolution, the Crown will be voted out, etc.

And then, once you have finished your little explanation, show us how this is all 'logical' in retrospect. I will then use that as an opportunity to re-iterate how some psychos and sociopaths also think their fantastical thinking was "logic" until the medication and social conditioning kicked in.

But please, do me the honour...

[Wild Bill]

So tell me moonbox, how exactly is the fact that the government can expropriate your real property without your consent and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement - logical?

You've moved the goalposts. Of course you can come up with illogical examples of many systems. So what? CR said that "logic was a delusion", carte blanche!

He did NOT say that expropriation was illogical or that the government may make illogical justifications for some of its actions. Or any of YOUR actions! Or his, or mine, for that matter.

He said flat out that logic IN ITSELF is a delusional concept!

Geez, sometimes trying to get you or CR to stick to what you actually said is like nailing jello to the wall. One or BOTH of you MUST be lawyers! Every time you get challenged you try to weasel around it by dragging in examples out of context or in CR's case, flat out non sequiturs.

Go ahead. 'Prove' your point by calling me a name! If you and CR are truly typical of native land claim negotiators it's no wonder government couldn't care less if things drag out for centuries. It's just not worth the cost of blood pressure pills for the frustration in dealing with people not "one to one" with reality...

[Moonbox]

Geez, sometimes trying to get you or CR to stick to what you actually said is like nailing jello to the wall. One or BOTH of you MUST be lawyers!

I think it's pretty clear their educations go anywhere near that far

[charter.rights]

You've moved the goalposts. Of course you can come up with illogical examples of many systems. So what? CR said that "logic was a delusion", carte blanche!

He did NOT say that expropriation was illogical or that the government may make illogical justifications for some of its actions. Or any of YOUR actions! Or his, or mine, for that matter.

He said flat out that logic IN ITSELF is a delusional concept!

Geez, sometimes trying to get you or CR to stick to what you actually said is like nailing jello to the wall. One or BOTH of you MUST be lawyers! Every time you get challenged you try to weasel around it by dragging in examples out of context or in CR's case, flat out non sequiturs.

Go ahead. 'Prove' your point by calling me a name! If you and CR are truly typical of native land claim negotiators it's no wonder government couldn't care less if things drag out for centuries. It's just not worth the cost of blood pressure pills for the frustration in dealing with people not "one to one" with reality...

Yup. I said "logic is a delusion".

The point being that one can only evaluate "logically" based on the limited knowledge and prejudices one has collected to that point. You can throw all the scientific basis into it all you want. Your frame of reference is incomplete, and often incorrect. This thread is a perfect example of the the supposition, myths and false information that many "logically" try to evaluate the OP.

To the deluded, everything seems logical. You cannot convince a crazy person of their craziness. Nor can you convince a logical person that their logic is deluded because there is no frame of reference where the logical person can separate himself from their own delusions.

You can reason - weighing one thing against another, and you can come to a reasonable conclusion. However, unless one recognizes their fallacies and takes them into account, their conclusion will be deluded.

Main Entry: de·lude

Pronunciation: \di-ˈlüd, dē-\

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): de·lud·ed; de·lud·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin deludere, from de- + ludere to play — more at ludicrous

Date: 15th century

1 : to mislead the mind or judgment of : deceive, trick

2 obsolete a : frustrate, disappoint b : evade, elude

Delusions are not deliberate. There are an inherent flaw in our psyche. Mindful logic and delusion are really the same things.

So that isn't to say that logic and reason are not necessarily useful, but at best we insert our own wild imaginings into the final decisions. Just ask Moonbox as he has become the shining example about what happens when you do not acknowledge your logic is full of delusions. Thanks for that MB....

@Wild Bill. Go back through this thread and see who has been throwing insults and invectives around. One would almost think they were afraid of looking at their own flaws and in doing so have innocently revealed them.

Edited July 20, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

And yet here you are, now staring down the face of your solid definition of "logic" and finding it completely skewered because you removed it from context.

It seems you don't understand what logical means either.

So tell me moonbox, how exactly is the fact that the government can expropriate your real property without your consent and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement - logical? Truly the ball is in your side of the court with this one.

It's pretty simple. Centuries ago, the British Crown made all sorts of different agreements with its First Nations allies and signed treaties. Hundreds of years, and countless subsequent agreements later, the terms, context and conditions of these treaties changed. Nonetheless, it's fair to say that the First Nations have not been dealt with in good faith. As a society that respects the law and concept of fairness, the Crown should do what it REASONABLY can to make amends. As such, we've seen all sorts of land settlements and I'm sure we'll see more within reason. That's the basic point that you and CR seem to drown in. Reason isn't in your vocabulary.

The people whose property is seized, however, are reimbursed by the government. Why? Because it would NOT be fair or reasonable to kick them off land they worked for and purchased.

I asked a similar question earlier and you answered with the "fact" of "revolution." Now who is bringing in the hilarity to this thread? The guy that thinks he can predict the course of the beast just because he resides in its belly? Do you understand that analogy moonbox?

No I'll tell you what actually happened. CR and I were arguing over the SCALE of future settlements. We were not arguing about whether or not future settlements would actually happen. Your question, therefore, was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. For the record, I answered your question with a "yes", but the fact that the Crown CAN seize land has no bearing on the question of how big the settlements will be. It's another example of how bad you and CR are at formulating a reasonable argument. The 'revolution' I spoke of was no less likely than the settlements CR claims will happen.

So, setting the so called 'trolling' aside, why don't you enlighten us all here with how it is possible for you to predict the outcome of a course of events that are explicitly tied down to your fantasy? You know, the fantasy about unreasonable land claims and such. Tell us how the people will revolt, there will be a revolution, the Crown will be voted out, etc.

Let's try answering your question with a series of questions. An intelligent, inquisitive mind would have figured this out a long time ago, but let's see if you can catch up:

1. Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the people of Canada) enforce lopsided judgements in the favour of the First Nations that would impoverish tens of millions of Canadians for the benefit of a tiny minority?

2. Supposing the Crown actually did that, why would the people of Canada continue to support it?

3. If the Crown lost the support of Canadians, who would enforce its will?

Any reasonable and intelligent being should always be asking, "Why?". My answer to your question is implied in the questions I asked you.

Make an effort to answer those questions and I'll answer anything you ask. I promise.

[Shwa]

It seems you don't understand what logical means either.

I understand logic fine; there is no "either." You are all alone in ignoring context.

Reason isn't in your vocabulary.

Not including current claims to parts of southern Ontario lands, the government of Canada holds a trust for leases and small surrenders that is estimated to top $1 trillion. The interest on those monies that are calculated at interest rates set out by the Bank of Canada and INAC, amount to about $3 billion a year. Six Nations and Tyendinaga receive only about $250 million a year in transfers to maintain services, roads and infrastructure. That is a huge inequity.

I don't think there's much to say about this other than HAHAHAHAHAHA...As has been mentioned before, there isn't a court in the world that would recognize a $1 trillion dollar claim and that's lunatic territory at best...You can do as much 'claiming' and bedwetting as you want, but those claims will never be realized, nobody will take them seriously and little to nothing is ever going to happen...As for the Crown, its authority is not recognized by anyone in the Commonwealth and its power is purely symbolic. So...your chain thing means absolutely nothing.

C.R makes an assertion about $1 trillion in "...a trust for leases and small surrenders..." A claim about "trust for leases" is not the same thing as a land claim or a claim for settlement in dollars. But you immediately proceed with an appeal to ridicule and an appeal to popularity without asking how or why this figure of trillion was arrived at. So how is that reasonable exactly? Where's the logic of simply proceeding from an assertion to ridicule and grandstanding? I think a more reasonable person would have queried about that figure and how it was derived to try and determine if that figure is reasonable or the result of reasonable and logical calculations.

The people whose property is seized, however, are reimbursed by the government. Why? Because it would NOT be fair or reasonable to kick them off land they worked for and purchased.

...and any court here that tried to give away the land they live on would be chased out of the country.

So we went from $1 trillion in "...a trust for leases and small surrenders..." to all of Southern Ontario where 10 million people would be kicked off their land. How specious a line of reasoning is that? Especially since you do not know how the $1 trillion dollar figure was arrived at or what "...a trust for leases and small surrenders" actually means. The only argument you have is a repeated appeal to fantasy about a silent-majority-people-power revolution.

No I'll tell you what actually happened. CR and I were arguing over the SCALE of future settlements. We were not arguing about whether or not future settlements would actually happen. Your question, therefore, was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. For the record, I answered your question with a "yes", but the fact that the Crown CAN seize land has no bearing on the question of how big the settlements will be. It's another example of how bad you and CR are at formulating a reasonable argument. The 'revolution' I spoke of was no less likely than the settlements CR claims will happen.

No, what actually happened is you jumped into an ad hominem attack based on fallacious appeals to popular opinion. My question was wholly relevant to see if you understand that land claims are legitimate and who determines value. Because your say in the matter of "scale" is completely meaningless. In fact, you have no say, and admit no concern, in how that value is determined; and, apaprently, you lack the power to do anything about it. That is the only "scale" that needs concern you. You can fantasize all you want about your all-powerful silent majority revolution, the Constitution and legal limits of the Crown, but that is more to pity than to scorn.

... However, the government of Canada already recognizes that the Six Nations trust is somewhere between $200 billion and $500 billion. They just use different calculation methods. However, government accountants have already suggested that the government's figures are low. Six Nations accountants came to the nearly $1 trillion account based on compounded interest that goes back over 200 years.

The claims ARE already realize. It is just the paperwork that needs to catch up.

Let's try answering your question with a series of questions. An intelligent, inquisitive mind would have figured this out a long time ago, but let's see if you can catch up:

1. Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the people of Canada) enforce lopsided judgements in the favour of the First Nations that would impoverish tens of millions of Canadians for the benefit of a tiny minority?

2. Supposing the Crown actually did that, why would the people of Canada continue to support it?

3. If the Crown lost the support of Canadians, who would enforce its will?

Any reasonable and intelligent being should always be asking, "Why?". My answer to your question is implied in the questions I asked you.

Make an effort to answer those questions and I'll answer anything you ask. I promise.

This is an illegitimate (aka "illogical" or "unreasonable") line of questioning because you have no proof any settlement discussed would be "lopsided" or "impoverish" anyone. This is a make-believe condition you have invented to appeal to popular opinion because your ability to be reasonable is blocked. If you want to ask questions about fantasy, I prefer discussing Barbarella.

Hmmmm... it appears you are more than a wee bit out of touch on this topic.

I stand by this remark.

[Moonbox]

I understand logic fine; there is no "either." You are all alone in ignoring context.

Changing the context or topic is your realm of expertise.

So how is that reasonable exactly? Where's the logic of simply proceeding from an assertion to ridicule and grandstanding? I think a more reasonable person would have queried about that figure and how it was derived to try and determine if that figure is reasonable or the result of reasonable and logical calculations.

Here you're just trying to confuse the issue. What realistic difference does it make whether or not we're talking about a $1 trillion settlement or trust? A trust is a legal arrangement where property is managed for the benefit of another party. How would a $1 trillion trust held for the benefit of a tiny First Nations population be acceptable to ~10 million Ontarions? Neither are affordable.

My basic argument remains unchanged and unchallenged. It doesn't make sense to make a tiny minority fabulously wealthy at the great expense of the majority.

So we went from $1 trillion in "...a trust for leases and small surrenders..." to all of Southern Ontario where 10 million people would be kicked off their land. How specious a line of reasoning is that? Especially since you do not know how the $1 trillion dollar figure was arrived at or what "...a trust for leases and small surrenders" actually means. The only argument you have is a repeated appeal to fantasy about a silent-majority-people-power revolution.

You made that up yourself. I never said that so it's pretty irrelevant. I said that $1 trillion in settlements (or trusts it doesn't matter) is entirely unaffordable and thus impossible. That's practically Canada's entire GDP for a year.

No, what actually happened is you jumped into an ad hominem attack based on fallacious appeals to popular opinion. My question was wholly relevant to see if you understand that land claims are legitimate and who determines value.

Something isn't clicking in your brain. You asked if the Crown can seize land. I said yes, but that's no indication on how big future settlements would be.

Because your say in the matter of "scale" is completely meaningless. In fact, you have no say, and admit no concern, in how that value is determined; and, apaprently, you lack the power to do anything about it.

My 'say' has nothing to do with it. The Crown's adherence to common sense (another concept that escapes you) is what matters. Not only have you demonstrated you have no understanding of legal theory at its most basic level, you've also been proven (about a dozen times in this thread) to have no clue about our legal system here in Canada, particularly on the subject of what the Crown is and from where it gains its legitimacy.

That is the only "scale" that needs concern you. You can fantasize all you want about your all-powerful silent majority revolution, the Constitution and legal limits of the Crown, but that is more to pity than to scorn.

That's all you and CR are doing: Fantasizing. The $1 trillion in trust for the First Nations will coninue to elude you and we'll continue to snicker at your belief in it. Just to clarify, by scale I mean size. From your quote I'm not sure you get that. The size of claims being settled, and the speed at which they're being settled, indicate that the total value MIGHT end up being something like 2-3% of that $1 trillion when it's all said and done.

There is absolutely ZERO indication ANYWHERE that this is incorrect.

This is an illegitimate (aka "illogical" or "unreasonable") line of questioning because you have no proof any settlement discussed would be "lopsided" or "impoverish" anyone. This is a make-believe condition you have invented to appeal to popular opinion because your ability to be reasonable is blocked.

Yes. I do have proof.

$1 trillion = $1,000,000,000,000.

There are 700,000 First Nations inhabitants in Canada

1,000,000,000,000 / 700,000 = $1,428,571 in settlements (or Trust) for every single one of them if what you and CR is saying is correct

If you want to see what impact that has on Canadians, simply do the math

1,000,000,000,000 / 33,300,000 = $30,000 is the cost to each Canadian

In 2005 the average net worth of Canadians was $148,000.

A $30,000 liability, whether it be in the form of trust or settlement (makes absolutely no difference) instantly evaporates 20% of their wealth.

So, again, I ask the question:

Why would the Crown (which gains its legitimacy from the People of Canada), judge in favor of making 700,000 Natives instant millionaires and in so doing erase 20% of every Canadian's wealth?

If it were to do that, why would the Canadian People continue to support the Crown?

Without the support of the People, who would enforce the Crown's will?

I'm betting you won't answer those questions, because you and CR squirm and disappear or change the subject whenever you're actually pressed with reason supported by FACT. My FACTS there were the math and you can't argue with that. From the FACTS, I came up with a few questions. Answer them or go home.

Finally, in anticipation of another dumb argument, don't try and tell me that a $1 trillion Trust makes things any more reasonable. Whether they settle this amount up front or as an annuity, it's still the exact same cost. It's unaffordable, and thus it doesn't make sense.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Moonbox

[g_bambino]

I'm betting you won't answer those questions, because you and CR squirm and disappear or change the subject whenever you're actually pressed with reason supported by FACT. My FACTS there were the math and you can't argue with that. From the FACTS, I came up with a few questions. Answer them or go home.

MB, I'm pretty sure most of us soundly get your point and comprehend the structure it's built on. CR and Shwa, on the other hand, won't; I think they could, if they wanted, but they simply choose not to, as the conclusion they'd have to accept is that their belief in a future $1 trillion settlement to First Nations is an utter (deluded, even) fantasy; the effort they invest in the necessary mental acrobatics is worth the self-righteously pleasing, if irrational, feeling that results. To them, stupidity is a drug (though you're right in that Shwa at least seems aware of and embarrassed by his addiction when he covers up any exposition of it with deflection, trolling, and insults). Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

[Shwa]

I'm betting you won't answer those questions, because you and CR squirm and disappear or change the subject whenever you're actually pressed with reason supported by FACT. My FACTS there were the math and you can't argue with that. From the FACTS, I came up with a few questions. Answer them or go home.

Now you are just be daft:

This is an illegitimate (aka "illogical" or "unreasonable") line of questioning because you have no proof any settlement discussed would be "lopsided" or "impoverish" anyone. This is a make-believe condition you have invented to appeal to popular opinion because your ability to be reasonable is blocked. If you want to ask questions about fantasy, I prefer discussing Barbarella.

Not only are you being daft you are showing a severely limited comprehension of valuation. Fantasy fixations do that I guess.

[Shwa]

MB, I'm pretty sure most of us soundly get your point and comprehend the structure it's built on. CR and Shwa, on the other hand, won't; I think they could, if they wanted, but they simply choose not to, as the conclusion they'd have to accept is that their belief in a future $1 trillion settlement to First Nations is an utter (deluded, even) fantasy; the effort they invest in the necessary mental acrobatics is worth the self-righteously pleasing, if irrational, feeling that results. To them, stupidity is a drug (though you're right in that Shwa at least seems aware of and embarrassed by his addiction when he covers up any exposition of it with deflection, trolling, and insults). Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Right. Another fabulous opinion from the imaginary baker who confuses the cake with the recipe. No matter, words have no meaning.

[Moonbox]

Now you are just be daft:

This is what I meant by the difference between you and CR. CR will actually say something retarded like "math is a myth" when presented with solid figures. You, on the other hand just ignore, deflect and cower behind glib one-liners whenever you're pressed on one of your idiotic assertions. I'm not sure which one is more pathetic.

How is the math "daft"? Please, share your ineptitude with us. I'm sure we'll all get a good chuckle.

Not only are you being daft you are showing a severely limited comprehension of valuation. Fantasy fixations do that I guess.

Again, please enlighten us. Explain to us how else you're supposed to appraise a $1 trillion Trust.

Once again, I'm sure you can't and I'm equally certain you'll not respond to any of these questions. That's how you operate. You're happy to challenge literally EVERYTHING people say that you don't agree with, but you're pathetically incapable of supporting your own points.

The effort they invest in the necessary mental acrobatics is worth the self-righteously pleasing, if irrational, feeling that results. To them, stupidity is a drug (though you're right in that Shwa at least seems aware of and embarrassed by his addiction when he covers up any exposition of it with deflection, trolling, and insults). Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Beautifully stated bambino. I don't think it's possible to put it any better.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Moonbox

[charter.rights]

Right. Another fabulous opinion from the imaginary baker who confuses the cake with the recipe. No matter, words have no meaning.

Between the bumbino the little 'c' and the mooner they take "crazy" and "deluded" to most extreme - lock 'em up in a psyche ward - level.

Maybe we should hand out free pacifiers. These whiners don't have a clue what we are really talking about and have invented all kinds of fantastic and pretty childish stories about what they "logically think" we are discussing. What morons to the nth degree. Hey moonie do you get that math?

[Smallc]

You think that we're crazy? That's rich.

[charter.rights]

You think that we're crazy? That's rich.

Insane people are incapable of recognizing their insanity....so yes...you are crazy...

[Smallc]

The only area of my life in which I'm insane has nothing to do with anything discussed on this forum.

[charter.rights]

The only area of my life in which I'm insane has nothing to do with anything discussed on this forum.

The sun is shining through the trees....butterfly...

Do you think there is such a thing as "a little bit insane"?

Edited July 20, 2010 by charter.rights

[Jack Weber]

The only area of my life in which I'm insane has nothing to do with anything discussed on this forum.

I can vouch for that!!!!