We pay while Indians live in luxury

[gc1765]

The fatal flaw in that statement is the the Europeans are not asking the other inhabitants to pay them any sort of restitution, the Natives are.

The difference is that those "other inhabitants" didn't simply take the land from them. If they own land, they purchased it from the previous owner, who purchased it from the previous owner, etc., who purchased it from the original owner.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In my view the land claims are little more than a way to play against our good nature and our sympathy. The legal value of the claims does not constitute a moral value to equate with, and from that stand point the entire argument falls apart in my opinion.

I see the entire issue from a perspective of a failing system of society that is striving to appease all petitioners. The law or at least the intent of the law is now subject to the definition of fair and impartial treatment. I contest this current trend or at least oppose it on the basis that the law ought to be formulated to apply justice not to appease popular opinions of the public. The law is the foundation of our society and as such needs to be considered as the means of navigating through the problems of society in a manner that is extremely biased toward the dispensation of justice.

From my now defined standpoint, I see the entire argument as a dispute about a he said she said form of argument. What is really being sought out in this issue is the wholesale change of our entire society based upon the claims made by one group of individuals against not merely the government but instead all of the other members of the society of this nation. The law in this case is being tested to provide the "right" of one small group of citizens against the "rights" of an entire nation. This brings into question the relevant weight of "rights" in the legal/moral issue at hand. It is a legal trap that is being exploited by a small group of individuals, and it could well win the day in the court system.

In order for our society to prevail and flourish we need to accept the reality that evolution applies to society as well as nature. Human civilization is in a constant state of change and as such we discover and apply those changes to our society. However, we do not always utilize all of the ideas or concepts that we develop. Our society has become technologically advanced but it has not advanced to the same degree in terms of a moral or social sense. We are still subject to the artificially created political agendas formulated by those of ambition and wealth that seek to control and manipulate society to their advantage. Those agendas can be carefully designed to play well in terms of popular support, as is the case with all matters having to do with our native population.

It is my hope that there will be no solution to the native issues prior to a reformation of political operations within this nation. I have no trust in most politicians and their hidden agendas. I have no trust in laws that are created by them because of those agendas. In my mind we need to clean up our political act first; update our entire constitution, reform the entire governmental structure, design a means to empower citizens through a freedom to participate in the political process, and finally develop the means to improve the human condition through freedom defined within the law.

As it stands now our freedom is narrowly defined as a position of rights determined by government that was not ratified by the individual citizens, that is simply wrong. We based the entire constitution of the say so of representatives loyal to partisan affiliation instead of loyalty to those they are supposed to be representing and in my mind that is a fatal flaw.

Now how does all this apply to the issue at hand you ask? I think that the real issue here is far more important than that of simply native "rights". The entire definition of the term of rights is now suspect and in dire need of modification by means of modernization. I believe that we need to do this before we resolve native issues because I want to avoid the politicians from making any more "deals" with the natives that could be used against the rest of the citizens at some time in the future. I think that having waited this long, the natives can wait a little longer as long as they KNOW FOR A FACT that the issue is finally being dealt with. So in the end, I think we in fact owe a debt to the natives in as much as they may be the means of reforming our society in a manner that is beneficial to all citizens. For all the wrongs done to them in the past, they indeed have a very real desire to see changes in this society. Those changes needed are those which would protect citizens from each other and protect citizens from government. In that sense the goals of natives are in fact the same as those of non natives.

Its time for a change.

[AngusThermopyle]

No. Being that M.DNA is recognized as "ground breaking" means that people are jumping on the band wagon without proper scientific discrimination. And like I suggested it is no more valuable than connecting 2 dots and believing that the rest of the universe is connected in the same way.

Some beneficial advice for you. Do not try to use the study of Human Biology or discuss it. In doing so you only expose your lack of knowledge on the subject to a greater and greater degree.

It is not as you claim a matter of "connecting dots", further, the use of analogies referring to eye and hair colour has very little to do with it. Those are merely indicators of the effects of outside factors influencing adaptation and as such have almost nothing to do with the Human Genome, which as has been mentioned previously has material shared in common with the Great Apes, about 98% in common actually.

To use these arguements you must first understand them beyond the most basic level. From what you post it is obvious that you do not.

[JCAN]

In my view the land claims are little more than a way to play against our good nature and our sympathy. The legal value of the claims does not constitute a moral value to equate with, and from that stand point the entire argument falls apart in my opinion.

I see the entire issue from a perspective of a failing system of society that is striving to appease all petitioners. The law or at least the intent of the law is now subject to the definition of fair and impartial treatment. I contest this current trend or at least oppose it on the basis that the law ought to be formulated to apply justice not to appease popular opinions of the public. The law is the foundation of our society and as such needs to be considered as the means of navigating through the problems of society in a manner that is extremely biased toward the dispensation of justice.

From my now defined standpoint, I see the entire argument as a dispute about a he said she said form of argument. What is really being sought out in this issue is the wholesale change of our entire society based upon the claims made by one group of individuals against not merely the government but instead all of the other members of the society of this nation. The law in this case is being tested to provide the "right" of one small group of citizens against the "rights" of an entire nation. This brings into question the relevant weight of "rights" in the legal/moral issue at hand. It is a legal trap that is being exploited by a small group of individuals, and it could well win the day in the court system.

In order for our society to prevail and flourish we need to accept the reality that evolution applies to society as well as nature. Human civilization is in a constant state of change and as such we discover and apply those changes to our society. However, we do not always utilize all of the ideas or concepts that we develop. Our society has become technologically advanced but it has not advanced to the same degree in terms of a moral or social sense. We are still subject to the artificially created political agendas formulated by those of ambition and wealth that seek to control and manipulate society to their advantage. Those agendas can be carefully designed to play well in terms of popular support, as is the case with all matters having to do with our native population.

It is my hope that there will be no solution to the native issues prior to a reformation of political operations within this nation. I have no trust in most politicians and their hidden agendas. I have no trust in laws that are created by them because of those agendas. In my mind we need to clean up our political act first; update our entire constitution, reform the entire governmental structure, design a means to empower citizens through a freedom to participate in the political process, and finally develop the means to improve the human condition through freedom defined within the law.

As it stands now our freedom is narrowly defined as a position of rights determined by government that was not ratified by the individual citizens, that is simply wrong. We based the entire constitution of the say so of representatives loyal to partisan affiliation instead of loyalty to those they are supposed to be representing and in my mind that is a fatal flaw.

Now how does all this apply to the issue at hand you ask? I think that the real issue here is far more important than that of simply native "rights". The entire definition of the term of rights is now suspect and in dire need of modification by means of modernization. I believe that we need to do this before we resolve native issues because I want to avoid the politicians from making any more "deals" with the natives that could be used against the rest of the citizens at some time in the future. I think that having waited this long, the natives can wait a little longer as long as they KNOW FOR A FACT that the issue is finally being dealt with. So in the end, I think we in fact owe a debt to the natives in as much as they may be the means of reforming our society in a manner that is beneficial to all citizens. For all the wrongs done to them in the past, they indeed have a very real desire to see changes in this society. Those changes needed are those which would protect citizens from each other and protect citizens from government. In that sense the goals of natives are in fact the same as those of non natives.

Its time for a change.

WELL SAID.

[DangerMouse]

A play on our good nature and sympathy? Let's get this straight...diseased, boat-people from Europe came here and infested the natives then squatted on the land. They molested the children and raped the women and committed other acts like arson and murder. Fast forward the clock, and now lightbulbs like you make sound as though you've done the natoves one great big favour Go smoke another one as you sip your vodka Time for change? Yes JUMP ON YOUR BOAT AND GO BACK!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well DM what can I say to your response? You obviously have an agenda, one that seeks to attempt a position of credibility through insults. Not even a nice try DM. Let me respond with this; your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

I could say; enjoy your welfare check from your government paid for hovel while you drink whiskey and beat your wife and children you fool, but I shall not! It is your fate to be forever envious of people who work for a living. Keep it up DM, you give us great and cheap entertainment!

[DangerMouse]

Well DM what can I say to your response? You obviously have an agenda, one that seeks to attempt a position of credibility through insults. Not even a nice try DM. Let me respond with this; your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance.

I could say; enjoy your welfare check from your government paid for hovel while you drink whiskey and beat your wife and children you fool, but I shall not! It is your fate to be forever envious of people who work for a living. Keep it up DM, you give us great and cheap entertainment!

May I ask how speaking the truth is an agenda? It's all true you were:...diseased, boat-people from Europe came here and infested the natives then squatted on the land. They molested the children and raped the women and committed other acts like arson and murder. Fast forward the clock, and now lightbulbs like you make it sound as though you've done the natives one great big favour. It's true isn't it? What's your point?

[AngusThermopyle]

May I ask how speaking the truth is an agenda?

May I ask, when do you speak the truth quote miner?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The settlers were not diseased, and they were not boat people. They were not alone in their acts of violence now were they? Which tribe started the taking of scalps as proof of murder DM? What you are saying in your posts is overblown and highly slanted, not to mention lacking in certain factual representations.

The point is that natives did not originate in North America, had that been the case you could well have a valid case, but you don't. The fact is merely who was here first from your stand point. That doesn't hold water in historical terms. It is the one that keeps the land that can lay claim to it.

The point is that for all of your complaining, the real issues with natives are lack of education, drug dependency, family violence, and low standards of living in general. All of these things can be addressed, but that is not what natives want. They want money and they want land. Neither of which will solve the current problems. Such is the short sighted approach you take DM and CR.

The reality is that for all the insults you swill they make you look more and more like fools. You folks need to get a grip and join the rest of the world.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Jerry J. Fortin

[White Doors]

ANY amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would only likely strengthen and further entrench rights not yet recognize. An amendment could never diminish rights that presently exist, unless the targets agreed that they were redundant. That is the nature of a Charter of Rights. It is there to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Agreed, they could amend the chather to include first nations.

then we would truly have equal rights for all.

Say goodbye to race based laws like hunting at night and fishing out of season.

[White Doors]

Exactly. And by rights he didn't originate in Europe either. Must of been one of those late blooming knuckle draggers from Ethiopia.

Yep, same as you and FN's.

[DogOnPorch]

Yep, same as you and FN's.

A good documentary on M-DNA being used to mark the march of humans across the planet.

The Real Eve 9 Parts...it shows how we are all related from a single common mother leaving Africa via Arabia rather than The Levant. North American Indians, too...

--------------------------------------------

If the mitochondrial Eve is 202,000 years old and the y-chromosome Adam only 188,000 years old, then he was the first man to fall in love with an older woman.

---Anthropology lecture joke

[DangerMouse]

A good documentary on M-DNA being used to mark the march of humans across the planet.

The Real Eve 9 Parts...it shows how we are all related from a single common mother leaving Africa via Arabia rather than The Levant. North American Indians, too...

--------------------------------------------

If the mitochondrial Eve is 202,000 years old and the y-chromosome Adam only 188,000 years old, then he was the first man to fall in love with an older woman.

---Anthropology lecture joke

Do you honestly believe all the propaganda crap you see on tv, and read in the papers? It's there to brainwash you which is very evident in these forums and others just like it

[DogOnPorch]

Do you honestly believe all the propaganda crap you see on tv, and read in the papers?

Are you saying the branch of science known as genetics is propaganda? How did you like the documentary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project

It's there to brainwash you which is very evident in these forums and others just like it

Science is here to brainwash us...right. How many things...including your computer...have you used today that were given to you by the efforts of science? Coffeemaker, perhaps? Your car? Your watch? Your...etc, etc, etc? No worries, though. We do need a few nut-jobs on a forum such as yourself...reminds the rest of us that we still have a touch of sanity left...at least.

------------------------------------------------

That's my money, Paulie...

---Christopher Moltisanti to Paulie Gualtieri after killing a waiter for the tip money; The Sopranos

Edited May 23, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[the janitor]

We do need a few nut-jobs on a forum such as yourself...reminds the rest of us that we still have a touch of sanity left...at least.

Someone is a nutjob just because they disagree with you? Sounds about as intolerant as anything else to me.

[DogOnPorch]

Someone is a nutjob just because they disagree with you? Sounds about as intolerant as anything else to me.

No...he's a nut-job for automatically chosing mythology over science and then justifies it by attaching a strawman arguement that states more or less: your opinion is arrived at via brainwashing. So he's a "nut-job"...but that's merely my li'l ol' opinion. In other words: I'd be nervous if I found out the pilots were ill and DM was flying the plane.

Do you also think science is brainwashing?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.

---Biology lecture joke

[AngusThermopyle]

Someone is a nutjob just because they disagree with you? Sounds about as intolerant as anything else to me.

Look over DM's posting history, if you find anything resembling signs of intelligence let me know because I must have missed it.

[charter.rights]

No...he's a nut-job for automatically chosing mythology over science and then justifies it by attaching a strawman arguement that states more or less: your opinion is arrived at via brainwashing. So he's a "nut-job"...but that's merely my li'l ol' opinion. In other words: I'd be nervous if I found out the pilots were ill and DM was flying the plane.

Do you also think science is brainwashing?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists, but then he meets another biophysicist, they just discuss women.

---Biology lecture joke

There is a certain amount of conditioning involved in believing that present day science hold all the answers. The problem is that just like an error in story telling can be duplicated over the years, errors in science can also lead us astray. Theories become scientific law without necessarily being put to full scrutiny. And then there are those hold on to science religiously as the counter answer to religious mysticism. Science in the context you try to present it is brainwashing and you seem to use the same techniques that cult leaders would use to try to make your point.

What you appear to miss....is that science.....is all in the question....and it is not the answer. So long as one continues to question the result one maintains some scientific integrity. The minute you slap someone with the results as if that is all there is to it, you have drifted over into religion.

This is a scientific question I'd like you to ponder.....What makes one dead?

[DangerMouse]

Are you saying the branch of science known as genetics is propaganda? How did you like the documentary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project

Science is here to brainwash us...right. How many things...including your computer...have you used today that were given to you by the efforts of science? Coffeemaker, perhaps? Your car? Your watch? Your...etc, etc, etc? No worries, though. We do need a few nut-jobs on a forum such as yourself...reminds the rest of us that we still have a touch of sanity left...at least.

------------------------------------------------

That's my money, Paulie...

---Christopher Moltisanti to Paulie Gualtieri after killing a waiter for the tip money; The Sopranos

DOGON PORCH uses wikipedia as a source? That proves it right there! Any lightbulb like you and Anus I mean Angus can add and edit on there...in other words it's all crap

[DogOnPorch]

There is a certain amount of conditioning involved in believing that present day science hold all the answers. The problem is that just like an error in story telling can be duplicated over the years, errors in science can also lead us astray. Theories become scientific law without necessarily being put to full scrutiny. And then there are those hold on to science religiously as the counter answer to religious mysticism. Science in the context you try to present it is brainwashing and you seem to use the same techniques that cult leaders would use to try to make your point.

What you appear to miss....is that science.....is all in the question....and it is not the answer. So long as one continues to question the result one maintains some scientific integrity. The minute you slap someone with the results as if that is all there is to it, you have drifted over into religion.

This is a scientific question I'd like you to ponder.....What makes one dead?

Science = The Scientific Method. There are no expert opinions in science.

That pretty much sums it up.

DOGON PORCH uses wikipedia as a source? That proves it right there! Any lightbulb like you and Anus I mean Angus can add and edit on there...in other words it's all crap.

You're free to Google your own sources. The Human Genome Project is a fact.

------------------------------------------

Science is not belief, but the will to find out.

---Anon

[WIP]

Science = The Scientific Method. There are no expert opinions in science. Does it stand up to peer review? That pretty much sums it up.

I'd like to see his storytelling and religious mystical mumbo jumbo stand up to peer review! It seems like the natives here have been reading Idealism and Post-modern Relativist philosophy, where everyone can run around with their own personal truth and science is just another belief system. I'd like to know if they have the guts to fly on an airplane built by someone who considers mystical wisdom equal to scientific evidence!

You're free to Google your own sources. The Human Genome Project is a fact.

------------------------------------------

Science is not belief, but the will to find out.

---Anon

The problem is that proving a point with scientific evidence like mitochondrial DNA depends on whether the other person has taken even a little time to learn the basics about genetics and genomics. I heard Susan Jacobi in an interview recently state that 60% of Americans don't know what the letters D.N.A. stand for! I hope a polling result in Canada is at least a little better than the U.S. results. Honestly, besides problems dealing with teaching evolution, how is the public going to make informed choices regarding issues like stem cell research with these kind of numbers?

[charter.rights]

I'd like to see his storytelling and religious mystical mumbo jumbo stand up to peer review! It seems like the natives here have been reading Idealism and Post-modern Relativist philosophy, where everyone can run around with their own personal truth and science is just another belief system. I'd like to know if they have the guts to fly on an airplane built by someone who considers mystical wisdom equal to scientific evidence!

The problem is that proving a point with scientific evidence like mitochondrial DNA depends on whether the other person has taken even a little time to learn the basics about genetics and genomics. I heard Susan Jacobi in an interview recently state that 60% of Americans don't know what the letters D.N.A. stand for! I hope a polling result in Canada is at least a little better than the U.S. results. Honestly, besides problems dealing with teaching evolution, how is the public going to make informed choices regarding issues like stem cell research with these kind of numbers?

Actually that is wrong. Religion is peer reviewed, probably much more than scientific information. The Bible is studied extensively by scholars, discussed among ministers and lay people. Storytelling is peer reviewed also. That's how we have developed history and eye-witness accounts in court. IN the latter case the testimony is scrutinized by a judge or jury and weight of its reliability is determined.

So science is necessarily real and true just because others say it is so. That is no more than religion acting as science. The minute that you take a scientific premise and treat it as an absolute, you have created a religion. When one stops asking questions it is no longer scientific. To prove the point answer the question I presented earlier.

What makes one dead?

[AngusThermopyle]

Actually that is wrong. Religion is peer reviewed, probably much more than scientific information. The Bible is studied extensively by scholars, discussed among ministers and lay people. Storytelling is peer reviewed also. That's how we have developed history and eye-witness accounts in court. IN the latter case the testimony is scrutinized by a judge or jury and weight of its reliability is determined.

So science is necessarily real and true just because others say it is so. That is no more than religion acting as science. The minute that you take a scientific premise and treat it as an absolute, you have created a religion. When one stops asking questions it is no longer scientific. To prove the point answer the question I presented earlier.

What makes one dead?

Stop now please.

Before you make an even bigger ass of yourself. All you are doing is illustrating the fact that you do not have a clue as to how science and the scientific method work.

Religion can not be peer reviewed due its very nature. the system of peer review depends on knowledgeable people reviewing work based upon known and proven benchmarks. They dissect an idea, or theory, using proven and established principles. Within religion no such system exists, given the very nature of religion no such system can possibly exist.

You use the Bible as your example. The bible is a story book that has endured, nothing more. Where does the bible discuss the periodic table? Where does the bible delve into mathematics and which mathematical principles does it uphold and clarify? Of course the answer to these questions is a negative. So how can one claim that it stands the test of peer review. A bunch of people with no education or real knowledge of the scientific method sitting around argueing about a story does not equate to peer review.

So science is necessarily real and true just because others say it is so.

No, science is real and true because it relies upon proven observable repeatable data, unlike religion. Simply put. Just because you have no understanding of scientific principles does not negate the centuries of work and knowledge accumulated. Just because you can not understand even the most basic of concepts does not negate all knowledge.

Now I'm starting to understand why you say such stupid shit. In a way I feel sorry for you, I would hate to be so ignorant and uneducated as you. My advice, forget the stories for a moment and actually learn something real. Its not as comforting as fantasy but in the long run it is much more rewarding.

Now would you like to say something else that will further illustrate your ignorance and lack of knowledge?

Edited May 24, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Jerry J. Fortin]

"A bunch of people with no education or real knowledge of the scientific method sitting around arguing about a story does not equate to peer review." Unless the bunch of people is a native band council and the story is about land claims.

[AngusThermopyle]

Unless the bunch of people is a native band council and the story is about land claims.

You have a valid point. its calleed the "new" reality, based upon revisionism and fantasy. Totally devoid of fact and proven knowledge.