Haudenosaunee Confederacy Land Rights Statement

[Argus]

There is only a fine line between common sense and racism.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein

Einstein was a great scientist, not so great a philosopher.

Not keeping flammable liquids in a hot area is common sense. Do we call that a prejudice?

[Posit]

Einstein was a great scientist, not so great a philosopher.

Not keeping flammable liquids in a hot area is common sense. Do we call that a prejudice?

Yes we do. You have predetermined that putting flammable liquids in a hot area will cause some sort of reaction without considering the mitigating measures that much smarter people than you have taken to prevent any issue. And that is the problem with "common sense" being presented as a rational position in any discussion. It is neither "common" or "sensible" but is indicative of someone who refuses to go beyond their own prejudices and look at the total picture while invoking "common sense" as an excuse to look no further.

Einstein was a great philosopher as well as being a great scientist and mathematician. He was also quite comical and never relied on "common sense" to forward an argument.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Posit

[ScottSA]

Yes we do. You have predetermined that putting flammable liquids in a hot area will cause some sort of reaction without considering the mitigating measures that much smarter people than you have taken to prevent any issue. And that is the problem with "common sense" being presented as a rational position in any discussion. It is neither "common" or "sensible" but is indicative of someone who refuses to go beyond their own prejudices and look at the total picture while invoking "common sense" as an excuse to look no further.

Einstein was a great philosopher as well as being a great scientist and mathematician. He was also quite comical and never relied on "common sense" to forward an argument.

Leaving aside the fact that Argus was obviously talking about "racism," since that's the term you juxtaposed against "common sense," care to explain the cleverness and virtue of putting flammable liquids in a hot area to avoid the accusation of "prejudice?" It is both common sense and prejudice to not do so, and piously doing it so you can pat yourself on the arse and announce your "unprejudiced" actions will in all likelyhood preface a mighty explosion. Granted, you can run ablaze from the room, confident in your openmindedness and willingness to give flammable liquids in hot places the benefit of the doubt, but you won't be showing much common sense, or, might I say, intelligence. Jumping in front of a bus because it would be prejudicial to suspect you'll get run over is not bright either. Gawd save us from fools and knaves.

Edited September 23, 2007 by ScottSA

[Posit]

Leaving aside the fact that Argus was obviously talking about "racism," since that's the term you juxtaposed against "common sense," care to explain the cleverness and virtue of putting flammable liquids in a hot area to avoid the accusation of "prejudice?" It is both common sense and prejudice to not do so, and piously doing it so you can pat yourself on the arse and announce your "unprejudiced" actions will in all likelyhood preface a mighty explosion. Granted, you can run ablaze from the room, confident in your openmindedness and willingness to give flammable liquids in hot places the benefit of the doubt, but you won't be showing much common sense, or, might I say, intelligence. Jumping in front of a bus because it would be prejudicial to suspect you'll get run over is not bright either. Gawd save us from fools and knaves.

Sure. Ventilate the space it is in, or remove the atmosphere and replace it with an inert medium. These things are done all the time in industrial applications that require solvents to be heated as part of the chemical reactions creating other compounds. Ah, but your common sense limited you from even considering it.....

[ScottSA]

Sure. Ventilate the space it is in, or remove the atmosphere and replace it with an inert medium. These things are done all the time in industrial applications that require solvents to be heated as part of the chemical reactions creating other compounds. Ah, but your common sense limited you from even considering it.....

Yes, but the reason you do those things is because you have prejudicially determined that if you don't, you'll be set alight. Had you not been prejudicial, you would not have taken those precautions. Why do you have such a hard time focussing on the logic of every situation?

[Posit]

Yes, but the reason you do those things is because you have prejudicially determined that if you don't, you'll be set alight. Had you not been prejudicial, you would not have taken those precautions. Why do you have such a hard time focussing on the logic of every situation?

Wrong again. The RISK of explosions or ignition is high but that is no guarantee that there will be an explosion or a fire. Your narrow thinking prejudiced by your common sense does not take you far enough to examine all the science behind it.

And that is the same reason that your common sense turns into racism.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Posit

[ScottSA]

Wrong again. The RISK of explosions or ignition is high but that is no guarantee that there will be an explosion or a fire. You narrow thinking prejudiced by your common sense does take you far enough to examine all the science behind it.

And that is the same reason that your common sense turns into racism.

You're getting led deeper into this swamp, and you just don't have the mental wherewithall to play. You see, there are two elements to this; the factual, and the normative. You are claiming that it's prejudicial to avoid jumping in front of buses and put flammable liquids in hot spaces, and to carry the analogy further, prejudicial to leap into lion's dens and meatgrinders. All of which is true. But you are also making a mormative value judgement about it, and claiming that it's smarter and better to put flammable liqiuds in hot rooms and jump in front of buses and into lion's dens and meatgrinders, because to avoid doing so would be prejudicial, or "racist," as you claim in a carryforward grounding. That's just dumb.

Edited September 23, 2007 by ScottSA

[Alexandra]

Am I correct in thinking that this is her, too?

http://profiles.yahoo.com/ckiddonline

YES!

[Posit]

You're getting led deeper into this swamp, and you just don't have the mental wherewithall to play. You see, there are two elements to this; the factual, and the normative. You are claiming that it's prejudicial to avoid jumping in front of buses and put flammable liquids in hot spaces, and to carry the analogy further, prejudicial to leap into lion's dens and meatgrinders. All of which is true. But you are also making a mormative value judgement about it, and claiming that it's smarter and better to put flammable liqiuds in hot rooms and jump in front of buses and into lion's dens and meatgrinders, because to avoid doing so would be prejudicial, or "racist," as you claim in a carryforward grounding. That's just dumb.

You digress. Get back on topic and see if your common sense doesn't intimate racism, as it has all along.

[ScottSA]

You digress. Get back on topic and see if your common sense doesn't intimate racism, as it has all along.

Probably, but I really don't care if you call me racist or not. In fact if "racist" means I recognize the difference between races, why, then yes I am racist. If "racist" describes any one or some combination of my attitudes, including my celebration of common sense, then I'm not only racist, but proudly racist. The age of sending people backpedalling by using that word against them is over. Get used to it.

[jennie]

Probably, but I really don't care if you call me racist or not. In fact if "racist" means I recognize the difference between races, why, then yes I am racist. If "racist" describes any one or some combination of my attitudes, including my celebration of common sense, then I'm not only racist, but proudly racist. The age of sending people backpedalling by using that word against them is over. Get used to it.

Is that because Harper is in power?

[kengs333]

YES!

Very interesiting...

[ScottSA]

Is that because Harper is in power?

No, that's because people like you have overplayed your hand.

[Visionseeker]

No, that's because people like you have overplayed your hand.

As stated by a guy playing strip-poker in his skivvies with a nine high.

[Posit]

Probably, but I really don't care if you call me racist or not. In fact if "racist" means I recognize the difference between races, why, then yes I am racist. If "racist" describes any one or some combination of my attitudes, including my celebration of common sense, then I'm not only racist, but proudly racist. The age of sending people backpedalling by using that word against them is over. Get used to it.

A racist is someone who sees differences where there are none. And that pretty much sums you up.

[ScottSA]

A racist is someone who sees differences where there are none. And that pretty much sums you up.

And an idiot is someone who is so willfully blind that he doesn't know up from down, left from right, or red from blue.

[Posit]

And an idiot is someone who is so willfully blind that he doesn't know up from down, left from right, or red from blue.

I guess that makes you both a racist AND an idiot...is that what you are saying, Chum?

[AngusThermopyle]

is that what you are saying, Chum?

I didn't know you and Scott are chums, thats so nice.

[jennie]

And an idiot is someone who is so willfully blind that he doesn't know up from down, left from right, or red from blue.

And a bigot is someone who has a rigid opinion about "up from down, left from right, or red from blue" without ever learning what they mean.

[Posit]

I didn't know you and Scott are chums, thats so nice.

Oh but we are. And even though I don't let him, every opportunity he gets he tries to spoon me while I'm making love to his wife.......

[kengs333]

A racist is someone who sees differences where there are none. And that pretty much sums you up.

That basically defines most Indians, doesn't it?

[jennie]

That basically defines most Indians, doesn't it?

You have basically sunk to "yes it is - no it isn't" nanananana so why not give these threads a pass Ken.

[kengs333]

You have basically sunk to "yes it is - no it isn't" nanananana so why not give these threads a pass Ken.

Why don't you, "sara" aka "grannyrants"? You've never offered much of anything to any discussion here, just misinformation and utter nonsense.

[jennie]

We seek justice in our long-standing land rights issues. We seek an accurate accounting of the use and investment of the funds held by the Crown on our behalf, and land transactions conducted by the Crown involving our lands. For nearly two hundred years our Chiefs have been asking for such accounting and justice. Generations of our elders have passed away with these matters unresolved. It is time to end the injustice.

Our faith in the Canadian people is strong, as we feel that the majority of Canadians also want to see justice on these matters. However, their elected representatives and public servants have failed to act effectively to address and resolve these matters. It is time to lift the cloud of denial and to wipe away the politics that darken the vision of the future. It is time we are heard clearly, and our cases should be addressed with utmost good faith and respect. We firmly believe that if we have respect and trust, we will find mutually agreeable solutions that will reflect our long-standing friendship

We want the land that is ours. We are not interested in approving fraudulent dispossessions of the past. We are not interested in selling land. We want the Crown to keep its obligations to treaties, and ensure all Crown governments – federal, provincial and municipal – are partners in those obligations. We want an honourable relationship with Canada.

If I look at the goals of the Haudenosaunee, and then I think about the goals of our governments ... there is absolutely no question who has the higher moral ground.

[kengs333]

We want the land that is ours. We are not interested in approving fraudulent dispossessions of the past. We are not interested in selling land. We want the Crown to keep its obligations to treaties, and ensure all Crown governments – federal, provincial and municipal – are partners in those obligations. We want an honourable relationship with Canada.

No Canadian in their right mind would believe this nonsense. The Six Nations talks about obligations, honour and respect, from the Government or Canadians, yet if one looks at the history of this issue, one would learn how unfairly the Five Nations dealt with its enemies and allies, how they tried to exploit the British and failed, how they were completely incapable of managing their own affairs because of their intemperance, etc. The British, and later the Canadians, may not have handled the matter as best as they could have, but one thing is for sure had they not taken the action they did, the Five/Six Nations would have disintigrated, would not even exist now. And yet they still accuse Canada of committing genocide...

In order for this situation to be resolved, we need to shed overly-idealized notions who the Six Nations were and are and that trying restore things to the way they supposed were (but never really were) 150 years ago causes more problems than it solves.