Someone sent me this on MySpace today... [Old god-"proofs" with new twists]

laodoke_solitas
laodoke_solitas's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Someone sent me this on MySpace today... [Old god-"proofs" with new twists]

The most coherent* Xtian blog that purportedly 'disproves atheism' that I've seen yet:  http://blog.myspace.com/julies_ian

I assume (based on the guy's profile pic) that this Ian dude has already butted heads with people on here before, so I apologize in advance to those of you who may have already dealt with him.  Since I really don't have the time to spend every waking moment of my life on this forum or on MySpace (searching back-entries and reading every last word of his entire blog, respectively), I humbly beseech you, oh great and powerful RRS Archons, would you please direct me (and anyone else who happens along this thread) to specific counter-arguments to Ian's (seeming) loophole-inventions?

 

 

 

*internally - that is, according to the stretched and twisted illogic of apologists.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 I don't know - is this

 I don't know - is this Paisley or something? Whoever it is, he's extremely long-winded and his most recent post is about cosmology (which has frankly been done to death).

Besides, there's really no "disproving atheism". You can hit me with all the metaphysics you want, but I'm still not seeing any gods.

Yup, still no gods.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: I don't

HisWillness wrote:

 I don't know - is this Paisley or something? Whoever it is, he's extremely long-winded and his most recent post is about cosmology (which has frankly been done to death).

Besides, there's really no "disproving atheism". You can hit me with all the metaphysics you want, but I'm still not seeing any gods.

Yup, still no gods.

Yeah, the only disproof of atheism that's possible would be conclusive and undeniable positive proof of the existence of a deity.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
You mean the Kalam

You mean the Kalam argument?  Simple.  It still arbitrarily assigns an endpoint to the problem of infinite regress.

Q.E.D.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
here is my opinion

well nice for this christian to give long responses to get reader bogged down in point of losing ones conceration. i probably have done it i have an excuse a learning disablity/mind disorder a.d.h.d but this use of  method is not just used by some christians seen it in others also. this person gives in conclusion what benifitted the belief in god answer was i think all the time or most of the time. again i like the top of it with gay marriage. all apologetic books have for christianity have Pascals wager i.e. "the lotto theory" ( not sure who i saw this from but i love the idea) and duduce 50/50 how conveinent.

now as for disproving atheism i would give a grade of failling. main reason if i was slanting christian the difference is complete opposites i.e. god exists or god does not exist. when you take side of christian to that it makes you think you have. but here is the probelm your bias of believing you are completely right got in way of actual truth. again if you want truth then you can't believe you are absolutely correct because it blocks out evidences that opposes your belief in right or wrong.

in conlusion the bias is not a good thing to prove a point. it clouds judgement and this is simple to notice if you are trying to learn and want truth. so how was this suppose to disprove atheism? when the person already does not believe atheism can exist? the answer is trying to disprove from flawed postition no distinct evidence is actually no proof of disproving one's postition different then what you hold as right. thats alot of writing with not any actually disproving in my opinion unless you count trying to use fear meaning wanting irrational descision > rational one.

 

General


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Fail. Kalam argument:

Fail. Kalam argument: rubbish. The universe can't always have existed, but my imaginary friend has always existed.

He equates homosexuality with genetic disease. How lovely. Apparently has stats that show homosexuals have a shorter lifespan, so it should obviuosly be illegal instead of trying to solve the problem.

The aboriginal population in Australia has a shorter lifespan, the government is trying to fix the problem (PM is taking a special interest), but according to this guy we should just make them illegal. Problem solved.

Just force them out of the situation they are living in so that they have "better lives". Oh, hang on, christian do-gooders already tried it in Australia. We call it the stolen generation. It is a national shame that is was allowed to happen.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Oh, hang on, christian

Quote:
Oh, hang on, christian do-gooders already tried it in Australia. We call it the stolen generation. It is a national shame that is was allowed to happen.

Oh?  My Aussie history is next to non-existent.  Want to save me a google search and tell me what this is about?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Oh?  My

Hambydammit wrote:
Oh?  My Aussie history is next to non-existent.  Want to save me a google search and tell me what this is about?

It's basically as it sounds.  A few years back (give or take a hundred years ... or in other words from 1869-1969) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had their teen and pre-teen kids taken by federal/state agencies and church missions under certain laws that were enacted at the time.  No choice in the matter was given to those taken or their families.  Us white fellas just rocked up, grabbed a kid, shoved some legal papers in peoples faces (at most) and walked off.  Families in most cases were never reunited.

The idea and supposed good intentions at the time was that giving indiginous kids a chance to grow up in European-based society would better help integrate the indiginous people as a whole, but it failed miserably.  Whether successful or not is completely irrelivant, it's still a huge national embarrassment because no matter how you try to justify it, the ends in no way shape or form justifies the means.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:The idea and

thingy wrote:

The idea and supposed good intentions at the time was that giving indiginous kids a chance to grow up in European-based society would better help integrate the indiginous people as a whole, but it failed miserably.

The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:thingy

HisWillness wrote:

thingy wrote:

The idea and supposed good intentions at the time was that giving indiginous kids a chance to grow up in European-based society would better help integrate the indiginous people as a whole, but it failed miserably.

The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

Now, if only our government would actually do something good for the indigenous people instead of allowing the squalor and poverty to continue for yet another generation.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
No offense to natives

But they have to be willing to do things for themselves as well, it's bogus that the goverment has to support them.  I remember reading about a native tribe in British Columbia that started a winery, and have made it quite profitable, before this they were dependent on goverment, now they are one of the richest tribes in Canada outside of the first nations. It is not the goverments place to make you middle class at all. They have to take responsiblity for themselves as well, and crying about what happened 200 years ago, I am sorry but that was 200 years ago, today the world is competely different, like it or not, they have to adapt.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:Hambydammit

thingy wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
Oh?  My Aussie history is next to non-existent.  Want to save me a google search and tell me what this is about?

It's basically as it sounds.  A few years back (give or take a hundred years ... or in other words from 1869-1969) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had their teen and pre-teen kids taken by federal/state agencies and church missions under certain laws that were enacted at the time.  No choice in the matter was given to those taken or their families.  Us white fellas just rocked up, grabbed a kid, shoved some legal papers in peoples faces (at most) and walked off.  Families in most cases were never reunited.

The movie Rabbit Proof Fence is set in this time.

 

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:HisWillness

Thomathy wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

Now, if only our government would actually do something good for the indigenous people instead of allowing the squalor and poverty to continue for yet another generation.

Oh come on, you make it sound like cheap tobacco and casinos won't solve any problems in the long run!  Whaddya want; infrastructure improvements and better access to education, services and health care?

Dreamer.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:But they

latincanuck wrote:

But they have to be willing to do things for themselves as well, it's bogus that the goverment has to support them.  I remember reading about a native tribe in British Columbia that started a winery, and have made it quite profitable, before this they were dependent on goverment, now they are one of the richest tribes in Canada outside of the first nations. It is not the goverments place to make you middle class at all. They have to take responsiblity for themselves as well, and crying about what happened 200 years ago, I am sorry but that was 200 years ago, today the world is competely different, like it or not, they have to adapt.

Ahh, but this raises the question: who are we that we get to set the requirements for the situations to which they must adapt?

Europeans came here, slaughtered them, stole their land and did their best to ultimately eradicate their societies, culture and identity; this is beyond dispute.  Why, then, do we now get to say "sorry about all that stuff we did to destroy you, but you're going to have to solve the problems we created"?  This is akin to going to someone's house, breaking everything they have and then telling them they have to "do their part" to replace what we destroyed.

I think it's more than a wee bit presumptive that the people responsible for creating the conditions in which aboriginals across the continent find themselves also get to set the requirements for "adapting" and "taking responsibility" just because we're in the majority (one we enjoy through genocide, I should add).  Yes, any individual is ultimately responsible for changing their lives for the better; individuals must also accept responsibility for the effects of their actions.

The main objection to this point is "but *I* didn't steal their land and try to kill them, I wasn't even born!"  The problem, however, is that you are in partial control of the entity that did steal their land and try to kill them: the government.  The citizenry that controls the government is ultimately responsible for the actions of it, regardless of the fact that the demographics of both bodies are constantly changing.  Yes, many of the people who made these decisions are now dead, leaving us to clean up their mess.  That doesn't remove our responsibility to clean it up, just like our children are going to be responsible for cleaning up the messes we've made.  Freedom implies responsibility, always.  An objection could be raised that the English government  is ultimately responsible, but independence cuts both ways (this is my main objection to the Quebec separatists' stance that they aren't responsible for their portion of the debt if they decide to secede; you break it, you buy it).

I will, however, be the first to say that no one but the aboriginal communities of North America can solve their pervasive drug and alcohol problems.  Given what seems to be a literal genetic component of well-known and widespread tendency towards alcoholism in native populations, work needs to be done to change ideas about liquor consumption, because it has a very good chance of actually killing them.  But non-aboriginals can't do this; attempts to change the outlook from outside are destined to fail.  This they must truly do themselves; we can only help where needed.

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ahh, but this raises

Quote:
Ahh, but this raises the question: who are we that we get to set the requirements for the situations to which they must adapt?

Well, for one, we're the dominant and modernized culture. Inter-species competition's a bitch:

We came over, we had superior technologies and day to day standards of living, and we out-competed the native americans. I'm so sick of hearing natives cry boo-hoo over this; life, and the world in general, ain't fair - and times change.

'We should give equal consideration to their cultural traditions and pastimes' is also retarded nonsense. These customs and traditions are primitive and largely superstitional, and the only reason we don't view them in the same vein as Islamic customs and traditions is because at least natives don't go strapping themselves to bombs. Their ideas behind tribal interactions are barbaric, their hunting methods and environmental interactions are completely unsustainable  (See: actual history books detailing actual evidence about things like Buffalo Jumps. Native americans often actually wasted far more animal parts on a jump than is suggested - and the elementary classroom notion that 'no animal part was wasted' is completely bunk except in the harsher northern climates).

Quote:
Europeans came here, slaughtered them, stole their land and did their best to ultimately eradicate their societies, culture and identity; this is beyond dispute.

While commonly accepted, this is actually quite wrong.

While fighting between native americans and europeans was no doubt not uncommon, the notion that 'white man' came over and simply killed-off the natives in droves is demonstratably false. What actually happened, according to the evidence (and I'm just so sorry if the evidence doesn't match the sob story of every droopy-eyed first nations chief to have graced television), is the following:

Europeans came over in search of people to open new avenues of trade with, to become wealthy. This was not merely a 'land grab' (though there was certainly some of that to) - overseas trading had become a huge, booming business, and young entrepreneurs were becoming notorious for finding themselves wealthy 'New Money' (in contrast to the traditional 'Old Money', family-investment based scheme that had been the trend in Europe up to that point). The majority of europeans weren't looking to ravage, pillage and steal - they were looking for people that were considered stupid, primitive dupes to act as buyers and sellers, who they could naturally get the most bang for their buck from.

The problem was that the europeans didn't come alone. They brought with them all measure of parasites and vermin - the most well known such parasite being the agent responsible for smallpox. These diseases wiped-out far more natives than any european bullets - and when a tribe's numbers dwindled (typically it's leaders and warriors first, given that the leaders alongside an escort of warriors would do most of the trading with the europeans), neighboring tribes would smell the blood and raid (and often, because of the nature of native american warfare and warfare rituals, they themselves would get infected by the same parasites as a result of te raid - and the chain would continue).

Europeans did not become really engaged in the fighting until the native tribes began trading non-aggression, protection and/or alliance truces with them as well as goods.

Quote:
The main objection to this point is "but *I* didn't steal their land and try to kill them, I wasn't even born!"  The problem, however, is that you are in partial control of the entity that did steal their land and try to kill them: the government.

No, I am not. I do not get to assist Stephen Harpen in making his decisions. The best I can do is vote and/or protest, and hope for the best.

I most certainly cannot somehow rewind time and prevent the europeans from coming over and bringing smallpox with them. If the natives don't like that this happened, that's tough shit. The fact that they get free fucking treaty money, tax breaks, unique exceptions and 'special recognition' for what is largely a pile of myths they roost upon is bullshit - and even if they weren't fabrications, it'd still be wrong. Do I get compensated for all the unfair things in my past ancestry that have led to me not being a millionaire right now? Do atheists get compensated for all the unfair things that led to their current ostracization in a religious world? Do pagans / wiccans get compensated for the witch trials and crusades? Should Christians be compensated for the terrible things the Romans did to them? Should Jews be compensated for the Holocaust?

Why the double standard? Moreover, why pretend that our modern society and the primitive / supernatural beliefs and cultural mechanisms of native americans are at all equal?

They aren't.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Thomathy

shikko wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

Now, if only our government would actually do something good for the indigenous people instead of allowing the squalor and poverty to continue for yet another generation.

Oh come on, you make it sound like cheap tobacco and casinos won't solve any problems in the long run!  Whaddya want; infrastructure improvements and better access to education, services and health care?

Dreamer.

We give natives far more taxpayer money that they can do what they please with (including building better infrastructure, getting educated, etc). The fact that they piss it all away gambling and getting drunk is not my problem.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:The

HisWillness wrote:
The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

'tis the season I guess.  Did your government just change from a conservative one to a more liberal one too?  The irony in our case is that our conservative party is the ones titled "Liberals", it was the Labor government that apologised within 6 months of taking power after 11+ years of the libs refusing to.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Ahh, but this raises the question: who are we that we get to set the requirements for the situations to which they must adapt?

Well, for one, we're the dominant and modernized culture. Inter-species competition's a bitch:

I find it interesting that you can, within 24 hours or so, both accuse someone else here of being a bigot and dehumanize the pre-Columbian population of this continent.  Although I suppose you could be implying that Europeans are the non-human species, which makes you simply wrong instead of a hypocrite.

So are you just playing devil's advocate, or did you actually mean to make a distinction between Europeans and well, anyone else?

Quote:

We came over, we had superior technologies and day to day standards of living, and we out-competed the native americans. I'm so sick of hearing natives cry boo-hoo over this; life, and the world in general, ain't fair - and times change.

I don't ever think I once raised the idea that life is, was, or should be fair; I am also fairly understanding of the concept of change as it applies to societies.

However, unlike your apparent social program of "tough shit, intercultural conflict losers!", I believe we are a better people now than we were a couple of centuries ago.  To whit, we can realize that gee, maybe our previous social approaches should be improved.

Quote:

'We should give equal consideration to their cultural traditions and pastimes' is also retarded nonsense. These customs and traditions are primitive and largely superstitional, and the only reason we don't view them in the same vein as Islamic customs and traditions is because at least natives don't go strapping themselves to bombs.

I agree; native "spirituality" is as devoid of substance as all other religious belief.  Good thing for me I never took the  position you're shooting down.

Quote:

Their ideas behind tribal interactions are barbaric, their hunting methods and environmental interactions are completely unsustainable  (See: actual history books detailing actual evidence about things like Buffalo Jumps. Native americans often actually wasted far more animal parts on a jump than is suggested - and the elementary classroom notion that 'no animal part was wasted' is completely bunk except in the harsher northern climates).

I am in no way romanticizing their pre-Euro contact society; people the world over are just as bloody-minded, violent and avaricious as any other.  You are arguing against a position I have not taken, and going off on a wide tangent to boot.  I am not ascribing a higher value to the "noble indian" myth; I'm saying responsible adults fix what they break.

Quote:

Quote:
Europeans came here, slaughtered them, stole their land and did their best to ultimately eradicate their societies, culture and identity; this is beyond dispute.

While commonly accepted, this is actually quite wrong.

While fighting between native americans and europeans was no doubt not uncommon, the notion that 'white man' came over and simply killed-off the natives in droves is demonstratably false. What actually happened, according to the evidence (and I'm just so sorry if the evidence doesn't match the sob story of every droopy-eyed first nations chief to have graced television), is the following:

I rather simplified the timeline, I know; I was making a point about the end result of the process, not its starting point.

As an aside, you're doing it again: caricaturing the physical appearance of a stereotypical first nations member isn't exactly what I would call a reasoned rebuttal of a position.

Quote:

Europeans came over in search of people to open new avenues of trade with, to become wealthy. This was not merely a 'land grab' (though there was certainly some of that to) - overseas trading had become a huge, booming business, and young entrepreneurs were becoming notorious for finding themselves wealthy 'New Money' (in contrast to the traditional 'Old Money', family-investment based scheme that had been the trend in Europe up to that point). The majority of europeans weren't looking to ravage, pillage and steal - they were looking for people that were considered stupid, primitive dupes to act as buyers and sellers, who they could naturally get the most bang for their buck from.

Wait, so you're describing European colonization of North America as being not "just" a land grab, but also as naked, predatory capitalism, social elitism and rampant entitlement?  I can get behind that.

Your version being roughly paraphrased as "they just wanted to make a buck; the calculated extermination of the existing population was just collateral damage" reminds me of a story a neighbour told me, who grew up in a mid-sized town in Georgia: one of his grade school history books described southern American involvement in the African slave trade as "...and then, our friends from Africa came over to help us run our cotton fields."

Candy-coating a brutal process of extermination, degradation and domination by force doesn't mean the process wasn't any of those things: it means you have an agenda in making it seem otherwise.

Quote:

The problem was that the europeans didn't come alone. They brought with them all measure of parasites and vermin - the most well known such parasite being the agent responsible for smallpox. These diseases wiped-out far more natives than any european bullets - and when a tribe's numbers dwindled (typically it's leaders and warriors first, given that the leaders alongside an escort of warriors would do most of the trading with the europeans), neighboring tribes would smell the blood and raid (and often, because of the nature of native american warfare and warfare rituals, they themselves would get infected by the same parasites as a result of te raid - and the chain would continue).

I know this.  Not all genocide is done with soldiers' guns.  Sometimes they use cavalry sabers or smallpox-infected blankets, too.

Quote:

Europeans did not become really engaged in the fighting until the native tribes began trading non-aggression, protection and/or alliance truces with them as well as goods.

Can you give me any references, web-accessible or otherwise, that would back this up?

Quote:

Quote:
The main objection to this point is "but *I* didn't steal their land and try to kill them, I wasn't even born!"  The problem, however, is that you are in partial control of the entity that did steal their land and try to kill them: the government.

No, I am not. I do not get to assist Stephen Harpen in making his decisions. The best I can do is vote and/or protest, and hope for the best.

Yes,  you are: welcome to parliamentary democracy.  If you vote against a party that does something you disagree with, that's exercising your share of control over the governing of your country.  You do get to try to punish Stephen Harper for making bad decisions, or support him with good ones.  I'm sorry if you don't like having that responsibility; my advice is to withdraw from society altogether.

People seem to conveniently forget that they have the ability to change their government when that government becomes distasteful.  Don't claim that you do not have the ability to do so, unless for some reason you are barred from voting, campaigning, making phone calls, writing letters and talking to people.

Quote:

I most certainly cannot somehow rewind time and prevent the europeans from coming over and bringing smallpox with them. If the natives don't like that this happened, that's tough shit. The fact that they get free fucking treaty money, tax breaks, unique exceptions and 'special recognition' for what is largely a pile of myths they roost upon is bullshit - and even if they weren't fabrications, it'd still be wrong.

Nor did I advocate attempting to go back to do those things, nor advocating that natives do not have to get past the past (they do have to get past it, because dwelling on your past, good or bad, is a great way to arrest your development).  I am advocating that everyone accepts that the fact that it did happen is not okay, and that we should take responsibility for our part in it and do what we can to make sure that everyone gets equal access to things to care for and better themselves, like health care and education; instead of hoping that if we give them enough cash that they'll just stop reminding us that bad things were done to them.  Is this revolutionary?

Quote:
Do I get compensated for all the unfair things in my past ancestry that have led to me not being a millionaire right now? Do atheists get compensated for all the unfair things that led to their current ostracization in a religious world?

No.  Why do you want to be?

Quote:

Why the double standard? Moreover, why pretend that our modern society and the primitive / supernatural beliefs and cultural mechanisms of native americans are at all equal?

They aren't.

The only double standard here is the one you're inventing for me to be proposing.  My position is that what has been advocated until now is at best a band-aid: throwing money at a problem does not make that problem go away (see: airline security), which is what treaty money or casinos amounts to.  I am saying what any underserved population needs to help themselves is the same level of access to services that the majority of other people have.

Yes; some people make stupid decisions and believe stupid things.  Yes, they should be responsible for their stupidity.  No, not everyone in Canada or the US has remotely the same access to resources that others do.

After all this, it seems that what you are objecting to is the native population getting any assistance from the Canadian government in surviving several calculated attempts to eradicate them.  I agree with you about the treaty money and special funds; many people think that giving someone money makes a problem go away.  I disagree with you on the responsibility of the government to help.

So is it just natives that you think the government shouldn't take some additional steps to assist, or is it any group that, in your estimation, lost the "conflict" with the dominant society?  I'm honestly trying to figure out exactly what it is to which you object about this whole situation.

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Thomathy

shikko wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

Now, if only our government would actually do something good for the indigenous people instead of allowing the squalor and poverty to continue for yet another generation.

Oh come on, you make it sound like cheap tobacco and casinos won't solve any problems in the long run!  Whaddya want; infrastructure improvements and better access to education, services and health care?

Dreamer.

That is the idea.  I like dreams.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:shikko

Kevin R Brown wrote:

shikko wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

The Canadian government just apologized for doing exactly the same thing to our indigenous population.

Now, if only our government would actually do something good for the indigenous people instead of allowing the squalor and poverty to continue for yet another generation.

Oh come on, you make it sound like cheap tobacco and casinos won't solve any problems in the long run!  Whaddya want; infrastructure improvements and better access to education, services and health care?

Dreamer.

We give natives far more taxpayer money that they can do what they please with (including building better infrastructure, getting educated, etc). The fact that they piss it all away gambling and getting drunk is not my problem.

That's not wholly true.  I am surprised to read such remarks from you, Kevin.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:latincanuck

shikko wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

But they have to be willing to do things for themselves as well, it's bogus that the goverment has to support them.  I remember reading about a native tribe in British Columbia that started a winery, and have made it quite profitable, before this they were dependent on goverment, now they are one of the richest tribes in Canada outside of the first nations. It is not the goverments place to make you middle class at all. They have to take responsiblity for themselves as well, and crying about what happened 200 years ago, I am sorry but that was 200 years ago, today the world is competely different, like it or not, they have to adapt.

Ahh, but this raises the question: who are we that we get to set the requirements for the situations to which they must adapt?

Europeans came here, slaughtered them, stole their land and did their best to ultimately eradicate their societies, culture and identity; this is beyond dispute.  Why, then, do we now get to say "sorry about all that stuff we did to destroy you, but you're going to have to solve the problems we created"?  This is akin to going to someone's house, breaking everything they have and then telling them they have to "do their part" to replace what we destroyed.

I think it's more than a wee bit presumptive that the people responsible for creating the conditions in which aboriginals across the continent find themselves also get to set the requirements for "adapting" and "taking responsibility" just because we're in the majority (one we enjoy through genocide, I should add).  Yes, any individual is ultimately responsible for changing their lives for the better; individuals must also accept responsibility for the effects of their actions.

The main objection to this point is "but *I* didn't steal their land and try to kill them, I wasn't even born!"  The problem, however, is that you are in partial control of the entity that did steal their land and try to kill them: the government.  The citizenry that controls the government is ultimately responsible for the actions of it, regardless of the fact that the demographics of both bodies are constantly changing.  Yes, many of the people who made these decisions are now dead, leaving us to clean up their mess.  That doesn't remove our responsibility to clean it up, just like our children are going to be responsible for cleaning up the messes we've made.  Freedom implies responsibility, always.  An objection could be raised that the English government  is ultimately responsible, but independence cuts both ways (this is my main objection to the Quebec separatists' stance that they aren't responsible for their portion of the debt if they decide to secede; you break it, you buy it).

I will, however, be the first to say that no one but the aboriginal communities of North America can solve their pervasive drug and alcohol problems.  Given what seems to be a literal genetic component of well-known and widespread tendency towards alcoholism in native populations, work needs to be done to change ideas about liquor consumption, because it has a very good chance of actually killing them.  But non-aboriginals can't do this; attempts to change the outlook from outside are destined to fail.  This they must truly do themselves; we can only help where needed.

 

In other words they were conqured, they lost the war with the europeans and now your complaining about it, sorry, they are conqured people then. Nothing is stolen really, no one really owns the land, except those that take it, and their land was taken by them, and used by others, unfortunately for them, they are on the losing side, now move 400 years later, and well it's not those times again, the worlds has changed and the goverment isn't responsible to make their lives any better than any other Canadian citizen, as such, they have to make the their own improvements, if, realistically speaking they want to live like their ancestors did, off the land, then let them, but with that, the government doesn't need to give them hand outs, I don't get hand outs from the government to make my life better I work, because in this world, at this time in place you work and better yourself, or you don't.  This is the biggest problem natives face, this mentality that the government owes them something, no one owes them anything, they lost the war or fight with the europeans, as such you don't get to be better off for being the loser.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:shikko

Thomathy wrote:

shikko wrote:

Oh come on, you make it sound like cheap tobacco and casinos won't solve any problems in the long run!  Whaddya want; infrastructure improvements and better access to education, services and health care?

Dreamer.

That is the idea.  I like dreams.

Next thing, you'll be agitating to let any two consenting adults to marry and raise children together just because they happen to love each other, or actually objecting to the idea that because a company made money under a given business model gives them the right to continue to make money under that business model regardless of any social or technological developments.

No sir, we can't have that.  Please report to detention.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:In other

latincanuck wrote:

In other words they were conqured, they lost the war with the europeans and now your complaining about it, sorry, they are conqured people then. Nothing is stolen really, no one really owns the land, except those that take it, and their land was taken by them, and used by others,

So in six months, a man attacks and kills your father because he wants to farm the land your dad used to own.  That's okay, by your reasoning, because "no one owns the land, except those that take it, and their land was taken by them, and used by others".  Do I have that right?

Or is it only okay when it happened a century ago, or far away, or to someone else?

Quote:

unfortunately for them, they are on the losing side, now move 400 years later,

First, do you actually believe that might makes right in ethics and morality?  Ethically sound activities are done by the winner, by definition?

Second, some of the activities that Harper just apologized for were happening when (I'm guessing here) your grandfather was a child.  That's not 400 years ago, that's practically yesterday.

Quote:
and well it's not those times again, the worlds has changed and the goverment isn't responsible to make their lives any better than any other Canadian citizen,

So I'm assuming then that you also disagree with the settlement David Milgaard received?  After all, his treatment was way better than some of the things done by the government to aboriginals.  Yes or no?

Quote:

as such, they have to make the their own improvements

"Shut up, go home and get on with your life, Milgaard.  Just be thankful we don't put you back in prison."

Fair treatment?

Quote:

, if, realistically speaking they want to live like their ancestors did, off the land, then let them, but with that, the government doesn't need to give them hand outs, I don't get hand outs from the government to make my life better I work, because in this world, at this time in place you work and better yourself, or you don't.

Do you think you'd use some offered assistance if you'd been raised in a prison for no logical reason, separated from your family and told you were lucky to be receiving the beatings, since they'd better you?

How about if your local government came and tore down your house while you were away, to make room for a condo development?  Would you quietly take some "hand outs", or just go back to work and start saving for a new house, no questions asked?

Quote:
   This is the biggest problem natives face, this mentality that the government owes them something, no one owes them anything, they lost the war or fight with the europeans, as such you don't get to be better off for being the loser.

They "lost the war or fight with the europeans"?  Are you serious?  You make it sound like the brave Europeans fought off an invasion of England by the evil Inuit, and then decided to "take the fight to the enemy" to ensure future peace.

This idea that losers somehow get what's coming to them intrigues me.  Do you tell the same thing to women who are sexually assaulted, or children that are abused?  They "lost the war" too, right?

Or is this only acceptable when a government does it, or when government agents are fighting a hopelessly outclassed "enemy"?  When do the actions of the government (which would get any single person thrown in jail for a long, long time) become okay?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I find it interesting

Quote:
I find it interesting that you can, within 24 hours or so, both accuse someone else here of being a bigot and dehumanize the pre-Columbian population of this continent.

Leading with an Ad Hominem.

No doubt the argument that follows will be bullet-proof, then. Sticking out tongue

(And while we're on this topic, I invite you to go ahead and look at the subtext of Cpt. Pineapple's claim, that he doesn't ride in buses because they stop in 'the wrong areas of town' 'are full of bums and drunks' and 'ave gang members on them'. Not that it matters anyway: the thread was a fucking joke. I suppose you missed the post that caused me to simply shrug and walk out ofthe argument, where he basically backpedaled on everything he'd said and finally just admitted that he doesn't like public transit because he's socially anxious?)

Quote:

I don't ever think I once raised the idea that life is, was, or should be fair; I am also fairly understanding of the concept of change as it applies to societies.

However, unlike your apparent social program of "tough shit, intercultural conflict losers!", I believe we are a better people now than we were a couple of centuries ago.  To whit, we can realize that gee, maybe our previous social approaches should be improved.

That's not what you're suggesting at all. You're suggesting that our current culture, with all the strides it's made, should still pay lip service to the 'cultural needs' of the native americans, and fork-over wads of cash for things that were done by an entirely different generation of people and an entirely different culture.

Moreover, what did the other culture do that was 'wrong'? If the natives were already living a more savage and brutish life over here before we came visiting, and it wasn't the utopian paradise native speakers always make it out to be (as you already conceded), what exactly did we 'ruin'?

Quote:
I agree; native "spirituality" is as devoid of substance as all other religious belief.  Good thing for me I never took the  position you're shooting down.

Quote:
I am in no way romanticizing their pre-Euro contact society; people the world over are just as bloody-minded, violent and avaricious as any other.  You are arguing against a position I have not taken, and going off on a wide tangent to boot.  I am not ascribing a higher value to the "noble indian" myth; I'm saying responsible adults fix what they break.

Your entire argument here hinges on the notion that the natives had things so much better over here before the europeans came along and changed their culture. If they didn't, again, what exactly did we ruin? If we didn't ruin anything, and indeed, helped them to improve their culture, what did we do wrong?

Quote:

Wait, so you're describing European colonization of North America as being not "just" a land grab, but also as naked, predatory capitalism, social elitism and rampant entitlement?  I can get behind that.

Spoken like a true noble savage anarchist and Marxist.

Quote:
Your version being roughly paraphrased as "they just wanted to make a buck; the calculated extermination of the existing population was just collateral damage"

Go back a re-read my statement. What I'm arguing was that was no intention to cause a genocide. In fact, the term 'genocide' is inappropriate - 'plague' would be better. The europeans cae looking for trade. Yes, there was racist motivation - but it was not wholly a malicious agenda. The racism involved was that europeans considered indiginous people to be stupid savages; they felt they could exploit this to make better trades.

There was no 'calculated extermination'. That's absurd. What you're essentially arguing, then, was there was a massive european conspiratoral plot to decimate their trade outlet with biological warfare and infighting. That's not just contradictory - it's lunacy.

Quote:

I know this.  Not all genocide is done with soldiers' guns.  Sometimes they use cavalry sabers or smallpox-infected blankets, too.

There wasno genocide. The transfer of smallpox to the native americans was accidental - the european traders did not have the immunology knowledge or technology necessary to realize that they were carrying parasites that, while they themselves had grown immune to, the natives would be extremely vulnerable to.

Again, what your suggesting is ridiculous.

'I say, Frederick, did you make sure you lathered-up with smallpox solution this morning, before you got on the boat? We want to make sure veryone does their part in making this disease-based genocide a success!'

'Oh, yes, very good Patrick. I also brought along my plague-rat filled luggage, just for added effect.'

Quote:
Can you give me any references, web-accessible or otherwise, that would back this up?

To back-up the historical knowledge that europeans did not simply jump off their boats and start shooting like gun-crazed lunatics?

No, to be honest, I don't have a reference book handy. You'll have to go find one on your own. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Yes,  you are: welcome to parliamentary democracy.  If you vote against a party that does something you disagree with, that's exercising your share of control over the governing of your country.

I voted for my Liberal candidate. Guess what? It didn't matter. I was outvoted.

So how, again, am I now able to excercize control over the country, having excercized my voting rights?

Quote:
People seem to conveniently forget that they have the ability to change their government when that government becomes distasteful.  Don't claim that you do not have the ability to do so,

 - I voted

 - Stephen Harper won the election anyway

 - I did not want Stephen Harper to win (I voted Liberal)

 - I do not have the ability to 'change the government', even if I find it distasteful. Only if I were in the majority would I have such 'power', and even then, the notion of personal power is an illusion. It's the majority group that actually has the power.

Quote:
Nor did I advocate attempting to go back to do those things, nor advocating that natives do not have to get past the past (they do have to get past it, because dwelling on your past, good or bad, is a great way to arrest your development).

Horse shit. That's exactly what you're arguing. You're saying that because bad things happened to the good natives a long time ago (an assertion I disagree with, but anyway...), I should have to fork-out for it. Nevrmind that it wasn't me doing the bad things, nevermind that it was an age ago, nevermind that bad things happen to good people all the time and that life isn't sacred - the natives deserve my money, because they feel they were unfairly misappropriated from their 'ideal lifestyle'.

I say, 'Fuck that'.


Quote:
After all this, it seems that what you are objecting to is the native population getting any assistance from the Canadian government in surviving several calculated attempts to eradicate them.

See: The many times I've pointed-out above that 'calculated eradication' is a bogus term.

The natives are entitled to every right and freedom I am. Guess what that comes with? Every inch of personal responsibility, progression and adaptability, too. You're right: they should have access to everything I do. Guess what? They do. Equal opportunity employment and education is a wide-open market, and I don't know of a school or business legally allowed to turn away aboriginal people (which is a wonderful step forward that you're basically ignoring or marginalizing with your own argument). On top of that, they recieve a fat cheque from the government, tax breaks, and special exceptions and exemptions in legal proceedings.

Quote:
So is it just natives that you think the government shouldn't take some additional steps to assist, or is it any group that, in your estimation, lost the "conflict" with the dominant society?  I'm honestly trying to figure out exactly what it is to which you object about this whole situation.

Correct on both accounts. I don't see why taxpayers are being held responsible for something that happened centuries ago, between entirely different societies, and I don't see why natives should get to whine and cry for hours on end about their cultural assimilation. They belly ache about it as though their lifestyle was so much more pristine and harmonious than the one 'forced' upon them.

It's curious to me:

The natives centuries ago did not need to trade with the europeans. They did not need to allow the settlers to come and bring their ideas and trinkets into their communities. As it turns-out, though - the natives were every bit as greedy as the europeans who came to exploit them. They wanted the trade, th wealth and the technology as much as the europeans wanted to become rich.

It's an undeniable truth - yet one that most First Nations leaders simply won't admit to, as it ruins their sob story.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:That's not wholly

Quote:

That's not wholly true.  I am surprised to read such remarks from you, Kevin.

A native friend of mine who I played Magic: The Gathering with a few years ago used to bring his treaty cheques into the shop to jokingly mock us with. I was appalled: they were always in the range of $600.00. And he was only getting smaller cheques, being single with no dependents.

So how is what I'm saying 'Not wholly true', Thomothy? An extra $600.00 in your pocket wouldn't be good enough?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So in six months, a

Quote:

So in six months, a man attacks and kills your father because he wants to farm the land your dad used to own.  That's okay, by your reasoning, because "no one owns the land, except those that take it, and their land was taken by them, and used by others".  Do I have that right?

Or is it only okay when it happened a century ago, or far away, or to someone else?

So, tomorrow, your father goes out and commits a double homocide and then kills himself. Since the authorities can no longer arrest him for the crime, they decide to arrest you (and any siblings you have) instead, since you're next of kin, even though you had nothing to do with the crime.

Is that fair? Why or why not?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Quote:I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
I find it interesting that you can, within 24 hours or so, both accuse someone else here of being a bigot and dehumanize the pre-Columbian population of this continent.

Leading with an Ad Hominem.

 

Pointing out your (still unacknowledged) hypocrisy does not qualify as an ad hom.  It would be an ad hom if I said "your views are wrong about natives because you are a hypocrite about (unrelated topic)", which I did not do.

You accused Pineapple of being a "bigoted racist" for what amounted to dislike of the implications of public transit (due to social anxiety), and then flatly stated that indians "drink and gamble" and described a stereotypical band chief as "droopy-eyed".

That is bigotry from someone who leveled the charge of bigotry at someone else, which is hypocrisy.  Either admit it or explain why I'm incorrect.

 

Quote:

I suppose you missed the post that caused me to simply shrug and walk out ofthe argument, where he basically backpedaled on everything he'd said and finally just admitted that he doesn't like public transit because he's socially anxious?)

 

I did miss that post, but his backpedaling has absolutely zero to do with your own bigotry.  Or is it only bigotry when someone else does it?

 

Quote:

Quote:

I don't ever think I once raised the idea that life is, was, or should be fair; I am also fairly understanding of the concept of change as it applies to societies.

However, unlike your apparent social program of "tough shit, intercultural conflict losers!", I believe we are a better people now than we were a couple of centuries ago.  To whit, we can realize that gee, maybe our previous social approaches should be improved.

 

That's not what you're suggesting at all. You're suggesting that our current culture, with all the strides it's made, should still pay lip service to the 'cultural needs' of the native americans, and fork-over wads of cash for things that were done by an entirely different generation of people and an entirely different culture.

Moreover, what did the other culture do that was 'wrong'? If the natives were already living a more savage and brutish life over here before we came visiting, and it wasn't the utopian paradise native speakers always make it out to be (as you already conceded), what exactly did we 'ruin'?

 

It is not what I'm suggesting, so perhaps I need to make my position more clear:

Throwing money at aboriginal groups does nothing but make those in charge look like they're trying to fix a problem; thinking all problems can be solved with the judicious application of dollars is dangerous and self-defeating.  Aboriginal communities do not need free money, they need increased access to institutions that can help them solve  the problems rampant in their communities, such as drug addiction and abuse.  This cannot be done for them; they must do it themselves because externally applied solutions almost always fail.  However, we must offer any service/material help we can for two reasons: we're human, and in the end we all win when these problems go away.

Short version: programs, not money, will make for a better country.

 

Quote:

Quote:
I agree; native "spirituality" is as devoid of substance as all other religious belief.  Good thing for me I never took the  position you're shooting down.

Quote:
I am in no way romanticizing their pre-Euro contact society; people the world over are just as bloody-minded, violent and avaricious as any other.  You are arguing against a position I have not taken, and going off on a wide tangent to boot.  I am not ascribing a higher value to the "noble indian" myth; I'm saying responsible adults fix what they break.

Your entire argument here hinges on the notion that the natives had things so much better over here before the europeans came along and changed their culture. If they didn't, again, what exactly did we ruin? If we didn't ruin anything, and indeed, helped them to improve their culture, what did we do wrong?

 

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with relative social situations at the time, but the assumption on the part of the European colonists that the existing occupants existed to be taken advantage of, as if they were ore to be smelted or crops for the harvest.

Europeans refused to acknowledge that aboriginal groups deserved to make a choice, they they had the freedom to exercise self-determination, and that any choice to not go with the Euro flow did not mean anything but they chose to not do what the Europeans did.

 

Quote:

There was no 'calculated extermination'. That's absurd. What you're essentially arguing, then, was there was a massive european conspiratoral plot to decimate their trade outlet with biological warfare and infighting. That's not just contradictory - it's lunacy.

(snip)

There wasno genocide. The transfer of smallpox to the native americans was accidental - the european traders did not have the immunology knowledge or technology necessary to realize that they were carrying parasites that, while they themselves had grown immune to, the natives would be extremely vulnerable to.

Again, what your suggesting is ridiculous.

'I say, Frederick, did you make sure you lathered-up with smallpox solution this morning, before you got on the boat? We want to make sure veryone does their part in making this disease-based genocide a success!'

'Oh, yes, very good Patrick. I also brought along my plague-rat filled luggage, just for added effect.'

 

Lord Jeffrey Amherst, in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, July 13 1763 wrote:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

(letter image here)

from same to same, July 16 1763 wrote:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

(letter image here)

 

You're right, it is lunacy.  But it happened anyway.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Yes,  you are: welcome to parliamentary democracy.  If you vote against a party that does something you disagree with, that's exercising your share of control over the governing of your country.

I voted for my Liberal candidate. Guess what? It didn't matter. I was outvoted.

So how, again, am I now able to excercize control over the country, having excercized my voting rights?

 

Exercising control doesn't always mean you get what you want.  You know that.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Nor did I advocate attempting to go back to do those things, nor advocating that natives do not have to get past the past (they do have to get past it, because dwelling on your past, good or bad, is a great way to arrest your development).

Horse shit. That's exactly what you're arguing. You're saying that because bad things happened to the good natives a long time ago (an assertion I disagree with, but anyway...), I should have to fork-out for it.

 

I think I've already addressed this point.

 

Quote:

Quote:
After all this, it seems that what you are objecting to is the native population getting any assistance from the Canadian government in surviving several calculated attempts to eradicate them.

See: The many times I've pointed-out above that 'calculated eradication' is a bogus term.

 

See: my direct rebuttal of your position above.

 

Quote:

Quote:
So is it just natives that you think the government shouldn't take some additional steps to assist, or is it any group that, in your estimation, lost the "conflict" with the dominant society?  I'm honestly trying to figure out exactly what it is to which you object about this whole situation.

Correct on both accounts. I don't see why taxpayers are being held responsible for something that happened centuries ago, between entirely different societies, and I don't see why natives should get to whine and cry for hours on end about their cultural assimilation. They belly ache about it as though their lifestyle was so much more pristine and harmonious than the one 'forced' upon them.

It's curious to me:

The natives centuries ago did not need to trade with the europeans. They did not need to allow the settlers to come and bring their ideas and trinkets into their communities. As it turns-out, though - the natives were every bit as greedy as the europeans who came to exploit them. They wanted the trade, th wealth and the technology as much as the europeans wanted to become rich.

It's an undeniable truth - yet one that most First Nations leaders simply won't admit to, as it ruins their sob story.

 

So what are your feelings on South Africa from the Boers to the end of Apartheid, then?  Black South Africans should have just shut the fuck up about getting conquered, marginalized, disenfranchised and brutally oppressed by the technologically superior Europeans?  After all, it' not like the Zulu needed to trade with the Europeans, or had to allow them to come into their communities.  It's like they were begging to get occupied by their enterprising European "trading partners".

 

 

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

That's not wholly true.  I am surprised to read such remarks from you, Kevin.

A native friend of mine who I played Magic: The Gathering with a few years ago used to bring his treaty cheques into the shop to jokingly mock us with. I was appalled: they were always in the range of $600.00. And he was only getting smaller cheques, being single with no dependents.

So how is what I'm saying 'Not wholly true', Thomothy? An extra $600.00 in your pocket wouldn't be good enough?

Here's to missing the point!  Cheers!  I'm really dissapointed in you Kevin.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:latincanuck

shikko wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

In other words they were conqured, they lost the war with the europeans and now your complaining about it, sorry, they are conqured people then. Nothing is stolen really, no one really owns the land, except those that take it, and their land was taken by them, and used by others,

So in six months, a man attacks and kills your father because he wants to farm the land your dad used to own.  That's okay, by your reasoning, because "no one owns the land, except those that take it, and their land was taken by them, and used by others".  Do I have that right?

Or is it only okay when it happened a century ago, or far away, or to someone else?

Quote:

unfortunately for them, they are on the losing side, now move 400 years later,

First, do you actually believe that might makes right in ethics and morality?  Ethically sound activities are done by the winner, by definition?

Second, some of the activities that Harper just apologized for were happening when (I'm guessing here) your grandfather was a child.  That's not 400 years ago, that's practically yesterday.

Quote:
and well it's not those times again, the worlds has changed and the goverment isn't responsible to make their lives any better than any other Canadian citizen,

So I'm assuming then that you also disagree with the settlement David Milgaard received?  After all, his treatment was way better than some of the things done by the government to aboriginals.  Yes or no?

Quote:

as such, they have to make the their own improvements

"Shut up, go home and get on with your life, Milgaard.  Just be thankful we don't put you back in prison."

Fair treatment?

Quote:

, if, realistically speaking they want to live like their ancestors did, off the land, then let them, but with that, the government doesn't need to give them hand outs, I don't get hand outs from the government to make my life better I work, because in this world, at this time in place you work and better yourself, or you don't.

Do you think you'd use some offered assistance if you'd been raised in a prison for no logical reason, separated from your family and told you were lucky to be receiving the beatings, since they'd better you?

How about if your local government came and tore down your house while you were away, to make room for a condo development?  Would you quietly take some "hand outs", or just go back to work and start saving for a new house, no questions asked?

Quote:
   This is the biggest problem natives face, this mentality that the government owes them something, no one owes them anything, they lost the war or fight with the europeans, as such you don't get to be better off for being the loser.

They "lost the war or fight with the europeans"?  Are you serious?  You make it sound like the brave Europeans fought off an invasion of England by the evil Inuit, and then decided to "take the fight to the enemy" to ensure future peace.

This idea that losers somehow get what's coming to them intrigues me.  Do you tell the same thing to women who are sexually assaulted, or children that are abused?  They "lost the war" too, right?

Or is this only acceptable when a government does it, or when government agents are fighting a hopelessly outclassed "enemy"?  When do the actions of the government (which would get any single person thrown in jail for a long, long time) become okay?

First off, I am with fine with Harper apologizing for what the government did up until 1996. That was wrong. Now what I was stating about the past is QUITE different that the boarding schools and what the goverment did during that time, which was take children from their families and communities and try to indoctrinated them with christianity and western european values, this is recent history, not 400 years ago.

Next off to the conquered bit. The government, from England, France, and to extend the Dutch, sent their people over here, they saw land, they eventually took that land by force and by treaties, was it right? In that time? sure it was, they were expanding the British, French and dutch empires. So of course might make right, as a nation it always has, you don't expand your empire by being nice and making treaties with everyone, eventually if you want to expand, you need land, and it gets taken by force sometimes. You don't think native warfare for land wasn't done for land and taking land by force? If you do your more naive that I take you for.  You can't use today's mentality and moralities and try to apply them to how things were 400 years ago, yes it was wrong sure they were screwed at times, but come on at one point they have to move on, what are we to do apologize for taking their land as well, ooops sorry 400 years ago you guys fought for your land and lost, sorry for beating ya in the fight?.  As well your comparison of a man killing my father and taking the farm...sorry stupid idea, think of it this way, the US went to war with mexico and took texas for themselves, mexico fought back, took it back and then the US fought them again and finally got texas, should the Mexican have a right to ask for compensation for the taking of texas? After all they had it first right, they lost the fight, why shouldn't they get the right to sue for compensation over texas? The answer is no, they lost too bad, go cry me a river.

Milgaard comment has nothing to do with this, he was wrongfully convictied of a crime he didn't do and we are not talking about compensating 100,000 of thousands of people for them losing their lands, Milgaard didn't do the crime and lost his freedom for it. The natives, lost their lands 400 years ago, and today no matter what, they would have to work to keep a nation running, and the native mentality statement, this I have taken right from the mouths of other native (Oh and I lived in NWT, I know many Inuits, I got the chance to live with them for 5 years, and that was a complaint many had about other natives, the mentality that  the government owes them and they have to do nothing to improve their lives)  should we pay for that? No of course not, I should not have to make the native lives easier, they can work just like the rest of us.  They are not handicaped in any way or form from working like everyone else in world, as such this nation should not have to pay them. Today 2008 they have nothing holding them back from making money and improving their lives, except this mental block that they should get everything for free from the government, it is the mentality that has prevented them from moving forward. There are native tribes that are doing exactly that right as we speaking, making money, working hard and improving the lives of their tribe and making their future better.

At what point does it stop? Should the government pay the natives of ireland because their land was taken and now part of the UK? Or how about the US, shouldn't they be paying African nations for taking their citizens for slaves?  Maybe the UK should to. Should the French government be making the algerians lives better for controlling their nation? I mean at what point do you stop? At what point do people starting taking responsiblity for improving their lives?

 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I've been attempting to

I've been attempting to critique him on his site since you showed us this, but I don't know enough about Aristotle to do it. This guy is a hardcore dualist.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Oops, derailed the thread

Oops, derailed the thread big time.

As far as native peoples go: yes, they are the only ones who can really change their ways. Same goes for anybody. It's the old "you can lead a horse to water..." thing. Just handing out money doesn't work, it is a very tricky fix. I also agree that it was a while ago now and the past is the past, but the anger and problems are being passed down to the children, so the problem remains current.

Obviously if there are big problems the government needs to help. The job of the government is to, well, govern. They need infrastructure help and help to gain their confidence and change the cycle of passing their problems on to the next generation.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
[uote]You accused Pineapple

Quote:
You accused Pineapple of being a "bigoted racist" for what amounted to dislike of the implications of public transit (due to social anxiety), and then flatly stated that indians "drink and gamble" and described a stereotypical band chief as "droopy-eyed".

Alcoholism is rampant in native communities, and casinos are a well-established means that native americans use to generate revenue. 'Droopy-eyed' was in reference to the emotional state most chiefs are in when they address a television camera about the woes of 'his people's' past.

It's not racism to suggest that gambling and drinking are a real problem among native americans. It's being realistic. You yourself even alluded to such problems existing.

...Oh, and just FYI; 'indian' is a term I haven't used to describe native americans. That's been you; and 'indian' is a derrogatory term.

Quote:

Lord Jeffrey Amherst, in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, July 13 1763 wrote:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

(letter image here)

from same to same, July 16 1763 wrote:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

(letter image here)

And of course, an honest guy like yourself wouldn't be taking this letter out of context, right?

Sticking out tongue

This was actually an isolated incident - part of the Pontiac Rebellion in 1763. A very large offensive was mounted against european settlements, forts, trading posts, etc by the native americans. When the natives surrounded and besieged the isolated Fort Pitt, William Trent - the commander of the Fort - made the decision to try the smallpox infected blanket trick in order to break the siege. It's clear enough from his writing that he was a racist; however, historical records demonstrate that there was also little conventional that the fort could've done to break out.

Wrong or right, the strategy was used by a defending party to fend off aggressors, and it worked. 

 

Historians also agree that there is no evidence that the majority of large smallpox infections were intentional. This is an excerpt from this wikipedia page, which is well-cited:

Quote:
Given that even educated Europeans widely believed infectious diseases to be caused by bad air (the germ theory of disease wasn't accepted until the middle of the 19th century) it is doubtful that any of these soldiers would have had the knowledge necessary to successfully infect anyone. Moreover, a number of recent scholars have noted that evidence for connecting the blanket incident with the eventual smallpox outbreak is doubtful, and that the disease was more likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.[15]

...More or less exactly what I already said (except that apparently scholars also fault native american assaults on european settlements, as well as tribal infighting).

Quote:

So what are your feelings on South Africa from the Boers to the end of Apartheid, then?  Black South Africans should have just shut the fuck up about getting conquered, marginalized, disenfranchised and brutally oppressed by the technologically superior Europeans?  After all, it' not like the Zulu needed to trade with the Europeans, or had to allow them to come into their communities.  It's like they were begging to get occupied by their enterprising European "trading partners".

I haven't researched this one, to be honest. I wuldn't be surprised if the commonly held assertions here are false as well. Regardless, you're committing a fallacy of equivocation to support your argument:

Whether or not the Zulu were actually the victim of wholesale slaughter and genocide has no bearing on the fact that native americans almost certainly were not.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Kevin R Brown

Thomathy wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

That's not wholly true.  I am surprised to read such remarks from you, Kevin.

A native friend of mine who I played Magic: The Gathering with a few years ago used to bring his treaty cheques into the shop to jokingly mock us with. I was appalled: they were always in the range of $600.00. And he was only getting smaller cheques, being single with no dependents.

So how is what I'm saying 'Not wholly true', Thomothy? An extra $600.00 in your pocket wouldn't be good enough?

Here's to missing the point!  Cheers!  I'm really dissapointed in you Kevin.

Thomothy, I really must be missing your point. Could you state it more bluntly for me? If it's not that the amount of money the natives get every month is objectionable, what is it?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Thomathy

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

That's not wholly true.  I am surprised to read such remarks from you, Kevin.

A native friend of mine who I played Magic: The Gathering with a few years ago used to bring his treaty cheques into the shop to jokingly mock us with. I was appalled: they were always in the range of $600.00. And he was only getting smaller cheques, being single with no dependents.

So how is what I'm saying 'Not wholly true', Thomothy? An extra $600.00 in your pocket wouldn't be good enough?

Here's to missing the point!  Cheers!  I'm really dissapointed in you Kevin.

Thomothy, I really must be missing your point. Could you state it more bluntly for me? If it's not that the amount of money the natives get every month is objectionable, what is it?

I actually had no intention of carrying on the conversation.  I thought it was fairly obvious that the money is objectionable.  Money in the hands of the aboriginal will not solve the social problems.  I haven't stated this, but I absolutely do not believe in reparation and think it's wholly damaging to society as a whole (unless the people getting reparation are the ones who were actually wronged themselves, Japanese migrants for instance).  It carries the theme of original sin, don't you think?  Somehow, I'm responsible for what some people I'm not even related to except in ancient history (seriously, I'm second generation Canadian) visited upon the now distant ancestors of aboriginal Canadians?  I don't buy that bullshit.  What I think is the responsibility of all Canadians is the social health of all aspects of our society.  If the real effect of history and the now built up and continuing and worsening social ills of aboriginal Canadians is a problem, it needs to be addressed exactly (though hopefully more effectively) as general poverty has been addressed, with programmes that will aid people in overcoming whatever barriers they face in acheiving a healthy society.  I am socialist in this respect and I believe that a vast majority of Canadians are.  I believe you are or else I'm mistaken.  I'll renig on my statements if all this is is a misunderstanding.  Do you disagree that money is not helping the problem and that targeted programmes that relieve the poverty and improve social conditions would be beneficial?  If no, then all's right as rain.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
errrrrrrr. For the record,

errrrrrrr.

 

For the record, I didn't 'back pedal' to social anxiety

 

 

I wrote:

Regardless, I don't like people regardless of drunkness, or willingness to stab you with a shaved down rusty spoon. Those points merely amplify it.


That is all.

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Kevin R Brown

Thomathy wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

That's not wholly true.  I am surprised to read such remarks from you, Kevin.

A native friend of mine who I played Magic: The Gathering with a few years ago used to bring his treaty cheques into the shop to jokingly mock us with. I was appalled: they were always in the range of $600.00. And he was only getting smaller cheques, being single with no dependents.

So how is what I'm saying 'Not wholly true', Thomothy? An extra $600.00 in your pocket wouldn't be good enough?

Here's to missing the point!  Cheers!  I'm really dissapointed in you Kevin.

Thomothy, I really must be missing your point. Could you state it more bluntly for me? If it's not that the amount of money the natives get every month is objectionable, what is it?

I actually had no intention of carrying on the conversation.  I thought it was fairly obvious that the money is objectionable.  Money in the hands of the aboriginal will not solve the social problems.  I haven't stated this, but I absolutely do not believe in reparation and think it's wholly damaging to society as a whole (unless the people getting reparation are the ones who were actually wronged themselves, Japanese migrants for instance).  It carries the theme of original sin, don't you think?  Somehow, I'm responsible for what some people I'm not even related to except in ancient history (seriously, I'm second generation Canadian) visited upon the now distant ancestors of aboriginal Canadians?  I don't buy that bullshit.  What I think is the responsibility of all Canadians is the social health of all aspects of our society.  If the real effect of history and the now built up and continuing and worsening social ills of aboriginal Canadians is a problem, it needs to be addressed exactly (though hopefully more effectively) as general poverty has been addressed, with programmes that will aid people in overcoming whatever barriers they face in acheiving a healthy society.  I am socialist in this respect and I believe that a vast majority of Canadians are.  I believe you are or else I'm mistaken.  I'll renig on my statements if all this is is a misunderstanding.  Do you disagree that money is not helping the problem and that targeted programmes that relieve the poverty and improve social conditions would be beneficial?  If no, then all's right as rain.

You and I are totally on the same page as far as money / reparations are concerned, then. I think we just ahd a miscommunication. Sticking out tongue

As for targeted programs; I'd like to see our conservative government in Alberta try-out some of the more progressive solutions to be found in Ontario. Ideas like the 'wet' clinics, where people are taken-in and slowly weened off of a substance, rather than trying to totally cut them off outright.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:You and

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You and I are totally on the same page as far as money / reparations are concerned, then. I think we just ahd a miscommunication. Sticking out tongue

As for targeted programs; I'd like to see our conservative government in Alberta try-out some of the more progressive solutions to be found in Ontario. Ideas like the 'wet' clinics, where people are taken-in and slowly weened off of a substance, rather than trying to totally cut them off outright.

You should see the smile on my face!

For the record I would like to take this opportunity to officially declare that I am not disappointed in Kevin at all.

I don't know about 'wet' clinics, but if the principle I imagine is accurate it's a great idea.  Alcohol is perhaps one of the worst addictions though and if I recall the numbers accurately any recovery programme for alcohol addiction has about a 50% success rate for all who entered the programme.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Kevin R Brown

Thomathy wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You and I are totally on the same page as far as money / reparations are concerned, then. I think we just ahd a miscommunication. Sticking out tongue

As for targeted programs; I'd like to see our conservative government in Alberta try-out some of the more progressive solutions to be found in Ontario. Ideas like the 'wet' clinics, where people are taken-in and slowly weened off of a substance, rather than trying to totally cut them off outright.

You should see the smile on my face!

For the record I would like to take this opportunity to officially declare that I am not disappointed in Kevin at all.

I don't know about 'wet' clinics, but if the principle I imagine is accurate it's a great idea.  Alcohol is perhaps one of the worst addictions though and if I recall the numbers accurately any recovery programme for alcohol addiction has about a 50% success rate for all who entered the programme.

You're off a digit or so. Last I checked it was around 5.6% on average. Most programs only cite the percentage of people who actually complete the program rather than doing actual research to see whether they "stay off the wagon," so to speak. As usual, "faith based initiative" funded programs in the US are the worst at this.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You and I are totally on the same page as far as money / reparations are concerned, then. I think we just ahd a miscommunication. Sticking out tongue

As for targeted programs; I'd like to see our conservative government in Alberta try-out some of the more progressive solutions to be found in Ontario. Ideas like the 'wet' clinics, where people are taken-in and slowly weened off of a substance, rather than trying to totally cut them off outright.

You should see the smile on my face!

For the record I would like to take this opportunity to officially declare that I am not disappointed in Kevin at all.

I don't know about 'wet' clinics, but if the principle I imagine is accurate it's a great idea.  Alcohol is perhaps one of the worst addictions though and if I recall the numbers accurately any recovery programme for alcohol addiction has about a 50% success rate for all who entered the programme.

You're off a digit or so. Last I checked it was around 5.6% on average. Most programs only cite the percentage of people who actually complete the program rather than doing actual research to see whether they "stay off the wagon," so to speak. As usual, "faith based initiative" funded programs in the US are the worst at this.

Having checked more seriously drug rehab in the US sucks real bad.  All the figures were between 2% and 20%.  Terrible.  As for alcoholism though, I've seen figures that say 30% fully relapse and 30% maintain sobriety, of people who completed the programme.  I'm not able to find statistics for only Canada though... CAMH and StatsCan are being unusually unhelpfull.  I can tell you how many alcoholics there are in Canada (roughly) because they're more than happy to let me know that... useless.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The problem in the US is

The problem in the US is that virtual all of the rehab places are either explicitly or implicitly (ie 10 step) religiously based. There's one around here totally Christian based - they won't even hire women to work there, except maybe as a secretary.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team