How should Canada settle native land claims ?
Mustang1 @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:09 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
Your points are valid, but I must point out, I did not make a generalization. I circled the group I wished to challenge. If you take issue with that, perhaps it is because you feel you belong in that circle. I said, and I quote here...
This is nothing more than a rationalization of your generalization. Secondly, if you insinuate that I am part of said group than provide the evidence or retract your backhanded accusation. Be careful in who you target and in what manner lest you appear disingenuous
$1:
“. "I couldn't read this whole thread, largely due to the bigotted and rather childish banter of many.
First let me say, before the more bigoted asshats, jump up my ass. I am Onondaga, Six Nations and a Native activist.
Now those of you in the bigotted asshat category just made up your mind about me. But it would be wrong."
First let me say, before the more bigoted asshats, jump up my ass. I am Onondaga, Six Nations and a Native activist.
Now those of you in the bigotted asshat category just made up your mind about me. But it would be wrong."
Your argumentative fallacy notwithstanding, you labelled people here “bigoted asshats” in a post where you’re decrying such alleged behaviour. In light of the fact that you wrote, “you can safely asume that they are either to much of a bigot, to stupid or to immature to carry on the debate with, and ignore them. Not fall victim to the stupids and start throwing insults and vile commentary,” don’t you see the inherent duplicitous nature? Again, I’m looking for an equitable application of standards.
$1:
“That is an address to those that would automatically assume that I was a protestor of some sort and therefore just another Native loud mouth. And i believe, I used the word many, not all. I do not subscribe to the school of generalizations as a norm, or at least I attempt to. I really didn't think I had to post all the commentary as facts, they are in abundance in this thread and various others. Racial and bigotted commentary need not only come in the most overt forms. They can be found in the automatice dismissal of proven facts and actual history. I'm not talking about ones perception of the facts, but rather ones dismissal of things that are more then just well documented and known to be true by all credidable sources. Things like we are not all drunks and drug addicts. etc.”
There have been crass stereotypes brought forward from every side, but why focus on only one? Can you show me where “They can be found in the automatice dismissal of proven facts and actual history,” has occurred? I can easily demonstrate examples from BOTH sides, but I’m interested in seeing how you back up your own assertion. Thanks.
$1:
“As much as I can sympathize with Saga, I would hardly hitch anything to her, but perhaps a leash. She has done more harm then good.”
Couldn’t agree more.
$1:
“I tend to emotionalize an issue that is close to my heart, don't we all. I tend to be a facts man, more so, though.”
I’ll take you at your word on the latter.
$1:
“I will not deny my bias. It is evident in all my writings, but i am not blind to the inept and corrupt happenings within my community.”
Yet doesn’t “I will not deny my bias” contradict “I tend to be a facts man, more so, though” ? What happens when the facts contradict the bias?
$1:
“I wouldn't say I failed to address Saga's part in this, I sympathized with her. I know her type. Frustrated, angery, emotional, alone. I would expect even you to stoop to such assinine tactics, if left to defend against the onslought she endured. Not that most wasn't of her own making.”
Sorry, no sympathy – only pity, disdain and abject disapproval for her lies, deceit, revisionism and outright belligerence. She orchestrated most of her own issues and her wilful ignorance was beyond empathy.
$1:
“I must admit, that my first reaction and subsequent post may have been anger. So perhaps my judgement may have been flawed, but I sense aggression in your words. Not so much that you are itching for a fight, but perhaps preparing for one.”
I found your initial post judgemental, reactionary and sanctimonious, so I responded. I’ve certainly offered you the opportunity to back up your supposition with objective fact, so that’s hardly indicative of one “itching for a fight or preparing for one”. I have a low threshold for self-righteous pedantry and when it’s laced with hypocrisy, I sometimes jump the gun to expose it. I’m no angel here either, but I’m not about to label others one thing while simultaneously ignoring similar acts from different groups.
$1:
“I can assure you, it is not my intentions to label you or poke you in any way, so long as we remain civil”
Fair enough – again, I’ll take you at your word.
$1:
“I merely wish to clear up some misconceptions of the issue at hand.
Fair enough?”
Fair enough?”
Fair enough
CDNBear @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:50 pm
Do I really have to quote some of the assine commentary for you to see the facts you already know exist? Why don't you just read back, in this thread or most of the others.
Wasting my time re-reading the trip hardly serves any purpose. You seem to imply that I have some other agenda, in the fact that I have made blanket condemnations agianst Non Natives in whole. Which is untrue, proven in my first post with the word "many", not the word "all". Therefore, I see many who have a percieved misconception of Native peoples claims to land that is rightfully theirs. Or misconceptions that we some who get more then we really do or disserve.
You looking for a standard that does not exist in nature. Everyone has one leaning or another. How you come to the conclussion that my distain for pointing and labelling bigots is a double standard, is beyond my grasp. I am not a bigot, I am not a racist, I do not support the segragated attitudes of many of our leaders. So there is no double standard. Lest I mis-understood your point.
If you can find them from both sides, then why would I need to point them out to you. This leads me back to "preparing for a fight" or at least you have an agenda at hand or in mind. I feel your intentions are not in debating the topic at hand, but rather bullying me, via consistantly requiring proof, you already know to exist, until I give in.
Yes I have a bias, as do we all. My people are my people, i love them no matter what, I do not need to agree with nor accept their behavior to do that. The facts stand for themselves, it is a fact that many Native leaders line their pockets with monies ear marked for the constituants. Here's the answer to your question. That makes them more then just crooks, that makes them vile creatures. See, the facts dictate that they are crooked, but they are Native, yet i can see past their blood line, and identify the issues that have greater impact on the Nations as a whole.
Make sence to you?
As much as I try to avoid the appearance of hypocracy, it happens from time to time and when caught, I generally concede to facts. But I do not see the hypocracy in my position. It may not have been previllant in my original post, but I believe I have demonstrated quite clearly, that I see prejudice, racism and bigotry on both sides. I saw it at Caledonia. I can admit it, my people have and will likely continue to do stupid things. I am one of their biggest critics.
Perhaps, my bias was the cause of my initial exemption of the Native contribution to the issue. You pointed it out, I concede.
Mustang1 @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:38 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
Do I really have to quote some of the assine commentary for you to see the facts you already know exist? Why don't you just read back, in this thread or most of the others.
Be careful – you appear to be very defensive. I merely asked for textual evidence, that you’ve yet to provide. You made the insinuation and you’ve yet to substantiate it. That’s not my fault.
$1:
“Wasting my time re-reading the trip hardly serves any purpose. You seem to imply that I have some other agenda, in the fact that I have made blanket condemnations agianst Non Natives in whole. Which is untrue, proven in my first post with the word "many", not the word "all". Therefore, I see many who have a percieved misconception of Native peoples claims to land that is rightfully theirs. Or misconceptions that we some who get more then we really do or disserve.”
I’d take your comments at face value, but you’re first paragraph seems to contradict the sentiment. I have only your posts to go on, so I can’t be blamed for other’s articulation issues or motivations.
$1:
“You looking for a standard that does not exist in nature. Everyone has one leaning or another. How you come to the conclussion that my distain for pointing and labelling bigots is a double standard, is beyond my grasp. I am not a bigot, I am not a racist, I do not support the segragated attitudes of many of our leaders. So there is no double standard. Lest I mis-understood your point.”
Sorry, you missed the point. I wrote, “Your argumentative fallacy notwithstanding, you labelled people here “bigoted asshats” in a post where you’re decrying such alleged behaviour. In light of the fact that you wrote, “you can safely asume that they are either to much of a bigot, to stupid or to immature to carry on the debate with, and ignore them. Not fall victim to the stupids and start throwing insults and vile commentary,” don’t you see the inherent duplicitous nature? Again, I’m looking for an equitable application of standards.”
You are decrying one thing but failing to practice it yourself. I asked for evidence of this blatant bigotry (you even insinuated I was one by merely objecting) on this particular thread and dodged it each time. How is it you can pontificate about bigotry and generalizations, but not be held to the same standards? That is my point.
$1:
“If you can find them from both sides, then why would I need to point them out to you. This leads me back to "preparing for a fight" or at least you have an agenda at hand or in mind. I feel your intentions are not in debating the topic at hand, but rather bullying me, via consistantly requiring proof, you already know to exist, until I give in.”
I can find them, but I wanted (and again have yet to see it) to see your equitable application of your standard. I didn’t start a post decrying “ass hat bigots” and then leaned in only one direction of condemnation. You may cry victim, but I merely asked for evidence for a rather serious accusation and while you accuse me of looking for a fight, I didn’t start generalizing others with emotional rhetoric nor have I insinuated you are a racist, so this tangent seems like a case of projection to me
$1:
“Yes I have a bias, as do we all. My people are my people, i love them no matter what, I do not need to agree with nor accept their behavior to do that. The facts stand for themselves, it is a fact that many Native leaders line their pockets with monies ear marked for the constituants. Here's the answer to your question. That makes them more then just crooks, that makes them vile creatures. See, the facts dictate that they are crooked, but they are Native, yet i can see past their blood line, and identify the issues that have greater impact on the Nations as a whole.”
I only inquired as to whether the bias trumps objective fact.
$1:
“As much as I try to avoid the appearance of hypocracy, it happens from time to time and when caught, I generally concede to facts. But I do not see the hypocracy in my position. It may not have been previllant in my original post, but I believe I have demonstrated quite clearly, that I see prejudice, racism and bigotry on both sides. I saw it at Caledonia. I can admit it, my people have and will likely continue to do stupid things. I am one of their biggest critics.”
It isn’t an “appearance” of hypocrisy it is simply, hypocrisy. You decried “childish banter” by labelling others as bigoted ass hats. You claimed bigotry with a generalization and then when you were pressed for evidence, you fell back on cheap labels like “assinen” instead of merely substantiating your claim. If you are genuine in your claim that you meant your statements to be evenly applied to both sides, then I’ll accept it.
CDNBear @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:02 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
CDNBear CDNBear:
Do I really have to quote some of the assine commentary for you to see the facts you already know exist? Why don't you just read back, in this thread or most of the others.
Be careful – you appear to be very defensive. I merely asked for textual evidence, that you’ve yet to provide. You made the insinuation and you’ve yet to substantiate it. That’s not my fault.
$1:
“Wasting my time re-reading the trip hardly serves any purpose. You seem to imply that I have some other agenda, in the fact that I have made blanket condemnations agianst Non Natives in whole. Which is untrue, proven in my first post with the word "many", not the word "all". Therefore, I see many who have a percieved misconception of Native peoples claims to land that is rightfully theirs. Or misconceptions that we some who get more then we really do or disserve.”
I’d take your comments at face value, but you’re first paragraph seems to contradict the sentiment. I have only your posts to go on, so I can’t be blamed for other’s articulation issues or motivations.
$1:
“You looking for a standard that does not exist in nature. Everyone has one leaning or another. How you come to the conclussion that my distain for pointing and labelling bigots is a double standard, is beyond my grasp. I am not a bigot, I am not a racist, I do not support the segragated attitudes of many of our leaders. So there is no double standard. Lest I mis-understood your point.”
Sorry, you missed the point. I wrote, “Your argumentative fallacy notwithstanding, you labelled people here “bigoted asshats” in a post where you’re decrying such alleged behaviour. In light of the fact that you wrote, “you can safely asume that they are either to much of a bigot, to stupid or to immature to carry on the debate with, and ignore them. Not fall victim to the stupids and start throwing insults and vile commentary,” don’t you see the inherent duplicitous nature? Again, I’m looking for an equitable application of standards.”
You are decrying one thing but failing to practice it yourself. I asked for evidence of this blatant bigotry (you even insinuated I was one by merely objecting) on this particular thread and dodged it each time. How is it you can pontificate about bigotry and generalizations, but not be held to the same standards? That is my point.
$1:
“If you can find them from both sides, then why would I need to point them out to you. This leads me back to "preparing for a fight" or at least you have an agenda at hand or in mind. I feel your intentions are not in debating the topic at hand, but rather bullying me, via consistantly requiring proof, you already know to exist, until I give in.”
I can find them, but I wanted (and again have yet to see it) to see your equitable application of your standard. I didn’t start a post decrying “ass hat bigots” and then leaned in only one direction of condemnation. You may cry victim, but I merely asked for evidence for a rather serious accusation and while you accuse me of looking for a fight, I didn’t start generalizing others with emotional rhetoric nor have I insinuated you are a racist, so this tangent seems like a case of projection to me
$1:
“Yes I have a bias, as do we all. My people are my people, i love them no matter what, I do not need to agree with nor accept their behavior to do that. The facts stand for themselves, it is a fact that many Native leaders line their pockets with monies ear marked for the constituants. Here's the answer to your question. That makes them more then just crooks, that makes them vile creatures. See, the facts dictate that they are crooked, but they are Native, yet i can see past their blood line, and identify the issues that have greater impact on the Nations as a whole.”
I only inquired as to whether the bias trumps objective fact.
$1:
“As much as I try to avoid the appearance of hypocracy, it happens from time to time and when caught, I generally concede to facts. But I do not see the hypocracy in my position. It may not have been previllant in my original post, but I believe I have demonstrated quite clearly, that I see prejudice, racism and bigotry on both sides. I saw it at Caledonia. I can admit it, my people have and will likely continue to do stupid things. I am one of their biggest critics.”
It isn’t an “appearance” of hypocrisy it is simply, hypocrisy. You decried “childish banter” by labelling others as bigoted ass hats. You claimed bigotry with a generalization and then when you were pressed for evidence, you fell back on cheap labels like “assinen” instead of merely substantiating your claim. If you are genuine in your claim that you meant your statements to be evenly applied to both sides, then I’ll accept it.
I have stated my position, I willl not endulge your contiued picking apart of my statements, I made no generalizations, you are arguing sematics now. You made the statement that you could see the bigotry on both sides, so I need not detail it for you.
I am not hypocritical as the norm, nor do I see the hypocracy in pointing out the bigotry that has been expressed in the thread. Pointed out my failure to acknowledge that the bigotry came from both sides, I conceded.
Do you wish to debate the topic at hand or merely try to discredit my ablity to objectively contribute?
You seem quite willing to ride this course of commentary into the ground, I on the other hand, see your intent and really feel it is not in your intentions to debate, but rather pick apart my posts and avoid the issue.
Your tactics are nothing new to me, fancy words and speech, make you sound elloquent, your ablity to use them well, make you smart. How you line them up and project your thoughts is a whole other matter.
I do not wish to make an enemy of you, but you seem intent on making me.
Why is that?
Do you fear that I can objectively and effectively argue this topic?
Why is it more important to you to try and discredit me, instead of discuss the issue?
Mustang1 @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:21 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
I have stated my position, I willl not endulge your contiued picking apart of my statements, I made no generalizations, you are arguing sematics now.
You made generalizations. Falling back on peripheral nonsense like semantics won’t save you – I asked for proof and you provided nothing. Your position is problematic. Sorry.
$1:
“You made the statement that you could see the bigotry on both sides, so I need not detail it for you.”
Yes I did and it wasn’t a one sided condemnation because I was merely observing.
$1:
“am not hypocritical as the norm, nor do I see the hypocracy in pointing out the bigotry that has been expressed in the thread. Pointed out my failure to acknowledge that the bigotry came from both sides, I conceded.”
I stated where I saw hypocrisy – I provided textual evidence. It has not been rebuffed. I stand by my point. I, however, also applaud your concession – there are far too many on forums that refuse to admit errors. It’s takes a big person.
$1:
“Do you wish to debate the topic at hand or merely try to discredit my ablity to objectively contribute?”
It’s not a debate – it’s a questioning of motives and tactics. I found fault with your initial post, its contents and conclusions. I’ve expressed those concerns and articulated my reasoning behind their promulgation. That is it – anything else is one’s opinion of events
$1:
“You seem quite willing to ride this course of commentary into the ground, I on the other hand, see your intent and really feel it is not in your intentions to debate, but rather pick apart my posts and avoid the issue.”
This is coming from the individual that denies objective fact regarding my charges of hypocrisy? That’s rich – you may guess away, but you’re an active participator and the obstinacy is hardly under my control
$1:
“Your tactics are nothing new to me, fancy words and speech, make you sound elloquent, your ablity to use them well, make you smart. How you line them up and project your thoughts is a whole other matter.”
And this banal defence tactic is noting new to me – attack the periphery (such as diction) as a means of avoiding the salient point. Ok, I’ll be sporting here – you demonstrate how I line up and project my thoughts is somehow problematic. You made the point you back it up
$1:
“I do not wish to make an enemy of you, but you seem intent on making me”
I am not here to make an enemy but consider your behaviour first: you insinuated I was “defensive” due to my inclusion in a bigoted subgroup here, ascribed antagonistic stances and suggested that my thinking was flawed. How does this support, “I do not wish to make an enemy of you, but you seem intent on making me”? Oh…avoid any diction you deem flowery and comment on the point only.
$1:
“ Do you fear that I can objectively and effectively argue this topic?”
Why would I fear you? Seems rather presumptuous, wouldn’t you say?
$1:
“Why is it more important to you to try and discredit me, instead of discuss the issue”
I’m here to question the issue. I’m still waiting for all of your answers
CDNBear @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
CDNBear CDNBear:
I have stated my position, I willl not endulge your contiued picking apart of my statements, I made no generalizations, you are arguing sematics now.
You made generalizations. Falling back on peripheral nonsense like semantics won’t save you – I asked for proof and you provided nothing. Your position is problematic. Sorry.
$1:
“You made the statement that you could see the bigotry on both sides, so I need not detail it for you.”
Yes I did and it wasn’t a one sided condemnation because I was merely observing.
$1:
“am not hypocritical as the norm, nor do I see the hypocracy in pointing out the bigotry that has been expressed in the thread. Pointed out my failure to acknowledge that the bigotry came from both sides, I conceded.”
I stated where I saw hypocrisy – I provided textual evidence. It has not been rebuffed. I stand by my point. I, however, also applaud your concession – there are far too many on forums that refuse to admit errors. It’s takes a big person.
$1:
“Do you wish to debate the topic at hand or merely try to discredit my ablity to objectively contribute?”
It’s not a debate – it’s a questioning of motives and tactics. I found fault with your initial post, its contents and conclusions. I’ve expressed those concerns and articulated my reasoning behind their promulgation. That is it – anything else is one’s opinion of events
$1:
“You seem quite willing to ride this course of commentary into the ground, I on the other hand, see your intent and really feel it is not in your intentions to debate, but rather pick apart my posts and avoid the issue.”
This is coming from the individual that denies objective fact regarding my charges of hypocrisy? That’s rich – you may guess away, but you’re an active participator and the obstinacy is hardly under my control
$1:
“Your tactics are nothing new to me, fancy words and speech, make you sound elloquent, your ablity to use them well, make you smart. How you line them up and project your thoughts is a whole other matter.”
And this banal defence tactic is noting new to me – attack the periphery (such as diction) as a means of avoiding the salient point. Ok, I’ll be sporting here – you demonstrate how I line up and project my thoughts is somehow problematic. You made the point you back it up
$1:
“I do not wish to make an enemy of you, but you seem intent on making me”
I am not here to make an enemy but consider your behaviour first: you insinuated I was “defensive” due to my inclusion in a bigoted subgroup here, ascribed antagonistic stances and suggested that my thinking was flawed. How does this support, “I do not wish to make an enemy of you, but you seem intent on making me”? Oh…avoid any diction you deem flowery and comment on the point only.
$1:
“ Do you fear that I can objectively and effectively argue this topic?”
Why would I fear you? Seems rather presumptuous, wouldn’t you say?
$1:
“Why is it more important to you to try and discredit me, instead of discuss the issue”
I’m here to question the issue. I’m still waiting for all of your answers
You have asked for nothing, but supporting documentation of something you already KNOW exists. You intent is unkown in full, but your actions indicate an objective. I will not indulge you. Live with that.
I did not attack your vocabulary, I complimented it, I for one, do not subscribe to the school of knock peoples spelling when all else fails. But I do hand out compliments, albeit rarely, to those that deserve them. Consider it an olive branch.
Take into account I was angery when I posted my first comments, as well as my concession, and viola, I erred. So be it. But I will stand by my position that many of the posters in this and some other threads, have bigoted agenda, as it pertains to Native issues. You yourself said you see them, so please stop asking me to go through the trouble of finding any. I really have no need for your war of attrition.
Do you have anything to discuss on the issue of land claims?
Mustang1 @ Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:48 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
You have asked for nothing, but supporting documentation of something you already KNOW exists. You intent is unkown in full, but your actions indicate an objective. I will not indulge you. Live with that.
My point stands.
$1:
“I did not attack your vocabulary, I complimented it, I for one, do not subscribe to the school of knock peoples spelling when all else fails. But I do hand out compliments, albeit rarely, to those that deserve them. Consider it an olive branch.”
It was a backhanded insult – you threw out a small compliment followed up by direct insult. Consider your own quote, “Your tactics are nothing new to me, fancy words and speech, make you sound elloquent, your ablity to use them well, make you smart. How you line them up and project your thoughts is a whole other matter”
$1:
The first sentence is complimentary whereas the second is designed to take a shot at application. That’s why I asked you to substantiate it when it wrote, “Ok, I’ll be sporting here – you demonstrate how I line up and project my thoughts is somehow problematic.”
Evidently your assertion that I have issues applying said intellect isn’t turning out in your favour.
$1:
“Take into account I was angery when I posted my first comments, as well as my concession, and viola, I erred. So be it. But I will stand by my position that many of the posters in this and some other threads, have bigoted agenda, as it pertains to Native issues. You yourself said you see them, so please stop asking me to go through the trouble of finding any. I really have no need for your war of attrition.”
I never denied bigotry, but I insisted that both sides receive condemnation. That’s all. Both sides can exhibit bigoted agendas and I only asking that this reality be taken into account when judging the issue.
$1:
“Do you have anything to discuss on the issue of land claims?”
Nope, not at the moment.
CDNBear @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:35 pm
blah, deleted
CDNBear @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:36 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
CDNBear CDNBear:
You have asked for nothing, but supporting documentation of something you already KNOW exists. You intent is unkown in full, but your actions indicate an objective. I will not indulge you. Live with that.
My point stands.
$1:
“I did not attack your vocabulary, I complimented it, I for one, do not subscribe to the school of knock peoples spelling when all else fails. But I do hand out compliments, albeit rarely, to those that deserve them. Consider it an olive branch.”
It was a backhanded insult – you threw out a small compliment followed up by direct insult. Consider your own quote, “Your tactics are nothing new to me, fancy words and speech, make you sound elloquent, your ablity to use them well, make you smart. How you line them up and project your thoughts is a whole other matter”
$1:
The first sentence is complimentary whereas the second is designed to take a shot at application. That’s why I asked you to substantiate it when it wrote, “Ok, I’ll be sporting here – you demonstrate how I line up and project my thoughts is somehow problematic.”
Evidently your assertion that I have issues applying said intellect isn’t turning out in your favour.
$1:
“Take into account I was angery when I posted my first comments, as well as my concession, and viola, I erred. So be it. But I will stand by my position that many of the posters in this and some other threads, have bigoted agenda, as it pertains to Native issues. You yourself said you see them, so please stop asking me to go through the trouble of finding any. I really have no need for your war of attrition.”
I never denied bigotry, but I insisted that both sides receive condemnation. That’s all. Both sides can exhibit bigoted agendas and I only asking that this reality be taken into account when judging the issue.
$1:
“Do you have anything to discuss on the issue of land claims?”
Nope, not at the moment.
Your point can stand as long as you wish, you know what I said to be fact, you yourself admitted as much. So what is behind your need for me to identify specifics?
I gave your assertion that my singling out the bigots was in some way hypocritical and yes you are correct it would be, if you hyper-analys the sentiment. But if you look at the comment, as I have stated I used the word "many" and not the word "all" and I did not add a negative or prejortive name, that was in any way racial. So yes, I have a bias, but no I have not expressed any racial bigotry, as the bigotry I was referring to, so no, I do not see how I am being hypocritical and will not admit to such.
If I had said, "ALL you white bigot asshats". Then I would concuer. But seeing as I did not. In my opinion, which obviously differs from yours, I have expressed no hypocracy, other then my intolerance for intolerance. In that I will concede.
My commentary was not ment as an insult, but rather a indication at the frustration you were causing me, in the fact that you will not relent on one point of one post and have hijacked a thread to discuss your opnion on a supposed hypocracy you see in my post. Your continous harping on, but a small portion of my post is rather baffling to me. I have been trying to maintain an objective opinion of you. Hoping that you merely wish to hold to a standard, that you see befitting a forum of debate and not some other objective. I say that as an honest expression of how I'm thinking, not in any accusatory way. But I as many a Native, felt the sting of prejudice expressed in oh so many ways. One does not need to actually throw around racial epithets to be a bigot, and I am not insinuating anything. I am merely trying to explain how my thought process is working. So you may get a better understand of my position. Fair enough?
I understand your issue, with the lack of balance in my post, I beleive I conceded on that, but if not, here it is. You were right.
There is bigotry on both sides. I have seen it, I do not like it, it is counter productive and does no ne any great service. It will always build walls, beyond bridges. Which is why I avoid using racial terms as "whitey" and such.
Did any of that help?
Do you have any intentions of debating land claim issues, or did you just want to school me, lol?
btw, you're worse then an editor, lol.
Mustang1 @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:46 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
Your point can stand as long as you wish, you know what I said to be fact, you yourself admitted as much. So what is behind your need for me to identify specifics?
As I stated, my point remains.
$1:
“
gave your assertion that my singling out the bigots was in some way hypocritical and yes you are correct it would be, if you hyper-analys the sentiment.”
gave your assertion that my singling out the bigots was in some way hypocritical and yes you are correct it would be, if you hyper-analys the sentiment.”
It’s hardly “hyper-analysis” as that dismissive term seeks to minimize the point.
$1:
“But if you look at the comment, as I have stated I used the word "many" and not the word "all" and I did not add a negative or prejortive name, that was in any way racial.”
It wasn’t “many” if you wand to needle, and so far, by the way, your alleged “many” remains quite absent. McCarthy would be proud
$1:
“So yes, I have a bias, but no I have not expressed any racial bigotry, as the bigotry I was referring to, so no, I do not see how I am being hypocritical and will not admit to such.”
It would appear, however, that your admitted bias did in fact result in an unfair, unfounded generalization that sought to condemn one side in an issue. You may be obstinate, which is certainly your prerogative, but that doesn’t alter the fact that you were hypocritical (again, I provided the evidence, and you’ve avoided it.). Sorry, that’s objective fact.
$1:
“If I had said, "ALL you white bigot asshats". Then I would concuer. But seeing as I did not. In my opinion, which obviously differs from yours, I have expressed no hypocracy, other then my intolerance for intolerance. In that I will concede.”
Argumentative fallacy aside, the inclusion of “All” doesn’t alter the very fact that you issued the statement. In fact, you also decried childish banter and how does labelling people “bigoted ass hats” NOT fall into the category of childish banter?
$1:
“My commentary was not ment as an insult, but rather a indication at the frustration you were causing me, in the fact that you will not relent on one point of one post and have hijacked a thread to discuss your opnion on a supposed hypocracy you see in my post.”
Your intention is immaterial – it was an insult and I’ve demonstrated that. Whether you are frustrated or not, and you’re back again anyway, is not my concern nor does it excuse your insulting demeanour and if you can demonstrate. Sorry, each and every time you retreat to this intellectual relativist nonsense (prattle like “it’s an opinion”) then I’ll respond because you were hypocritical and denying the charge repeatedly won’t alter the fact.
$1:
“Your continous harping on, but a small portion of my post is rather baffling to me.”
I took issue with your intention – I made this clear.
$1:
“I have been trying to maintain an objective opinion of you. Hoping that you merely wish to hold to a standard, that you see befitting a forum of debate and not some other objective. I say that as an honest expression of how I'm thinking, not in any accusatory way.”
I continue because of your dogged obstinacy. You were a hypocrite and you unfairly generalized a small portion of people on one side of an issue with little evidence beyond an emotional knee-jerk reaction. In reality, you jumped the gun and gave in to a bias that proved to be problematic. You deny, despite textual evidence to the contrary, these charges and continue to antagonize and insult me in the process – so far, I’ve been steadfast in my objections and will continue to do so.
$1:
“But I as many a Native, felt the sting of prejudice expressed in oh so many ways. One does not need to actually throw around racial epithets to be a bigot, and I am not insinuating anything. I am merely trying to explain how my thought process is working. So you may get a better understand of my position. Fair enough?”
In this case, your thought process caused you to generalize based on your prejudices. Isn’t that rather duplicitous considering you’re targeting bigotry?
$1:
“I understand your issue, with the lack of balance in my post, I beleive I conceded on that, but if not, here it is. You were right.”
It’s not about me declaring victory, but you understanding the inherent problems with your conduct.
$1:
“Do you have any intentions of debating land claim issues, or did you just want to school me, “
As I’ve already stated, Land Claims don’t particularly interest me, but, by all means, I certainly won’t hijack any continuation of the subject unless it’s specifically addressed to me.
Banff @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:07 pm
Food for Oil , Food for land , and a Teepee or igloo .