Cultural Genocide

[nothing]

It's a bit difficult to address someone without ever using the word 'you'. What would you prefer?

Remove the "someone" from the equation entirely and only focus on ideas - people come and go, but the truth always is.

One can either address ideas or the "someone" behind them. The latter is often chosen by those who can not engage with the former.

Woul you be happier if I put ' ' around the offending word, as 'you' do?

You are talking about Age, not me - I do not emphasize with '' as Age does.

Would 'you' prefer me to say 'nothing' is a lunatic, or 'you' are a lunatic? Clearly 'you' are not literally 'nothing' so I can only assume that 'you' have a massive inferiority complex.

I'd be happier if you could have an intelligent discussion about ideas, rather than people. Calling someone a lunatic and repeating it as if true, is something a bonafide lunatic would do.

As already indicated: the accuser is the accused. The lunacy is on your end.

[Age]

You don't have to scan much of it to recognise the ravings of a complete fruitcake (there have been a few on here).

'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Are you related to Age? I sure hope not.

You have already been informed and explained that if you do not quote the name "age" directly just once in your replies, then I do not get a notice, and then I might miss your replies and so will not respond. Some might infer that your continuation of doing this means you do not want me to see your replies and/or do not want me to respond to 'you'.

I do not want you to reply to me because the substance of your replies is only 'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Eg.

Once again 'you'...

Would some see this exact same behavior here from 'you'?...

Also, what 'you'...

But how could 'you'...

So, how do 'you'...

Do 'you' think 'you'...

Also, 'you'...

('you' really do have...

Also, 'you' once again...

Just about everything 'you'...

From what I have observed 'you'...

Are you at all AWARE that 'you' ...

What 'you' have also done here is SHOW a hatred of mohammed, Allah, and islam...

From this some might infer that 'you'

You start out by SAYING, " 'You' can not engage ", and then go on to say, "in a single topic without 'your' ". Therefore, even in the single topic of 'you' exposing your dislike for the word 'you', 'you', "yourself", use the 'you' word AND the 'your' word. Does this mean 'you' also can not engage in a single topic without your, to 'you', "exhausting" use of the 'you' and the 'your' word? Or, does it just mean you can not NOT talk about 'me', when 'you' want to REVEAL 'your' dislike of 'me' talking about 'you'...?

'you', "yourself"...

What you...

You really need to...

then 'you' can explain who and what 'you' are, then proceed to explain what 'you' 'nature' IS, so that we can SEE what the actual 'difference' IS, which 'you'...

The Truth IS, 'you' ...

'you' BELIEVING that 'you' KNOW...

The Truth is 'you' ...

When I ask 'you' to clarify whether 'you' ...

And you are STILL INCAPABLE of...

depend on 'you', "nothing"...

By the way, YOUR ...

ou have already been informed and explained that if you...

etc.

Being locked in enmity would predict such a collapse (see +A in the graphic below).

Very Youish. Concerning the women:

Are you at all aware that some of the female gender of 'you', human beings, say that muhammed was someone who fought very strongly for women's rights, and that this can be clearly seen in mohammed's writings?

It takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true. Believing Muhammad fought very strongly for women's rights is one such example.

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."
-A'isha

She had it more right than Muhammad did.

Now because your last post was limited to ten or less, I will happily address.

So, were 'you' a 'proper lunatic' also before you found this?

I never bothered to wonder until I started experiencing sound as shape (being a musician). I know I was told by a psychologist thereafter I was not: he told me that lunatics are unable to question whether or not they are themselves lunatics. He designated it as a rare form of synesthesia: sense perceptions communicating with one another and told me to enjoy it, thus I do.

It is how I 'know' Genesis 1:1 is a mapping of a torus field:





I very simply took this toroidal form and "mapped" it such to satisfy the 'form' of Genesis 1:1



such that the solution derived satisfies any/all possible context(s) related to Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

Are 'you' still a 'proper lunatic' because you have not yet found other things?

I am capable of severing from the thought-process, thus not a lunatic. What things did you have in mind?

Or, is it only "those" who do NOT yet know what 'you' have already found who are the 'proper lunatics'?

If one identifies as their own thought process, they are certainly a lunatic. Descartes is one example. Muhammad is another.

Also, is what 'you' found actually True, Right, and/or Correct? Or, just what you BELIEVE is True, Right, and Correct?

If it is, it will prove itself over time. Just as you pathologically focus on me (ie. 'you!' 'you!' 'you!') as predicted, so the truth simply manifests itself.

That you attempt to flip that around onto me, despite the pathology being your own, validates my designation of 'fascist pig': people who have a pig nature about them, are called for it, then resort to attempting to project it onto others. I am more than willing and capable to keep discussions on a content-only basis, but as you have demonstrated, you are incapable of this.

Knowing that belief inverts 'truth' allows one to understand first what truth is not. There is no truth in Islam: only inversion.

Could what 'you' found just be the findings of a 'proper lunatic', or is this NOT even a possibility, and therefore 'you' would NOT believe this could even be True anyway?

It's possible, but the theorem being technically infallible does not lend itself to such a notion.

If replying: ten or less, otherwise will be ignored.

'you' replied ten or more, so will be ignored here, for now.

[Age]

Redefine hate and antipathy of a group as those who refuse to recognize the signficance of one's culture as inherent to ones' genes. In other words, those believing that this 'cultural genocide' is occurring is attempting to demand recognition that segregation of people by their genetic identity is actually a good thing.

I'm very impressed at this summary, Scott. It seems very accurate to me. And I would agree with all that you said, including the wrongness of according exclusive educational powers to any denominational or ideological group. And that might surprise you, coming from me, but it's sincere. I'm a big believer in the fundamental right to freedom of conscience.

The one point of departure I would take is this: I don't use "Catholic" as a synonym for "Christian." And it is over this fundamental conscience issue that the divide appears most clearly.

In Catholic theology, they have an axiom that goes, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" , meaning "Outside of the church, none is saved." What this means, as they interpret it, is that the Catholic Church is like a big omnibus or airplane, that takes people to the destination of salvation. One only gets there by "getting on the bus," so to speak. One joins the organization of the Catholic Church, follows its rituals and obeys its decrees, and one eventually gets to destination. In this, the Catholic Church is somewhat like Islam. Both regard submission to the hierarchy and procedures of their group as of much more importance than whatever one's conscience is saying.

In this, christianity is somewhat like the catholic church and islam. All three regard submission to the hierarchy and procedures of their group as of much more importance than whatever one's conscience is saying. The only way for christians to reach the destination of salvation is through the belief in jesus christ, which is just group "getting on the bus", so to speck. Just the bus of christ this time.

This explains why the Catholics who were commissioned to "manage" the native children did not concern themselves much with the children's culture, autonomy or consciences. It would be enough to "discipline" them onto "the bus," and all that's necessary would have been done. They simply needed to be "made Catholic," and the rest would be fine...at least, so far as Catholic theology cared. Consequently, coercive and disciplinary measures became primary in their pedagogy.

Christ did not teach this. Nor do Christians in general believe that one can please God by merely joining an organization, let alone by being coerced or indoctrinated into compliance with one.

LOL christians in general believe that the only way to God, or to please God, is through christ, by joining the organization or "bus" of jesus christ.

The Church -- the real Church -- is a voluntary association. Everything depends on a person having a personal relationship with God by faith, and this cannot be done while someone is coercing or controlling the conscience. So a Christian would be rightly appalled by this conduct, and would detest the residential schools and their excesses. They would see the whole project as immoral, and ultimately as doomed; for as Locke pointed out, you cannot control a man's deep conscience, even if you try. "A man convinced against his will remains a unbeliever still."

As long as it is not forgotten that christianity is its own "bus" and organization, which is continually 'trying to' get "more on that bus", then all is good.

This is a very important distinction to those of us who do not wish to be tarred with the broad brush used on Catholicism. We did not participate, and want no share in that history now. And today, we would applaud the stripping of all special privileges formerly accorded to institutionalized groups -- whether religious or secular. We would favour, instead, an open and unimpeded field of discourse on what beliefs a person might wish to have.

[Age]

No, not on an absolute scale the govenrment is asserting by faith alone.

Okay, but I thought that if more than one native child was forcibly taken away, then that would just simply mean that native children were forcibly taken away. I did not realize there are whole other variables involved here.

So, what is the "absolute scale" the government is asserting by faith alone, which you do not accept?

If ANY child is "TAKEN" by any standard, it is worth looking at with a clear definition of what it means to be 'taken'. What is meant by 'taken' by the Natives here is the government's set up of schools FOR Natives in places closer to population centers far from their remote and isolated 'Reserves'. Those Reservations are particularly isolated far away from most cities, lack economies because the concept of 'reserve' was intended to permit Natives here to live as they used to rather than as modernized citizens who favored formal ownership of landed settlements.

Okay, so far we have looked at what is meant by 'taken', by "natives".

The nature of reserves treated them no different than we used reserves for wild animals, like nationalized parks may be used for. But many natives stopped their original tribal lifestyle and rightfully deserved to CHOOSE to integrate to modernism. This choice to integrate requires adapting to modern lifestyles that included learning to speak the official language(s) of the country and, like all children of all other races here in Canada, required them to go to school as everyone else does.

Did the choice to integrate with the "natives" also require adapting to those lifestyles that included learning to speak the original official language(s) of the country as well? Or, did those people NEVER choose to integrate with the "natives" ,and therefore the 'requiring to adapt' only really has to go one way?

The government of the past handed over this responsibility most favorably to the Catholic Church and to Protestant ones where such population in Western provinces lacked the Catholic majority. So this is the first fault because it biases favor to religious institutes rather than public secular ones to teach.

Was not the 'taking' of lands from people and displacing them not the actual original first fault?

To religious people running these, their first internal beliefs about what is 'civilized' regards people's religious beliefs. As such, to them, teaching Christianity was paramount to become 'civilized'. Should any abuses be recognized, this factor SHOULD take the first notice.

What about the abuse of stealing and taking from "others", and the displacing of said "others, SHOULD this not be first recognized and first noticed and first accepted?

But because the power establishment favors religious separate schools and has constitutionalized this, any abuse claims would point directly to the Christian institutes conserved here in our Constitution formally.

Since our country is itself an accidental one made up of left over anti-American British Loyalists and the abandoned French Catholics, the Constitution formed was specific to save these two major groups justifying the SPECIFIC bias to them in perpetuity.

Could saying "our country is itself an "accidental one" ...", just another way of not recognizing and accepting the actual abuses portrayed on "others" originally?

This is irrational in light of the many variable peoples from all over. So to hide the bias, our country relabeled their bias "multiculturalism". This cannot hold without supporting favor to the Natives in part or risk being exposed for the fraud. They declare in the Constition favor for the bicultural groups of English Anglican and Quebec Catholics due to HISTORICAL first peoples. As such, since the Natives ARE more obviously 'first', they had to include them with priority.

Okay.

Since 'culture' laws here permit exclsive powers to conserve special people, when today's Natives demand justice, it is in terms of this. Since language and religion are the major factors intended by the word, 'culture' here, when the Natives in isolation and poverty demand reparations, their major complaint is to point out that their own people were denied their right to their own language and religious preservation given these schools were designed to change them to fit with the then Christian dominance particularly of the past.

Okay.

One example of this was to the adoptions that occurred of Natives to non-Native families. Since our government treats 'culture' as a genetic feature of people (versus something voluntary), they can't hide that their bias has to include the corollary belief that your genetics define who you are. That is, if one is born French Catholic, for instance, those people believe their children from all ancestors into the future OWN a right to BE 'French' AND 'Catholic'.

LOL I think human beings forget what 'genetics' actually relate to.

This protection cannot be 'democratic' unless they declare it a sovereign truth that 'culture' by this arrogantly racist meaning is true by default. Thus, today, those in power here want to recognize this as true with Natives as well. So any adoptions (legal or not) of the past of mixed race families when "Aboriginal" (Native First Peoples) are deemed 'crimes'.

I do not see any issue here. If children are 'taken' from their parents, and that is seen as a crime, then what is the issue?

If taking what is not yours is a crime, then how this above any different?

The purpose of the quick legal settlements is for those families who interited the powers within the Constitution, ....and who were actually the guilty 'cultures' who created reserves of the Natives AND imposed their Christianity, ....was to buy out the present Natives wholesale as a kind of bribe with the added LEGAL requirement that the Natives cannot ever point to those Catholic French and Anglican English wealthy inheritors as AT FAULT. Instead, the agreement forces all the taxpayers to pay for the debt (the buyout) and the Establishment thus wins twice.

What is with human beings incessant worry or concern about bits of paper with numbers on them?

That is, they LOOK like the good guys for imposing that the whole of present Canadians take on the debt (even if they are NOT of the Established inheritors at fault) AND get to keep their 'supremacy' in the Constitional protection they desired.

If you SEE "good" or "bad" people, and can not see the good and the bad in all people, then so be it.

Any one can 'try' and trick "others" to believe they are "good", but LOOKING like they are "good", but only those who can NOT SEE properly would SEE such a thing as this.

This should suffice to answer the other questions.

Not at all.

You started off here by saying; If ANY child is "TAKEN" by any standard, it is worth looking at with a clear definition of what it means to be 'taken'.

Then the ONLY definition you provided was with: What is meant by 'taken' by the Natives here is the government's set up of schools FOR Natives in places closer to population centers far from their remote and isolated 'Reserves'.

So, since this was the ONLY definition of 'taken' that was provided here, then, to me, the clear definition of what it means to be 'taken' that I can SEE is, the government 'took' "natives" from each "other" or from their lands.

Note that this is not enough space to discuss the particular history of Canadian Multicultural Constitution. So, if you ask particular historical questions beyond this, I'll have to refer you to other places for your own interest to learn if you like.

I am not really at all interested in this sort of other stuff. I was just interested on your views on:
What do you mean by " 'supposedly' forced to be taken away "?

Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

I still await your response.

The point about this here is that 'cultural genocide' is a term meant to flip the meaning of racism to be those who DON'T favor a Nationalistic interpretation. This would be similar of what a Nazi might do if they existed today. Redefine hate and antipathy of a group as those who refuse to recognize the signficance of one's culture as inherent to ones' genes. In other words, those believing that this 'cultural genocide' is occurring is attempting to demand recognition that segregation of people by their genetic identity is actually a good thing.

[Edit: Fixed incorrect spelling.]

I can CLEARLY SEE the point you are wanting to make here. I observer all adult people use all kind of excuses, terminology, reasoning, et cetera, to 'try to' "justify" and promote their own form of racism and separatism as being the "good" one, and the "right" one. EXACTLY like what 'you', "yourself", are 'trying' so hard to do here. You actually BELIEVE that the form of segregation and separation of people, which you so choose to use and do, is also a "good thing".

Every government organization, every religious organization, and every secular organization 'try' to use words in a particular way to say and propagate that 'their way' is the best and right good way. There is absolutely nothing new here. You human beings have being creating words and terms for thousands upon thousands of years to 'try' and flip things around from the actual Truth of things, so that 'you' do not LOOK AT your own WRONG doings.

Now, back to my original question, do you accept children were forcibly taken away?

If no, then okay.

However, if yes, then do you accept that as a "good thing", a "bad thing", or a "some thing" else?

[Scott Mayers]

@Age,

While I appreciate conversing with you, it would help to take one issue at a time. If you have a question about something that is necessary for further understanding, it is useless to continue beyond the point at which all the rest of the reasoning is based. I cannot read past a question that is pivotal to the rest of any reasoning.

So one step at a time.

"Cultural Genocide" is an expression created by those who believe that some particular group or groups of people are being extremely discriminated against by a presumption of those discriminating as intending to DESTROY it.

So first, we need to know what those using this term mean by 'culture'.

Here in Canada, the meaning is at least treated as "some set of behaviors exclusively belonging to some set of particular people or peoples."

Every person has 'culture' if this definition is to stand broadly because it doesn't rule out ANY behaviours by individuals. What I DO is "my culture". What is significant to the term, culture, in reference to this discussion, is that it is a belief about some group's collective ownership or belief about its existence to some behavior or behaviors that is assumed intrinsic to people REGARDLESS of ones' personal choices. Thus "a people" rather than any "person" is understood as applying to the meaning of 'culture'.

Do you agree or not? If you cannot answer this for some particular hang up on what I said, then ask the querstion pertaining to that and then STOP so that we can address that.

[Age]

@Age,

While I appreciate conversing with you, it would help to take one issue at a time.

I brought up one issue. If you resolved that by just answering the two questions directly, then that one issue would have already been finished with by now.

If you have a question about something that is necessary for further understanding, it is useless to continue beyond the point at which all the rest of the reasoning is based. I cannot read past a question that is pivotal to the rest of any reasoning.
So one step at a time.

So, my question was, Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

If you unaware that is very simply a yes or no answer that was needed here.

"Cultural Genocide" is an expression created by those who believe that some particular group or groups of people are being extremely discriminated against by a presumption of those discriminating as intending to DESTROY it.

IF some people come to your land, take over your land, and do not let you live how you used to, then is that 'cultural genocide'?

Again, this is a yes or no answer.

So first, we need to know what those using this term mean by 'culture'.

Well OBVIOUSLY you are NEVER going to find out here, in this forum, what THOSE who are using a term mean IF THEY ARE NOT HERE, in this forum.

So, IF you REALLY want to KNOW what THEY mean by a term, that THEY use, then WHY NOT go and ask THEM?

Here in Canada, the meaning is at least treated as "some set of behaviors exclusively belonging to some set of particular people or peoples."

SO, you ALREADY KNOW what the term 'cultural genocide' means, to THOSE, correct?

But I have NO intention at all in knowing what that terms means from your perspective or from any one "else's" perspective.

I have just been trying to take this one step at a time, and waiting for you to answer the first questions I asked you.

Every person has 'culture' if this definition is to stand broadly because it doesn't rule out ANY behaviours by individuals. What I DO is "my culture". What is significant to the term, culture, in reference to this discussion, is that it is a belief about some group's collective ownership or belief about its existence to some behavior or behaviors that is assumed intrinsic to people REGARDLESS of ones' personal choices. Thus "a people" rather than any "person" is understood as applying to the meaning of 'culture'.

Do you agree or not?

I do NOT even have a clue what you are 'trying to' say here, let alone agree or disagree with it. In fact I do NOT even care what you are saying here in regards to 'cultural genocide'.

How about we skip all of this and you just get to the POINT, which you finally want to get to?

What is it that you are hating, or not liking, and which you wish people would STOP doing?

If you cannot answer this for some particular hang up on what I said, then ask the question pertaining to that and then STOP so that we can address that.

Remember THIS is EXACTLY what I did in the beginning. I asked you two questions in regards to what I was, what you call, "hung up on". I was "hung up" because of the words you used and in particular one word.

I WANTED to KNOW more about a particular some thing in regards to what you said.

You, however, went off on some tangent and completely MISSED answering the actual questions I asked you. I have absolutely just about NO interest in the racist crap that you will eventually want to get into. All I wanted to WORK OUT from the outset was;

1. What do you mean by " 'supposedly' forced to be taken away "?

2. Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

If you REALLY want to take this one step at a time and one issue at a time, then how about just answering these questions.

Now, if you accept that native children were forcibly taken away, then what do you mean by the use of the word "supposedly". But, if you do not accept that native children were forcibly taken away, then so be it.

Every one has view and that is just yours.

Seriously WHY do some conversations take so long?

[Scott Mayers]

@Age,

Please correct the quotes that is mine in your last post above. It looks as though you are stating MY opinion as your own in:

@Age,

While I appreciate conversing with you, it would help to take one issue at a time.

I brought up one issue. If you resolved that by just answering the two questions directly, then that one issue would have already been finished with by now.

If you have a question about something that is necessary for further understanding, it is useless to continue beyond the point at which all the rest of the reasoning is based. I cannot read past a question that is pivotal to the rest of any reasoning.

So one step at a time.

The bolded words are mine, not yours. Misquoting is potentially hazardous in communicating who said what.

As to my request, you are still not responding in fairness. If you sincerely want a response that is productive, please respond directly to my question in my last post. I cannot nor will not answer to your own requests further without preliminary steps back. That is, in order for me to answer your long lists of questions, we need to start from scratch on this topic which requires addressing what "culture" means. If not, I cannot speak to you further because you would be proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring.

Example: Your question:

So, my question was, Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

If you unaware that is very simply a yes or no answer that was needed here.

cannot be answered without knowing what you internalize the meaning of your question and the words you use. If you are asking for input upon an unshared understanding of 'accept', 'native', 'forcibly', and 'taken', a yes-no question is NOT simple but hazardous given how you interpret/misinterpret meanings without clarity. You act absurdly confused about words and so we need to step back before even attempting to answer such black and white questions.

[Age]

@Age,

Please correct the quotes that is mine in your last post above. It looks as though you are stating MY opinion as your own in:

@Age,

While I appreciate conversing with you, it would help to take one issue at a time.

I brought up one issue. If you resolved that by just answering the two questions directly, then that one issue would have already been finished with by now.

If you have a question about something that is necessary for further understanding, it is useless to continue beyond the point at which all the rest of the reasoning is based. I cannot read past a question that is pivotal to the rest of any reasoning.

So one step at a time.

The bolded words are mine, not yours. Misquoting is potentially hazardous in communicating who said what.

Very TRUE, and I apologize profusely.

I would even go as far to say that misquoting is IN FACT hazardous in communicating who said what.

Now to get back to the MAIN POINT.

You say: If you have a question about something that is necessary for further understanding, it is useless to continue beyond the point at which all the rest of the reasoning is based.

I have a question about some thing that you have stated, which is necessary for further understanding, and when answered Honestly will provide much greater understanding, that question IS.

Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away from their native parents unwillingly?

Once you answer that Honestly, then we can move on, and get to real issue at heart here.

As to my request, you are still not responding in fairness. If you sincerely want a response that is productive, please respond directly to my question in my last post.

So, you want me to and you ask ME to respond directly to YOUR question in your LAST post, but you will NOT respond directly to MY question in my FIRST post, in this thread.

Is this the "responding in fairness", which you are talking about now?

Do this Truly seem 'fair'?

I cannot nor will not answer to your own requests further without preliminary steps back.

Are you suggesting we step backwards from now, instead of stepping forwards from MY FIRST question to you?

If we had worked preliminary forwards, by you answering my first question from the outset, then I think we would already be at the main and important point already by now.

But if you want to work 'backwards' then let us do that.

I will now do all you want to get you to just directly answer the very simple clarifying question/s I posed to you from the outset in this thread.

That is, in order for me to answer your long lists of questions,

But if this has turned into a, supposedly, long lists of questions, then this is because you have not yet answered the first two questions.

we need to start from scratch on this topic which requires addressing what "culture" means.

But I do NOT care about what the word 'culture' means. That is your thought processes alone. I just want to KNOW what your views are to some thing specific that you said. If we ever find out what your answer is, then this will SHOW WHY you are so concerned about what the word 'culture' means.

If not, I cannot speak to you further because you would be proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring.

LOL so you have twisted this around so much now, that in your own head, it is me proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring, when it was YOU from the outset who will NOT just communicate your answer, but just responding to just one or two very simple, very straightforward, and very unassuming clarifying questions.

If you are so BOGGED DOWN and can NOT supposedly answer my question, just because you do NOT yet know what 'culture' means, then so be it.

Do you want ME to TELL 'you' what 'culture' MEANS?

What is it that you want from me?

[Age]

@Age,

Please correct the quotes that is mine in your last post above. It looks as though you are stating MY opinion as your own in:

@Age,

While I appreciate conversing with you, it would help to take one issue at a time.

I brought up one issue. If you resolved that by just answering the two questions directly, then that one issue would have already been finished with by now.

If you have a question about something that is necessary for further understanding, it is useless to continue beyond the point at which all the rest of the reasoning is based. I cannot read past a question that is pivotal to the rest of any reasoning.

So one step at a time.

The bolded words are mine, not yours. Misquoting is potentially hazardous in communicating who said what.

As to my request, you are still not responding in fairness. If you sincerely want a response that is productive, please respond directly to my question in my last post. I cannot nor will not answer to your own requests further without preliminary steps back. That is, in order for me to answer your long lists of questions, we need to start from scratch on this topic which requires addressing what "culture" means. If not, I cannot speak to you further because you would be proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring.

Example: Your question:

So, my question was, Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

If you unaware that is very simply a yes or no answer that was needed here.

cannot be answered without knowing what you internalize the meaning of your question and the words you use.

So WHY did you NOT say this BEFORE now?

If you are asking for input upon an unshared understanding of 'accept', 'native', 'forcibly', and 'taken', a yes-no question is NOT simple but hazardous given how you interpret/misinterpret meanings without clarity. You act absurdly confused about words and so we need to step back before even attempting to answer such black and white questions.

Okay, so 'step back'. Now how are YOU going to proceed?

Also, if I ONLY 'act' absurdly confused about words, then WHY do you THINK or BELIEVE that I would ONLY 'act' this?

You have admitted being confused about the words 'culture' and 'cultural genocide' here. I am not sure about 'absurdly confused' though.

Also, it is 'you', human beings, who are, what I could call, 'absurdly confused' about words, especially considering it is 'you', human beings, who do NOT even KNOW who nor what the 'I' stands for exactly.

Now, considering you can NOT even tell us what you accept or do not accept in relation to 'native' children being forcibly taken away from their parents unwillingly, then that is okay. You have more or less Answered the question anyway, by your continual attempts to deflect away from answering it.

So, if you will just NOT tell us, then the readers can make up their own decisions on what your True answer IS by "themselves".

Or, if you really did want to answer that question, then you would have started putting forward definitions for words like 'accept', 'native', 'forcibly', and 'taken' already.

So, I do NOT once again get BLAMED for PREVENTING communication I will provide a start;

'Accept', believe or come to recognize (a proposition) as valid or correct.

'Native', indigenous inhabitants of a place

'Forcibly', against one's wishes.

'Taken', removed.

Now, if you NEED to KNOW what I internalize the meaning of my question, then I internalize the meaning of my question as:
Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

Or, in other words, Do you believe or come to recognize the proposition as valid or correct that indigenous inhabitants of a place were, against their wishes, removed?

Does that help you at all to answer?

And, the ONLY true way to not have an unshared understanding anymore, is; IF you start SHARING your understanding.

If to come to a SHARED UNDERSTANDING, in order so you can answer my question, takes coming to a SHARED UNDERSTANDING of each and EVERY word in each and EVERY question, then so be it. We can take as long as you want to arrive at what essentially will either be just a 'yes' or a 'no' response from you anyway.

[Scott Mayers]

we need to start from scratch on this topic which requires addressing what "culture" means.

But I do NOT care about what the word 'culture' means. That is your thought processes alone. I just want to KNOW what your views are to some thing specific that you said. If we ever find out what your answer is, then this will SHOW WHY you are so concerned about what the word 'culture' means.

If not, I cannot speak to you further because you would be proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring.

LOL so you have twisted this around so much now, that in your own head, it is me proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring, when it was YOU from the outset who will NOT just communicate your answer, but just responding to just one or two very simple, very straightforward, and very unassuming clarifying questions.

If you are so BOGGED DOWN and can NOT supposedly answer my question, just because you do NOT yet know what 'culture' means, then so be it.

Do you want ME to TELL 'you' what 'culture' MEANS?

What is it that you want from me?

If you do not care what 'culture' means, then I don't care to discuss this with you. This discussion on "Cultural Genocide" is about this topic and while you may feel entertained to get me to respond to your own internal need to know something personally about myself, why should I serve to comply? It doesn't 'entertain' me to discuss this with someone who actually doesn't care about the issue in question. I'm not here to compete against trolling behaviors.

[A 'troll' is one who distracts the topic of discussion by preventing one from moving past some point in the discussion. While I don't KNOW that you intend this with certainty, it is not productive for me to waste time on it with you when I know from past experiences that you explode with questions for each statement I say. If you have questions for each and everything I say, then with YOU specifically, we need to be absurdly literal about definitions and find agreement to HOW something is able to be proven or disproven to you.]

Thus, my request to step back to initial factors of this discussion is about making sure that all the "i"s are dotted and "t"s crossed. I will not state the answer to your particular questions when it risks misunderstanding. You are acting like the annoying child who notices that you said a bad word in some statement and cannot get past it to look at the whole meaning. To answer a question that can inadvertently be misinterpreted as a bias of an emotional interpretation by some reader/listener, it is not appropriate to answer what seems to be clear to you but is oddly insignificant in context unless you lack some understanding I missed elsewhere. If you don't care about what 'culture' means, then any further discussion with you has no function anyways but to entertain you at my expense here on a topic that requires care.

[Age]

we need to start from scratch on this topic which requires addressing what "culture" means.

But I do NOT care about what the word 'culture' means. That is your thought processes alone. I just want to KNOW what your views are to some thing specific that you said. If we ever find out what your answer is, then this will SHOW WHY you are so concerned about what the word 'culture' means.

If not, I cannot speak to you further because you would be proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring.

LOL so you have twisted this around so much now, that in your own head, it is me proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring, when it was YOU from the outset who will NOT just communicate your answer, but just responding to just one or two very simple, very straightforward, and very unassuming clarifying questions.

If you are so BOGGED DOWN and can NOT supposedly answer my question, just because you do NOT yet know what 'culture' means, then so be it.

Do you want ME to TELL 'you' what 'culture' MEANS?

What is it that you want from me?

If you do not care what 'culture' means, then I don't care to discuss this with you. This discussion on "Cultural Genocide" is about this topic and while you may feel entertainded to get me to respond to your own internal need to know something personally about myself, why should I serve to comply?

You NEVER 'had to'. If you did NOT wish to answer my question in the beginning, then just say so. I do NOT care if you did or not. But an Honest response from the outset would have been much more helpful and progressive from the start, instead of all of these deflective tactics to 'try to' not just answer the simple questions.

It doesn't 'entertain' me to discuss this with someone who actually doesn't care about the issue in question. I'm not here to compete against trolling behaviors.

Call any thing, any thing you want, to 'try to' NOT look at the Truth. But it is very obvious that I just asked you a simple clarifying question or two.

You can also use these attempts at two more EXCUSES to not answer my question. Again, I really do NOT care. If you do NOT want to be Honest, then I do NOT want you to answer anyway.

[A 'troll' is one who distracts the topic of discussion by preventing one from moving past some point in the discussion.]

That is but one definition.

And the definition which is exactly what you have done to NOT answer the question:

Do you not accept that native children have been forcibly taken away?

You 'TRIED', anyway, TO distract the topic of discussion by preventing from answering a clarifying question in regards to EXACT WHAT YOU WROTE in the discussion, so that we could then move past that. Some might even be considering by now that you have distracted this much by preventing from moving past some point in the discussion, so that we do NOT end up LOOKING AT what it is that you Truly WANTED TO get onto, which is some sort of RACIST REACTION to what is going on.

While I don't KNOW that you intend this with certainty, it is not productive for me to waste time on it with you when I know from past experiences that you explode with questions for each statement I say.

What do you mean by the use of the word 'explode'?

Do you call asking a clarifying question an 'explosion'?

[If you have questions for each and everything I say, then with YOU specifically, we need to be absurdly literal about definitions and find agreement to HOW something is able to be proven or disproven to you.]

But you ONLY have to answer a question Honestly to prove some thing to me.

The external workings of Life have already been PROVEN to me. The internal secrets kept hidden, or in other words the WRONG, within human beings is just want I want to expose. Thus the continual HATRED of being personally questioned and challenged by not just 'you', "scott mayers", but by ALL of 'you', adult human beings, as well.

Thus, my request to step back to initial factors of this discussion is about making sure that all the "i"s are dotted and "t"s crossed. I will not state the answer to your particular questions when it risks misunderstanding.

Do not worry I would NOT misunderstand you BECAUSE I will ask you enough clarifying questions so that you will NOT get misunderstood at all. I will make SURE that I have CLEARLY understood you. I will REPEAT how I UNDERSTOOD 'you', so that if there is ANY error at all 'you' are given the chance to CLEAR IT UP properly AND correctly.

You are acting like the annoying child who notices that you said a bad word in some statement and cannot get past it to look at the whole meaning.

I promise you that is the EXACTLY OPPOSITE of what I am DOING, because it is the WHOLE MEANING of what you are saying, getting to, and getting at, that I want to FULLY UNDERSTAND and EXPOSE for ALL to SEE and UNDERSTAND, "themselves". And it might be for this reason WHY you are so NOT forthcoming and holding back.

To answer a question that can inadvertently be misinterpreted as a bias of an emotional interpretation by some reader/listener, it is not appropriate to answer what seems to be clear to you but is oddly insignificant in context unless you lack some understanding I missed elsewhere.

Yes I think the understanding that you missed elsewhere is; IF one starts out discussing about 'cultural genocide', especially in relation to what is classed as "others", and part of the discussion is in regards to the "others", 'cultural genocide', and the removal of those "others" from each other forcibly and/or unwillingly, but if the one who starts the discussion does not accept that "those" peoples were forcibly taken away, in the beginning, then, to me, that is a HUGE significant factor in the context of the discussion, which is one that would best not be left out and not at all ignored.

The reason WHY you would not and still have not answered my questions, should be startling OBVIOUS by now.

If you don't care about what 'culture' means, then any further discussion with you has no function anyways but to entertain you at my expense here on a topic that requires care.

If care was taken, in the beginning, and NOT people, then we would NOT be having this discussion now.

'Culture', could just mean; maintain in conditions suitable for growth;the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society; or some thing else.

But if you NEVER put any thing out here, then you are the one preventing from moving past this.

[Scott Mayers]

But I do NOT care about what the word 'culture' means. That is your thought processes alone. I just want to KNOW what your views are to some thing specific that you said. If we ever find out what your answer is, then this will SHOW WHY you are so concerned about what the word 'culture' means.



LOL so you have twisted this around so much now, that in your own head, it is me proving to just PREVENT successful communications from occurring, when it was YOU from the outset who will NOT just communicate your answer, but just responding to just one or two very simple, very straightforward, and very unassuming clarifying questions.

If you are so BOGGED DOWN and can NOT supposedly answer my question, just because you do NOT yet know what 'culture' means, then so be it.

Do you want ME to TELL 'you' what 'culture' MEANS?

What is it that you want from me?

If you do not care what 'culture' means, then I don't care to discuss this with you. This discussion on "Cultural Genocide" is about this topic and while you may feel entertainded to get me to respond to your own internal need to know something personally about myself, why should I serve to comply?

You NEVER 'had to'. If you did NOT wish to answer my question in the beginning, then just say so. I do NOT care if you did or not. But an Honest response from the outset would have been much more helpful and progressive from the start, instead of all of these deflective tactics to 'try to' not just answer the simple questions.

It doesn't 'entertain' me to discuss this with someone who actually doesn't care about the issue in question. I'm not here to compete against trolling behaviors.

Call any thing, any thing you want, to 'try to' NOT look at the Truth. But it is very obvious that I just asked you a simple clarifying question or two.

You can also use these attempts at two more EXCUSES to not answer my question. Again, I really do NOT care. If you do NOT want to be Honest, then I do NOT want you to answer anyway.

[A 'troll' is one who distracts the topic of discussion by preventing one from moving past some point in the discussion.]

That is but one definition.

And the definition which is exactly what you have done to NOT answer the question:

Do you not accept that native children have been forcibly taken away?

You 'TRIED', anyway, TO distract the topic of discussion by preventing from answering a clarifying question in regards to EXACT WHAT YOU WROTE in the discussion, so that we could then move past that. Some might even be considering by now that you have distracted this much by preventing from moving past some point in the discussion, so that we do NOT end up LOOKING AT what it is that you Truly WANTED TO get onto, which is some sort of RACIST REACTION to what is going on.

And we have discovered your own emotive justification to ask this odd question!

What does it mean to "accept that native children have been forcibly taken away" in context to what I stated? This is a question of fact of which no one can know without actual evidence and of which I already mentioned is NOT provided. The fact that you opted to ask this is begging of some meaning that I clearly asserted was NOT proven to be determined. So your question is itself begging of your own internal assumptions unspoken of me until you stated this. I don't even know if you are Canadian and so to question something about particular facts that need greater attention of yours here is intentionally doubting of my opinion and state of morality prior to the context with bias.

I stated THAT there is no presented evidence to the general public to establish THAT such claimed universal abuses occurred in fact. That requires actual particular charges in a criminal court to assert prior to accepting it as 'fact'.

If YOU doubt my own claim as 'fact', then present a counter evidence of my country's reality THAT such criminal cases have placed the offending perpetrators in court before you presume me lying. Otherwise, all you have to go on is my hearsay THAT this is occurring here in Canada, regardless if it is true or not. This topic here is against the meaning of some 'genocide' presumed to occur about some 'culture'. When I noted what occurs here, I have no knowledge about anyone's background here to provide shared certainty about the particulars. Thus my own statements of fact can only be presumed conditionally upon it being true. Otherwise, your intended statement to me should be: "I doubt your [particular] facts. Can you provide additional information about your country's issues?"

To link to the Wikipedia page, see Sixties Scoop. There you will see:

The Sixties Scoop refers to a practice that occurred in Canada of taking, or "scooping up", Indigenous children from their families and communities for placement in foster homes or adoption. Despite the reference to one decade, the Sixties Scoop began in the late 1950s and persisted into the 1980s. It is estimated that a total of 20,000 aboriginal children were taken from their families and fostered or adopted out to primarily white middle-class families as part of the Sixties Scoop.

Note that the term 'taking' is used but not established of its own meaning. I happen to have been 'adopted' at birth. Does this mean I was 'taken' by default of being 'adopted'? If 'adoption' is used, it is a legitimate reference of what was accepted in law of a formal transference of some child to other parents. But the CLAIMS of those being 'scooped' implies a universal crime of which NEEDS to be established prior to the implicit injustice it is referencing.

I urge that if you doubt the facts, instead of asking questions that imply that I am BELIEVING the facts but am simply discriminating against those particular people because of something established, that you provide some simple evidence that establishes that 20,000 children, as claimed, were actually abused. Try even ONE case, for instance. Of course one would not be enough given there are 20,000 of them, right? So perhaps 100 cases of convicts who stole these children could be presented, right?

We also need to discuss what it would then mean to use the term 'genocide' as well as 'culture' that you refuse to accept is significant here not to mention, "don't care". This is NOT a kind of Holocaust denial here. We literally have no cases against particular perpetrators of such a widespread conspiracy, let alone to imply that 'taken' (if adoption is such) is itself consisting of intentional killing of something 'cultural'.

The 'crime' implicit here is THAT Natives were abused wholesale by attempting to teach them English (or French) and attempting to adjust them to modern settled society. Certain behaviors in the past regarding whether it is alright to walk into someone's home to help themselves to something one wants was the kind of distinctions of behaviors. These aren't merely subtle differences of 'culture' but of 'maturity' due to stages of developments, like how we might look at the behavior of children compared to adults within the same community.

For instance, if your child is not learning to speak your language, do you think it a crime to impose some tutor to address the problem? Do you think it abusive to force the child to learn to speak rather than let him or her speak their own independent tongues? Which would be more abusive....teaching your children to speak your language or leaving them alone to develop their own languages independently of your own understanding? Who should be the 'authority' of wisdom to decide here?: the children or the adults?

As such, if you WANT to determine something about this issue, or whether I am being unfairly biased (as some racist, for example) we first need to discuss what 'culture' is, what the accusation of "cultural genocide" mean by those using this term means.

Note that the example of The Sixties Scoop is only one of a few going on regarding adoption as a 'crime'. There is also the "Residential Schools" charges involved. I have no power to prove these actually exist or don't here. Every country has their own particular issues. But what matters is to the accusation (if it exists, given you may not have even heard of it) that there are those charging that outsiders to some group considered 'a culture' are asserting they are violently intent on destroying this. This is the topic,...not the particular cases that leads to them.

While I don't KNOW that you intend this with certainty, it is not productive for me to waste time on it with you when I know from past experiences that you explode with questions for each statement I say.

What do you mean by the use of the word 'explode'?

Do you call asking a clarifying question an 'explosion'?

What do you mean by "What"?

What then do you mean by "do"?

What do you mean by "you"?

What do you mean by "what do you mean"?
....


See, I can play the same game. What's your motive of asking if you do not care about the topic?

[Age]

If you do not care what 'culture' means, then I don't care to discuss this with you. This discussion on "Cultural Genocide" is about this topic and while you may feel entertainded to get me to respond to your own internal need to know something personally about myself, why should I serve to comply?

You NEVER 'had to'. If you did NOT wish to answer my question in the beginning, then just say so. I do NOT care if you did or not. But an Honest response from the outset would have been much more helpful and progressive from the start, instead of all of these deflective tactics to 'try to' not just answer the simple questions.

It doesn't 'entertain' me to discuss this with someone who actually doesn't care about the issue in question. I'm not here to compete against trolling behaviors.

Call any thing, any thing you want, to 'try to' NOT look at the Truth. But it is very obvious that I just asked you a simple clarifying question or two.

You can also use these attempts at two more EXCUSES to not answer my question. Again, I really do NOT care. If you do NOT want to be Honest, then I do NOT want you to answer anyway.

[A 'troll' is one who distracts the topic of discussion by preventing one from moving past some point in the discussion.]

That is but one definition.

And the definition which is exactly what you have done to NOT answer the question:

Do you not accept that native children have been forcibly taken away?

You 'TRIED', anyway, TO distract the topic of discussion by preventing from answering a clarifying question in regards to EXACT WHAT YOU WROTE in the discussion, so that we could then move past that. Some might even be considering by now that you have distracted this much by preventing from moving past some point in the discussion, so that we do NOT end up LOOKING AT what it is that you Truly WANTED TO get onto, which is some sort of RACIST REACTION to what is going on.

And we have discovered your own emotive justification to ask this odd question!

Who is the 'we', and what do you propose 'you' and 'them' have discovered? What do you think or believe is my own 'emotive justification' is exactly.

I asked you that to you "odd" question because I wanted to know if you did or did not accept that aboriginal children had been forcibly taken away? Considering the topic of this discussion it seems like a very relevant question to me, especially considering the actual words you have used in this discussion so far.

What does it mean to "accept that native children have been forcibly taken away" in context to what I stated?

It does not matter what it means to accept one way or another. Considering what you wrote I was just wondering if you did or did not accept that native children have been forcibly taken away? Your refusal to answer speaks for itself.

This is a question of fact of which no one can know without actual evidence and of which I already mentioned is NOT provided.

Well the evidence is there, but if you see or not just depends on if you want to look at it, and see it, or not.

The fact that you opted to ask this is begging of some meaning that I clearly asserted was NOT proven to be determined.

I do not understand this.

So your question is itself begging of your own internal assumptions unspoken of me until you stated this. I don't even know if you are Canadian and so to question something about particular facts that need greater attention of yours here is intentionally doubting of my opinion and state of morality prior to the context with bias.

I understand this less than the one above it.

I stated THAT there is no presented evidence to the general public to establish THAT such claimed universal abuses occurred in fact.

Yes that is what you may have stated.

But one does NOT need to LOOK to far to see the EVIDENCE and PROOF.

That requires actual particular charges in a criminal court to assert prior to accepting it as 'fact'.

If that is what 'you' NEED for 'facts', then that is what 'you' NEED.

Some just do NOT have to wait so long as 'you' do though.

If YOU doubt my own claim as 'fact', then present a counter evidence of my country's reality THAT such criminal cases have placed the offending perpetrators in court before you presume me lying. Otherwise, all you have to go on is my hearsay THAT this is occurring here in Canada, regardless if it is true or not. This topic here is against the meaning of some 'genocide' presumed to occur about some 'culture'. When I noted what occurs here, I have no knowledge about anyone's background here to provide shared certainty about the particulars. Thus my own statements of fact can only be presumed conditionally upon it being true. Otherwise, your intended statement to me should be: "I doubt your [particular] facts. Can you provide additional information about your country's issues?" [/quote]

Why and how would I doubt your particular 'facts' when I do NOT even know what you are going on about here. I honestly have NO idea what you are talking about here.

To link to the Wikipedia page, see Sixties Scoop. There you will see:

The Sixties Scoop refers to a practice that occurred in Canada of taking, or "scooping up", Indigenous children from their families and communities for placement in foster homes or adoption. Despite the reference to one decade, the Sixties Scoop began in the late 1950s and persisted into the 1980s. It is estimated that a total of 20,000 aboriginal children were taken from their families and fostered or adopted out to primarily white middle-class families as part of the Sixties Scoop.

Note that the term 'taking' is used but not established of its own meaning.

But the word 'taking' is established on its own meaning. Surely even you KNOW what 'taking' means, or if not you have a concept of what the word 'taking' means, right?

And, you would have a concept of what the word 'forcibly' also means, if I am not mistaken, correct?

Now, the fact is indigenous children were 'taken' from their families and communities, and the fact is children did not want this, therefore the fact is this 'taking' was 'forcibly'. So, now that that is finally resolved and over, can we now move on?

I happen to have been 'adopted' at birth. Does this mean I was 'taken' by default of being 'adopted'?

Well did your mother and/or father want you?

If not, then you were not 'taken'. You were 'handed over', and thus 'given away' and NOT 'taken', obviously.

However, if one or both of them wanted you, but you were 'taken' instead, then obviously you were 'taken'.

Surely you could have worked this out by "yourself", without having to ask me that question to answer it for you, correct?

If 'adoption' is used, it is a legitimate reference of what was accepted in law of a formal transference of some child to other parents.

But what is so called a "legitimate" reference and "accepted" in 'law' has nothing whatsoever to do with actually being 'taken'.

But the CLAIMS of those being 'scooped' implies a universal crime of which NEEDS to be established prior to the implicit injustice it is referencing.

Well if any one forcibly 'takes' a child from a parent, for cultural reasons, then this is obviously what you call a 'universal crime'. So, this is established.

I urge that if you doubt the facts, instead of asking questions that imply that I am BELIEVING the facts but am simply discriminating against those particular people because of something established, that you provide some simple evidence that establishes that 20,000 children, as claimed, were actually abused.[/quote]

Absolutely EVERY child IS ABUSED. So, just a miserable 20,000 or so children being abused is just a tiny speck in the whole picture of things.

Obviously forcibly taking children from parents is by its nature - ABUSE.

Try even ONE case, for instance. Of course one would not be enough given there are 20,000 of them, right? So perhaps 100 cases of convicts who stole these children could be presented, right?

Honestly I do NOT know what you want here. One minute you want the shared understanding of the definition of words before you will talk to me and answer my question, next you just straight onto things I have absolutely no interest in.

ALL-OF-THIS is very simple and very easy to understand.

If a child is 'taken' from their parents, then that is abuse.

What do you even think the word 'abuse' actually means?

We also need to discuss what it would then mean to use the term 'genocide' as well as 'culture' that you refuse to accept is significant here not to mention, "don't care".

Where is this distorted belief of yours coming from, where you see I am supposedly refusing to accept some thing or other?

If the Truth be KNOWN I do NOT even know what it is that I am supposed to be refusing to accept.

Do you even remember it was I who asked 'you'; Do you ACCEPT that aboriginal children were forcibly taken? and that it is YOU who has REFUSED to answer this question?

This is NOT a kind of Holocaust denial here. We literally have no cases against particular perpetrators of such a widespread conspiracy, let alone to imply that 'taken' (if adoption is such) is itself consisting of intentional killing of something 'cultural'.

Obviously when one culture moves into or onto the lands of "others" and "settles", and in the process forcibly 'takes' from the original inhabitants of that abode, their lands and/or their children, then it is essentially a 'forced change of culture', or in other words a 'cultural genocide'.

As I stated earlier 'you', human beings, can 'try' and words things anyway you want to and like to to 'try to' avoid the actual Truth of the WRONG things you have done. But eventually thee Truth of things comes out.

The 'crime' implicit here is THAT Natives were abused wholesale by attempting to teach them English (or French) and attempting to adjust them to modern settled society.

Okay, and the FACT is natives/aboriginals were ABUSED in the process. Why is it so hard to just accept what is obviously True and Real?

Certain behaviors in the past regarding whether it is alright to walk into someone's home to help themselves to something one wants was the kind of distinctions of behaviors. These aren't merely subtle differences of 'culture' but of 'maturity' due to stages of developments, like how we might look at the behavior of children compared to adults within the same community.

For instance, if your child is not learning to speak your language, do you think it a crime to impose some tutor to address the problem?

Completely off topic. If they are MY child, then how is what I impose on them even in the slightest bit of comparison what I impose on someone "else's" child, which I have 'taken' from them?

Do you think it abusive to force the child to learn to speak rather than let him or her speak their own independent tongues?

Yes.

Which would be more abusive....teaching your children to speak your language or leaving them alone to develop their own languages independently of your own understanding?

Abuse IS abuse. Abuse is WRONG no matter what.

Also, have you noticed how quick you have jumped to asking me emotive questions to 'try to' evoke responses in either me or the readers or both of us?

This could be seen as very hypocritical on your part considering just how much time and effort you have spend deflecting so that you did not have to just answer my two simple and open clarifying questions.

Who should be the 'authority' of wisdom to decide here?: the children or the adults?

What are you going on about now?

You started talking about some new terminology called 'cultural genocide' and now you have moved onto who has the wisdom to decide here? children or adults?

The Answer to this is ALREADY KNOWN and could be discussed, but at the rate you openly and honestly converse, I think the body that 'you' are in will be long decayed by then.

As such, if you WANT to determine something about this issue, or whether I am being unfairly biased (as some racist, for example)

How would we EVERY know just how racist 'you' ARE if you NEVER answer my simple straightforward clarifying question of: Do you accept aboriginal children were forcibly taken?

we first need to discuss what 'culture' is, what the accusation of "cultural genocide" mean by those using this term means.

Well I have already started discussing them. You, however, do you not respond to that and prefer to focus on other things instead.

Note that the example of The Sixties Scoop is only one of a few going on regarding adoption as a 'crime'. There is also the "Residential Schools" charges involved. I have no power to prove these actually exist or don't here. Every country has their own particular issues. But what matters is to the accusation (if it exists, given you may not have even heard of it) that there are those charging that outsiders to some group considered 'a culture' are asserting they are violently intent on destroying this. This is the topic,...not the particular cases that leads to them.

The aboriginal cultures have ALREADY been destroyed. This FACT has long passed and already over now. What is happening now, when this is written is the fact that those cultures have already been destroyed is 'trying to' to be forgotten and ignored by some, and what is left of those cultures now is wanted to be wiped out completely, by some, usually the same ones.

So, now that that has been answered, what is in question now?

While I don't KNOW that you intend this with certainty, it is not productive for me to waste time on it with you when I know from past experiences that you explode with questions for each statement I say.

What do you mean by the use of the word 'explode'?

Do you call asking a clarifying question an 'explosion'?

What do you mean by "What"?

What then do you mean by "do"?

What do you mean by "you"?

What do you mean by "what do you mean"?
....


See, I can play the same game. What's your motive of asking if you do not care about the topic?

So, you started this "game" by saying you could not answer my question unless you KNEW what the shared understanding was of the words being used, but when I question some thing for clarification so I can gain a better shared understanding of what you ACTUALLY MEAN, what you appear to do is then just ridicule process.

Are you actually able to have a discussion?

You keep saying things like; "We first NEED to discuss what 'culture' means or what 'cultural genocide' means". So, I start to discuss this alleged NEED by providing definitions of these and other words that you wanted definitions for, for meaning and for shared understanding of, but then you just disregard my definitions and meanings, and ignore them completely, only to repeat that: "We first NEED to discuss what the 'culture' word mean and what the accusation of 'cultural genocide' means. So, how about you START discussing what these things mean by responding to what they mean, to me?

I have already described what they mean, so what it is that you appear to be waiting for?

[Scott Mayers]

You 'TRIED', anyway, TO distract the topic of discussion by preventing from answering a clarifying question in regards to EXACT WHAT YOU WROTE in the discussion, so that we could then move past that. Some might even be considering by now that you have distracted this much by preventing from moving past some point in the discussion, so that we do NOT end up LOOKING AT what it is that you Truly WANTED TO get onto, which is some sort of RACIST REACTION to what is going on.

And we have discovered your own emotive justification to ask this odd question!

Who is the 'we', and what do you propose 'you' and 'them' have discovered? What do you think or believe is my own 'emotive justification' is exactly.

I asked you that to you "odd" question because I wanted to know if you did or did not accept that aboriginal children had been forcibly taken away? Considering the topic of this discussion it seems like a very relevant question to me, especially considering the actual words you have used in this discussion so far.

The who is 'we' or 'you' seems alright for you to use above [underlined] without me thinking nor confusing you as meaning that your point is shared by all. So I know that you understand how context isn't asserting any particular 'we' that you think I'm ganging up against you here. The use of 'we' is to anyone reading here ABLE to interpret your bias and is what the content of the enlargened content I emphasized above. That is, the content of accusing me of some "sort of RACIST REACTION" is your emotive interpretation, not something I imagined.

What does it mean to "accept that native children have been forcibly taken away" in context to what I stated?

It does not matter what it means to accept one way or another. Considering what you wrote I was just wondering if you did or did not accept that native children have been forcibly taken away? Your refusal to answer speaks for itself.

No, my content clearly specified my disagreement of native children being 'taken' (derogatorily) and your interest in asking it when it was already understood by my stance against the accusation is intended to rhetorically imply that I am merely not 'accepting' that they were 'taken' (derogatorily) as a matter of fact . The term in context to the accusation of cultural genocide is that white people kidnapped the children -- as such would be a derogatory meaning of 'taken' rather than the mere neutral meaning of what is 'taken'. It would be like I offered you money and then later told others that you '"took money" from me, which, while technically true, it implies you stole it. It is obvious that if I gave you money and you accepted it, you 'took' it from me. But without the context, the asserting of 'taking' money from me absent of the understanding of me 'giving' voluntarily would imply you stole it. The same goes with your question and the to the concern of the accusations of white people 'taking' their children.

This is a question of fact of which no one can know without actual evidence and of which I already mentioned is NOT provided.

Well the evidence is there, but if you see or not just depends on if you want to look at it, and see it, or not.

Okay, now you are positing that Natives were 'taken' (with the implicit derogatory meaning of 'stolen' or 'kidnapped'). Thus, now the onus is on you to provide such evidence. See, ...I knew what you were getting at by your rhetorical question. And you just provided the proof of your deception. Please provide the evidence of the crimes of Native children kidnapped. And ask yourself what interest you think the adoptees had in mind? What value is it for parental adoptees to desire Native children against the will of the parents? Given this was a derogatory act as assumed, what function does it serve to adopt and take on the burden of raising other people's children of a class of people they presumed were less than themselves? Slavery? Did they think of them as cute pets to adore? These can and do exist. But would the intention of adoption where legal be criminal? And if so, why are none of these criminals being charged?

The fact that you opted to ask this is begging of some meaning that I clearly asserted was NOT proven to be determined.

I do not understand this.

I asserted that the accusations regarding cultural genocide are untrue of the general population outside of particular government preferences to hand them over to religious organizations to manage. The charges of abuses, however possible, are (1) not backed by actual charges against particular people NOR the religious organizations and (2) if true, it would imply a massive conspiracy of people in which many numbers of people should be everywhere. We live in a time here in Canada where actual people are being accused openly regardless of any assumption of innocence on many areas. But it is absent in the actual cases of the supposed systematic abuses by invisible perpetrators.

So, if you believe the charges true, who particularly are the guilty. Is there a list?

What you may be unaware of is that our Supreme Court literally prevented the exposure of the potential guilty parties due to a protection of the churches involved, ...similar to how the Catholic Churches have prevented access to internal knowledge of abuses by priests. Because here the Catholic Church and all other 'friendly' assignments to other Christian churces under their oversight is Constitutionally protected, the decision to quickly settle in a 'final' agreement was intentionally decided politically to transfer any burden over to the taxpayer rather than the potential guilty parties....where they existed. Because they didn't WANT the exposure, they agreed to pay off all Natives without actual charges if they agreed NOT to say who specifically abused them. They were granted a right to speak publically about the abuses (minus particular names of particular abuses) as part of the acceptance of the money benefits offered. All that any Native required to get this money was to assert they have gone to one of these schools (for the Residential School cases) or that they were adopted to white families.

PLEASE provide the evidence you think justifies ACTUAL abuses universally existent if you doubt me on this. It shouldn't be hard given the numbers, right?

And then let's get to your own underlying opinion about whether "cultural genocide" is a reality. We (general 'we') can already gamble that genocides have occurred and that many would like to crush certain common behaviors called, 'culture'. But the accusation of "cultural genocide" is like what people might collectively opt to destroy of derogatory behaviors, like rape, given many consider this a 'culture' too. But in context to a 'cultural genocide" the implication is that some race of people are assumed to intrinsically own some environmental behavior simply for being of that race and that others want to destroy the behavior due to a hatred of the particular people assumed to have proprietary rights to claim the behavior.

Do you think that if one has Native genetics who is adopted to a white family have some internal 'culture' assigned to do Pow Wows or have some intrinsic closer connection to plants and animals and the Earth over non-Natives and that such white families raising such children are abusing them for NOT having this known and taught to them?

[Scott Mayers]

You keep saying things like; "We first NEED to discuss what 'culture' means or what 'cultural genocide' means". So, I start to discuss this alleged NEED by providing definitions of these and other words that you wanted definitions for, for meaning and for shared understanding of, but then you just disregard my definitions and meanings, and ignore them completely, only to repeat that: "We first NEED to discuss what the 'culture' word mean and what the accusation of 'cultural genocide' means. So, how about you START discussing what these things mean by responding to what they mean, to me?

I have already described what they mean, so what it is that you appear to be waiting for?

I have too much to read AND I also write detailed responses. As such, if you place any responses a mile into one post, I cannot even get to it. The acceleration of lengthy irrelevancy is preventing us from getting anywhere. If you wanted clarity, you would have accepted my request to restart using MY given definitions. You didn't accept nor deny but insisted that I answer your prior questions with priority immediately regardless without those steps. If you 'started' your own definition later somewhere, I missed it in the mess but would still miss them knowing you have uncertain respect for my own definitions proposed. If I am the one proposing something to which you are confused about, then I own the right to define the terms you are confused about. If I go by what you WANT to define differently, you are attempting to control the stage with the capacity to undefine my own arguments using your terms.

Let "age" be defined as "youth". Then because you are of some age, you must be young.

If I want to question something you posit, you have the right to define your words so that I can understand you; when you want to understand something I say, I should define the terms I intend you to understand of my own arguments. If we are attempting neutral grounds, then I (or you) propose a definition and ask whether the other agrees to use it or not.