Are the rules clear here?

Talk about the debates as they progress and after they conclude.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Clancy wrote: In your dreams, posh frock, Stop trying to groom me.

It's never gonna happen.I tell you, if you lean your head back at the right angle while other people in the room are talking, there's a distinct echo to go with the steady background drip as stalagtites grow. You'll get a Grade 2 listing in a few years, that's my bet.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Clancy wrote: You're a gaylord. and I can say that with some conviction, because some of sisters friends are knob-jockeys so I know the lingo…...you old trouser banditI may be a bit nance but the palones get all the attention they could dream of when I'm up for it.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Clancy wrote: Lets face it, anyone who's male...... young, gifted and beige, Your on the pullEven in a dress, if she's slightly butch and playful. And I quite like women too.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Clancy wrote: I knew it. Take one man, one obsession and he'll find a way to justify it.It's smells that trigger me. Awesome things happen when I'm brought within five feet of a dab of lavender water, for example. I'm your sensitive type, me.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Nomad »

Ray your trying to debate about how to debate ? Is your chest all puffed up ? Having a little problem with your ego today ? Slamming people from the get go when your not even talking about anything yet is the sign of someone thats just looking for a fight. Did you want to debate something or just aggravate ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
User avatar
cherandbuster
Posts: 8594
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by cherandbuster »

Nomad wrote: Ray your trying to debate about how to debate ? Is your chest all puffed up ? Having a little problem with your ego today ? Slamming people from the get go when your not even talking about anything yet is the sign of someone thats just looking for a fight. Did you want to debate something or just aggravate ?


*stands behind Nomad cheering him on*
Live Life with

PASSION
!:guitarist





Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

Nomad wrote: Ray your trying to debate about how to debate ? Is your chest all puffed up ? Having a little problem with your ego today ? Slamming people from the get go when your not even talking about anything yet is the sign of someone thats just looking for a fight. Did you want to debate something or just aggravate ?


Aggravate? Not really.. just asking.. when the form of debate comes down to a dialog that sounds as if it were spawned by one congressman asking his venerable and well respected brother whos panties smell of roses and lilacs why they agree on everything.. it seems like a waste of time.

That is exactly what this structured debate is.. correct me if I am wrong.

Raymond
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Captain Ray wrote: Aggravate? Not really.. just asking.. when the form of debate comes down to a dialog that sounds as if it were spawned by one congressman asking his venerable and well respected brother whos panties smell of roses and lilacs why they agree on everything.. it seems like a waste of time.

That is exactly what this structured debate is.. correct me if I am wrong.You're entirely correct, Ray. Your description of the debate structure within this particular forum is pithy, apposite and exact. We structured it this way to allow debaters to make a point, to comment on the other participants' views and to subsequently sum up with no possibility of interjections or thread shift. There are many styles of discussion on bulletin boards and this is an insignificant bywater.

The essence of debate is, in my opinion, while missing out no essential aspect of the matter under consideration, to put forward verifiable facts which tend toward supporting a stated conclusion. I see no benefit in expressing an opinion if it has no evidential ground to bear its weight. I have seen very heavy opinions expressed elsewhere on this board from people who have no interest whatever in underpinning their conclusions with reasoned argument. Engaging people under those terms seems masochistic. Why should anyone regard my opinion if it's unsupported? Why, in turn, should I regard theirs? If neither regards the other's as worthy, why express the opinions at all?

The rules here allow a reasoned statement of a person's position. Once it has been expressed, it is open to critical analysis. In the light of the criticism, there is a single final opportunity to clear up misconceptions which may have been exposed. That's it, nothing egotistical, no winners and losers, merely a record of the examined facts. The parallel discussion thread allows anyone else to discuss the topic in any way they like, just as we are discussing the debate structure in this thread which you so kindly raised for us.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

spot wrote: You're entirely correct, Ray. Your description of the debate structure within this particular forum is pithy, apposite and exact. We structured it this way to allow debaters to make a point, to comment on the other participants' views and to subsequently sum up with no possibility of interjections or thread shift. There are many styles of discussion on bulletin boards and this is an insignificant bywater.

The essence of debate is, in my opinion, while missing out no essential aspect of the matter under consideration, to put forward verifiable facts which tend toward supporting a stated conclusion. I see no benefit in expressing an opinion if it has no evidential ground to bear its weight. I have seen very heavy opinions expressed elsewhere on this board from people who have no interest whatever in underpinning their conclusions with reasoned argument. Engaging people under those terms seems masochistic. Why should anyone regard my opinion if it's unsupported? Why, in turn, should I regard theirs? If neither regards the other's as worthy, why express the opinions at all?

The rules here allow a reasoned statement of a person's position. Once it has been expressed, it is open to critical analysis. In the light of the criticism, there is a single final opportunity to clear up misconceptions which may have been exposed. That's it, nothing egotistical, no winners and losers, merely a record of the examined facts. The parallel discussion thread allows anyone else to discuss the topic in any way they like, just as we are discussing the debate structure in this thread which you so kindly raised for us.


Well that's why I was asking... I just wanted to know what the rules were!?

Raymond
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Captain Ray wrote: Well that's why I was asking... I just wanted to know what the rules were!?I regret that my thread post at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=9 was inadequate information, then. As, I expect, do the rest of the posters here.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

I dunno'.. I don't think I can do it.. I am familiar with the "Robert's Rules of Order " which is used in my local AMVETS meetings.. seldom followed to the letter though.. we try...

The problem is, IMO, on an internet forum.. who is the chair? How can we expect that person to regulate the exchange? If I ask you sir.. to bring a motion before the group, how will you do that exactly? I don't think it can be done.

I am not necessarily agreeing to your terms.. but I will try.

I have saved your rules in my favorites, and will look to them in my responses.

Could be interesting.

Raymond
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Captain Ray wrote: I dunno'.. I don't think I can do it.. I am familiar with the "Robert's Rules of Order " which is used in my local AMVETS meetings.. seldom followed to the letter though.. we try...

The problem is, IMO, on an internet forum.. who is the chair? How can we expect that person to regulate the exchange? If I ask you sir.. to bring a motion before the group, how will you do that exactly? I don't think it can be done.

I am not necessarily agreeing to your terms.. but I will try.

I have saved your rules in my favorites, and will look to them in my responses.

Could be interesting.

RaymondIn what way do you feel we require regulation? The rules are predominantly effective in the number of permitted posts in the debate thread, and the order in which they are posted. What you do within your posts is entirely your own affair, as is your view of the final outcome.

Rules of order have effect when a speech can be interrupted, there's no equivalent moment in the construction of a post within a thread.

Had you a topic in mind?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

Lots of topics.. naturally..

But I am still in the process of trying to figure out how this whole thing works.

So, in the "Watch" section.. the "debate" occurs.. point, counter point, things to consider, etc..

In the "Discuss" section.. a more free flowing exchange is allowed.. which is why my "something silly" thread probably doesn't belong there, because it does not address any particular debate currently being discussed in the "Watch" forum. (Still.. it's kind of a fun discussion.)

In the "Propose" section.. Ideas for new topics, the number of participants, and guidelines for topics to be put into the "Watch" section are discussed..



Is that anywhere close to correct? So, basically there will be three separate threads in three separate forums for every topic?

Raymond
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Nomad »

Ill throw a topic to be discussed in the ring and you guys can battle it out. Okee dokee ?





Here goes





The ethical/unethical treatment of the American Indian civilization during expansionism.
I AM AWESOME MAN
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

Captain Ray wrote: Is that anywhere close to correct? So, basically there will be three separate threads in three separate forums for every topic?That seems likely, yes. The sole restriction I can see in the rules is the number of posts allowed, and the order of the posters, to any thread in "Watch".Nomad wrote:

The ethical/unethical treatment of the American Indian civilization during expansionism.I for one would feel inadequately informed to discuss such a matter, but that's never stopped me in the past. You'd need three other warm bodies beside mine to get it up and running.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by chonsigirl »

spot wrote: That seems likely, yes. The sole restriction I can see in the rules is the number of posts allowed, and the order of the posters, to any thread in "Watch".I for one would feel inadequately informed to discuss such a matter, but that's never stopped me in the past. You'd need three other warm bodies beside mine to get it up and running.


I would debate on the issue Nomad proposed......................

On the side for the Indians.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

chonsigirl wrote: I would debate on the issue Nomad proposed......................

On the side for the Indians.I was wondering whether anyone would wish to stand against their interests and treatment. Do many people feel their treatment was justifiable and say so?
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by chonsigirl »

Maybe if you made the topic, Manifest Destiny-pros and cons of it.

You would bring out the side of the Native Americans.

You would bring out the side on expansionism, and why it was necessary.



The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....Mr. Spock, Star Trek II
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

I would sign on to that debate..

unfortunately, I would point out what a sweet deal the Native American Indians got out of it... Of course the Indians of that day weren't treated very well; but they sure are livin' large now!! T

That opinion would not cover the era of "expansionism," and would not fall into that era very well.. the fact that they a reaping great rewards now is probably not a very comforting thought to those families who's grandmas and grandpa's suffered...

this would be a tough one...

Raymond
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by koan »

It is most interesting to take the side of ethical treatment, ethics is a fascinating subject. Historically, when land is lost to a foreign power the losers were slaughtered en masse, babies thrown from the roof and women turned to slaves. The Natives lost their land and were allowed to live.

Unfortunately, I'd need time I don't have to build my case. Too much else to be written at the moment.

Not to be said that I agree with the Capt. I near put him on ignore. Another reason to avoid the debate. I shudder at the thought of relying on any skill in his methods.
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by chonsigirl »

Captain Ray wrote: I would sign on to that debate..

unfortunately, I would point out what a sweet deal the Native American Indians got out of it... Of course the Indians of that day weren't treated very well; but they sure are livin' large now!! T

That opinion would not cover the era of "expansionism," and would not fall into that era very well.. the fact that they a reaping great rewards now is probably not a very comforting thought to those families who's grandmas and grandpa's suffered...

this would be a tough one...

Raymond
Yes, the Natives were allowed to live. But shall we go into percentages of deaths caused by disease, malnutrition and warfare? Forced removal, paternalism, termination policy, I could go on and on. Please do not tempt me to, my doctorate is in Native American history.

I find it very harsh Captain, that you think they are living the good life now. It is not the life they once had or ever will again. Their original land holdings are gone, their lifestyle and customs have changed greatly, and many tribes and bands remain unrecognized here in the United States to this day.

As far as gaming goes, that is an issue in itself. But I do personally know of many tribes that when they began the casinos, had for the first time in their lives paved roads, electricity, and medical services. Do you have paved roads, and running water? It is a service you expect, but they were not even allowed this. These commodities are available to even the poorest of United States citizens, but when granted citizenship in 1924 the Native Americans did not receive full benefits as the rest of the populace. Their status remains in limbo in many ways to this day, and the specialized laws created just for them an issue to this day.

I do not think that is the life they would have chosen.
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

Whether they chose the life they live or not.. that's the life they live.. and they have it pretty good from where I sit. Most live on pensions provided by their collective.. they do not work, nor do they produce anything.. just a convenient tax shelter they call reservations...

(Oh.. and KOAN, put me on your ignore list.. it doesn't affect me one way or another...)

The disease and hardships were hardly a manifestation of the white man coming in and making good use of the land.. the average elder of Indians seldom lived past 30 years old. They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.

Raymond
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by chonsigirl »

Captain Ray wrote: Whether they chose the life they live or not.. that's the life they live.. and they have it pretty good from where I sit. Most live on pensions provided by their collective.. they do not work, nor do they produce anything.. just a convenient tax shelter they call reservations...

(Oh.. and KOAN, put me on your ignore list.. it doesn't affect me one way or another...)

The disease and hardships were hardly a manifestation of the white man coming in and making good use of the land.. the average elder of Indians seldom lived past 30 years old. They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.

Raymond
Dear Captain Ray:

You and I have different perspectives of civilizations. You are only looking at this from the “white” rose colored glasses. You are making judgmental comments about another ethnic group.

Quick comments on your reply:

1. “Most live on pensions provided by their collective” False. Some Native Americans are partners in the revenues produced by their reservations, if they participate in the process. Otherwise, they must work for themselves and not entitled to them. Most revenues go towards improvements on the reservations, educational and medical needs, housing, etc.

2. “they do not work, nor do they produce anything..” False. They do work, and they are very productive. The majority of reservations/rancherias are self-sufficient, with very little government funding. And, this government funding the majority of the time is taken out of their own tribal funds, in the United States Treasury.

3. “a convenient tax shelter they call reservations” Their land is theirs, and is subject to tribal law, as well in particular instances federal and state. You would have to be more specific in your accusations if you want appropriate court cases, although I will refer you to McClanahan v Arizona, 411 U.S. 164.

4. “The disease and hardships were hardly a manifestation of the white man coming in and making good use of the land” False. Disease was definitely spread by the white incursions into the Americas. It is a fact. There was no smallpox, measles, cholera, diphtheria, until Europeans came here. Good use of the land, according to whom? It was their land, and put to good use. The white version of it is different, two diverse cultures. That is judgmental on your part.

5. “the average elder of Indians seldom lived past 30 years old” Life expectancy for the average European was not much better at the same time, and I would put it closer to 40 years.

6. “They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.” Your prejudiced comment speaks for itself.

Chonsi
Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Jives »

buttercup wrote: if you see the garden as a school playground you cant go far wrong ;)


ROFLMAO!! You're killin' me, Buttercup!:wah:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by koan »

Captain Ray wrote:

(Oh.. and KOAN, put me on your ignore list.. it doesn't affect me one way or another...)




Done. :) When I desire to argue about whether or not a pig is a pig I will call on you.
User avatar
cherandbuster
Posts: 8594
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by cherandbuster »

chonsigirl wrote: Dear Captain Ray:

You and I have different perspectives of civilizations. You are only looking at this from the “white” rose colored glasses. You are making judgmental comments about another ethnic group.

Quick comments on your reply:

1. “Most live on pensions provided by their collective” False. Some Native Americans are partners in the revenues produced by their reservations, if they participate in the process. Otherwise, they must work for themselves and not entitled to them. Most revenues go towards improvements on the reservations, educational and medical needs, housing, etc.

2. “they do not work, nor do they produce anything..” False. They do work, and they are very productive. The majority of reservations/rancherias are self-sufficient, with very little government funding. And, this government funding the majority of the time is taken out of their own tribal funds, in the United States Treasury.

3. “a convenient tax shelter they call reservations” Their land is theirs, and is subject to tribal law, as well in particular instances federal and state. You would have to be more specific in your accusations if you want appropriate court cases, although I will refer you to McClanahan v Arizona, 411 U.S. 164.

4. “The disease and hardships were hardly a manifestation of the white man coming in and making good use of the land” False. Disease was definitely spread by the white incursions into the Americas. It is a fact. There was no smallpox, measles, cholera, diphtheria, until Europeans came here. Good use of the land, according to whom? It was their land, and put to good use. The white version of it is different, two diverse cultures. That is judgmental on your part.

5. “the average elder of Indians seldom lived past 30 years old” Life expectancy for the average European was not much better at the same time, and I would put it closer to 40 years.

6. “They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.” Your prejudiced comment speaks for itself.

Chonsi


Chonsi

Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate post on the subject. :)
Live Life with

PASSION
!:guitarist





User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Nomad »

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....Mr. Spock, Star Trek II__________________

Oh grasshopper





youve come so far





and yet your pebbles are few
I AM AWESOME MAN
User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by BabyRider »

Captain Ray wrote: Whether they chose the life they live or not.. that's the life they live.. and they have it pretty good from where I sit. Most live on pensions provided by their collective.. they do not work, nor do they produce anything.. just a convenient tax shelter they call reservations...



(Oh.. and KOAN, put me on your ignore list.. it doesn't affect me one way or another...)



The disease and hardships were hardly a manifestation of the white man coming in and making good use of the land.. the average elder of Indians seldom lived past 30 years old. They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.



Raymond
As one of these "disease ridden" people in need of "civilizing" (what....were we barbarians???), I find your comments incredibly offensive, and not to mention....ASS-BACKWARDS. Do some research before you spout off about something you're obviously not educated in. Tell me...what do you know about the way Native Americans lived? What do you know of their culture?



Thanks for your post, Chonsi.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

babyrider wrote: (what....were we barbarians???)


"We" were barbarians.. at one time.. but we progressed. While Native American Indians did not. The societies they created were stagnant.

They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.


This seems to be the sentence that has raised the ire of some of you.. it's true.. even if it pisses you off.

The last incarnation of the Native American Indian was not even as advanced as the societies that had fashioned a manger that the baby Jesus was to be born in.

Greece had developed the written word, Rome had traveled the the then known planet, Islam had developed a system of numbers that include the concept of Zero, Hippocrates had laid the foundation of medicine, Copernicus had set the stage for an understanding of the Universe, Shakespeare had written the prose that allowed us to consider that "all the worlds a stage.. we are merely players."

Van Gogh had expressed his sadness, Michelangelo glorified the lamb on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Mendeleiev had invented the periodic tables, Einstein had discovered the speed of light... Browning invented the modern version of the repeater....

The whole while, Native American Indians had done nothing.. but suffer through the winter, and binge during the summer. They advanced in medicine, science, Architecture, art, music, or anything else, not one wit in two thousand years!

I guess my definition of a "back wards" society is one that includes a society that cannot move ahead.

Raymond
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Bill Sikes »

Captain Ray wrote: "We" were barbarians.. at one time.. but we progressed. While Native American Indians did not. The societies they created were stagnant.


I think that, like most "societies", they were slowly moving forward. It would have

been interesting to see what would have happened eventually.



Captain Ray wrote: The last incarnation of the Native American Indian was not even as advanced as the societies that had fashioned a manger that the baby Jesus was to be born in."

"The last incarnation"... please explain.



Captain Ray wrote: "Greece had developed the written word, Rome had traveled the the then known planet, Islam had developed a system of numbers that include the concept of Zero, Hippocrates had laid the foundation of medicine, Copernicus had set the stage for an understanding of the Universe, Shakespeare had written the prose that allowed us to consider that "all the worlds a stage.. we are merely players."


That's all Europe. What about the other "non-developing" "societies", such as

the Incas, the Chinese, Japanese, etc.; the Australian aborigines, and so on?



[QUOTE=Captain Ray]The whole while, Native American Indians had done nothing.. but suffer through the winter, and binge during the summer. They advanced in medicine, science, Architecture, art, music, or anything else, not one wit in two thousand years!

What "society" did not? No-one progressed straight from the ape to the

civilised man.



[QUOTE=Captain Ray]I guess my definition of a "back wards" society is one that includes a society that cannot move ahead.


Are you deliberately trying to set up another yank-bashing thread?
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

The Incas had advanced mightily, before their demise.. the Chinese and Japanese too, were/are advancing. The Aborigines? They are more on par with the stagnant societies that were the Native American Indian. Thank goodness that Europe exiled all their criminals to that continent, so that some use could be made of those natural resources.

"The last incarnation"... please explain."

Before the white man came along.

I'm not trying to bash anyone.. just stating the facts as I know them.

Raymond
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by chonsigirl »

Your take on the facts is skewed, Captain Ray. You judge what is a civilization by your criteria.

“"We" were barbarians.. at one time.. but we progressed. While Native American Indians did not. The societies they created were stagnant.”

False. Their societies evolved and change. One example is the introduction of the horse into the Americas. They utilized this fine commodity very well, and it became an integral part of their culture.

Also, their adaptation to their particular environment is a sign of change. So many diverse groups, able to live and survive among different ecological regions.



“The whole while, Native American Indians had done nothing.. but suffer through the winter, and binge during the summer.”

It shows great foresight on the part of Native Americans to prepare for hard times. I assume you do not have a bank account, or something stashed away for a rainy day?

That is called foresight, Captain.

And, I will also assume you never were invited to a holiday meal, or party, and indulged yourself now and again?



“They were a disease ridden, backward people long before the white man came along to civilize them.”



“This seems to be the sentence that has raised the ire of some of you.. it's true.. even if it pisses you off.”

It has already been proven to be false, so I will not return to it. People are allowed to hold prejudiced opinions if they so desire.



“I guess my definition of a "back wards" society is one that includes a society that cannot move ahead.”

Yes, it is YOUR definition, not others, Captain Ray. Just the use of the word “backward is degrading, because it implies yours is better. And, it is not.

And yes, you are trying to bash them, with the statements you have made.
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

Well.. then I am bashing them.. it's still the truth.

Chonsigirl wrote: False. Their societies evolved and change. One example is the introduction of the horse into the Americas. They utilized this fine commodity very well, and it became an integral part of their culture.




That's not exactly true.. but it does serve my point well.



Equini branched several times in North America:

Pliohippus lived in N. America from 14.5 — 6 MYA (Pliocene) during a time of expanding plains and grasses and rapid branching and evolution of horse-species

Pliohippus gradually gave rise to Dinohippus, which lived in N. America 8 — 5 MYA, which gave rise to Equus which is the modern horse genus.

In the Early Pleistocene (3 mya) horses spread to Eurasia over the Bering land bridge, displacing earlier Hipparion ancestors there and gave rise to modern horses in the north and zebras and asses in hotter climes

top



North American horses disappeared around 8,000 - 10,000 years ago. Multiple factors including hunting by early Natives, climate change, and disease are thought to have helped contribute to their demise.




That's right.. they ate them! (I've been to Spain.. Horse doesn't taste all that bad..) The RE-introduction of the horse in N. America was once again a benefit that "whitey" brought with them. The Native American Indian did not progress in this regard, but were prodded along.

You can marvel at the quaintness of this stagnated culture if you wish. They still offered nothing to mankind as a whole as near as I can tell. They were a dying culture, with no hope of offering anything but a keen ability of 50% or so... to make it through another winter with no electricity...

Raymond
User avatar
spot
Posts: 38616
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Are the rules clear here?

Post by spot »

What you see here at work is someone deliberately needling people for as long as he feels inclined on a topic he has predetermined to be emotive. I suggest that this exchange as it stands now provides good justification for the formatted structure of the debate area, where an absolute pre-agreed postcount limit stops this open-endedness while still gathering the argument. I'm all in favor of exchanging or challenging facts and analysing the conclusions.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
Captain Ray
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm

Are the rules clear here?

Post by Captain Ray »

Hey man.. I didn't bring up all these side topics.. I just responded to them. I kind of like your idea of having structured debate.. that's why I was asking what the rules were.

The side topics are fun to me.. so I respond. I am not responding with utter BS, I am telling you, (and whoever chooses to read..) what the facts are as I see them. I am more than happy to source my material, and back-up whatever it is that I say. I have opinions, and those opinions are based on facts.

I just love it when people say things like "that was shown to be utterly false" when nothing could be further from the truth. Those that can't deal with truth always fall back on this unsubstantiated claim.. it's funny really.

But.. If this thread has lost it's usefulness to you.. I don't know why you don't just lock it.. it's long since strayed away from my question.

Raymond
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by chonsigirl »

May I ask what you see as fun in bashing an ethnic group?

It has already been shown you do not want facts, you ignore them.

I do feel sorry for you, that you can not view another culture and find somthing positive about them. That shows a closed mind, so I do not think you would make a good debate candidate anyway.
User avatar
cherandbuster
Posts: 8594
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am

Are the rules clear here?

Post by cherandbuster »

Go Chonsi! :guitarist
Live Life with

PASSION
!:guitarist





Return to “Discuss”