Land dispute: US vs Onondaga for New York state

[P7PSP]

Okay sg I'll accept that explanation.   

Your question about whether this is a place for nazi's came across to me as a tacit accusation* that it is such a place.

You directly calling Parts ignorant for not agreeing with your point of view is just ridiculous IMO. http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant Parts is a crappy speller but he is not even close to being destitute of education or knowledge. He is a big boy though and can deal with any bad impression of him that you may have on his own. I will leave that between you two. You are free to consider him ignorant or stupid if that suits you.



*There have been a couple of members here with some beliefs in common with nazi beliefs and admiration of Hitler. And by a couple I actually mean two that I am aware of. Neither is active here right now and one was banned. That does not make this place White Aryan Resistance or any thing like it. People do not get banned from here for expressing such beliefs.

But, speaking kindly of people does produce results, plus I am an outsider I can only give a compassionate outsiders understanding because there's a lot of ignorance and bigotry surrounding these issues. You never know when racism slips in. Our popular and political culture is teaming with it so its hard to pry from (even well-meaning allies make silly comments and assertions). But, you will find (perhaps), if you get me talking on issues relating to other communities I will likely talk as kind.

From my own perspective Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black racists played out the dreaded R word decades back. If you are intent on reading racism into something you probably will find it. Early 2000 was the last time someone called me racist and it was because he was losing an argument. My response was something to the effect of No I am not! And just to prove it I will agree with everything you say! At that point he had a shocked look on his face and I followed up with Yeah that is just what you want me to do isn't it?

Cornel West was the first person that I am aware of to make the claim that because of lack of institutional power that blacks are inherently incapable of being racist and bring that claim to the notice of the general public, back in the 1970s IIRC. Smells like bs to me, Colin Ferguson is no less racist than Joseph Paul Franklin. Here is a younger version of West making that same claim. I don't give any credence to such merde.   

[sg1008]

Okay sg I'll accept that explanation.   

Your question about whether this is a place for nazi's came across to me as a tacit accusation* that it is such a place.

You directly calling Parts ignorant for not agreeing with your point of view is just ridiculous IMO. http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant Parts is a crappy speller but he is not even close to being destitute of education or knowledge. He is a big boy though and can deal with any bad impression of him that you may have on his own. I will leave that between you two. You are free to consider him ignorant or stupid if that suits you.



*There have been a couple of members here with some beliefs in common with nazi beliefs and admiration of Hitler. And by a couple I actually mean two that I am aware of. Neither is active here right now and one was banned. That does not make this place White Aryan Resistance or any thing like it. People do not get banned from here for expressing such beliefs.

But, speaking kindly of people does produce results, plus I am an outsider I can only give a compassionate outsiders understanding because there's a lot of ignorance and bigotry surrounding these issues. You never know when racism slips in. Our popular and political culture is teaming with it so its hard to pry from (even well-meaning allies make silly comments and assertions). But, you will find (perhaps), if you get me talking on issues relating to other communities I will likely talk as kind.

From my own perspective Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black racists played out the dreaded R word decades back. If you are intent on reading racism into something you probably will find it. Early 2000 was the last time someone called me racist and it was because he was losing an argument. My response was something to the effect of No I am not! And just to prove it I will agree with everything you say! At that point he had a shocked look on his face and I followed up with Yeah that is just what you want me to do isn't it?

Cornel West was the first person that I am aware of to make the claim that because of lack of institutional power that blacks are inherently incapable of being racist and bring that claim to the notice of the general public, back in the 1970s IIRC. Smells like bs to me, Colin Ferguson is no less racist than Joseph Paul Franklin. Here is a younger version of West making that same claim. I don't give any credence to such merde.   

I have to admit I got a little over excited. If I called him ignorant, it was due to the ignorant remark, but I don't think he's ignorant or stupid. I dislike such remarks because it gives little to respond on and I can therefore only can assume it's part of a stereotype. And, of course I got angry (thinking of it as such)...but as I was repressing cursing myself away (anger mngmt may be needed), nazi is what came out. My bad.

Recently...I discovered some really disturbing things about US history pertaining to medical experimentation, and for the past few days I have been thinking "they were as bad as nazi's" over and over and over. Not trying to justify anything, just explaining I don't actually think this is a place of nazis (everyone has been really nice), it's just been on my mind.

As far as racism goes, no one is immune to it truly. It's a really complex thing...can take the form of assumptions, generalizations, not just harassment or exploitation...and not even always negative. But pop culture really does a number on people- to give an example: it's common for blacks to actually be racist against blacks, or to have a sort of self-hate. That's something that develops unless a family can intervene and talk to them about race at a young age, and teach them positive things about themselves and their race.

The joke is, white people don't generally have to take lessons in liking their race, and many take it for granted. Then it becomes an issue of privilege....and thats where racism gets murky because not everyone is equal and it's hard to explain that race has to do with that (when the presumption is that we are equal), and yet also explain it has not to do with character, just the way things are set up.

I really believe it's an "everyone's a victim" type of thing and there is a huge misconception that facing the facts means you have to feel shame, or dislike yourself, or have to admit your lowly or whatnot. No, it's the opposite actually. Facing facts is empowering for anyone, and it gains them a lot of respect and camaraderie. Like Parts said, we all have been wronged somewhere down the line. We all have something to share, it's just a matter of being respectful of another's point of view. See what I am saying?

Edit: I do not consider stereotypes as a point of view...they are more like points of blindness.

[sg1008]

Oh lol, I just realized something. I use "ignorant" in the way southerners (from US) use it. I used to think it was a black thing, until an old white lady from the south used it and we busted out laughing. Then she said it was a southern thing cause her husband, old indian dude from the northwest, looked at us funny, and I realized it's cause american blacks are from the south. lol

[P7PSP]

I have to admit I got a little over excited. If I called him ignorant, it was due to the ignorant remark, but I don't think he's ignorant or stupid. I dislike such remarks because it gives little to respond on and I can therefore only can assume it's part of a stereotype. And, of course I got angry (thinking of it as such)...but as I was repressing cursing myself away (anger mngmt may be needed), nazi is what came out. My bad.

It happens. I used to get set off easier when I was younger. I am 53 now and less inclined to snap but I can still be a dick. How old are you? That is a genuine query not an attempt to make my POV matter more than yours because of age. I see young aspies at the M.I.N.D. Institute meetings and sometimes I can see a difference in how we deal with things and certain things took decades for me to get better at. If you have any such meetings available it might be worth checking out.

Recently...I discovered some really disturbing things about US history pertaining to medical experimentation, and for the past few days I have been thinking "they were as bad as nazi's" over and over and over. Not trying to justify anything, just explaining I don't actually think this is a place of nazis (everyone has been really nice), it's just been on my mind.

When I first heard of the Tuskegee study I seriously thought it was paranoia from black nationalists. When I looked into it and confirmed to my satisfaction that it was true I was repulsed. Before antibiotics were used to cure syphilis heavy metals were used and were effective. They had bad side effects but the cure was still better than the disease. The benefits of that study confirming all the bad things that happen in tertiary stage, like hole in the soft palate, paresis etc are interesting but entirely fucking unconscionable. Unfortunately, like with Dr Watson's inducing a conditioned response of fear in baby Albert, some scientist lack the decency and discernment to do what is right.

As far as racism goes, no one is immune to it truly. It's a really complex thing...can take the form of assumptions, generalizations, not just harassment or exploitation...and not even always negative. But pop culture really does a number on people- to give an example: it's common for blacks to actually be racist against blacks, or to have a sort of self-hate. That's something that develops unless a family can intervene and talk to them about race at a young age, and teach them positive things about themselves and their race.

A lot of stereotypes persist because they are supported by facts. Jesse Jackson himself made a comment back in the 1980s to the effect that when he was walking down the street and heard footsteps at night in Chicago he would be relieved to see a group of whites as opposed to a group of blacks. I am reasonably certain that he did not mean black men dressed in their hard hats and orange vests. Context comes into play but does not make that issue go away.

The joke is, white people don't generally have to take lessons in liking their race, and many take it for granted. Then it becomes an issue of privilege....and thats where racism gets murky because not everyone is equal and it's hard to explain that race has to do with that (when the presumption is that we are equal), and yet also explain it has not to do with character, just the way things are set up.

And it really is up to the fucked up black underclass in this country to address these issues. Ice Tea bragging on national TV that he was a pimp certainly does not help give the youngsters from his old community a good example IMO. I did not accidentally or casually use the term fucked up either. Businesses do not generally want to build in the more crime ridden parts of town or where a severe riot is likely to happen - think LA. If you were here in Vallejo I could show you exactly where not to hang out if you don't want trouble.

I really believe it's an "everyone's a victim" type of thing and there is a huge misconception that facing the facts means you have to feel shame, or dislike yourself, or have to admit your lowly or whatnot. No, it's the opposite actually. Facing facts is empowering for anyone, and it gains them a lot of respect and camaraderie. Like Parts said, we all have been wronged somewhere down the line. We all have something to share, it's just a matter of being respectful of another's point of view. See what I am saying?

Edit: I do not consider stereotypes as a point of view...they are more like points of blindness.

I see exactly what you are saying and disagree. I have had various teachers, most notably a Social Studies teacher named Tyndall, try to imbue white guilt into students. Having dealt with race riots in 5th, 6th, and 8th grade I really did not want to hear that and let him know. A few of my ancestors in the South owned slaves prior to the Civil War, one rode with Quantrill which I thought was cool when I was young and then I found out about Lawrence KS. Others in Minnesota and Michigan were part of the Underground Railroad. I believe a lot of whites have similar backgrounds.

That is not an argument for not knowing history. I don't trust fuckers like my teacher Tyndall, Cornel West or Jesse Jackson to stop putting it on whitey.

At this point I will leave this thread since we have both stated our respective points of view unless you would like me to respond to something else.

Oh lol, I just realized something. I use "ignorant" in the way southerners (from US) use it. I used to think it was a black thing, until an old white lady from the south used it and we busted out laughing. Then she said it was a southern thing cause her husband, old indian dude from the northwest, looked at us funny, and I realized it's cause american blacks are from the south. lol

I think that may have something to do with why so many blacks say ont and more whites say ant for aunt. Noticing language useage is something I do.  Anyway see you in another thread. Aurevoir.

[Al Swearegen]

'Your people wronged my people a couple hundred years ago'    Blah blah blah  it gets old.  Go back far enough everyones been fucked by someone and everyone has fucked someone else

Boy you really don't know US law or history do you?

There are certain disputes that exist today which have been ongoing, and the Supremes court has ruled in favour of Indians for land disputes. They have the legal right to dispute those lands, and US has the obligation to meet the challenge.

Also, they weren't wronged 100 years ago, it is an ongoing and current offense. But of course, a statement like that shows you probably don't care to know your history. Taking a lot of self-restraint to not just start cursing...

Curse all you want I still will not care and they will not get what they want, sure they may get something and this is their angle to get as much as possible. 

see what I mean skyblue1? Parts doesn't care, just makes ignorant statements with no knowledge of the facts, the history, the law, or the purpose. Makes the same presumptions about people's motives that racists make.

And I didn't curse. For the record. But I am upset, because that racist BS is what lets a genocide to finish itself off. Should I expect morality from this place? Or are ethics out the window?

Is this a place for nazi's or something?

Where exactly is the racist bullshit SG? Not with Parts or Skyblue.
As to whether you should expect morality from this place or us to be without ethics, I can answer that one.
We are people on the spectrum. That is our commonality. Some are interested in on thing or in another BUT this is not an Activist forum, nor is it a religious forum, nor a political forum nor a philosophical forum nor is it a science forum nor is it a forum on anything other than being a forum of adults on the spectrum. Some members are interested in some of these aspects.

Now if a member is NOT interested in a position you hold or holds a different position, it does not mean that they are bigots, ignorant, Nazis, wrong, or any bloody other comment you with to throw at them........does it?

It also doesn't mean that the forum is unethical or without morality, or Nazis.......does it?

So, why are you coming to the forum and making these pronouncements about our moderator and our forum membership as a whole?

Curious. It sounds a little intolerant, a little ignorant, and a little bigoted.

[Parts]

When you say there land do you mean land they lay claim to or land they have possession of?  As far as pollution goes if any of the companies doing it are in violation of state or federal law they should address that as any other land owner could.  Also as of right now fracking is still banned in NY till 2015 so energy companies may be buying up land but they are sitting on it so there is time for them to lobby to continue the ban.

They lived as a part of an eco system for thousands of years...their identity is tied to it in ways us colonized folks aren't inherently familiar with. 

'colonized folks' Sorry it's 2013 not 1753
How many of them still do or even could?  Romanticizing them is something I have never understood,  they are people just like everyone else and they lived the way they did because they had to.  I respect the knowledge and the ability in anyone who knows how to live off the land as a matter of fact that was an obsession of mine for a long time but it does not make the mystical they way you make it sound.

I mean the land that the treaty states they have rights to live freely within.

That's how I consider us anyways...colonized.

I'm not romanticizing, I don't mean to make it mystical. It's either my experience, or the experience I learned from listening to others. For example, I guarantee, if you believed in spirits, and knew what your guardian animal spirit was (like an angel), and were told to learn all you could about that spirit, then in your lifelong studies you would notice if they ended up on the endangered list. But that's religion, and unless you're spiritual, it might sound super mystical.

Although I agree that romanticizing is something that is done, among other stereotypes (I am highly skeptical of new age versions of things...gotta be careful what you read about them)... But like you said living in the bush was just a fact. They had to live in some sort of harmony with nature in order to survive, and their imagery and religion was tied to it- either their drums were made from animal hides, or their medicine came from the forest. Either way they were connected. For instance, I believe the Wampanaog word for 'man' actually means 'earth walker'. The language reflects their position to the earth.

In a similar way, the cree word means earth protectors. Again a relationship to the earth, and even a step into protection.

Today, many at least acknowledge the environment if they have an attachment to it.  If someone's gonna practice their traditions which are tied to the environment, they tend to hold that space sacred...they're gonna notice change with more nostalgia. That's just what happens when ppl are raised with that kind of heritage. Family, and history do make a difference in the way ppl tend to experience the world. Thats the difference.

They are just like us, in terms of physiology, etc, but they have a different family, history, and understanding. And if they don't they have access to certain knowledge, which is not so accessible to us. Therefore they are not the same as us, just as one can't say black people are the same as white people and got about removing their entire context from them. I don't believe is total sameness.

For instance, being transgender and Navajo, from a traditional family, is not so confusing or scary to come out with because they have words for that, and a tradition of that, and historical figures like that. It's a different experience than being transgender and white, or being transgender and black.

I could recommend some books if you're interested in indigenous cultures.

At any rate...even if you disagree, I appreciate this conversation now.

When will we cease being colonials?  Sorry I am just stuck on that one.

I mean the land that the treaty states they have rights to live freely within. 

That is not an answer is it their land or not.
If you mean access to the land for various things like fishing, hunting, hiking ect I am all for more openness, NH has some good laws  on that.

The spiritual stuff is also lost on me whether it's shamans,priests, rabbis or imams it makes little difference to me it's all the same, a bunch of stories.

If it's all about saving the land from pollution and destruction they would better serve the cause by dropping their land claims as it reeks of ulterior motives.  They say they don't want a casino or to kick people off their property if they win and maybe they don't but who is to say the next generation of leaders will not change their minds.  Greed and the lust for power is a human thing no culture is immune.
 

[odeon]

It's "nazis" if you mean two or more of them, but "nazi's" if you mean what he possesses.

The grammar nazi in me had a fit.

[Jack]

Is this a place for nazi's or something?

Yes.

[sg1008]

Where exactly is the racist bullshit SG? Not with Parts or Skyblue.
As to whether you should expect morality from this place or us to be without ethics, I can answer that one.
We are people on the spectrum. That is our commonality. Some are interested in on thing or in another BUT this is not an Activist forum, nor is it a religious forum, nor a political forum nor a philosophical forum nor is it a science forum nor is it a forum on anything other than being a forum of adults on the spectrum. Some members are interested in some of these aspects.

Now if a member is NOT interested in a position you hold or holds a different position, it does not mean that they are bigots, ignorant, Nazis, wrong, or any bloody other comment you with to throw at them........does it?

It also doesn't mean that the forum is unethical or without morality, or Nazis.......does it?

So, why are you coming to the forum and making these pronouncements about our moderator and our forum membership as a whole?

Curious. It sounds a little intolerant, a little ignorant, and a little bigoted.

I kind of addressed those things, here's one part:

I have to admit I got a little over excited. If I called him ignorant, it was due to the ignorant remark, but I don't think he's ignorant or stupid. I dislike such remarks because it gives little to respond on and I can therefore only can assume it's part of a stereotype. And, of course I got angry (thinking of it as such)...but as I was repressing cursing myself away (anger mngmt may be needed), nazi is what came out. My bad.

Recently...I discovered some really disturbing things about US history pertaining to medical experimentation, and for the past few days I have been thinking "they were as bad as nazi's" over and over and over. Not trying to justify anything, just explaining I don't actually think this is a place of nazis (everyone has been really nice), it's just been on my mind.

I don't mind people disagreeing. The remark was ignorant (wrought with stereotypical assumptions, and false information, also leaving not much to respond to) and I got a little more upset than usual. I also wasn't making pronouncements, they were questions. Finally though, someone decided to ask a question rather than make assertions based on (what is generally racist driven) erroneous impressions...the same impressions that support a certain status quo that is very nazi-like in origin (hence the reference, which was really a society reference, not personal).

Of course, there are likely better ways I could have handled my frustration. I apologize if anyone got their feelings hurt, as stated previously as well, everyone has been pretty nice, its been good here.

[sg1008]

It's "nazis" if you mean two or more of them, but "nazi's" if you mean what he possesses.

The grammar nazi in me had a fit.

lol

[Al Swearegen]

No not at all mate. Parts, statement was not ignorant or bigoted. You chose to read that into it but on base tacks it wasn't.
Parts has no real interest or investment in the subject matter, but responded to you in terms of saying that every indigenous people have been fucked over and that the people who fucked them over and cheated them and so forth, are responsible BUT bringing an action on their descendents or seeking retribution or compensation off their descendants is not an appropriate remedy.
 
So it DOES leave the same indigenous people inbetween a rock and a hard place. Either the descendents of those that screw them over or the government choose to accept that though they personally did nothing wrong and have no guilt in respect to this matter, seek to give an equitable solution to the claim that reduces rights of the descendants to the land use OR they seek to keep the status quo. He is saying too that the Irish would have a claim against the English, The English against the Vikings and hell possibly the Caanites against the Jewish.

No easy answers here, wrongs have been done but by who and to whom? Who ought to own that guilt or accountability?

No. Not good enough, you instead like to call him racist and intolerant. <----- definition of intolerance.

See what I mean now mate? It is great you have a strong activism streak. It is great that you have strong convictions. Just keep in mind someone having a different opinion to you does not mean that they are racist or that they are bigoted or intolerant. It may simply be that they disagree or have a different perception and that may be JUST as valid as yours.

If you want to see how this can go rather badly look up a call out with Rissy and myself. She came on here and tried to call us out on being cissexist. Did not end well for her.

I think it a mistake best avoided.

[sg1008]

No not at all mate. Parts, statement was not ignorant or bigoted. You chose to read that into it but on base tacks it wasn't.
Parts has no real interest or investment in the subject matter, but responded to you in terms of saying that every indigenous people have been fucked over and that the people who fucked them over and cheated them and so forth, are responsible BUT bringing an action on their descendents or seeking retribution or compensation off their descendants is not an appropriate remedy.
 
So it DOES leave the same indigenous people inbetween a rock and a hard place. Either the descendents of those that screw them over or the government choose to accept that though they personally did nothing wrong and have no guilt in respect to this matter, seek to give an equitable solution to the claim that reduces rights of the descendants to the land use OR they seek to keep the status quo. He is saying too that the Irish would have a claim against the English, The English against the Vikings and hell possibly the Caanites against the Jewish.

No easy answers here, wrongs have been done but by who and to whom? Who ought to own that guilt or accountability?

No. Not good enough, you instead like to call him racist and intolerant. <----- definition of intolerance.

See what I mean now mate? It is great you have a strong activism streak. It is great that you have strong convictions. Just keep in mind someone having a different opinion to you does not mean that they are racist or that they are bigoted or intolerant. It may simply be that they disagree or have a different perception and that may be JUST as valid as yours.

If you want to see how this can go rather badly look up a call out with Rissy and myself. She came on here and tried to call us out on being cissexist. Did not end well for her.

I think it a mistake best avoided.

The bolded part. I sort of touched upon it earlier:

I really believe it's an "everyone's a victim" type of thing and there is a huge misconception that facing the facts means you have to feel shame, or dislike yourself, or have to admit your lowly or whatnot. No, it's the opposite actually. Facing facts is empowering for anyone, and it gains them a lot of respect and camaraderie. Like Parts said, we all have been wronged somewhere down the line. We all have something to share, it's just a matter of being respectful of another's point of view. See what I am saying?

Edit: I do not consider stereotypes as a point of view...they are more like points of blindness.

So...for some odd reason (and there's a history behind it I am sure) people generally seem to think that looking at a situation for what it is automatically means they ought to feel incredible guilt, self hatred or what ever string of emotions they imagine other's want them to experience... I at least am not of that opinion AT ALL.

So parts says they ought to get over it, I say we ought to get over feeling like someone has to be the predator in order for us to actually look at the issue. I don't have time to go into more detail (at the moment...), but it's a paradigm shift I am referring to... do you kind of see what I am saying? Will explain more later...

[Al Swearegen]

Do Australians have a claim against the British for exiling them from their homes forcibly?

Can you let me know this? If so, what claim and against who and for what?

I have aboriginal blood, therefore what ought the government give me and why?

I can pose a number of similar questions but these are obviously more pertinent to me. But I can take it back and back. You can say it is not the same and it is not. BUT the things that separate one from another is likely to be semantics. Yes we can find more examples and slowly make every instance of this kind of thing related to another and in the end it would mean that all of us would have been stolen from and have stolen off, even though we didn't personally do this, and we all give and take back. It would be a mess. 

I know you are saying  "yes but it requires a paradigm shift" No really it doesn't. It requires that you accept people have a right to a very different belief than you and that they do not have to think differently and that by thinking differently they are not wrong, bigoted, intolerant, uneducated or not sensible. You know this right? If not, you are being intolerant.

[sg1008]

Do Australians have a claim against the British for exiling them from their homes forcibly?

Can you let me know this? If so, what claim and against who and for what?

I have aboriginal blood, therefore what ought the government give me and why?

I can pose a number of similar questions but these are obviously more pertinent to me. But I can take it back and back. You can say it is not the same and it is not. BUT the things that separate one from another is likely to be semantics. Yes we can find more examples and slowly make every instance of this kind of thing related to another and in the end it would mean that all of us would have been stolen from and have stolen off, even though we didn't personally do this, and we all give and take back. It would be a mess. 

I know you are saying  "yes but it requires a paradigm shift" No really it doesn't. It requires that you accept people have a right to a very different belief than you and that they do not have to think differently and that by thinking differently they are not wrong, bigoted, intolerant, uneducated or not sensible. You know this right? If not, you are being intolerant.

Why do I feel saying that everyone has been wronged detracts from the issue at hand? We could go on and on discussing different wrongednesses (and I would enjoy that conversation), but in relation to the OP, I don't want that to be an excuse to forget all about the situation at hand. Is this really how things are thought to get done?

I am more interested in looking at the current problem and figuring out how we can prevent further harm. That requires understanding that oppression and genocide don't just go away because new children were born. yeah right, if that was so we could really say "time heals all wounds", but that is clearly not the case.

As for your specific examples (aboriginal blood, British exile), I suggest you look into those things yourself. I don't know much about Australian history, and I'm not about to speak for aboriginal peoples, you can find their various points of view online. You can also look up the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous peoples and see if Australia adheres. Once you have facts, and look at them with a clear head then you can be in the position to enter a philosophical debate about what questions to ask.

That's the problem, people take the little understanding of an issue that they have, and then assert some sort of opinion feeling that it will be validated even if its based on false information. That's like bringing a bunch of men around who never experienced harassment and only know of women being raped who had short skirts and were drunk and seductive, and then sitting the men down to chat (w/o a moderator) the ethics and laws and concerns relating to the protection of women and prosecution of rapists.

Does that sound like a reasonable course of action to take if the goal is to prevent future harm of women and lenient prosecution of rapists?

Now if there was someone more knowledgable about the issues at hand who had something to say, to disagree, I am HAPPY OVERJOYED ECSTATIC because a productive conversation can emerge. And if one doesn't know about the issue, the natural gesture ought to be to ask and listen, and then formulate an opinion based on real facts, real statements, and real history...even if it's very little, its better than nothing.

[sg1008]

I should add, what I say regarding facts is in response to the questions about specifica claims and issues. In other words, with regards to specific issues, don't expect your opinion to be helpful or valid without proper information. I also mentioned, asking questions to find out facts and hear a POV does no harm.

On the other hand, with regards to the social, moral, or procedural points concerning the collecting, discussing, or sharing of such facts and POVs, thats a debate anyone and everyone can probably join into. Just wanted to make that distinction in case someone thinks I am saying "well you can't have this conversation because you don't know enough", because that's not what I am meaning to say.