Bert Rustle wrote:
Me giving the appearance of "getting stuck in to them" might explain the lack of development of the topic....
That was just my manner of speaking and not an accurate reflection. Though obviously 'engaged', you come across as polite and clinical.
As for the lack of development of the topic ("Is anyone indigenous to anywhere? If so, how? If not why not?
"), the reason is simple. Your opponents have no answers to it that wouldn't tie them, and their twisted worldview, in knots.LaCattiveria
, for example, a preening witless fool, ties himself up nicely:
Anyway, here's my answer to your third question [If not why not?]. Humans are animals. We, as human animals, are products of evolution. All life on Earth is indigenous to this planet, but there are scientific arguments to support the theory that we are also products of stardust, so then we are also indigenous to cosmic bodies. The word root gen is very problematic. As long as we're living on earth, geo is much better, much more flexible. It's all about expression production and flexibility you see, like the flexiverse. Are you flexible? Do you stretch and exercise at the local gym? If so, how? If not, why not?
He tries to evade your question with a lot of smoke and pretend-intellectual self-puffery while wheeling out a definition of 'indigenous
' that renders it effectively meaningless. Do you think he has a similar problem 'indigenous
' when considering the history of red and grey squirrels in Britain?
You called him out on his:
I've spent years of research, including ethnographic research, on the problems of language and I can tell you for a very hard fact that language is both corrupting and empowering. I have documentation to prove and support this claim, but it makes for a very depressing read, so I won't bother.
And got evasion:
Unfortunately not, sorry. The work was briefly published – albeit ignored – but then removed on my request. I might republish it though, not sure yet. I'm guessing it's either too depressing, boring, pointless or even all three. Identity is not a problem for me, water off a duck's back.
The prat is a pomo merchant. That kind loves to cite some scientific sounding stuff to back them up but they always phuck it up: "but there are scientific arguments to support the theory that we are also products of stardust
". Only scientific arguments? Things are still up in the air on this one? That's odd. I don't know of any scientist who questions the stellar origin of nuclear synthesis these days. Arsehole.
It [language being both corrupting and empowering] was a concept which I had not encountered before.
I know what your game is, Bert. You want to take his hand and lead him up the path to the cliff then push him over, don't you? Well, I hope you do.
Just joking. I shouldn't project my own successfully resisted tendencies onto others.
As for proof of Britons being the indigenous people(s?) of these isles, I see no one has mentioned the relatively recent DNA evidence. Then there's the historical take in A Nation of Immigrants?
by David Conway (Civitas publication).
I would appreciate comments on any of the points below.