Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014

Should an 11 year old American Indian with leukemia be condemned to death, because  of the new age raw food eating modern medical science denying "aboriginal" beliefs of her parents? When self hating leftist hipsters in Florida and Canada do it it's not child abuse, right?

Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5028666-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo-is-critically-ill/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/11/17/an-ontario-court-dooms-a-first-nations-girl-with-cancer/

The savages are not so noble after all.

More info on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

Pinker on the general issue & other leftist denial of human nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

A related book found:
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.

My own further views on so-called "natives:"

American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html

Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html

Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by  whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.

That Shitty Chicken Place: I never eat there anyway

I never eat at the chicken place currently being mentioned in the news, and haven't done so since maybe one time about 15 or 20 years ago when Crossroads Mall was still open. Should gay people get married? I don't think the law should ban adults from doing what they please with other adults. I'm still in favor of questioning all suppositions and dogmas, left and right alike. So I'm willing to listen to all sides. But I don't think the force of law should be used to keep people from doing what they please with other adults.

However I do think that the crucible of debate should be used to shine a light on all dogma, left and right alike. For example here's one guy with enough balls to do this:
http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1578785

Ad hominem attacks and conversation killers like "racist," "bigot," and "misogynist" don't help further the conversation. It goes without saying that the COO of the "shitty-chicken-place-that-I-never-go-to-anyway" could rightly be described as a bigot. But all this fervor makes me think we should also take a step back and examine >why< people think the way they do. There may be naturalistic explanations to why people respond the way they do to things. Religion is after all a natural phenomenon, like it or not. Maybe what people really object to is who's making a contribution to moving humanity forward? Are you doing it? Am I?

Is it difficult but still possible to listen to both sides in a vociferous debate and to take a step back from both sides and do a more thorough evaluation. Do we have the balls to ask hard questions of both sides?

In any case, let's all try to be less selfish. Think about legacy. And let the people who like the shitty chicken place go there if they want. I never go there anyway.