Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Jarhyn]

1. Because the arsonist didn't own the land. Being the same ethnicity as the landowning group does not make you the personal landowner. This was not an action voted on openly by the lawful tribal government; it was some hothead.

2. Even if it had been a decision of the lawful tribal government, it was not reviewed by appellate courts to check whether it was a discriminatory action being taken in violation of the parishioners' right to free exercise of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

And, most importantly,

3. The so-called "eviction" and "demolition" were not carried out by sheriff's deputies and professionals with the skill set to make sure nobody got hurt; the arsonist was relying on his own incompetent opinion that the buildings were unoccupied. He could easily have killed somebody.

There seems to be a widespread notion that destroying property as a protest counts as civil disobedience. "Non-violent and non-destructive are two different things. Also, not everyone defines acts of violence as things that can be done to inanimate objects like buildings or institutions.", according to somebody upthread. That's garbage. My father knew a guy who was murdered by a gang of Viet Nam War protestors who thought blowing up an "unoccupied" building that was partly used for military research would be a good way to make their political point. Well guess what? Somebody was working late that night, a post-doc who wasn't even doing military research and wasn't even in the part of the building used for military research. The idiot "protesters" got confused about where to put their bomb and blew up the physics lab.

If the answer is "we have weapons", or "there are more of us", the underlying principle of those applications is "might makes right", and the response is "asymmetrical warfare by whatever means works until sanity is restored".

But that's not the answer; and I think you knew that. Reasons 1, 2 and 3 above are all painfully obvious, and if you didn't figure them out for yourself you certainly should have.

"The arsonist didn't own the land"?!? "Own" is a concept we forced on them. We were supposed to "share" and we are not doing that and never did, from the first moment of bad faith to the current. So reason 1 goes flush..

2. The "lawful tribal government" is in fact part of what is in contention in much of the conflicts surrounding Canadian first peoples.

3. The sheriff's deputy isn't making the churches dig up their mass graves. Which is where "asymmetric warfare" kicks in.

Do you need some toilet paper? Maybe a scented candle? Maybe turn on a fan when you drop them like that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

We have been through this before. In this particular case, saying the the gov't of Canada and the RCC bear some responsibility for the treatment and deaths of these children does not mean that every living Canadian citizen and Catholic are responsible. No one in their right mind would come to such a conclusion.

The word 'responsible' is pretty ambiguous, but as I said, it can be used without assigning blame. For example, it may well be about paying compensation. That is not the same as blaming people for the actions of others. It is very, very different to assign blame and demand apologies.

For example, if an Amazon delivery van which is delivering stuff hits a pedestrian due to driver negligence and leaves her semi-paralized, then Amazon is legally responsible, in the sense it has a legal obligation to pay compensation, and from a moral perspective, I would say the shareholders are also under an obligation to pay by the legally established means and up their shares. It's part of what they signed up for by buying shares. But it is not the case that the shareholders should apologize to the victim. They did nothing wrong in this case. Nor should Bezos or Jassy apologize, provided that there was no negligence on his part hiring the driver. And if there was, the wrongdoing already happened regardless of whether someone was hurt - though the crash might help others find evidence of that.

The people in the current Canadian government did nothing wrong in re. the treatment and deaths of those children. Neither did Francis. It's not just every Catholic and/or Canadian: Francis is not guilty, Trudeau is not guilty, and so on.

Whether the Catholic Church and/or the Canadian government owes compensation to the victims and/or the families is a different matter. I am not arguing against it.

It means that the gov't of Canada and the RCC as institutions are bring held responsible for the actions taken under the name.

Again, 'held responsible' is a pretty ambiguous term. If you are talking about compensation, I am not making a case against it. But when people demand apologies, I am, because that is not merely about compensation. It is about blaming people. And the people from whom the apology is being demanded are not to blame for the kidnappings, abuse, murder, etc.

Let me insist on a distinction that I have been making throughout the thread: I speak against putting moral blame on Francis, Trudeau, or generally the leadership of the RCC or Canada. And that is also why I oppose an apology. Compensation is a very different matter; it is a very complicated for a number of reasons, but I did not argue against it at all.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The treaties were not broken by "the white man"; "the white man" did not demand special rights; "the white man" is not claiming it was right to break the treaties; and the theory that Native rights are superior rights is not being pushed by "the Native man". These things were done by particular individuals, not by some "the <insert race here> man" archetype who exists only in the minds of racists; and as far as I can tell, the great majority of the folks demanding special rights for "the Native man" are white folks.

The treaties continue to be broken.

The treaties continue to be broken by particular individuals, on behalf of a group. Either the group rejects the offenders, and quits the offending behavior of it's ranks, or the group is complicit.

No, that is not true at all.
First of all, the treaties are not broken 'on behalf' of the group 'white men'.

Second, even if it were, your claim is absurd. Let us grant that the US government continues to break the treaties. And let us say that a POTUS - say, Trump -, decided when he broke a treaty with the Comanche that his breaking the treaty would be on behalf of 'the white man'. That of course does not make all white men in the world or even in the US complicit if they fail to quit the offending behavior from the ranks of 'the white man'. Indeed, the vast majority of 'the white people' even in the US, were in no position to remove a sitting POTUS, or otherwise prevent him from breaking the treaty and declaring - by absurdity - that they did so 'on behalf of the white man'.

Third, your claim has even more morally absurd consequences. You claim that the treaties continue to be broken on behalf of a group. And you identified the group that you earlier claimed breaks the treaties: 'the white man'. So, it was not just Trump, but Biden as well. Or whoever does it. And then all white men in America (or is the world? How far do you go with the blaming of white men? ) are complicit. Not white women who voted for Biden. Not black men or women who voted for Biden. Not brown men or women who voted for Biden. Not Han men or women who voted for Biden. But a white man who voted Jorgensen. Why? Because some other white man beyond his control choose to break a treaty, allegedly (i.e., because you allege so) on his behalf? What was his wrongdoing? Failing to expel Biden from the group 'white man'? Failing to prevent Biden from breaking the treaty?

 

[laughing dog]

We have been through this before. In this particular case, saying the the gov't of Canada and the RCC bear some responsibility for the treatment and deaths of these children does not mean that every living Canadian citizen and Catholic are responsible. No one in their right mind would come to such a conclusion.

The word 'responsible' is pretty ambiguous...

In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.

You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.

No, that is not what to 'blame' means. To blame someone is to say that that someone is morally guilty of some wrongdoing.

You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.

Who is the RCC?

If when you say " Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual" you mean 'Asking or expecting the pope to apologize for his role in this tragedy is not blaming the pope or any individual', that is obviously false. So, by 'the RCC' you do not mean the pope. So, who would be asked to apologize, above? The pope, on behalf of the guilty parties? That makes no sense. It is of course proper to relay an apology, but other than that, to apologize on behalf of others is either not an apology but an instance of blaming those others (and so, the pope's apology would be insincere), or a confusion as the person who apologizes believes he is to blame for the behavior of others.

 

[Arctish]

In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.

No, that is not what to 'blame' means. To blame someone is to say that that someone is morally guilty of some wrongdoing.

You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.

Who is the RCC?

Not who, what.

What is the RCC?

It is an institution. It is a legal entity. It is a landowner, an employer, and here in the US, a political donor.

It is, and was, responsible for the care and well being of children enrolled in its schools and participating in activities in its facilities. That is why it was held to account for the altar boys raped by priests in its buildings. That is why it is being held to account for the thousands or dead students buried in unmarked graves on its school grounds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, if an Amazon delivery van which is delivering stuff hits a pedestrian due to driver negligence and leaves her semi-paralized, then Amazon is legally responsible, in the sense it has a legal obligation to pay compensation, and from a moral perspective, I would say the shareholders are also under an obligation to pay by the legally established means and up their shares. It's part of what they signed up for by buying shares. But it is not the case that the shareholders should apologize to the victim. They did nothing wrong in this case. Nor should Bezos or Jassy apologize, provided that there was no negligence on his part hiring the driver. And if there was, the wrongdoing already happened regardless of whether someone was hurt - though the crash might help others find evidence of that.

That's not how it works--the shareholders only "pay" in that the value of their shares is reduced by however much the company pays the injured person. Without this legal firewall large companies are basically non-viable and wealth is far more concentrated than it is in our society.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not who, what.

What is the RCC?

It is an institution. It is a legal entity. It is a landowner, an employer, and here in the US, a political donor.

Okay, then what is an institution?
It seems to me that it is some of the activity of some people. In which case, the question remains relevant: Who are the people from whom an apology is demanded? Those would be the people guilty of some wrongdoing.

But regardless of what it is, it is not a mind above and beyond the minds of the members. It cannot act except in the sense that some of its members act, perhaps some of the leaders. And it cannot behave immorally except in the sense that some of its members are guilty.

It is, and was, responsible for the care and well being of children enrolled in its schools and participating in activities in its facilities.

Actually, some members of the church were responsible for the care and well being, in the sense they had a moral obligation to act in some manners conducive to that.

That is why it was held to account for the altar boys raped by priests in its buildings.

Who was 'held to account'? Because 'held to account' in this context seems to mean 'punished'. And then, the answer is some priests were punished, by their own wrongdoings.
Or do you mean something else by 'held to account'?

That is why it is being held to account for the thousands or dead students buried in unmarked graves on its school grounds.

Who is being punished for whose wrongdoings? And if you do not mean punished for their wrongdoings, what do you mean? Could you present some examples of entities (human or otherwise) 'held to account' for behaviors, and which aren't about punishment?

Maybe by 'held to account' you meant that some people's actions were assessed, and then they were punished for their wrongdoings? If so, again we are talking about individuals.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For example, if an Amazon delivery van which is delivering stuff hits a pedestrian due to driver negligence and leaves her semi-paralized, then Amazon is legally responsible, in the sense it has a legal obligation to pay compensation, and from a moral perspective, I would say the shareholders are also under an obligation to pay by the legally established means and up their shares. It's part of what they signed up for by buying shares. But it is not the case that the shareholders should apologize to the victim. They did nothing wrong in this case. Nor should Bezos or Jassy apologize, provided that there was no negligence on his part hiring the driver. And if there was, the wrongdoing already happened regardless of whether someone was hurt - though the crash might help others find evidence of that.

That's not how it works--the shareholders only "pay" in that the value of their shares is reduced by however much the company pays the injured person. Without this legal firewall large companies are basically non-viable and wealth is far more concentrated than it is in our society.

That's only because Amazon is too big to be brought down by a single lawsuit. But if the damage is so great (e.g., nuclear explosion) that the compensations exceed the market value of the company, the assets are sold and used to pay, and - depending on the legislation -, the company is dissolved. At any rate, the shareholders lose their shares, but not more, which is why I said "up to their shares" (well, I missed the "to" but that was a typo).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.

He is not culpable of that. He is culpable of choosing to be the getaway driver before, during, and after the robbery. Whether that is similarly wrong as what someone else did during the robbery depends on the circumstances.

 

[laughing dog]

In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.

No, that is not what to 'blame' means. To blame someone is to say that that someone is morally guilty of some wrongdoing.

Sigh, it also means
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+blame

Dictionary
blame

assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
"the inquiry blamed the engineer for the accident"

Similar:
hold responsible

hold accountable
hold liable
place/lay the blame on
censure
criticize
condemn
accuse of
find/consider guilty of
inculpate
ascribe to
attribute to
impute to
lay at the door of
put down to
set down to
pin
stick

noun
noun: blame

responsibility for a fault or wrong.
"his players had to take the blame"
h
Similar:
responsibility

guilt
accountability

Who is the RCC?

We have been through this before. The RCC is an institution. The Pope speaks for the RCC as an institution.

If when you say " Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual" you mean 'Asking or expecting the pope to apologize for his role in this tragedy is not blaming the pope or any individual',

Apologizing on behalf of the RCC as an institution is not accepting personal blame on the part of the Pope. So how do you come up with these idiotic straw men?

 

[laughing dog]

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.

Who is the RCC?

If when you say " Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual" you mean 'Asking or expecting the pope to apologize for his role in this tragedy is not blaming the pope or any individual', that is obviously false. So, by 'the RCC' you do not mean the pope. So, who would be asked to apologize, above? The pope, on behalf of the guilty parties? That makes no sense. It is of course proper to relay an apology, but other than that, to apologize on behalf of others is either not an apology but an instance of blaming those others (and so, the pope's apology would be insincere), or a confusion as the person who apologizes believes he is to blame for the behavior of others.

Sigh, it also means
https://www.google.com/search?client...ition+of+blame

Dictionary
blame

assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.
"the inquiry blamed the engineer for the accident"

Actually, that is precisely an example of blaming someone for some wrongdoing, given that they say 'assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.' And in this case, the engineer is being blamed, though more precisely, he is being blamed for some wrongful action that made the accident more likely and people are speaking in a short-hand way, or else he is being blamed for the accident itself though that was not a wrongful behavior.

Be that as it may, blaming someone for morally guilty behavior (i.e. choices, or failures to make them) is what I was talking about. So, suppose other people use 'blame' to mean something else. What I am speaking about is actually attribuing wrongful behavior to the wrong people. Which is what people do when they demand that a person who did not X to apologize for X.

We have been through this before. The RCC is an institution. The Pope speaks for the RCC as an institution.

What does that mean?

If you are talking about some of the activity of some people, then who are the people being blamed for some wrongdoing?
If you are talking about some legal fiction, that is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Apologizing on behalf of the RCC as an institution is not accepting personal blame on the part of the Pope. So how do you come up with these idiotic straw men?

What does it even mean to apologize on behalf of an institution?

If the pope says 'I apologize for X on behalf of the RCC' and he is not accepting that he himself behaved immorally, then he is not apologizing sincerely at all. Rather, he is blaming other people for their wrongdoings, or just uttering words some people want to hear to appease them, or some other thing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

But I do not. The getaway driver is guilty of choosing to be the getaway driver before, during and after the robbery. His behavior is more wrongful all other things equal if he chooses to be the getaway driver after the robbery if the perp shot someone, because he is choosing to help a robber who shot someone to rob them to escape, and not just an ordinary robber. But he is not guilty of the choice to shoot someone, who was made by the perp.

 

[Arctish]

Okay, then what is an institution?

There are several definitions available on online. We can start with this one, since we re talking about the legal entity kind of institution, not the initiation of a law kind:

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/institution.html

It seems to me that it is some of the activity of some people.

No.

The activity isn't what makes something an institution. It's the legal status and role in society.

Praying to Jesus isn't an institution. Neither is baptism. But both activities are important in the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.

In which case, the question remains relevant: Who are the people from whom an apology is demanded? Those would be the people guilty of some wrongdoing.

This is where you keep going wrong. The institution itself is responsible. The individuals entrusted and empowered to act on its behalf would be the ones actually saying the words but the apology would be from the institution itself. In the case of religious institutions, the religious leaders would have that task. Secular institutions would have a designated spokesperson or a lawyer do it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There are several definitions available on online.

Yes, but none that would help. It would just make things more obscure, so I was asking what you meant. But let us see.

We can start with this one, since we re talking about the legal entity kind of institution, not the initiation of a law kind:

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/defin...stitution.html

That has 3 entries. Do you mean 1., 2., or 3?
1. would not make sense.
2. gives the example of 'marriage', which does not seem to help. At any rate, it also talks about an 'organization', but that would be of no help, for what is an organization, if not some of the activity of some people?

3. Seems to be the one you mean. But alas, that is not helpful. It just changes the words for synonyms.

Praying to Jesus isn't an institution. Neither is baptism. But both activities are important in the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.

I take it those are meant to be counterexamples to my understanding that an institution is some of the activity of some people? That would not work. I did not say or suggested that any activity would count. I did not give any detailed account at all. I was just giving enough background for the purposes of my points.

At any rate, let me try this: there is no collective mind at play. Only human individuals making their own choices. Some of their choices are immoral. There is no other mind making choices.

The activity isn't what makes something an institution. It's the legal status and role in society.

But what is that something, if not some of the activity of some people? A legal fiction?

Is it some sort of hive mind? Is that what you think?
Let me ask you: do you believe that an institution can behave immorally even if none of its members does?

This is where you keep going wrong. The institution itself is responsible.

What does that mean?
Regardless, I am not asking about who or what is responsible. I am asking who is guilty of immoral behavior.

The individuals entrusted and empowered to act on its behalf would be the ones actually saying the words but the apology would be from the institution itself.

But what would they mean by apologizing? An apology involves a recognition that one behaved wrongfully, an expression of regret for that, and a promise not to do it again. But would they be implying that they behaved immorally? That would be an apology, but then they would be recognizing their own wrongdoing. On the other hand, if they are blaming someone else, then that is not an apology. It is an instance of blaming someone.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, but none that would help. It would just make things more obscure, so I was asking what you meant. But let us see.



That has 3 entries. Do you mean 1., 2., or 3?
1. would not make sense.
2. gives the example of 'marriage', which does not seem to help. At any rate, it also talks about an 'organization', but that would be of no help, for what is an organization, if not some of the activity of some people?

3. Seems to be the one you mean. But alas, that is not helpful. It just changes the words for synonyms.

I'm glad you were able to figure out which kind of institution we're talking about and which definition applies. The synonyms are there because most people who understand English well enough to read the entry find such comparisons useful. But if you don't then just do a little more research. There are plenty of other sites where you can find out what an institution is.

Praying to Jesus isn't an institution. Neither is baptism. But both activities are important in the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.

I take it those are meant to be counterexamples to my understanding that an institution is some of the activity of some people? That would not work. I did not say or suggested that any activity would count. I did not give any detailed account at all. I was just giving enough background for the purposes of my points.

You said :"Okay, then what is an institution? It seems to me that it is some of the activity of some people. In which case..."

If you didn't mean you think it's some of the activity of some people, then what do you think it is?

At any rate, let me try this: there is no collective mind at play. Only human individuals making their own choices. Some of their choices are immoral. There is no other mind making choices.

You obviously don't know what an institution is or why it can be held accountable for actions.

Let's try this: do you understand what a corporation is? Do you know why a corporation can be sued, fined, or otherwise penalized for the results of its acts or failure to act?

The activity isn't what makes something an institution. It's the legal status and role in society.

But what is that something, if not some of the activity of some people? A legal fiction?

Is it some sort of hive mind? Is that what you think?
Let me ask you: do you believe that an institution can behave immorally even if none of its members does?

This is where you keep going wrong. The institution itself is responsible.

What does that mean?

It means that the responsible party is the institution.

Institutions like the RCC have legal standing here in the US. They also have responsibilities. Failure to act responsibly has legal consequences, as anyone who knows about the ongoing RCC child sex abuse scandals already knows.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're being disingenuous when you claim to not understand how the RCC can be held responsible for what its clergy and staff did on its properties.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

Here in the US in many jurisdiction the driver would still be charged, even without mens rea.

I remember reading a story about a guy that let a couple friends use his car. The friends went to do a drug deal and it went south. Someone got shot. The guy that let the friends borrow the car got charged along with the friends even though he was home laying on his couch.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, that is precisely an example of blaming someone for some wrongdoing, given that they say 'assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.'

Ah, so you were mistaken in your response in post 645.

Be that as it may, blaming someone for morally guilty behavior (i.e. choices, or failures to make them) is what I was talking about. So, suppose other people use 'blame' to mean something else. What I am speaking about is actually attribuing wrongful behavior to the wrong people. Which is what people do when they demand that a person who did not X to apologize for X.

You are talking about something that is irrelevant. No one is blaming the wrong people when they hold the RCC accountable.

What does it even mean to apologize on behalf of an institution?

If the pope says 'I apologize for X on behalf of the RCC' and he is not accepting that he himself behaved immorally, then he is not apologizing sincerely at all. Rather, he is blaming other people for their wrongdoings, or just uttering words some people want to hear to appease them, or some other thing.

Either you are using an idiosyncratic notion of "apologize" (a real possibility) or you are simply arguing to save face. The Pope can genuinely rue the wrongful acts done in the name of the RCC which means he can sincerely apologize. The Pope is the head of the RCC and speaks for the RCC. Your claim that he is not sincerely apologizing cannot be taken seriously.