Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Angra Mainyu]

So you do understand why a corporation can be sued for the harm it has done through its actions or failure to act, but you don't want to talk about it.

I understand: it is a useful legal fiction. It allows people to associate with each other, while limiting the assets they dedicate to that, etc. That is pretty good for allowing economic development in many ways.

I also understand that in reality, the only conscious entities making choices in that context are individual human beings.

You just want to keep asking your nonsense question despite being shown your grammatical error.

There is no grammatical error on my part. I ask who is the RCC because I want to highlight that you are blaming some entity, in the moral sense, and that is a mistake unless that entity is a human being (or a monkey, or an entity with a mind sufficiently similar to those).

 

[Arctish]

So you do understand why a corporation can be sued for the harm it has done through its actions or failure to act, but you don't want to talk about it.

I understand: it is a useful legal fiction. It allows people to associate with each other, while limiting the assets they dedicate to that, etc. That is pretty good for allowing economic development in many ways.

I also understand that in reality, the only conscious entities making choices in that context are individual human beings.

You just want to keep asking your nonsense question despite being shown your grammatical error.

There is no grammatical error on my part. I ask who is the RCC because I want to highlight that you are blaming some entity, in the moral sense, and that is a mistake unless that entity is a human being (or a monkey, or an entity with a mind sufficiently similar to those).

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

Anyway, those children were placed in the care of the Church-run residential schools which were staffed and managed by the local Archdiocese. The Archdiocese (the 'who' in your question) is the responsible party.

And now that your question has been answered for the umpteenth time you can stop asking it.

 

[laughing dog]

I understand: it is a useful legal fiction. It allows people to associate with each other, while limiting the assets they dedicate to that, etc. That is pretty good for allowing economic development in many ways.

I also understand that in reality, the only conscious entities making choices in that context are individual human beings.


There is no grammatical error on my part. I ask who is the RCC because I want to highlight that you are blaming some entity, in the moral sense, and that is a mistake unless that entity is a human being (or a monkey, or an entity with a mind sufficiently similar to those).

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

Anyway, those children were placed in the care of the Church-run residential schools which were staffed and managed by the local Archdiocese. The Archdiocese (the 'who' in your question) is the responsible party.

And now that your question has been answered for the umpteenth time you can stop asking it.

AM has a distinctly different moral perspective and does not recognize the reality of our society. His questions and conclusions are only relevant within his perspective, but are not relevant in the actual society in which we live.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

That's probably a mistaken interpretation of the law. But then again, it is wholly irrelevant, so let us say that they legally are people. It is a legal fiction. They are not persons in the sense of the word 'person' in English. They do not have minds, except in the sense some of their members, owners, leaders, etc., do They cannot suffer, except also in that sense. They are not capable of having moral obligations, be morally guilty, etc.

A necessary but insufficient condition to have moral obligations, be guilty, deserve punishment, etc., is to have a mind. And not all minds will do. A cat does not have what it takes. And the first intelligent advanced aliens that our successors encounter in the future probably will not have what it takes, either.

Corporations - again, except in the sense above - do not even have a mind.

Anyway, those children were placed in the care of the Church-run residential schools which were staffed and managed by the local Archdiocese. The Archdiocese (the 'who' in your question) is the responsible party.

So, the Archdiocese is a who, not a what? But is that an individual human? Who? But no matter, the person in charge is guilty of cooperating with some of the kidnappings carried out some other people. And also very probably of negligence in his choice of staff. And a few other things. If he is alive and lucid, he should apologize.

And now that your question has been answered for the umpteenth time you can stop asking it.

If you meant the bishops in charge of the of the Archdioceses, then great, we are making progress. Else, who did you mean?

Obviously, many of those bishops in charge are dead. Can you find any living ones, so that they can be properly blamed?


According to the Wikipedia page, "In 1969, after years of sharing power with churches, the DIA took sole control of the residential school system.". So, it appears that the bishops in charge were in charge only up to 1969 at most. That is 52 years ago. If you take a look at the list of youngest living Catholic bishops as an indication, the youngest is almost 40. Assuming that some of Canadian bishops in charge were that age (unlikely), you'll find guilty bishops over 90 years old.

I actually did a cursory search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_archdioceses

For now, every single one I checked is dead. You can search some more if you like.

 

[Rhea]

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

Anyway, those children were placed in the care of the Church-run residential schools which were staffed and managed by the local Archdiocese. The Archdiocese (the 'who' in your question) is the responsible party.

And now that your question has been answered for the umpteenth time you can stop asking it.

It is useful to notice that those who want to protect the murderers (and the rapists) used exactly the same deflection; claiming the church is not a culpable entity, and despite being the governing body, the assigner of human resources and the keeper of the records, they are beyond reproach grammatically and by hiding the names should succeed in preventing justice.

Same arguments they used for the rapist priests that they hid. They have a lot of money at stake. Money given by people who also don’t want the church to face justice, and who also do nothing to find guilty individuals in their organization.


Same old tactic.

 

[Arctish]

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

That's probably a mistaken interpretation of the law.

It's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law.

Please read the linked article before going any further down this rabbit hole.

 

[Rhea]

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

That's probably a mistaken interpretation of the law.

Seriously?

But then again, it is wholly irrelevant, so let us say that they legally are people. It is a legal fiction. They are not persons in the sense of the word 'person' in English. They do not have minds, except in the sense some of their members, owners, leaders, etc., do They cannot suffer, except also in that sense. They are not capable of having moral obligations, be morally guilty, etc.

his is the jump-skip between legal culpability and moral culpability. When one argument become undeniable, he skips to the other and pretends it did not also get undeniable before he skips off again to the first.


In the end, the catholic church is BOTH morally and legally culpable. And they don’t get to escape just by running out the clock. The organization endures. It has assets and power that endure. It has culpability that endures, just like a corporation that polluted a river 60 ears ago.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

That's probably a mistaken interpretation of the law.

It's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law.

Please read the linked article before going any further down this rabbit hole.

While a non-negligible minority of SCOTUS rulings are mistaken (or do you think the 5-4, 6-3, etc., are always cases in which the majority is correct? ), here the problem is that the interpretation that the SCOTUS said that corporations are people is probably mistaken. However, as I said it is not relevant to my point. So, there is no rabbit hole. I grant you for the sake of the argument that according to US law, corporations are people. And I further grant you for the sake of the argument that that is so in Canada, because why not grant it? It just does not affect my points in the least.

 

[Arctish]

It's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law.

Please read the linked article before going any further down this rabbit hole.

While a non-negligible minority of SCOTUS rulings are mistaken (or do you think the 5-4, 6-3, etc., are always cases in which the majority is correct? ), here the problem is that the interpretation that the SCOTUS said that corporations are people is probably mistaken. However, as I said it is not relevant to my point. So, there is no rabbit hole. I grant you for the sake of the argument that according to US law, corporations are people. And I further grant you for the sake of the argument that that is so in Canada, because why not grant it? It just does not affect my points in the least.

The points you seem to want to make are abstruse musings on moral culpability more suited to the Morals & Principles forum.

This is the Politics forum, where legal standing cannot be divorced from legal obligations no matter how you feel about the genuineness of corporate mindsets or institutional culture.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Seriously?

Yes.

When one argument become undeniable, he skips to the other and pretends it did not also get undeniable before he skips off again to the first.

No, I never skip anything. I keep saying that moral culpability requires a mind. Further, it requires a specific kind of mind. On the other hand, legal culpability just requires any fiction the law comes up with. While I might point out when you or others mistakenly interpret the law, that's not skipping anything. And all of this is on record in my posts, but the way.

In the end, the catholic church is BOTH morally and legally culpable. And they don’t get to escape just by running out the clock.

Who is the catholic church? Wait, you told me already. And I already explained that you were making absurd claims.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law.

Please read the linked article before going any further down this rabbit hole.

While a non-negligible minority of SCOTUS rulings are mistaken (or do you think the 5-4, 6-3, etc., are always cases in which the majority is correct? ), here the problem is that the interpretation that the SCOTUS said that corporations are people is probably mistaken. However, as I said it is not relevant to my point. So, there is no rabbit hole. I grant you for the sake of the argument that according to US law, corporations are people. And I further grant you for the sake of the argument that that is so in Canada, because why not grant it? It just does not affect my points in the least.

The points you seem to want to make are abstruse musings on moral culpability more suited to the Morals & Principles forum.

This is the Politics forum, where legal standing cannot be divorced from legal obligations no matter how you feel about the genuineness of corporate mindsets or institutional culture.

First, the vast majority of moral debates in this website take place in the Politics forum.

Second, when you make moral arguments, claims or implications in a politics thread, it is proper to respond with moral arguments, claims, etc.

Third, I'm not trying to divorce the legal standing from legal obligations. I'm talking about moral obligations, moral guilt, moral blame, etc., and only tangentially addressing your legal points when I feel it's worth doing some correcting. But I'm arguing morality here nearly always, not legality, and I'm making that very clear. Of course, some moral obligations result from there being a law commanding such-and-such things, etc., and I take that into account, when making moral assessments. But that is another matter. My main objection here is to the blame of the innocent, collective blaming, etc., always in the moral sense.

 

[Rhea]

I'm talking about moral obligations, moral guilt, moral blame, etc., and only tangentially addressing your legal points when I feel it's worth doing some correcting. But I'm arguing morality here nearly always, not legality, and I'm making that very clear. Of course, some moral obligations result from there being a law commanding such-and-such things, etc., and I take that into account, when making moral assessments. But that is another matter. My main objection here is to the blame of the innocent, collective blaming, etc., always in the moral sense.

I’m sure the RCC and all the catholics are delighted to know there’s a guy who thinks they did nothing wrong. They can think of you when they drink from their golden goblets and assume they’ll all go to heaven.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm talking about moral obligations, moral guilt, moral blame, etc., and only tangentially addressing your legal points when I feel it's worth doing some correcting. But I'm arguing morality here nearly always, not legality, and I'm making that very clear. Of course, some moral obligations result from there being a law commanding such-and-such things, etc., and I take that into account, when making moral assessments. But that is another matter. My main objection here is to the blame of the innocent, collective blaming, etc., always in the moral sense.

I’m sure the RCC and all the catholics are delighted to know there’s a guy who thinks they did nothing wrong. They can think of you when they drink from their golden goblets and assume they’ll all go to heaven.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, of course.

First, it is not the case that I believe that none of the Catholics did anything wrong. In fact, I even said the pope did something wrong by choosing to be pope and continuing to choose to be pope (it might not be wrong to stay there just to argue against Christianity or something like that, though, but I'm talking about remaining in the post and doing the job). And sure some Catholics were guilty many of the kidnappings, abuses, murders, etc.

Second, I pointed out that some priests continue to engage in abuse, etc.

Third, I even said Catholics were not being rational just in virtue of remaining Catholics!


And that was just only in this thread. I have spent a lot of time arguing against Christianity, including Catholicism.

 

[TomC]

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, of course.

Yes, it is a vicious misrepresentation of your position.

What else do you expect from the TFT culture? Anti-Papists don't have to be reasonable or respond to the evidence. I've stopped beating my head against the concrete. Talking to the anti-catholics on this thread is like talking to creationists or Trumpistas. They're not going to let reality get in the way of their hate.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Fun fact: in the US, corporations are people that can act on their beliefs. And the RCC Archdioceses are corporations. I don't know if they have similar legal standing in Canada.

That's probably a mistaken interpretation of the law.

It's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law.

Please read the linked article before going any further down this rabbit hole.

Why on earth would you tell us to read a linked NPR article, if you want us to believe it's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law? Tell us to read the bloody SCOTUS ruling you claim exists!

I read the linked article. AFAICT, it didn't reference any SCOTUS case that ruled that corporations are people. That corporations are people is a ruling of Nina Totenberg at most -- more likely it's the ruling of some NPR drone assigned to make up a headline for her much more thoughtful article.

 

[Gospel]

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, of course.

Yes, it is a vicious misrepresentation of your position.

What else do you expect from the TFT culture? Anti-Papists don't have to be reasonable or respond to the evidence. I've stopped beating my head against the concrete. Talking to the anti-catholics on this thread is like talking to creationists or Trumpistas. They're not going to let reality get in the way of their hate.
Tom

Talking to the anti-catholics on this thread is like talking to creationists or Trumpistas? Bruh No it's not. Angra Mainyu has done a great job communicating with you. I'm not an Anti-Catholic and haven't made any arguments for or against Catholicism but you had a hard time talking to me on this thread. I do agree with some of your points, for example, the folks who had nothing to do with what the school did are indeed victims of the fires. You seem to confuse my recognizing/understanding why the fires were started with an agreement with arson.

 

[Arctish]

It's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law.

Please read the linked article before going any further down this rabbit hole.

Why on earth would you tell us to read a linked NPR article, if you want us to believe it's the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law?

Because it's best to walk people through unfamiliar matters at first, and NPR is a good source for reliable and concise information.

Tell us to read the bloody SCOTUS ruling you claim exists!

I read the linked article. AFAICT, it didn't reference any SCOTUS case that ruled that corporations are people. That corporations are people is a ruling of Nina Totenberg at most -- more likely it's the ruling of some NPR drone assigned to make up a headline for her much more thoughtful article.

The NPR article is a quick rundown of the evolution of corporate personhood in the United States. It contains embedded links to further explain the 2010 ruling, and it refers to that ruling by name. Anyone interested can easily find and read up on Citizens United themselves. Text of the ruling can be found here.

My apologies for assuming you'd heard of it.

 

[laughing dog]

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, of course.

Yes, it is a vicious misrepresentation of your position.

What else do you expect from the TFT culture? Anti-Papists don't have to be reasonable or respond to the evidence. I've stopped beating my head against the concrete. Talking to the anti-catholics on this thread is like talking to creationists or Trumpistas. They're not going to let reality get in the way of their hate.
Tom

Thank you for your example of a gross misrepresentation of people's views. It is quite insightful.

BTW, I think AM misinterpreted Rhea's point because he took it out of context. I do not believe that Rhea suggested that AM thinks Catholics can do nothing wrong in global fashion - it was in the context of the killing and burying of children at these Catholic schools.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

BTW, I think AM misinterpreted Rhea's point because he took it out of context. I do not believe that Rhea suggested that AM thinks Catholics can do nothing wrong in global fashion - it was in the context of the killing and burying of children at these Catholic schools.

I did not take the point out of context. Consider that she said that "I’m sure the RCC and all the catholics are delighted to know there’s a guy who thinks they did nothing wrong. They can think of you when they drink from their golden goblets and assume they’ll all go to heaven."

So, the fact that I say that Catholics are not being rational just for remaining Catholics (for example; and I'm talking about adults with no significant mental health problems who can think about their religion) is enough to block her reply, since that would definitely not make them happy when they are drinking.

Second, even if we leave aside our general points about Catholicism, it is not the case that I believe no Catholics did anything wrong in the context of the killing and burying of children at those Catholic schools, as I said in my reply to her. So, even in this limited fashion, that is not true.

Of course, if she is talking about Catholics who in fact did not have anything to do with those crimes - the vast majority of living Catholics -, then yes, of course, I do believe they did not do anything wrong in those cases! But it remains the case they would have a hard time when they drink from their golden goblets? (they probably do not have those, either, but even if they do), given my points and arguments against Catholicism, in general and not exclusively in relation to the crimes some Catholics committed in these Canadian Catholic schools.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, I think AM misinterpreted Rhea's point because he took it out of context. I do not believe that Rhea suggested that AM thinks Catholics can do nothing wrong in global fashion - it was in the context of the killing and burying of children at these Catholic schools.

I did not take the point out of context. Consider that she said that "I’m sure the RCC and all the catholics are delighted to know there’s a guy who thinks they did nothing wrong. They can think of you when they drink from their golden goblets and assume they’ll all go to heaven."

So, the fact that I say that Catholics are not being rational just for remaining Catholics (for example; and I'm talking about adults with no significant mental health problems who can think about their religion) is enough to block her reply, since that would definitely not make them happy when they are drinking.

I apologize for my error. Clearly I mistook your irrelevant or silly reasons as an indication you misinterpreted her point.