Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Rhea]

Meanwhile, 1500+ bodies of dead children were found on the grounds of 3 schools that were examined. There are a total of 139 schools. The organization that owns those properties, and who hired, paid and housed the murderers does not wish to look at any additional properties, nor look in records to determine the extent of the problem or its cover up during the last 100 years when indigenous families were begging for information.

Looking at that issue, some people wish to argue whether Citizens united is the only case where the personhood of corporations is argued, or whether a discussion of corporations can assume all of the court cases that exist on the issue.

But meanwhile, the organization that owns the properties where 1500+ dead bodies of children were found is not the thing some people wish to discuss, because… reasons.

 

[Angry Floof]

Meanwhile, 1500+ bodies of dead children were found on the grounds of 3 schools that were examined. There are a total of 139 schools. The organization that owns those properties, and who hired, paid and housed the murderers does not wish to look at any additional properties, nor look in records to determine the extent of the problem or its cover up during the last 100 years when indigenous families were begging for information.

Looking at that issue, some people wish to argue whether Citizens united is the only case where the personhood of corporations is argued, or whether a discussion of corporations can assume all of the court cases that exist on the issue.

But meanwhile, the organization that owns the properties where 1500+ dead bodies of children were found is not the thing some people wish to discuss, because… reasons.

But Rhea, this sort of thing happens everywhere. Abuse and neglect are not exclusive to the RCC. You can expect to find 1,500 dead children under pretty much any organization's buildings. Who among us does not have dead children under their buildings? Who among us?

It's not fair to suggest that the RCC take responsibility in any way, even just apologizing and promising to do what it takes to investigate what happened and why, and how the RCC will take whatever measures necessary to make sure that this never happens again and that any of its employees or volunteers that engage in any sort of abuse of children will be fired and appropriate legal actions taken.

That would not be fair to make the innocent RCC do all that stuff, much less allow society to impose laws, if necessary, that demand transparency, responsive action, a rigorously enforced no-tolerance policy on child abuse, and a full stop to actions that protect abusers within the organization and cover up their crimes.

That would not be fair at all. I mean, hell, there's probably a few hundred indigenous children's bodies under your house, so don't be casting judgmental stones, you hypocrite.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Meanwhile, 1500+ bodies of dead children were found on the grounds of 3 schools that were examined. There are a total of 139 schools. The organization that owns those properties, and who hired, paid and housed the murderers does not wish to look at any additional properties, nor look in records to determine the extent of the problem or its cover up during the last 100 years when indigenous families were begging for information.

First, even assuming they were all murderers (why?), the people who hired those murderers and who work within the Catholic church are not the people making decisions in the Catholic church today.

Second, again, there are other problems that require funding. As B20 explained, "The first moral liability is that the RCC has put itself in the position of having a lot of the world's poor people depending on it for survival. These people's lives have to come ahead of redressing past wrongs. "

Third, the school system was run by the Canadian government since 1969.

Fourth, if there are RCC records that are relevant and the pope refuses to open them but he would be able to without causing something worse than not giving people access to the info (very probably), then the pope is to blame for that. Again, then the pope is to blame for that. And he is of course to blame for considerably worse things than that.

Looking at that issue, some people wish to argue whether Citizens united is the only case where the personhood of corporations is argued, or whether a discussion of corporations can assume all of the court cases that exist on the issue.

No, it does not appear as though anyone wished to discuss whether Citizens United is the only case where the personhood of corporations is argued. But it is true that Arctish brought Citizens United into the discussion. I said his interpretation of CU was probably mistaken, but granted the point for the sake of the argument, because I actually wasn't very interested in discussing that. B20 challenged Arctish's claim. It's a claim that is made here in the thread and can be challenged here. It's obvious that an argument given here in the thread will not make have an influence on the pope's choices.

But meanwhile, the organization that owns the properties where 1500+ dead bodies of children were found is not the thing some people wish to discuss, because… reasons.

And the pope is impervious to the arguments given in this thread, if not for other reason simply because he is not aware of that, and realistically he will not be. So, there is no point in trying to persuade the pope. Still, let me point out that B20 already gave a detailed account of what he believes the pope should do.

 

[laughing dog]

False and unwarranted accusations are not minutiea, as they happen in the thread.

That is not necessarily true.

But nobody is avoiding anything.

I beg to differ. Offering theoretical arguments that are not grounded in real social relations is avoiding the actual topic. Your insipid moral argument might have validity in a vacuum, but any argument that ignores that reality that institutions can be morally held responsible for the actions taken under their name is avoiding reality.

 

[Rhea]

But Rhea, this sort of thing happens everywhere. Abuse and neglect are not exclusive to the RCC. You can expect to find 1,500 dead children under pretty much any organization's buildings. Who among us does not have dead children under their buildings? Who among us?

It's not fair to suggest that the RCC take responsibility in any way, even just apologizing and promising to do what it takes to investigate what happened and why, and how the RCC will take whatever measures necessary to make sure that this never happens again and that any of its employees or volunteers that engage in any sort of abuse of children will be fired and appropriate legal actions taken.

That would not be fair to make the innocent RCC do all that stuff, much less allow society to impose laws, if necessary, that demand transparency, responsive action, a rigorously enforced no-tolerance policy on child abuse, and a full stop to actions that protect abusers within the organization and cover up their crimes.

That would not be fair at all. I mean, hell, there's probably a few hundred indigenous children's bodies under your house, so don't be casting judgmental stones, you hypocrite.

Well, that was prescient.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But Rhea, this sort of thing happens everywhere. Abuse and neglect are not exclusive to the RCC. You can expect to find 1,500 dead children under pretty much any organization's buildings. Who among us does not have dead children under their buildings? Who among us?

No one said that. You can figure out the reasons for the objection by taking a look at the exchange. Of course, one should not expect more dead children beneath churches due to current practices. There probably are many dead people (mostly adults, but that does not make it better), and probably murdered, in unmarked graves in China, NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and a long etc. But not many in churches due to murders committed by the current pope. Or the current bishops in Canada. Though if you do have good evidence of that - enough to warrant an investigation - I would ask you to present the evidence, and suggest calling the Canadian police.

It's not fair to suggest that the RCC take responsibility in any way, even just apologizing and promising to do what it takes to investigate what happened and why, and how the RCC will take whatever measures necessary to make sure that this never happens again and that any of its employees or volunteers that engage in any sort of abuse of children will be fired and appropriate legal actions taken.

Of course, it is not fair to demand that the RCC apologize, because the people who would be apologizing today just did not do it!.

That would not be fair to make the innocent RCC do all that stuff, much less allow society to impose laws, if necessary, that demand transparency, responsive action, a rigorously enforced no-tolerance policy on child abuse, and a full stop to actions that protect abusers within the organization and cover up their crimes.

If by "RCC" you mean the pope, he is guilty of many things, but innocent of these kidnappings, murders, etc. If you mean some entity without a mind, then it's not guilty of anything. If you mean something else, what do you mean by "RCC". Is that an entity with a mind, or without one?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I beg to differ. Offering theoretical arguments that are not grounded in real social relations is avoiding the actual topic.

First, there are plenty of topics in this thread.

Second, the arguments are good moral arguments, grounded in human morality.

Third, even if you were right about the arguments, no, to offer theoretical arguments or whatever is not to avoid a topic- whatever the topic is, say X. They can be offered in addition to comments about X, and then one could simply choose not to talk about X without talking about other things.

Your insipid moral argument might have validity in a vacuum, but any argument that ignores that reality that institutions can be morally held responsible for the actions taken under their name is avoiding reality.

If by 'morally held responsible' you mean to talk about compensation, well, we can talk about it, but that's not what I was objecting to. It's the blaming I object to.

 

[laughing dog]

I beg to differ. Offering theoretical arguments that are not grounded in real social relations is avoiding the actual topic.

First, there are plenty of topics in this thread.

Thank you for pointing out the irrelevant but obvious.

Second, the arguments are good moral arguments, grounded in human morality.

No, they are not because human morality is about real people in the real world, not some theoretical universe untethered to reality.

Third, even if you were right about the arguments, no, to offer theoretical arguments or whatever is not to avoid a topic- whatever the topic is, say X. They can be offered in addition to comments about X, and then one could simply choose not to talk about X without talking about other things.

You are wrong. Offering "comments in addition to the topic" is avoiding X. Duh.

If by 'morally held responsible' you mean to talk about compensation, well, we can talk about it, but that's not what I was objecting to. It's the blaming I object to.

We are well aware of your obsession with that straw man.

 

[Angry Floof]

That would not be fair to make the innocent RCC do all that stuff, much less allow society to impose laws, if necessary, that demand transparency, responsive action, a rigorously enforced no-tolerance policy on child abuse, and a full stop to actions that protect abusers within the organization and cover up their crimes.

If by "RCC" you mean the pope, he is guilty of many things, but innocent of these kidnappings, murders, etc. If you mean some entity without a mind, then it's not guilty of anything. If you mean something else, what do you mean by "RCC". Is that an entity with a mind, or without one?

If he has no power to protect children from employees and volunteers of the organization that he heads, then who would you suggest take the actions necessary to deal with child abuse within the organization? Some middle management official?

Is it really, truly okay with you that the RCC, the Pope being its top officer and voice, completely just ignore this situation?

Also, why did you change my name to Angra Fair??

 

[Bomb#20]

[…]
No, Citizens United left the legal limits on political donations unchanged. Giving money to a politician is not speech. Speaking out against the politician's opponent is speech. The Supreme Court can tell the difference, even if the SC's countless disparagers cannot.

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point. ... 1500+ bodies of dead children found on 3 Catholic Church properties. ...

I believe Rhea is correct. You guys appear to be arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

Are you two ever going to get tired of being hypocrites? I contradicted Arctish because he recited a mindless left-wing canard that went half-way round the world before the truth got its boots on, not in order to avoid discussing the main point, and both of you bloody well know it! This whole digression happened because Arctish, apparently referring to Citizens United, wrote:

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

Well, even if he'd been right, that is minutiae. But did either of you infer from this that Arctish said it "to avoid discussing the main point"? No, you did not. It's evidently perfectly fine with you two if somebody talks about minutiae that don't bear on the main issue, as long as what he says is something you agree with and like hearing. You made a false accusation against me because you don't like me, not because you had any grounds for thinking what you said was true.

So go ahead. Either explain how American law (supposedly) treating corporations legally as people would make it sensible to talk about the Catholic Church as if it were a person, either morally or under Canadian law, or else go crawl back under your rocks and take your double standard with you.

Wait, let me guess, it's because you think the Canadian government's culpability in the deaths of 1500 First Nations children means it should be subjected to capital punishment the only way it could be, by having the U.S.A. annex Canada?

 

[Rhea]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Does that make us 3 for 3 on schools with bodies?

Something about 1 being a coincidence, 2 being suspicious, and 3 defining a trend?

Maybe we try best 4 out of 7?

Context: percentage of RCC schools checked to schools hosting a legacy of child murder, neglect, and coverup.

What do you do when there is no authority on seeing that the right thing is done? Who watches the watchmen?

Apparently, nobody can watch them... Not even themselves.

All we are asking is for the Catholic church to turn people they know are criminals out so that they are exposed to the same oversight anyone else is expected to undergo.

If we can RICO the mob, we can RICO the RCC.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That would not be fair to make the innocent RCC do all that stuff, much less allow society to impose laws, if necessary, that demand transparency, responsive action, a rigorously enforced no-tolerance policy on child abuse, and a full stop to actions that protect abusers within the organization and cover up their crimes.

If by "RCC" you mean the pope, he is guilty of many things, but innocent of these kidnappings, murders, etc. If you mean some entity without a mind, then it's not guilty of anything. If you mean something else, what do you mean by "RCC". Is that an entity with a mind, or without one?

If he has no power to protect children from employees and volunteers of the organization that he heads, then who would you suggest take the actions necessary to deal with child abuse within the organization? Some middle management official?

Is it really, truly okay with you that the RCC, the Pope being its top officer and voice, completely just ignore this situation?

No one in the universe has the power to go back in time and protect the children who were kidnapped, abused and/or killed in those Canadian schools. And yet, you were demanding an apology. From whom? The pope? He didn't do it.

As for whether he has the power to do that, he has certainly some, though I'm not sure how much.

As for whether it's okay for the pope to just ignore the situation, I would say it's not. But then, he's agreed to meet with representatives of the groups called "First Nations, Metis and Inuit " (see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...-residential-schools-amid-demands-for-apology ). Then again, there is a pandemic, so maybe they shouldn't meet in person.

Regardless, the pope probably can do more without incurring worse costs, so it's probably wrong that he's not doing more. It's considerably less wrong than other things the pope did or does.

On the other hand, he is not guilty for the kidnappings, abuses, murders, etc., and he should not apologize for them precisely for that reason.

Also, why did you change my name to Angra Fair??

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened. Maybe I mistyped it, or a copy/paste problem, or a combination of those two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Of course we should get the facts. It's just some of us do not consider it a high priority because we don't believe there are any living wrongdoers. There are pedophile priests being shuffled around, though--that should be a far higher priority because not only are there plenty of them around but there's ongoing harm.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Of course we should get the facts. It's just some of us do not consider it a high priority because we don't believe there are any living wrongdoers. There are pedophile priests being shuffled around, though--that should be a far higher priority because not only are there plenty of them around but there's ongoing harm.

There are a lot of priorities. People who are harmed because their uncles and brothers and sisters and aunts and cultural identity were buried under those schools do live today. These are their priorities and I think it's possible to release two sets of records at once.

People are allowed their priorities. I say "por que no los dos?"

 

[Rhea]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Of course we should get the facts. It's just some of us do not consider it a high priority because we don't believe there are any living wrongdoers. There are pedophile priests being shuffled around, though--that should be a far higher priority because not only are there plenty of them around but there's ongoing harm.

You are saying that the RCC is such a small organization it can only work on one priority at a time?

Overall, the Catholic Church employs more than one million employees with an operating budget of nearly $100 billion to run parishes, diocesan primary and secondary schools, nursing homes, retreat centers, hospitals, and other charitable institutions.

So, all one million employees are needed on the rapist priest front?

 

[Patooka]

First, even assuming they were all murderers (why?), the people who hired those murderers and who work within the Catholic church are not the people making decisions in the Catholic church today.

Second, again, there are other problems that require funding. As B20 explained, "The first moral liability is that the RCC has put itself in the position of having a lot of the world's poor people depending on it for survival. These people's lives have to come ahead of redressing past wrongs. "

Third, the school system was run by the Canadian government since 1969.

Fourth, if there are RCC records that are relevant and the pope refuses to open them but he would be able to without causing something worse than not giving people access to the info (very probably), then the pope is to blame for that. Again, then the pope is to blame for that. And he is of course to blame for considerably worse things than that.



No, it does not appear as though anyone wished to discuss whether Citizens United is the only case where the personhood of corporations is argued. But it is true that Arctish brought Citizens United into the discussion. I said his interpretation of CU was probably mistaken, but granted the point for the sake of the argument, because I actually wasn't very interested in discussing that. B20 challenged Arctish's claim. It's a claim that is made here in the thread and can be challenged here. It's obvious that an argument given here in the thread will not make have an influence on the pope's choices.

But meanwhile, the organization that owns the properties where 1500+ dead bodies of children were found is not the thing some people wish to discuss, because… reasons.

And the pope is impervious to the arguments given in this thread, if not for other reason simply because he is not aware of that, and realistically he will not be. So, there is no point in trying to persuade the pope. Still, let me point out that B20 already gave a detailed account of what he believes the pope should do.

If you're still confused how you can assign a characteristic to an organization, this person here does it to a hypothetical group. I admit it is not a very good example, as the person doesn't clearly define how this imaginary group comes to the supposed conclusion, but it provides a clear example of assigning characteristics to a collective body. In the case of the RCC, they can be viewed as guilty of covering up deaths of children using the evidence provided.

That is of course, unless you are being obtuse about how one can assign characteristics to collective groups.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, even assuming they were all murderers (why?), the people who hired those murderers and who work within the Catholic church are not the people making decisions in the Catholic church today.

Second, again, there are other problems that require funding. As B20 explained, "The first moral liability is that the RCC has put itself in the position of having a lot of the world's poor people depending on it for survival. These people's lives have to come ahead of redressing past wrongs. "

Third, the school system was run by the Canadian government since 1969.

Fourth, if there are RCC records that are relevant and the pope refuses to open them but he would be able to without causing something worse than not giving people access to the info (very probably), then the pope is to blame for that. Again, then the pope is to blame for that. And he is of course to blame for considerably worse things than that.



No, it does not appear as though anyone wished to discuss whether Citizens United is the only case where the personhood of corporations is argued. But it is true that Arctish brought Citizens United into the discussion. I said his interpretation of CU was probably mistaken, but granted the point for the sake of the argument, because I actually wasn't very interested in discussing that. B20 challenged Arctish's claim. It's a claim that is made here in the thread and can be challenged here. It's obvious that an argument given here in the thread will not make have an influence on the pope's choices.

But meanwhile, the organization that owns the properties where 1500+ dead bodies of children were found is not the thing some people wish to discuss, because… reasons.

And the pope is impervious to the arguments given in this thread, if not for other reason simply because he is not aware of that, and realistically he will not be. So, there is no point in trying to persuade the pope. Still, let me point out that B20 already gave a detailed account of what he believes the pope should do.

If you're still confused how you can assign a characteristic to an organization, this person here does it to a hypothetical group. I admit it is not a very good example, as the person doesn't clearly define how this imaginary group comes to the supposed conclusion, but it provides a clear example of assigning characteristics to a collective body. In the case of the RCC, they can be viewed as guilty of covering up deaths of children using the evidence provided.

That is of course, unless you are being obtuse about how one can assign characteristics to collective groups.

That is not remotely an example of blaming an organization. What I did was make a psychological point about most left-wingers who hate Orban. It is a based on observations of a gazillion left-wingers (and it is also applicable to other wingers). There is no problem doing that. There is also no problem in making psychological assessments about most Catholics: most believe that they are going to heaven after they die. That is not at all an instance of ascribing moral blame to an entity without a mind, or to human individuals for the actions of others.

And no, again, it's not at all assigning characteristics to a 'collective body'. Rather, it is ascribing a characteristic to most people - human individuals - in a group. Nothing to do with blaming something that does not have a mind (or the right sort of mind to have moral obligations), or blaming someone for what someone else did.


Let me make another point: There is a massive difference between assigning a psychological characteristic to a collective and assigning a psychological characteristic to the majority or even all people in the collective, regardless of what the characteristic is. In this case, blaming the collective RCC instead of or in addition to the individual members, leaders, etc., would be a confusion because the RCC in the sense of a legal fiction or whatever sense that does not involve those individuals is not the sort of thing that can be morally blameworthy. On the other hand, blaming all of those members, leaders, etc., or at least some who did not participate in the kidnappings, etc., for the kidnappings, etc., is an instance of blaming the innocent (even if they are guilty of other things). I did nothing of the sort or even related to that in the other thread.

 

[Rhea]

I have never seen a hair split so fine.
That was astonishing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have never seen a hair split so fine.
That was astonishing.

Hair splitting?
The difference is absolutely massive. Do you not realize that? It's not even related in any significant way!