Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Gospel]

All of Angra Mainyu's arguments will go down the drain after legal remedies are sought. There is no statute of limitations in Canada Anyway. We'll soon have proof that the Catholic Church Angra Mainyu seems to believe only exists in the past, exists today.

 

[Jarhyn]

All of Angra Mainyu's arguments will go down the drain after legal remedies are sought. There is no statute of limitations in Canada Anyway. We'll soon have proof that the Catholic Church Angra Mainyu seems to believe only exists in the past, exists today.

Honestly, most of AM's arguments already go right to the bit bucket for me. I have them on ignore, as their frequent Sophistry warrants.

 

[TomC]

All of Angra Mainyu's arguments will go down the drain after legal remedies are sought. There is no statute of limitations in Canada Anyway. We'll soon have proof that the Catholic Church Angra Mainyu seems to believe only exists in the past, exists today.

Honestly, most of AM's arguments already go right to the bit bucket for me. I have them on ignore, as their frequent Sophistry warrants.

I don't use ignore function.
But I have come to realize some things about TFT culture. There are several posters who, when they get their RCC hate on, aren't much worth reading.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

There are several posters who, when they get their RCC hate on, aren't much worth reading.

This thread is about the RCC being responsible for the murder of hundreds (of known cases) of children.

Murder.
Of Children.
Hundreds (so far).
Buried and hidden by the RCC.

And you’re bothered by internet posters hating on the RCC.
THAT’S what bothers you.


I find it to be so interesting, how people react to this tragedy. So very interesting.
Some burn down the churches when they discover another 700 dead children (on top of the 500 already discovered) have been concealed by the church.
Some rail against the church for doing nothing to find the rest, or apologize for its actions.
Some complain that the church is not a real entity and is therefore not at fault for the 1300+ dead - no one is anymore, it’s just a passive shame, pass the beans, please.
And some are bothered by those who are railing. Need to avoid their words. Because that’s the real issue.


I watch that, and I ponder what it means. It is a fascinating wndow into the souls of man.

Murder. Of children stolen from their homes. How tiresome to have to listen to that.

 

[Gospel]

I'll happily repeat it again. I don't hate Catholics or the Catholic church. I hate Catholics that do horrific shit which means I hate specific individuals who identify as Catholic that do horrific shit. It's the same as my dispising some American's that do horrific shit, they just happen to be American, but that doesn't mean I hate America.

 

[Patooka]

There are several posters who, when they get their RCC hate on, aren't much worth reading.

This thread is about the RCC being responsible for the murder of hundreds (of known cases) of children.

Murder.
Of Children.
Hundreds (so far).
Buried and hidden by the RCC.

And you’re bothered by internet posters hating on the RCC.
THAT’S what bothers you.


I find it to be so interesting, how people react to this tragedy. So very interesting.
Some burn down the churches when they discover another 700 dead children (on top of the 500 already discovered) have been concealed by the church.
Some rail against the church for doing nothing to find the rest, or apologize for its actions.
Some complain that the church is not a real entity and is therefore not at fault for the 1300+ dead - no one is anymore, it’s just a passive shame, pass the beans, please.
And some are bothered by those who are railing. Need to avoid their words. Because that’s the real issue.


I watch that, and I ponder what it means. It is a fascinating wndow into the souls of man.

Murder. Of children stolen from their homes. How tiresome to have to listen to that.

It's worth pointing out that going by the Catholic Church's record, there is a near certainty that they did some pretty horrific shit to the children who didn't die as well. That's how fucked up the situation is. Child abuse is being swept under the carpet because mass graves are such a distraction.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

When that child grows up and makes the deliberate decision to represent an organization, guess what? They're accountable for what that organization does. This isn't a controversial idea.

No, that is not true.
First, we need to distinguish between two things:

1. Being guilty for something (a choice, or a failure to make one that was obligatory).
Clearly, if Joe decides to represent the Catholic Church, that does not make Joe guilty of anything done by other people who represented the Catholic church. One can only be guilty of one's own choices/failure to make them.

2. Being responsible for paying compensation for what someone else does in the name of the organization.
In this case, usually the answer is also 'no', though one would have to consider what they actually signed up for. But surely, the parishioners and priests did not sign up for paying compensation for what others did in the past.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you're not making legal arguments, you might want to shy away from such phrases like "retroactively more guilty". Incidentally, my set of ethics and morals state the context of the act and the events surrounding it is very important to make a determination of right and wrong.

No, I do not want to shy away from such phrases at all. I will not give up on moral language just because.

As for your "set of ethics and morals", I do not know what you mean exactly. But I'm talking about morality, and the events surrounding a choice - or rather, the information about surrounding events available to the chooser - are generally important, sure.

View Post
Begin to understand? I already understand that many people get confused, engage in group thinking, blame those who are not to blame, and spread false moral beliefs. Such is life.

Then burning down churches isn't an issue, as strictly speaking no one owns them. The Catholic Church isn't a person.

That obviously does not follow. Again, blaming people who are not guilty is an issue. Destroying the churches other people are using - people who are not guilty of the crimes for which the perpetrators want revenge - is an issue. And so on. And that has nothing to do with whether the Catholic Church is a person.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

All of Angra Mainyu's arguments will go down the drain after legal remedies are sought. There is no statute of limitations in Canada Anyway. We'll soon have proof that the Catholic Church Angra Mainyu seems to believe only exists in the past, exists today.

Actually, my arguments would not be even affected in the slightest by any sort of legal remedies. I'm making moral arguments involving actions that have already happened, like burning churches. Nothing the courts might decide affects them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When that child grows up and makes the deliberate decision to represent an organization, guess what? They're accountable for what that organization does. This isn't a controversial idea.

No, that is not true.
First, we need to distinguish between two things:

1. Being guilty for something (a choice, or a failure to make one that was obligatory).
Clearly, if Joe decides to represent the Catholic Church, that does not make Joe guilty of anything done by other people who represented the Catholic church. One can only be guilty of one's own choices/failure to make them.

2. Being responsible for paying compensation for what someone else does in the name of the organization.
In this case, usually the answer is also 'no', though one would have to consider what they actually signed up for. But surely, the parishioners and priests did not sign up for paying compensation for what others did in the past.

When the organization defends, distracts, hides these actions, tries to use back door channels and hush payments to suppress information, the fucking organization is responsible. It's amazing people still defend this shit. It's nothing but loyalty.

Just because an organization also does good things does not mean it is absolved of it's crimes, horrendous crimes. It's a sickness to defend organizations that do this.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

All of Angra Mainyu's arguments will go down the drain after legal remedies are sought. There is no statute of limitations in Canada Anyway. We'll soon have proof that the Catholic Church Angra Mainyu seems to believe only exists in the past, exists today.

Honestly, most of AM's arguments already go right to the bit bucket for me. I have them on ignore, as their frequent Sophistry warrants.

I use no sophistry, though it is true that you do not know that, and you will never realize that. You remain and will remain in your confusion, believing I'm using sophistry.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

When the organization defends, distracts, hides these actions, tries to use back door channels and hush payments to suppress information, the fucking organization is responsible.

What does "the organization defends...", etc., means, if not that some people in the organization do that. And if by "responsible" you mean 'guilty', sure, some people are guilty. And some other people are not. And if by "responsible" you mean to talk about economic compensation rather than moral guilt, maybe. It depends on who did it and how.

It's amazing people still defend this shit. It's nothing but loyalty.

No, what is amazing is that you would say it's amazing, would attribute to me loyalty to the Catholic Church, etc.

Just because an organization also does good things does not mean it is absolved of it's crimes, horrendous crimes. It's a sickness to defend organizations that do this.

No, it's not absolved of those crimes. It's just that there are no such crimes, except to the extent they are committed by members of the organization, who are guilty - not the rest.

 

[TomC]

Well, a child born today, when she grows up, should not go around taking credit or what happened back then. Or praising other living people for it. Or blaming then, etc.

When that child grows up and makes the deliberate decision to represent an organization, guess what? They're accountable for what that organization does. This isn't a controversial idea.

You do know that the Democrats are the party of slavery and racism, right?

That Republicans like Abraham Lincoln formed a political party in opposition to Democratic Party values? Well into the 1960's Dixiecrats remained the party of segregation and racism?

Are Democrats responsible for all that racism, lynching, red-lining and such?
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's worth pointing out that going by the Catholic Church's record, there is a near certainty that they did some pretty horrific shit to the children who didn't die as well. That's how fucked up the situation is. Child abuse is being swept under the carpet because mass graves are such a distraction.

Okay, so:

1. Who did the horrific shit? Those are guilty of choosing to do the horrific shit.

2. Who chose to cover it up? Those are guilty of choosing to covering it up.


I will point out that there is no good reason to believe, on the basis of the available evidence, that the parishioners and priests of the burned and vandalized churches usually are not involved in any of the above. In fact, for all the claims I haven't even seen evidence that Francis is involved in the cover up of this. But if you have good evidence that he is, sure blame him.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There are several posters who, when they get their RCC hate on, aren't much worth reading.

This thread is about the RCC being responsible for the murder of hundreds (of known cases) of children.

Murder.
Of Children.
Hundreds (so far).
Buried and hidden by the RCC.

And you’re bothered by internet posters hating on the RCC.
THAT’S what bothers you.


I find it to be so interesting, how people react to this tragedy. So very interesting.
Some burn down the churches when they discover another 700 dead children (on top of the 500 already discovered) have been concealed by the church.
Some rail against the church for doing nothing to find the rest, or apologize for its actions.
Some complain that the church is not a real entity and is therefore not at fault for the 1300+ dead - no one is anymore, it’s just a passive shame, pass the beans, please.
And some are bothered by those who are railing. Need to avoid their words. Because that’s the real issue.


I watch that, and I ponder what it means. It is a fascinating wndow into the souls of man.

Murder. Of children stolen from their homes. How tiresome to have to listen to that.

What you see in the "souls of man" is not there. You are imagining things. The real issue of disagreement the blaming of innocent people, and the actions taken against innocent people.

The kidnapping and murder of children is a heinous crime, but no one defends it here; no disagreement is involved.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The RCC prides itself on being a long-lasting institutional beacon of Christianity and moral teaching. It preserves its traditions. The RCC proudly trumpets and stands by its actions and teaching.
Why anyone would think it is unreasonable to hold it accountable its actions is beyond comprehension.

It may be beyond your comprehension, because you fail to think beyond group think. Now, if you by "accountable" mean it is morally guilty, then no, it is not, except in the sense that some of its members are. And if you mean something else, then an apology would be out of place.

People hold institutions accountable for actions taken under the institutional name/aegis all the time.

Not all people, but sure, plenty of people engage in group thinking very often. Unless you're talking about something else other than moral blame by "accountable".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is an interesting thread because it is a living, happening illustration of how these atrocities occur. A person defends an institution because it is their institution and goes to any length to defend it, despite it being guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

And what makes it so terribly worse is that the institution is supposedly the paragon of virtue and behavior when it comes to morals.

Loyalty to a fault is the lesson of the day.

No, that is something that you make up. I am of course no Catholic, as you could easily see by reading the thread.

 

[laughing dog]

There are several posters who, when they get their RCC hate on, aren't much worth reading.

This thread is about the RCC being responsible for the murder of hundreds (of known cases) of children.

Murder.
Of Children.
Hundreds (so far).
Buried and hidden by the RCC.

And you’re bothered by internet posters hating on the RCC.
THAT’S what bothers you.


I find it to be so interesting, how people react to this tragedy. So very interesting.
Some burn down the churches when they discover another 700 dead children (on top of the 500 already discovered) have been concealed by the church.
Some rail against the church for doing nothing to find the rest, or apologize for its actions.
Some complain that the church is not a real entity and is therefore not at fault for the 1300+ dead - no one is anymore, it’s just a passive shame, pass the beans, please.
And some are bothered by those who are railing. Need to avoid their words. Because that’s the real issue.


I watch that, and I ponder what it means. It is a fascinating wndow into the souls of man.

Murder. Of children stolen from their homes. How tiresome to have to listen to that.

What you see in the "souls of man" is not there. You are imagining things. The real issue of disagreement the blaming of innocent people, and the actions taken against innocent people.

The kidnapping and murder of children is a heinous crime, but no one defends it here; no disagreement is involved.

Those "schools" were run in the name of the RCC. No one is arguing that the RCC or its officials should be jailed or even fined. But if the RCC wishes to maintain some (if any) of its moral authority, it needs to admit to the wrongdoing in its name and under it aegis, and apologize.

 

[laughing dog]

The RCC prides itself on being a long-lasting institutional beacon of Christianity and moral teaching. It preserves its traditions. The RCC proudly trumpets and stands by its actions and teaching.
Why anyone would think it is unreasonable to hold it accountable its actions is beyond comprehension.

It may be beyond your comprehension, because you fail to think beyond group think.

I have no idea what you mean by that. I suspect you don't either.

Now, if you by "accountable" mean it is morally guilty, then no, it is not, except in the sense that some of its members are. And if you mean something else, then an apology would be out of place.

As usual, you are mistaken.

Not all people, but sure, plenty of people engage in group thinking very often. Unless you're talking about something else other than moral blame by "accountable".

I think "group thinking" is a step above kneejerk stupidity.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Those "schools" were run in the name of the RCC. No one is arguing that the RCC or its officials should be jailed or even fined. But if the RCC wishes to maintain some (if any) of its moral authority, it needs to admit to the wrongdoing in its name and under it aegis, and apologize.

Well, given the number of people irrationally blaming 'it', maybe that would be a rational means-to-end method, but not a proper apology.

Leaving aside the possible rationality of an insincere apology to appease so many people who are being irrational and who blame the innocent, "it" should not admit to the wrongdoing, because the people who would be admitting to the wrongdoing did not do anything wrong!! (in this case). Other people did. An apology involves a recognition of guilt, and a promise not to do it again. Francis is not guilty of this.