Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[laughing dog]

FULL DISCLOSURE
I've stopped following Metaphor down every ideological rabbit hole he links to as well.
Tom

That wasn't Metaphor's post with links, Tom. It was mine.

Get it?
Tom

Let's see if I have it right. First, you falsely accuse posters of hating the Catholic church. Then you say you don't know the history behind this. When given links to possibly educate yourself on the history of this tragic policy, you refuse to read them on the excuse of identity of the poster (not of the links).

From that, a disinterested reader might reasonably come to the impression that your views are driven by smug ignorance.

 

[Toni]

Get it?
Tom

Let's see if I have it right. First, you falsely accuse posters of hating the Catholic church. Then you say you don't know the history behind this. When given links to possibly educate yourself on the history of this tragic policy, you refuse to read them on the excuse of identity of the poster (not of the links).

From that, a disinterested reader might reasonably come to the impression that your views are driven by smug ignorance.

Worse than that, he's apparently equating me with Metaphor. And Wikipedia and Canada Geographic with ideological rabbit holes.

As a US citizen, with some of my ancestors being here since well before the American Revolution, I understand how hard it is to reconcile the love and faith I have in my country with the absolute knowledge of some of the horror that it has whole heartedly embraced, particularly slavery and its attempts at annihilation of Indians, the use of Chinese laborers and the interment of Japanese Americans, and its current policy of keeping children in cages at the southern border, to name only a few of the most egregious horrors. But I love my country, even if I abhor the horrific actions it has taken. I love my family, even as I know some of the pretty awful things some of them have done.

You have got to take the bitter with the sweet, and accept that attitudes do change over years and even taking that into account: what was once acceptable and mainstream is now considered far right wing racist , some things were simply absolutely 100% horrific and wrong.

What kind of love is it, though, if you can only love something if you close your eyes shut tight and put your fingers in your ears to keep actual information from disabusing you of whatever mythology you have built around the object of your love? Real love requires that we acknowledge what is abhorrent as well as what is good. After all, Christianity teaches us to love the sinner, even as we hate the sin, that all can be forgiven if we confess our sins and repent.

 

[TomC]

Let's see if I have it right.

No.
You don't.

But I didn't just meet you. I don't think putting a lot of time and effort into repeating things I've already posted is worth the while.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Let's see if I have it right.

No.
You don't.

But I didn't just meet you. I don't think putting a lot of time and effort into repeating things I've already posted is worth the while.
Tom

One can be led to information but one cannot be made to think.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's see if I have it right.

No.
You don't.

But I didn't just meet you. I don't think putting a lot of time and effort into repeating things I've already posted is worth the while.
Tom

Too bad you don't use the "worth the while" standard all the time.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

I consider myself in good company AM on Jarhyn's 'ignore' list--though you being on his ignore list won't stop Jarhyn commenting on ideas and arguments he believes you hold, based on other people's comments to your comments.

 

[Metaphor]

Worse than that, he's apparently equating me with Metaphor.

He didn't equate us. He said you displayed a behaviour (links to ideological rabbit holes) that was, allegedly, similar enough to mine that it invited comparison.

 

[Toni]

Worse than that, he's apparently equating me with Metaphor.

He didn't equate us. He said you displayed a behaviour (links to ideological rabbit holes) that was, allegedly, similar enough to mine that it invited comparison.

Close enough since I wasn’t considering any other aspect of Metaphor or Toni.

How does that (what Tom wrote) make you feel?

 

[Metaphor]

Worse than that, he's apparently equating me with Metaphor.

He didn't equate us. He said you displayed a behaviour (links to ideological rabbit holes) that was, allegedly, similar enough to mine that it invited comparison.

Close enough since I wasn’t considering any other aspect of Metaphor or Toni.

How does that (what Tom wrote) make you feel?

It's evident how it made you feel to be compared to me.

If people don't follow links based on their perception of the link provider, that's their own affair and their own decision. However, when I provide links that are meant to back up something I'm saying, I try to quote the relevant parts in the post as well. If there's a general news story, I also try to find left-wing sources reporting on it, to save the tiresome and mindless impulse for people to reject it without engaging in it at all. I don't know exactly what Tom was objecting to, specifically, when he made his comment.

 

[Toni]

Close enough since I wasn’t considering any other aspect of Metaphor or Toni.

How does that (what Tom wrote) make you feel?

It's evident how it made you feel to be compared to me.

If people don't follow links based on their perception of the link provider, that's their own affair and their own decision. However, when I provide links that are meant to back up something I'm saying, I try to quote the relevant parts in the post as well. If there's a general news story, I also try to find left-wing sources reporting on it, to save the tiresome and mindless impulse for people to reject it without engaging in it at all. I don't know exactly what Tom was objecting to, specifically, when he made his comment.

Didn't answer my question. I know how I feel. You might be surprised how I felt. My first thought was: Poor Metaphor!

I asked how YOU feel.

 

[Metaphor]

Close enough since I wasn’t considering any other aspect of Metaphor or Toni.

How does that (what Tom wrote) make you feel?

It's evident how it made you feel to be compared to me.

If people don't follow links based on their perception of the link provider, that's their own affair and their own decision. However, when I provide links that are meant to back up something I'm saying, I try to quote the relevant parts in the post as well. If there's a general news story, I also try to find left-wing sources reporting on it, to save the tiresome and mindless impulse for people to reject it without engaging in it at all. I don't know exactly what Tom was objecting to, specifically, when he made his comment.

Didn't answer my question. I know how I feel. You might be surprised how I felt. My first thought was: Poor Metaphor!

I asked how YOU feel.

I felt like if TomC wants to dismiss following my links because he has a prejudiced opinion that they lead only to 'ideological rabbit holes', that's his affair and his loss.

 

[Toni]

Didn't answer my question. I know how I feel. You might be surprised how I felt. My first thought was: Poor Metaphor!

I asked how YOU feel.

I felt like if TomC wants to dismiss following my links because he has a prejudiced opinion that they lead only to 'ideological rabbit holes', that's his affair and his loss.

Sounds like more thought than feeling but fair enough.

I was just glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read TomC's post. I know I would have splattered my computer screen. I did giggle a little bit.

 

[Patooka]

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,

If you think morality has a universal standard, I have some bad news for you. In fact it's pretty subjective as fuck.

and the events surrounding a choice - or rather, the information about surrounding events available to the chooser - are generally important, sure.

You seem to be awfully dismissive of the event that led to the burning of said churches.

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.

Guilt, accountability and responsibility are three very different things. The Catholic Church should be held accountable for their actions. As the leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope is responsible for what the church does. Pope Francis specifically isn't guilty of murdering children and putting them in a mass grave. The Catholic Church's handling of this entire atrocity is sub par. It is unsurprising this has lead to outrage.

None of those sentences are mutually exclusive.

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 agree 100%

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.

You've never been in charge of anything have you? If you take a leadership role in an organization you are accountable for what that organization does. The measure and extent of accountability varies but that doesn't make it any less real. As Pope Francis is in charge, he is very much responsible for what he Catholic Church collectively does.

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

Yes. They were. A hundred and sixty years ago. Slavery is part of the Democrat's history, there is no doubt. I would also argue that the Democrat Party has made substantial effort to move away from what the Democrats were to the party that it is today. Your comparison is flawed because a) the events in Canada are much, much more recent and b)the Catholic Church has adopted of policy of coverups and obfuscation rather than addressing the issues.

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?

Again I would point out then is not now and yes - then people like George McGovern were Democrats. The party has changed significantly since then. As an institution, the Catholic Church has not.

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

What they caused, absolutely. To go back to the topic at hand, the Catholic Church has made no effort to identify the children, have made no effort to inform the families of said children and have made no effort finding out who in their organisation was responsible for such acts and who was responsible for covering it up (and there is a very real chance such people are alive today as the school did not close until the late 90s). If Democrats tried to actively bury (sorry, no pun intended) despicable parts of its history, I'd call them out on that as well.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's a lot of words to say "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility".

 

[Derec]

That's a lot of words to say "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility".

Which should also apply to the arsonists of course.

 

[Patooka]

That's a lot of words to say "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility".

I knew there was a smarter way of saying it. Cheers.

 

[Rhea]

I'm trying to use historical data.

Like the schools were government schools.
Tom

And the murders were Roman Catholic murders.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your conclusion is not at all derived from that premise.

It was not a deduction. It was an assessment on the basis of the irrational behavior of many people.

Yes, apology does involve recognition of guilt. In this case, it is the RCC. It is not irrational to hold the guilty responsible. The Pope is the leader of the RCC. It is appropriate for the leader of an institution that preaches about morality and aspires to uphold morality to acknowledge the wrong doing done under its name and to apologize for it in the name of the RCC.

Again, who is the RCC?

If you are talking about human individual members of the RCC, then some of them are guilty of kidnapping, abusing or murdering children in those schools. But Francis or any other person from whom an apology is being demanded are not guilty of any of that, so a recognition of guilt would be false, and they know it - or should know it.

Now, if you think that Francis should acknowledge they were wrongs done by other people in the Catholic Church, that's a very different matter. He certainly should not deny it (but he does not), and if asked, arguably he should acknowledge that it happened. But he should not apologize - not sincerely - because it is not his fault. And saying that it was someone else's fault is not an apology.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I consider myself in good company AM on Jarhyn's 'ignore' list--though you being on his ignore list won't stop Jarhyn commenting on ideas and arguments he believes you hold, based on other people's comments to your comments.

Thanks, and yes, I noticed. It's a common pattern.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Thanos: (snap) "I cleared the universe of Catholics a century before the events occured."
Me: "Oh, I see. If the Catholic church didn't exist, its facilities would not have been used to commit the atrocity right?"
Thanos: "It's inevitable."
Me: "Presuming that means I'm correct; would I be in error to conclude that those keeping the Catholic Church in operation over the course of many years indirectly assisted in said atrocities?"
Thanos: "Perfectly balanced, as all things should be."

There are different ways of reading the posts of people who disagree with you. You may - for example - try to understand what they actually say. Maybe they will persuade you. Maybe they won't, but at least you will know why people disagree with you, and also you will be able to express your disagreement with what they actually say, rather than with a caricature of what they say that you believe is what they say but is actually very different from what they say.

You may also not do that, and continue to believe that you are refuting their arguments and claims, rather than refuting something else entirely.