Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Bomb#20]

Nah it's an allegory about the irony of the arguments being made here that a Catholic Church is not responsible for something a Catholic Church has done in the past.

Ah. So, irony in the sense that it's ironic that the ACLU will defend the free speech rights even of censor-wannabes, and this annoys some completely different censor-wannabes who want to censor the first set of censor-wannabes so much that the second set of censor-wannabes claim the ACLU are censor-wannabes for stopping them from censoring the first set of censor-wannabes.

Or to put it in simpler terms, yes, you're right, it is ironic that the very unCatholic way AM et al. are reasoning motivated you to call them Catholics.

 

[Gospel]

Nah it's an allegory about the irony of the arguments being made here that a Catholic Church is not responsible for something a Catholic Church has done in the past.

Ah. So, irony in the sense that it's ironic that the ACLU will defend the free speech rights even of censor-wannabes, and this annoys some completely different censor-wannabes who want to censor the first set of censor-wannabes so much that the second set of censor-wannabes claim the ACLU are censor-wannabes for stopping them from censoring the first set of censor-wannabes.

Or to put it in simpler terms, yes, you're right, it is ironic that the very unCatholic way AM et al. are reasoning motivated you to call them Catholics.

I have no idea what you just said.

 

[bilby]

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

Aren't you an American?
Tom

There's no such thing as America. There's just individuals.

Apparently.

 

[Bomb#20]

Nah it's an allegory about the irony of the arguments being made here that a Catholic Church is not responsible for something a Catholic Church has done in the past.

Ah. So, irony in the sense that it's ironic that the ACLU will defend the free speech rights even of censor-wannabes, and this annoys some completely different censor-wannabes who want to censor the first set of censor-wannabes so much that the second set of censor-wannabes claim the ACLU are censor-wannabes for stopping them from censoring the first set of censor-wannabes.

Or to put it in simpler terms, yes, you're right, it is ironic that the very unCatholic way AM et al. are reasoning motivated you to call them Catholics.

I have no idea what you just said.

The first part was allegory.

As for the second part, you had written:

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!

But the people who said that on this thread aren't Catholics. They said it because you can't sin by proxy -- the notion that one person is guilty of what another person did is incompetent moral judgment. But, as you noted, according to Catholics at large, Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made everyone sinners. Catholics at large say that because Catholics at large have been trained to do moral judgment incompetently. So when the people you were referring to were saying the arsonist and his or her defenders were wrong because sins committed by some are not transferable to others, they were thereby also implying that Catholics at large are wrong, and that the old Catholics who trained the new Catholics to judge that way were wrong. So when you called those non-Catholics on this thread Catholics, you called them Catholics because they were disagreeing with Catholicism. That's kind of ironic, no?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

Aren't you an American?
Tom

There's no such thing as America. There's just individuals.

Apparently.

I never claimed there is no Catholic Church. Just that it's some of the activity of some human individuals (including their relations to other individuals, etc.), not some sort of non-human mind. The same for America (and of course, which individuals might depend on the context, as these words are sort of ambiguous). And I mentioned the causal continuity that connects the past to the present, but does not transfer moral guilt. Only human individuals (or generally monkeys) can be morally guilty - on Earth anyway; there are possible worlds with other agents capable of being guilty, for example -, and one may say that of institutions only if it's an indirect way of pointing at individuals.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How ridiculous. Of course individual Catholic Churches and their priests act under the auspices of THE Catholic Church. This is particularly true in this case as the RCC never objected to the way the local priests and congregations behaved.

Who did not object? Not the Catholic Church. But who, as in human individuals? Then you may blame them, if you identify them.

It is unbelievable that Rome was unaware at all of what was happening.

"Rome" is not a person. Some people in Rome may have been aware, and then they would be guilty of not saying something. You should identify them instead of blaming others. Francis was not in Rome. He very probably was unaware of what was happening. There certainly is no good reason to suspect otherwise. And even those who knew about it would not be guilty of the kidnappings and all if they were not involved, though they might be guilty of failing to say something.

Of COURSE the RCC has an obligation to supervise its priests and to correct any situation that has gone against Church doctrine or teachings or policies.

Who do you mean by "the RCC"?
Because of course most Catholics do not have that obligation. And of course most priests do not have that obligation, or the capability to go around supervising all other priests. Bergoglio did not have the obligation to go supervise priests in Canada.

 

[Elixir]

You should identify them instead of blaming others.

Yes Toni, you should identify them instead of blaming The Church.
Of course if you DO identify them despite the obfuscations and barriers erected by The Church, it will be up to The Church to deny them safe haven within the Vatican before anything untoward could happen to them.
If you identify the individuals, it's the Church's fault for justice not served. If you identify The Church, it's the individuals you need to go after.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only then if America is an extended effort in Treason Apologetics...

Aren't you an American?
Tom

There's no such thing as America. There's just individuals.

Apparently.

I mean I could permute it to direct the treason at individuals, namely the founding fathers, but you could have done it just as easily and we both know it. Now instead I have to come back here and hamhandedly do it on my own... But behold it is already done!

 

[Bomb#20]

I mean I could permute it to direct the treason at individuals, namely the founding fathers, but you could have done it just as easily and we both know it. Now instead I have to come back here and hamhandedly do it on my own... But behold it is already done!

So what exactly is your point? I don't think it's news to anyone that the founding fathers were traitors, least of all news to themselves.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

- Benjamin Franklin​

If you're proposing that since we're okay with the founders committing treason we should be okay with the arsonist committing arson, well, in the case of the founders, there are mitigating circumstances.

Toranaga: The Netherlands – your allies – are in a state of rebellion against their lawful king?

Blackthorne: They’re fighting against the Spaniard, yes, but –

Toranaga: Isn’t that rebellion? Yes or no?

Blackthorne: Yes. But there are mitigating circumstances. Serious miti

Toranaga: There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord!

Blackthorne: Unless you win.

Toranaga looked at him intently. Then laughed uproariously. "Yes, Mister Foreigner... you have named the one mitigating factor."

- Shogun​

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean I could permute it to direct the treason at individuals, namely the founding fathers, but you could have done it just as easily and we both know it. Now instead I have to come back here and hamhandedly do it on my own... But behold it is already done!

So what exactly is your point? I don't think it's news to anyone that the founding fathers were traitors, least of all news to themselves.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

- Benjamin Franklin​

If you're proposing that since we're okay with the founders committing treason we should be okay with the arsonist committing arson, well, in the case of the founders, there are mitigating circumstances.

Toranaga: The Netherlands – your allies – are in a state of rebellion against their lawful king?

Blackthorne: They’re fighting against the Spaniard, yes, but –

Toranaga: Isn’t that rebellion? Yes or no?

Blackthorne: Yes. But there are mitigating circumstances. Serious miti

Toranaga: There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord!

Blackthorne: Unless you win.

Toranaga looked at him intently. Then laughed uproariously. "Yes, Mister Foreigner... you have named the one mitigating factor."

- Shogun​

Then if you wish to invoke arsonist, do not do so in a context so as to provide a tone of judgement in the claim. "Apologists for arson" is used as a spin so sharp as to twist a neck cleanly off.

I couldn't give a shit what imbecilic belief in "might makes right" some assholes such as the writers of your chosen media have. The might of the many over the tyrant is exactly what they exercised it. Not knowing they would win but knowing they might still lose and they did it anyway. It was the force that got enough cooperation against the idea of deprivation of representation mounted to throw it off.

And so I say it is for that reason it is right not your lame apology to revisionist force.

Or in other words, if you think force is your road to might, I will find as many as can unite against you, and we will all have a merry little war.

I wonder if that's all the reason you think the civil war ending slavery is so spoken of as it is? Is it the reason I wonder that you think World War 2 and the eradication of the Nazis and liberation of the death camps is spoken of so?

Perhaps the reason that certain victories have resulted in certain narratives is because in certain situations there arise as a function of the many recognizing the need to defeat the designs of the fewer and the cruel, and will generally iterate until that happens, whatever the cost. In this way, in the past, victory over something awful becomes emergent. Assuming a lack of critical mass of surveillance state infrastructure.

But I don't see you moving to dismantle the state surveillance apparatus. I suppose such memory holes are something you appreciate?

 

[Toni]

Who did not object? Not the Catholic Church. But who, as in human individuals? Then you may blame them, if you identify them.

Challenge accepted:

The following served as Pope from 1800 through 1996:
John Paul II
John Paul I
Paul
John XXIII
Pius XII
Pius X1
Benedict XV
Pius X
Leo VIII
Pius IX
Gregory XVI
Pius VIII
Leo VII
Pius VII

If we are going to be thorough, we'd have to go back probably another hundred years but I'm bored because your 'arguments' are boring and illogical.

"Rome" is not a person. Some people in Rome may have been aware, and then they would be guilty of not saying something. You should identify them instead of blaming others. Francis was not in Rome. He very probably was unaware of what was happening. There certainly is no good reason to suspect otherwise. And even those who knew about it would not be guilty of the kidnappings and all if they were not involved, though they might be guilty of failing to say something.

Oh, please. Whichever Cardinals and Archbishops oversaw the RCC churches in The New World certainly knew what was happening and in fact, directed it as well as directing the monies to be paid for these 'schools' out of the cut they were willing to allow the individual churches as the main sum went directly to the Dioses.

Of COURSE the RCC has an obligation to supervise its priests and to correct any situation that has gone against Church doctrine or teachings or policies.

Who do you mean by "the RCC"?
Because of course most Catholics do not have that obligation. And of course most priests do not have that obligation, or the capability to go around supervising all other priests. Bergoglio did not have the obligation to go supervise priests in Canada.

What utter bullshit. The RCC is highly organized, managed from the top down, with a well established hierarchy and copious record keeping. Individual priests even keep personal diaries which are held by the Catholic Church after the priests die as part of their record.

 

[Bomb#20]

Then if you wish to invoke arsonist, do not do so in a context so as to provide a tone of judgement in the claim.

Or what, you'll feel aggrieved at me again for still not accepting you as an oracle?

"Apologists for arson" is used as a spin so sharp as to twist a neck cleanly off.

It's not spin; it's reality.

blah blah imbecilic belief in "might makes right" blah blah

Ah, well, I suppose it was too much to hope that my point wouldn't go sailing right over your head. I'll try a different way to get you to see your error:

"To those fishermen-villagers who live on the edge of the edge, on the extreme habitable limit of a barely habitable continent, honesty is as essential as food. They must play fair with one another; there’s not enough to cheat with. Estraven knew this, and when after a day or two they got around to asking, discreetly and indirectly, with due regard to shifgrethor, why we had chosen to spend a winter rambling on the Gobrin Ice, he replied at once, ‘Silence is not what I should choose, yet it suits me better than a lie.’

‘It’s well known that honourable men come to be outlawed, yet their shadow does not shrink,’ said the hot-shop cook, who ranked next to the village chief in consequence, and whose shop was a sort of living-room for the whole Domain in winter.

‘One person may be outlawed in Karhide, another in Orgoreyn,’ said Estraven.

‘True; and one by his clan, another by the king in Erhenrang.’

‘The king shortens no man’s shadow, though he may try,’ Estraven remarked, and the cook looked satisfied. If Estraven’s own clan had cast him out he would be a suspect character, but the king’s strictures were unimportant. As for me, evidently a foreigner and so the one outlawed by Orgoreyn, that was if anything to my credit."

- Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness​

 

[Arctish]

Challenge accepted:

The following served as Pope from 1800 through 1996:
John Paul II
John Paul I
Paul
John XXIII
Pius XII
Pius X1
Benedict XV
Pius X
Leo VIII
Pius IX
Gregory XVI
Pius VIII
Leo VII
Pius VII

If we are going to be thorough, we'd have to go back probably another hundred years but I'm bored because your 'arguments' are boring and illogical.





Oh, please. Whichever Cardinals and Archbishops oversaw the RCC churches in The New World certainly knew what was happening and in fact, directed it as well as directing the monies to be paid for these 'schools' out of the cut they were willing to allow the individual churches as the main sum went directly to the Dioses.

Of COURSE the RCC has an obligation to supervise its priests and to correct any situation that has gone against Church doctrine or teachings or policies.

Who do you mean by "the RCC"?
Because of course most Catholics do not have that obligation. And of course most priests do not have that obligation, or the capability to go around supervising all other priests. Bergoglio did not have the obligation to go supervise priests in Canada.

What utter bullshit. The RCC is highly organized, managed from the top down, with a well established hierarchy and copious record keeping. Individual priests even keep personal diaries which are held by the Catholic Church after the priests die as part of their record.

I wonder if the schools were paid a set sum of money per child enrolled. I wonder if the deaths were kept secret so the money would keep coming in. I wonder if there was graft as well as neglect and abuse.

I wonder if the people who care more about property damage than they do about child abuse will care more about churchmen scamming the government than they do about them hiding bodies in shallow graves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Or what, you'll feel aggrieved at me again for still not accepting you as an oracle?


It's not spin; it's reality.

blah blah imbecilic belief in "might makes right" blah blah

Ah, well, I suppose it was too much to hope that my point wouldn't go sailing right over your head. I'll try a different way to get you to see your error:

"To those fishermen-villagers who live on the edge of the edge, on the extreme habitable limit of a barely habitable continent, honesty is as essential as food. They must play fair with one another; there’s not enough to cheat with. Estraven knew this, and when after a day or two they got around to asking, discreetly and indirectly, with due regard to shifgrethor, why we had chosen to spend a winter rambling on the Gobrin Ice, he replied at once, ‘Silence is not what I should choose, yet it suits me better than a lie.’

‘It’s well known that honourable men come to be outlawed, yet their shadow does not shrink,’ said the hot-shop cook, who ranked next to the village chief in consequence, and whose shop was a sort of living-room for the whole Domain in winter.

‘One person may be outlawed in Karhide, another in Orgoreyn,’ said Estraven.

‘True; and one by his clan, another by the king in Erhenrang.’

‘The king shortens no man’s shadow, though he may try,’ Estraven remarked, and the cook looked satisfied. If Estraven’s own clan had cast him out he would be a suspect character, but the king’s strictures were unimportant. As for me, evidently a foreigner and so the one outlawed by Orgoreyn, that was if anything to my credit."

- Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness​

Ah yes. "Both sides" in poetry is still a twisting of words.

Moral relativism.

The law in one land or various may be wrong, but the law of the land is most certainly wrong when people are denied representation. And I will see those who so deny others either ejected from power or in a hole as is necessary to actually effect one of those outcomes.

Is this all you have? "Both sides" "moral relativism". I speak not of crimes but of evils.

Selfish evil was done here, and needs to be stood against, the system that allows it to so frequently foment must be stood against. But you can pretend to be a criminal of "politics" rather than abe accused of standing between parents and siblings and where their children and brothers are buried...

Perhaps you want to ignore the whole reason they were on that ice sheet, in the book, the reason they were both "outlaws" in one land or another: namely for doing things that were not of themselves crimes in either land, accused of things they did not even do. That they were criminals politic for being merely honestly living human beings.

You forget that the reader is the ultimate moral authority, and generally gives empathy to these two when free from the cultural structures that let people in those lands see them as suspect.

Perhaps you forget that this is rather the point.

Also, ironic that you tell "you are not an oracle", and then quote the words of someone who, in the very work quoted, admits to being an oracle. And you use her words as if she were.

 

[Rhea]

And still, the Catholic church refuses to investigate. They refuse to show the records of the number of children in their care, and the records of their deaths.

The deaths of schildren they were charged with “saving,” who are now buried in unmarked (an ironically unconsecrated) graves.


Still the RCC continues to give comfort and protection to its own reputation by refusing to spend whatever is necessary to examine every “school’s” physical grounds and records.

And apologists will continue to claim, “they” shouldn’t have to check their closet full of records, because there is no “they” there.

A loving church would have paid for an army of inspectors by now.

 

[Gospel]

I have no idea what you just said.

The first part was allegory.

As for the second part, you had written:

Catholics on this thread: The sins committed by members of the old church is not transferable to members of the new church!

But the people who said that on this thread aren't Catholics. They said it because you can't sin by proxy -- the notion that one person is guilty of what another person did is incompetent moral judgment. But, as you noted, according to Catholics at large, Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made everyone sinners. Catholics at large say that because Catholics at large have been trained to do moral judgment incompetently. So when the people you were referring to were saying the arsonist and his or her defenders were wrong because sins committed by some are not transferable to others, they were thereby also implying that Catholics at large are wrong, and that the old Catholics who trained the new Catholics to judge that way were wrong. So when you called those non-Catholics on this thread Catholics, you called them Catholics because they were disagreeing with Catholicism. That's kind of ironic, no?

In my allegory, I sarcastically called the people on this thread Catholic because they took the position to speak in said Catholics' defense & then I brought up what actual Catholics believe for contrast. I thought this was obvious bro.

 

[Jarhyn]

Rhea: A loving church would not have suffered such hate.

 

[Jarhyn]

The first part was allegory.

As for the second part, you had written:

But the people who said that on this thread aren't Catholics. They said it because you can't sin by proxy -- the notion that one person is guilty of what another person did is incompetent moral judgment. But, as you noted, according to Catholics at large, Adam and Eve's disobedience to God when they ate a forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden made everyone sinners. Catholics at large say that because Catholics at large have been trained to do moral judgment incompetently. So when the people you were referring to were saying the arsonist and his or her defenders were wrong because sins committed by some are not transferable to others, they were thereby also implying that Catholics at large are wrong, and that the old Catholics who trained the new Catholics to judge that way were wrong. So when you called those non-Catholics on this thread Catholics, you called them Catholics because they were disagreeing with Catholicism. That's kind of ironic, no?

In my allegory, I sarcastically called the people on this thread Catholic because they took the position to speak in said Catholics' defense & then I brought up what actual Catholics believe for contrast. I thought this was obvious bro.

And so I thought it obvious he had never read the book he quoted given the subject matter. I wonder if he would try quoting The Dispossessed in a thread about market economics to argue for more corporate control?? LOL!

 

[Angry Floof]

And still, the Catholic church refuses to investigate. They refuse to show the records of the number of children in their care, and the records of their deaths.

The deaths of schildren they were charged with “saving,” who are now buried in unmarked (an ironically unconsecrated) graves.


Still the RCC continues to give comfort and protection to its own reputation by refusing to spend whatever is necessary to examine every “school’s” physical grounds and records.

And apologists will continue to claim, “they” shouldn’t have to check their closet full of records, because there is no “they” there.

A loving church would have paid for an army of inspectors by now.

You would think the world's foremost institution of moral goodness would be falling over itself to figure out how this could possibly happen on their watch. I wonder if that has anything to do with its deeply ingrained aversion to accountability.

 

[Elixir]

You would think the world's foremost institution of moral goodness would be falling over itself to figure out how this could possibly happen on their watch.

Yeah well, The Oath Keepers have bigger fish to fry at the moment.