Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Swammerdami]

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​

Queen Elizabeth's 'Saucy Godson' made this point much more succinctly:

Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

Sir John Harington is also famous for inventing the flush toilet.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

Great! So, assuming that they knew about them, you can properly accuse them, and of that. And if they did not know but shold have (I'm not so familiar with the details of church governance), then you can properly accuse them, and of that. I will however point out that the people from whom an apology is demanded are not on that list. In particular, Francis is not on that list.

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.

Obviously, they are not illogical. If they're boring to you, well that's a fact about you.

"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.

The "please" suggests you think that somehow is a counterargument. My point stands. Those cardinals and Archbishops - those, not others would be guilty of not saying something, and/or of directing it, depending on the person. Again, Francis was not among them. And neither were many others collectively being blamed as 'the Church' and the like.

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.

Not bullshit, but rather decisive. Who do you mean by "the RCC"? Who can read all of those diaries? Who has read them?

Certainly most Catholics do not have the obligation to supervise priests. And of course most priests do not have the obligation or the capability to go around supervising all other priests. Bergoglio did not have the obligation to go supervise priests in Canada. Obviously.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

The "apologist" insult is so unjust. Too bad you do not realize that.
Who has an obligation to investigate, other than the police, prosecutors, etc.? Why do they have such an obligation?
And if "they" (whoever those are) fail in their obligation, they are to blame for the choice of failing to investigate, not for the kidnappings, killings, etc.

 

[Elixir]

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

The "apologist" insult is so unjust. Too bad you do not realize that.
Who has an obligation to investigate, other than the police, prosecutors, etc.? Why do they have such an obligation?
And if "they" (whoever those are) fail in their obligation, they are to blame for the choice of failing to investigate, not for the kidnappings, killings, etc.

Ah, now we have THREE "they"s.
The Church
The Individuals
The Police

If necessary we can split "the Police" into two entities - the collective (like "The Church"), and the individuals whose failure to arrest the guilty party is a dereliction of duty.
So now we have FOUR "they"s.
Good luck ever holding ANYONE accountable. Works out well for the apologist.

 

[Toni]

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

The "apologist" insult is so unjust. Too bad you do not realize that.
Who has an obligation to investigate, other than the police, prosecutors, etc.? Why do they have such an obligation?
And if "they" (whoever those are) fail in their obligation, they are to blame for the choice of failing to investigate, not for the kidnappings, killings, etc.

Any employer has responsibility for the actions taken by its employees while carrying out the work and orders of the employer.

It beggars belief that anyone would attempt to pretend that the RCC did not know and approve of the actions taken by priests who ran the residential schools.

After all, this is the same employer who was responsible for the medieval inquisitions, which were under direct papal control.

 

[Rhea]

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

The "apologist" insult is so unjust. Too bad you do not realize that.
Who has an obligation to investigate, other than the police, prosecutors, etc.? Why do they have such an obligation?
And if "they" (whoever those are) fail in their obligation, they are to blame for the choice of failing to investigate, not for the kidnappings, killings, etc.

Ah, now we have THREE "they"s.
The Church
The Individuals
The Police

If necessary we can split "the Police" into two entities - the collective (like "The Church"), and the individuals whose failure to arrest the guilty party is a dereliction of duty.
So now we have FOUR "they"s.
Good luck ever holding ANYONE accountable. Works out well for the apologist.

This right here. And it is not an accident, its a tactic. Makes him feel good, i guess.

“WHO are the police?” Indeed. Fractal apologetics.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ah, now we have THREE "they"s.
The Church
The Individuals
The Police

Note that when I say 'the police', I am not in any way blaming them collectively, or suggesting people are guilty for the behavior of others, or in any way suggesting that all police officers have that investigation. Generally, I am not againt using expressions like 'the police' or 'the church' or whatever as shorthand for the claim that some individuals who do not need to be further specified for the purposes of the point one is making, have some obligation or do something, etc. The problem begins when someone forgets that and begins to treat them as a collective actor whose individual members inherit guilt by membership, or things like that.

I have no problem saying that the US and Germany were at war in 1942, for example. All of those things are okay. Now when someone begins to blame some present-day Germans who were not involved in the war and demands apologies from some of them for Nazi crimes, we get a serious problem. Or, for that matter, when someone blames all police officers (or a collective 'police') for the abuse committed by some of them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ah, now we have THREE "they"s.
The Church
The Individuals
The Police

If necessary we can split "the Police" into two entities - the collective (like "The Church"), and the individuals whose failure to arrest the guilty party is a dereliction of duty.
So now we have FOUR "they"s.
Good luck ever holding ANYONE accountable. Works out well for the apologist.

This right here. And it is not an accident, its a tactic. Makes him feel good, i guess.

What is to 'hold someone accountable', in this context, if not to punish them as they deserve? Obviously, my opposition is to the punishment of those who do not deserve it.

 

[Toni]

Ah, now we have THREE "they"s.
The Church
The Individuals
The Police

If necessary we can split "the Police" into two entities - the collective (like "The Church"), and the individuals whose failure to arrest the guilty party is a dereliction of duty.
So now we have FOUR "they"s.
Good luck ever holding ANYONE accountable. Works out well for the apologist.

This right here. And it is not an accident, its a tactic. Makes him feel good, i guess.

What is to 'hold someone accountable', in this context, if not to punish them as they deserve? Obviously, my opposition is to the punishment of those who do not deserve it.

What do you think is the correct punishment for someone who is responsible for burying hundreds of children in shallow, unmarked graves?

 

[Jarhyn]

What is to 'hold someone accountable', in this context, if not to punish them as they deserve? Obviously, my opposition is to the punishment of those who do not deserve it.

What do you think is the correct punishment for someone who is responsible for burying hundreds of children in shallow, unmarked graves?

I'll let them answer their own self, but me for myself, I think "being made to learn, and act on the principles, principally, which exist for the betterment of all and which specifically discuss the reasons we ought not bury loved, wanted, stolen children in shallow unmarked graves.

And in the presence of any who this impacted, and their children, and their children's children, to be made to apologize to them as their new greeting. "Im sorry" rather than hello, to anyone until that individual has told them they are forgiven, in that person's context.

Perhaps this is too kind. There are many ways to treat it, though not here; here we are stuck with arson as we are stuck with the RCC rather than living on some still bad but ostensibly less shitty alien world where for whatever social impetus leaders are held to responsibility.

On this shitty rock third from the sun, it will likely take a few more arsons, and the consequences not so just nor mild.

 

[Elixir]

What is to 'hold someone accountable', in this context, if not to punish them as they deserve? Obviously, my opposition is to the punishment of those who do not deserve it.

What do you think is the correct punishment for someone who is responsible for burying hundreds of children in shallow, unmarked graves?

Or someone who turns a blind eye to such atrocities committed in their name? (E.g. the Pope)

 

[Jarhyn]

What is to 'hold someone accountable', in this context, if not to punish them as they deserve? Obviously, my opposition is to the punishment of those who do not deserve it.

What do you think is the correct punishment for someone who is responsible for burying hundreds of children in shallow, unmarked graves?

Or someone who turns a blind eye to such atrocities committed in their name? (E.g. the Pope)

I think that has already been discussed: you cannot delegate responsibility. If he at some point willfully turned away from seeing it, he has an obligation to stop it equal to the obligation to not do it in the first place.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

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

Where, in that passage, do you see an iota of "both sides" or "moral relativism"?!? What Le Guin wrote was pure moral clarity. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it went over your head, after so much else did.

Since you apparently have a tin ear for skilled novelists showing moral truth with art, I guess we'll have to do it the tedious way, with argument.

Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

You appear to be confused about who are the apologists and which arguments are apologetics. This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.

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

You say that as though rebellion against King George III, a man who got the king job by being the true and lawful heir of William the Conqueror, is a violation of morality. Are you familiar with the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum? Why on earth would you expect an analogy like that to carry any weight in a forum full of republicans? Go find some monarchists to sell your false moral equivalence to.

George III had no grounds for being ruler other than "Might makes right"; so when you imply treason against him is malum in se you're invoking "Might makes right" every bit as much as Toranaga was when he said "There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord!". That's taking morality off the table. You and Toranaga were both replacing morality with force so you were both inviting the answer Blackthorne gave Toranaga: "Two can play at that game."

Yes, the Declaration of Independence was treason apologetics. Duh! Pretty darn good treason apologetics too, if you ask me. So, to repeat the question I earlier asked you that you never answered: what's your point? There's nothing wrong with writing apologetics for a malum prohibitum.

The founding fathers were outlaws for a crime against the King in London. The arsonist is an outlaw for a crime against his own clan, against his fellow indigenous people. He burned down the church some of his own neighbors prayed in. That's a malum in se.

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.

I use her words because I see the wisdom in them. Where the devil did Ursula K. Le Guin ever demand to be taken on faith?

 

[Bomb#20]

And so I thought it obvious he had never read the book he quoted given the subject matter.

You really aren't good at reasoning about other people's minds; you ought to take that into account when you decide how much fact-checking to do before you make absurd false accusations.

The theory that I never read the book I quoted is mind-blowingly stupid. How on earth do you figure I would have come up with that passage if I hadn't read the book? You can easily find pages and pages of Left Hand of Darkness quotes on the web; that book is a goldmine of quotables. So by all means, go peruse some of those pages of highlights. That's how I tried to find it, at first. When I found out the bit I wanted wasn't in anybody else's compilation of favorite passages, I had to adopt other search strategies.

 

[Jarhyn]

Where, in that passage, do you see an iota of "both sides" or "moral relativism"?!? What Le Guin wrote was pure moral clarity. I guess I shouldn't be surprised it went over your head, after so much else did.

Since you apparently have a tin ear for skilled novelists showing moral truth with art, I guess we'll have to do it the tedious way, with argument.

Your apologetics are aiding and abetting an ongoing humantiarian outrage perpetrated by Catholics.

You appear to be confused about who are the apologists and which arguments are apologetics. This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.

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

You say that as though rebellion against King George III, a man who got the king job by being the true and lawful heir of William the Conqueror, is a violation of morality. Are you familiar with the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum? Why on earth would you expect an analogy like that to carry any weight in a forum full of republicans? Go find some monarchists to sell your false moral equivalence to.

George III had no grounds for being ruler other than "Might makes right"; so when you imply treason against him is malum in se you're invoking "Might makes right" every bit as much as Toranaga was when he said "There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord!". That's taking morality off the table. You and Toranaga were both replacing morality with force so you were both inviting the answer Blackthorne gave Toranaga: "Two can play at that game."

Yes, the Declaration of Independence was treason apologetics. Duh! Pretty darn good treason apologetics too, if you ask me. So, to repeat the question I earlier asked you that you never answered: what's your point? There's nothing wrong with writing apologetics for a malum prohibitum.

The founding fathers were outlaws for a crime against the King in London. The arsonist is an outlaw for a crime against his own clan, against his fellow indigenous people. He burned down the church some of his own neighbors prayed in. That's a malum in se.

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.

I use her words because I see the wisdom in them. Where the devil did Ursula K. Le Guin ever demand to be taken on faith?

Your characterization of anything I demand as to be taken "on faith" is so misplaced as to be laughable.

I demand that people look at the thing I look at, and make some attempt to occupy my perspective for a moment to see how and why I do, until they successfully communicate back to me in a way that satisfies in my mind that they have, and then honestly ascertain which of the two ways of looking at the thing will serve best.

LeGuin asks only the same thing, though she fills in much more of her perspective, so as to create the viewport she offers and in so doing is better at it than me, she asks no less of you than I do though offers the easy course in it, and no more than but to actually mount the perspective of the other.

I have mounted your perspectives. After all, even Genly has the right of it I think when he expounds on meeting and understanding your own perspective, and even when he ascribes to having met you. In this way you touch another universe entire. If you don't take my word for it perhaps you should try reading the book assuming you have not actually done so.

 

[Gospel]

Caution Jarhyn, Bomb#20 knows stuff. It's nothing special, just the typical mental invocation of long-dead people in literature. He has a very elegant and sophisticated way of making pointless arguments like herp derp, Arson is bad, anyone showing sympathy for the arsonists is condoning arson. What about innocent people? Not saying those are Bomb#20's specific arguments it just that his posts bang at the same octaves like reggae music to me. I'm like no shit I'm not happy about innocent people being affected by the fires, I'm just extremely unhappy about the mass graves of children. Folks coming in here screaming arson are rightly being reminded of the graves and are interpreting said reminder as condoning arson.

Though I must admit that is a valid argument to make re-reading some of my own posts, I just honestly don't give a shit about defending a position I don't hold.

 

[Jarhyn]

Caution Jarhyn, Bomb#20 knows stuff. It's nothing special, just the typical mental invocation of long-dead people in literature. He has a very elegant and sophisticated way of making pointless arguments like herp derp, Arson is bad, anyone showing sympathy for the arsonists is condoning arson. What about innocent people? Not saying those are Bomb#20's specific arguments it just that his posts bang at the same octaves like reggae music to me. I'm like no shit I'm not happy about innocent people being affected by the fires, I'm just extremely unhappy about the mass graves of children. Folks coming in here screaming arson are rightly being reminded of the graves and are interpreting said reminder as condoning arson.

Though I must admit that is a valid argument to make re-reading some of my own posts, I just honestly don't give a shit about defending a position I don't hold.

He also assumes this "arson" is against "own clan". The point is rather that it's not...

If I pray in a hut constructed from the corpses of your parents, it makes little difference that I am your "uncle", I am likely no family of yours.

 

[Rhea]

This has been an interesting discussion. Some people think the arsonists had a fair point in destroying the buildings where such atrocities happened or were supported - the churches on indigenous land that are obviously there to further the mission that the schools started. None are really cheering them on or favoring such action, but several have said they understand the emotions leading to it - the pain, the frustration at total inaction by the governments or the church leadership. Indeed if burning these two empty churches, after a hundred years of abuse, cultural genocide and murder, is the worst the church has faced, theyy may consider they’ve gotten off a lot better than a “stand your ground” defense would have wrought.

Others have said, burning churches is the wrong move, but they wouldn’t condemn the perpetrators because of the trauma that prompted it.

Others have said that burning is wrong because the churches do not represent the trauma at all. And so the churches should be left up for the families of the victims to drive past every day.

And still others have said, no one should be punished, because the murderers (if there were any) got away with it and were lone wolf actors and they had no institutional support at all and no one even owes an apology at this point, and all the traumatized families should get over it because no one remembers them anyway.

Well, right. What's wrong with revenge? What could the courts even accomplish?

The courts would probably not accomplish anything. Whether there is something wrong with revenge depends on factors such as whom the revenge is directed at, whether the people taking revenge reckoned their targets deserved it, whether they had good reason to believe the targets deserved it, what consequences can be expected for third parties who do not deserve to suffer the consequences of the revenge, and so on.

I have to say, the ones saying that no action should be taken because the murderers were not stopped, despite contemporary complaints, so they successfully got away with it, and ongoing appeals for investigation were ignored, therefore it’s all over and everyone should realize there’s no one left to care, and no one is even responsible to be investigated, including the holders of the records and the holders of the land; I have to say those opinnions written out here in public, sound pretty stone cold to me.

 

[Rhea]

Generally, I am not againt using expressions like 'the police' or 'the church' or whatever as shorthand for the claim that some individuals who do not need to be further specified for the purposes of the point one is making, have some obligation or do something, etc. The problem begins when someone forgets that and begins to treat them as a collective actor whose individual members inherit guilt by membership, or things like that.

Indeed, members of the KKK should not be blamed or assume any guilt at for the cross burnings, because you don’t know that that particular hooded figure is the one who lit the match. KKK members are a hale and hearty, blameless crowd, on the whole.

 

[Rhea]

Good luck ever holding ANYONE accountable. Works out well for the apologist.

What is to 'hold someone accountable', in this context, if not to punish them as they deserve? Obviously, my opposition is to the punishment of those who do not deserve it.

Angra writes as if this has not been discussed already to include a sense of responsibility in issuing an acknowledgment of participation, and an offering of funds to help investigate and access to the records that would show who in the institution was precisely involved.

He dodges and weaves to insist that no person of any level within the catholic church hierarchy is morally responsible for any iota of cooperation or scintilla of remorse. No one. Not a single person. Not even the official church “spokesperson”