Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Angra Mainyu]

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 what is the point of the allegory?
I will further say or repeat that, Catholicism is false, and makes many false claims, and most Catholics are confused as a result, and they should stop being Catholics. And the pope should not be the pope. But what is your point?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It wasn't obvious that you knew they weren't Catholic; but yes, the rest of it was obvious. Hence my counter-allegory. If some progressives were trying to censor a fascist, and the ACLU filed suit to stop them, on account of how the First Amendment protects even fascists' right to speak their minds, would you sarcastically call the ACLU "fascists" because they took the position to speak in said fascist's defense, and then bring up what actual fascists believe about free speech?

I think it's a good thing when people are principled enough to apply their principles to their outgroups as well as to their ingroups. YMMV.

Yes, you are correct. It would have started with "Fascists at the ACLU:" I presume you would have had no difficulty catching the sarcasm in that case.
Yeah, it is a great idea to apply your principles across the board.

Thanks for sharing this hard-to-find information I guess.

And why would you have started with "Fascists at the ACLU:"? What would be your point in doing that?

 

[Bomb#20]

Angra, andd Bomb - I will ask you straight up. (And anyone else who argues that the church and governments do not owe any apology or action) <rest snipped>

Rhea, I will ask you straight up. Where is it that you imagine you saw me argue that the church and governments do not owe any apology or action?

Because you have been arguing in this thread, but none of the arguments have been for action by the churches who ran the schools and murdered the kids. So if your answer is “they should be held accountable for apology and action,” then feel free to say so for the first time.

Bzzz! We're sorry, the answer the judges were looking for was:

"Oops, I confused you with another poster/jumped to conclusions/failed to fact check before I shot my mouth off about you. My bad. I'll try not to let it happen again. Anyway, since you're here talking about X, and Y interests me more than X and you haven't offered your opinion about Y, could you please satisfy my curiosity about you and post your thoughts about Y?".​

If you feel you would benefit from someone else sharing information about himself that he hasn't volunteered, you might want to consider the merits of asking politely...

oretur et absconderis
currere et saltare

...but that doesn't really seem to be your style. I haven't specifically checked; is there a clause in the TOU that says insulting other posters is permitted as long as it's in a foreign language?

Here's some information about me I'll volunteer in case you haven't figured it out by now. I'm not a Christian. I'm not really big on the whole "turn the other cheek" thing, let alone the whole "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven." thing. I don't see rewarding bad behavior as a sound strategy for the betterment of human civilization. So I'll tell you what. You evidently want something from me; well, as it happens, I also want something from you. You want me to tell you what I think should be done by the church. I want you to stop misrepresenting other people. Is that a bargain you're willing to make?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

If a Jew converted to Lutheranism and brought up his child Lutheran (as many many Jews did), Jarhyn could pontificate about how because Luther and the Lutheran Church and a great many individual Lutherans were deeply entrenched in anti-Semitism, that child is no family of his Jewish uncle or of his Jewish cousins. He could decide it's up to some third-party atheist to determine whether a Jew and a Lutheran are family. And yet, somehow, I don't think he'd do that.

The problem here is apparently that we do not share in this discussion a contextual definition of family. Then, I have never known you to shy away from a conflation, so why should I expect you to start now?

 

[laughing dog]

You want me to tell you what I think should be done by the church. I want you to stop misrepresenting other people. Is that a bargain you're willing to make?

Misrepresentations or misunderstandings of posts happen all the time here. Everyone does it now and then - even you. Mistakes happen but they are not intentional. For example, your “This thread is an extended exercise in arson apologetics.” is an obvious misrepresentation of the contents of this thread. Perhaps it was a rhetorical excess or an emotional outburst or a mistake. Maybe not. But it makes your proposed bargain appear both hypocritical and silly.

Why not at least try to stay on topic and say what you think the proper course of action for the RCC instead of undeserved bombastic moral indignation?

 

[Gospel]

It wasn't obvious that you knew they weren't Catholic; but yes, the rest of it was obvious. Hence my counter-allegory. If some progressives were trying to censor a fascist, and the ACLU filed suit to stop them, on account of how the First Amendment protects even fascists' right to speak their minds, would you sarcastically call the ACLU "fascists" because they took the position to speak in said fascist's defense, and then bring up what actual fascists believe about free speech?

I think it's a good thing when people are principled enough to apply their principles to their outgroups as well as to their ingroups. YMMV.

Yes, you are correct. It would have started with "Fascists at the ACLU:" I presume you would have had no difficulty catching the sarcasm in that case.
Yeah, it is a great idea to apply your principles across the board.

Thanks for sharing this hard-to-find information I guess.

And why would you have started with "Fascists at the ACLU:"? What would be your point in doing that?

What is the point of that question within the context of why I said what you quoted?

 

[Bomb#20]

Bomb, I will ask you straight up. Where is it that you imagine any of us might have even mistakenly perceived as a statement of any shape or size in acknowledgement that church and government owe apology and action?

Because when put point blank with such a question, a lack of an answer is an answer.

Like I said, I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. You are a worse offender even than Rhea.

 

[Gospel]

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 what is the point of the allegory?
I will further say or repeat that, Catholicism is false, and makes many false claims, and most Catholics are confused as a result, and they should stop being Catholics. And the pope should not be the pope. But what is your point?

I'm certain the Catholic faith is in alignment with what you believe. You couldn't possibly be wrong about what they may or may not do, or what they should or should not do as Catholics. But you'll just find something else in my sentence to pick apart instead of understanding the overall message.

 

[Bomb#20]

Angra, andd Bomb - I will ask you straight up. (And anyone else who argues that the church and governments do not owe any apology or action) <rest snipped>

Rhea, I will ask you straight up. Where is it that you imagine you saw me argue that the church and governments do not owe any apology or action?

Cool question bro. So what is your Modus operandi? Since you like to use Latin.

Sorry, I used "Latin" (actually legalese English, same as you) because I was offering a tedious technical argument, in place of illustrating my point with fictional exchanges by better writers than me.

Since you ask, my Modus operandi is to speak up where I suspect it might do some good and help somebody to think more rationally. What good does it do if I lecture the church about its duty? The church doesn't listen to me.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bomb, I will ask you straight up. Where is it that you imagine any of us might have even mistakenly perceived as a statement of any shape or size in acknowledgement that church and government owe apology and action?

Because when put point blank with such a question, a lack of an answer is an answer.

Like I said, I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. You are a worse offender even than Rhea.

"I don't believe in answering the pertinent issues of the OP because you are the one asking me to do it!"

 

[Rhea]

Because you have been arguing in this thread, but none of the arguments have been for action by the churches who ran the schools and murdered the kids. So if your answer is “they should be held accountable for apology and action,” then feel free to say so for the first time.

Bzzz! We're sorry, the answer the judges were looking for was:

"Oops, I confused you with another poster/jumped to conclusions/failed to fact check before I shot my mouth off about you. My bad. I'll try not to let it happen again. Anyway, since you're here talking about X, and Y interests me more than X and you haven't offered your opinion about Y, could you please satisfy my curiosity about you and post your thoughts about Y?".​

If you feel you would benefit from someone else sharing information about himself that he hasn't volunteered, you might want to consider the merits of asking politely...

It turns out, when you asked where I imagined you saying the church did not owe an apology. I said to myself, “self, why did I think he said that if he didn’t?” And I went back and re-read every single one of your posts on the thread to figure out why I thought that about you. The answer turned out to be, because all of your posts were about avoiding the possibility of discussing whether the catholic church had done anything to result in someone being angry/frustrated enough to burrn down their church. And so I concluded, All right, I thought he was arguing against the church owing an apology because all of his posts fail to support the church owing an apology.

So if you want to know where that came from - it came from that. You gave me the feeling you supported the church’s refusal to take responsibility. I double checked your posts and saw that you gave me that feeling by refusing to support the idea of the church taking responsibility.

Is it an insult to say your M.O. is “duck and run” when each of your posts ducked the topic and ran from taking the side of the victims?
I can say it in english and it is still not an insult. Your responses were an example of “duck and run” on the topic.

And I still have the feeling that you don’t think the church needs to take any responsibility. If I’m wrong in that, you’d need to post something that would change that impression. If you don’t want to, I support your right to be you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1500+ indigenous children were murdered and their bodies hidden.

Is this actually what is being alleged? I cannot find any information about it, other than the discovery of the graves.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything to indicate the deaths were criminal, either. They certainly were concealed but that could be economics at work (paid by the student.) I am wondering if these were simply normal childhood disease deaths (perhaps exacerbated by poor sanitation) rather than abuse.

 

[Patooka]

1500+ indigenous children were murdered and their bodies hidden.

Is this actually what is being alleged? I cannot find any information about it, other than the discovery of the graves.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything to indicate the deaths were criminal, either. They certainly were concealed but that could be economics at work (paid by the student.) I am wondering if these were simply normal childhood disease deaths (perhaps exacerbated by poor sanitation) rather than abuse.

Then the Catholic Church isn't doing itself any favours not being as cooperative and as transparent as possible with investigations.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, I haven't seen anything to indicate the deaths were criminal, either. They certainly were concealed but that could be economics at work (paid by the student.)

And that’s not criminal?

I am wondering if these were simply normal childhood disease deaths (perhaps exacerbated by poor sanitation) rather than abuse.

Sure sure. And if that were true, what would it look like? We would see the same rate of student deaths at regular schools, wouldn’t we. And the same rate at their homes.

If it was “poor sanitation,” that killed hundreds of children, that would be criminal.

Good god, y’all. Any excuse to avoid seeing that hundreds of children are dead in a mass, unmarked grave.

I do not understand how you can be so indifferent to suffering. It plumb flummoxes me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I haven't seen anything to indicate the deaths were criminal, either. They certainly were concealed but that could be economics at work (paid by the student.) I am wondering if these were simply normal childhood disease deaths (perhaps exacerbated by poor sanitation) rather than abuse.

Then the Catholic Church isn't doing itself any favours not being as cooperative and as transparent as possible with investigations.

That I certainly will agree with. If you bet they will do the wrong thing in any given situation you'll probably be right.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm certain the Catholic faith is in alignment with what you believe. You couldn't possibly be wrong about what they may or may not do, or what they should or should not do as Catholics. But you'll just find something else in my sentence to pick apart instead of understanding the overall message.

No; I was actually asking what the overall message is.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And why would you have started with "Fascists at the ACLU:"? What would be your point in doing that?

What is the point of that question within the context of why I said what you quoted?

To try to figure why you would do that; that is why I asked. I'm trying to find patterns in some of your replies when I find them puzzling.

 

[laughing dog]

1500+ indigenous children were murdered and their bodies hidden.

Is this actually what is being alleged? I cannot find any information about it, other than the discovery of the graves.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything to indicate the deaths were criminal, either. They certainly were concealed but that could be economics at work (paid by the student.) I am wondering if these were simply normal childhood disease deaths (perhaps exacerbated by poor sanitation) rather than abuse.

In this instance, unmarked graves to me are an indication of guilt about something.

 

[Toni]

1500+ indigenous children were murdered and their bodies hidden.

Is this actually what is being alleged? I cannot find any information about it, other than the discovery of the graves.

Yeah, I haven't seen anything to indicate the deaths were criminal, either. They certainly were concealed but that could be economics at work (paid by the student.) I am wondering if these were simply normal childhood disease deaths (perhaps exacerbated by poor sanitation) rather than abuse.

Poor sanitation doesn't begin to address the circumstances that increase children's vulnerability to disease. Poor nutrition, abuse (emotional as well as physical and sexual abuse) also would make children more vulnerable to disease. Grief in being separated from family, punishment for speaking the only language you know would lead to depression and would have a negative impact on the immune system. Unless the bodies show obvious signs of foul play: broken bones, fractured skulls, broken teeth, I seriously doubt that there is the will or the funds to do autopsies on so many bodies. Likely, many or most of the children died of the effects of disease exacerbated by malnutrition--which could show in autopsy, overwork and generally poor living conditions. Sexual or emotional abuse would not be apparent in autopsy. Abuse that did not result in broken bones would not be obvious.

 

[Derec]

Most Americans live on land stolen from indigenous people.

Why "stolen"? By those standards almost everybody lives on land "stolen" from some other group of humans. Indian tribe X did not settle somewhere when they crossed the Bering Strait and stayed put where they were until they encountered the Europeans. No, they, and other tribes, moved around and fought each other for territory.

Turkey is another example. Turks are from central Asia, not Asia Minor and Thrace. They live on "stolen land" by your standards.

Or take Britain. Not only the Norman conquest but well before then the Angles and the Saxons came from the Continent - in fact, three German states have some form of "Saxon" in its name. So I guess the English live on the land they "stole" from the Celtic tribes. I guess Welsh should have a monopoly on gambling, and exemption from taxes and drug laws.

We do not say other peoples all over history "live on stolen land" just because some other group of people lived there at some point in history. So why is North America different? Because Indians have better PR than the Welsh or the Lydians?

There are unmarked graves everywhere. Zillions of them, especially of children.

And many of them created by pre-Colubian inhabitants of the Americas. Wars of conquest in the Western Hemisphere did not start in 1492 either.