Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Jarhyn]

Ah, so you were mistaken in your response in post 645.
You are talking about something that is irrelevant. No one is blaming the wrong people when they hold the RCC accountable.

What does it even mean to apologize on behalf of an institution?

If the pope says 'I apologize for X on behalf of the RCC' and he is not accepting that he himself behaved immorally, then he is not apologizing sincerely at all. Rather, he is blaming other people for their wrongdoings, or just uttering words some people want to hear to appease them, or some other thing.

Either you are using an idiosyncratic notion of "apologize" (a real possibility) or you are simply arguing to save face. The Pope can genuinely rue the wrongful acts done in the name of the RCC which means he can sincerely apologize. The Pope is the head of the RCC and speaks for the RCC. Your claim that he is not sincerely apologizing cannot be taken seriously.

I can totally apologize, sincerely, for something my husband did, assuming that I allow this to impact my opinion of my husband and assuming I do what I can to cease continuing culpability in continuing acts.

If someone's child or spouse or elderly parent is going out shoplifting and the person knows this, their apology is an admission that the association with their ward or spouse gives responsibility and that the consummation of that responsibility is to make sure the shoplifter doesn't ever get out of a store with unpaid merch in their pockets.

As members of the church, church members have responsibility to press the consummation of responsibility of their hierarchy and the hierarchy has an obligation to respond.

A failure to do this is a failure of responsibility.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm glad you were able to figure out which kind of institution we're talking about and which definition applies. The synonyms are there because most people who understand English well enough to read the entry find such comparisons useful. But if you don't then just do a little more research. There are plenty of other sites where you can find out what an institution is.

No, because my problem isn't that I lack knowledge. I already explained why you are mistaken. The reason I ask for a definition is because you reject my point that it is some of the activity of some people, without argument or reason.

Let me put try again: Some people engage in certain behavior, and when people talk about, say, what the Canadian government did, they are talking about the activities of some people, human individuals, not about some hive mind beyond that. And if each of those people decided to do something else and dissolve the Canadian government, they would be able to do so. It's some of the activity of some people. And the point in pointing that out is that there is no unethical choice of Canada beyond the unethical choices of some human individuals.

If you didn't mean you think it's some of the activity of some people, then what do you think it is?

Yes, an institution is some of the activity of some people. It does not follow that every instance of activity of some people is an institution, just as from the statement that playing poker is some of the activity of some people it does not follow that every instance of activity of some people is an instance of playing poker. That is why your objections fail. But also, I was just giving enough background for the purposes of my points, not to try to characterize which activity we are talking about in detail. That would be too difficult, and unnecessary.

You obviously don't know what an institution is or why it can be held accountable for actions.

Again, you fail to gave any good reasons. I am arguing the point. What do you mean to 'hold accountable'? To make a list of its actions and punish it for unethical behavior? But then, "its" actions are the actions of individual humans, and they are the ones who can behave unethically. No hive mind there.

Let's try this: do you understand what a corporation is? Do you know why a corporation can be sued, fined, or otherwise penalized for the results of its acts or failure to act?

It is some of the activity of some people. And also - depending on what you mean - a legal construct bundling some of those activities together for the purpose of assigning legal rights and obligations. I am talking about moral guilty, moral obligations, etc., not legal ones.

A corporation, of course, cannot behave unethically except in the sense that the members/representatives/etc. can do so.

It means that the responsible party is the institution.

Again, 'responsible' is ambiguous. Are you talking about the law, or morality? Are you talking about compensation? At any rate, I'm talking about morality. And if you look beneath the hood of the legal construct so to speak, humans are responsible for compensation in different ways, usually limited to some part of their assets in this context (yes, morally too). As for moral guilty, only humans can be guilty. Or other monkeys and I'm not sure if something else, but that does not apply here anyway.

Institutions like the RCC have legal standing here in the US. They also have responsibilities. Failure to act responsibly has legal consequences, as anyone who knows about the ongoing RCC child sex abuse scandals already knows.

Again, I am not talking about either the law or compensation. I'm talking about moral guilt.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're being disingenuous when you claim to not understand how the RCC can be held responsible for what its clergy and staff did on its properties.

You simply do not even understand my points.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ah, so you were mistaken in your response in post 645.

No, I was not, and it is baffling that you think what I said implies I was. That I also consider for the sake of the argument that other people might mean something else is not the same as my implying that I was wrong.

You are talking about something that is irrelevant. No one is blaming the wrong people when they hold the RCC accountable.

Yes, some people very much are. Look at their posts. They are not saying that the assets were assigned in such a manner that it would be just to use them to pay compensation even if the current users and/or owners are not guilty. That would be a matter to be discussed in a case by case basis, and a very, very different debate. And look at their tone. The very "held accountable" term you use is an act of blaming, at least in usual speech, and in this context too.

Either you are using an idiosyncratic notion of "apologize" (a real possibility) or you are simply arguing to save face.

Neither one.

The Pope can genuinely rue the wrongful acts done in the name of the RCC which means he can sincerely apologize.

Rue?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rue

to feel sorry about an event and wish it had not happened; regret

One properly can feel sorry for one's actions, not for the actions of others. The pope of course can feel sorry for the actions of others, and sincerely apologize. I never said otherwise. My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused. I never claimed the pope cannot confusedly and sincerely apologize.

As for regretting an event, well usually at least that is for one's own actions too, though it's not enough to warrant an apology. For example, Joe might regret giving Jack $10000 because Jack was a conman and just took the money. But regret alone does not warrant an apology - not even for one's actions.

The Pope is the head of the RCC and speaks for the RCC. Your claim that he is not sincerely apologizing cannot be taken seriously.

When did I claim that? But actually, he is not apologizing at all in re: any of the wrongful behavior involving those schools.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I was not, and it is baffling that you think what I said implies I was.

Of course to both.

That I also consider for the sake of the argument that other people might mean something else is not the same as my implying that I was wrong.

Whatever you need to save face. Just be assured it is not working.

Yes, some people very uch are. Look at their posts. They are not saying that the assets were assigned in such a manner that it would be just to use them to pay compensation even if the current users and/or owners are not guilty. That would be a matter to be discussed in a case by case basis, and a very, very different debate. And look at their tone. The very "held accountable" term you use is an act of blaming, at least in usual speech, and in this context too.

You are "confused". "Held accountable" is synonomous with "held responsible". Holding someone responsible is not necessarily an act of blaming.

Neither one.

That response along with your claims below suggest that is both.

One properly can feel sorry for one's actions, not for the actions of others.

Nonsense. I think it is

The pope of course can feel sorry for the actions of others, and sincerely apologize. I never said otherwise. My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused. I never claimed the pope cannot confusedly and sincerely apologize.

To put it charitably, your point is confused. The Pope can sincerely and rationally apologize for the actions taken under the name of the RCC.

As for regretting an event, well usually at least that is for one's own actions too, though it's not enough to warrant an apology. For example, Joe might regret giving Jack $10000 because Jack was a conman and just took the money. But regret alone does not warrant an apology - not even for one's actions.

Your example is pointless.

When did I claim that? But actually, he is not apologizing at all in re: any of the wrongful behavior involving those schools.

More confusion on your part. You did claim the Pope cannot sincerely apologize. And I did not claim the Pope was actually apologizing - I was simply extending our discussion.

 

[Rhea]

Let me put try again: Some people engage in certain behavior, and when people talk about, say, what the Canadian government did, they are talking about the activities of some people, human individuals, not about some hive mind beyond that. And if each of those people decided to do something else and dissolve the Canadian government, they would be able to do so. It's some of the activity of some people. And the point in pointing that out is that there is no unethical choice of Canada beyond the unethical choices of some human individuals.

My first WTF? Is that Individual Canadians can dissolve the government if they want.

My second is seeing the slavery apologist’s and the Northern slavery spectator’s playbook here. I saw slavery, and I watched and did nothing. Therefore, I have no part in slavery. One hears people argue this. “I didn’t rape her, I just watched that guy rape her and chose to never call the cops because he’s a frat brother, but WHO is ‘the Frat’ after all, and hence, I have nothing to apologize for.”

I’ve been pondering what makes Angra Manyu’s position appear so strongly supportive of the murders - of the culture that makes those murders possible. Pondering what about his arguments sound so very much like the “don’t blame the white southerners who walked right past the blockaded Blacks at the polls, voting while knowing that others were being kept from it,” or so much like the “someone else broke the treaty, therefore the treaty is gone and I don’t have to honor it, and I’m not at all responsible for what this does to the current people who should have inherited this land.”

I keep reading his excuses and deflections for the employer who hired and harbored these murderers, who continues to harbor their names today.

He argues for stopping the investigations because no one is responsible. He argues for denying the victims their story by saying “all of them and their direct families are long dead,” despite being shown that they are alive. He seems utterly convinved that no one has a moral responsibility, let alone a legal one, to find anything out. And as long as they refuse to find anything out, that means, apparently, that there is nothing that needs finding out.

I am no longer debating AM’s points because they repeat themselves without acknowledging any of the data or responses given. They simply jump back again and again to, “there is no blame to anyone but the foot soldier. No commander, no general, no legislature, no culture is ever culpable; only the foot soldier.” And conveniently, if all those others hide the facts until the footsoldier is dead, then there is no responsibility to the victims at all.

It’s a deceptive and deliberate set of excuses, designed to further normalize, excuse and institutionalize the harm, providing a blueprint for how to repeat it and remain pure in AM’s eyes. No mob boss is guilty of anything. They merely provide a figurehead that people can look up to. What those people choose to do, is their own business, and any amount of eye-winking and shuffliing of perpetrators out of the limelight is not an enabling activity, it’s just coincidence of shared membership.


I find that to be directly in line with many examples of those who claimed, “yes, I was a member of the KKK, but my organization wasn’t bad, it was just a few wrong people,” and, “you say there were 25 rapes at my fraternity last fall, but that doesn’t mean the fraternity is bad and should be closed! There isn’t even any reason for any of us to apologize, since the paper isn’t giving out names.”

I find all of that morally wrong and damaging to humankind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, if an Amazon delivery van which is delivering stuff hits a pedestrian due to driver negligence and leaves her semi-paralized, then Amazon is legally responsible, in the sense it has a legal obligation to pay compensation, and from a moral perspective, I would say the shareholders are also under an obligation to pay by the legally established means and up their shares. It's part of what they signed up for by buying shares. But it is not the case that the shareholders should apologize to the victim. They did nothing wrong in this case. Nor should Bezos or Jassy apologize, provided that there was no negligence on his part hiring the driver. And if there was, the wrongdoing already happened regardless of whether someone was hurt - though the crash might help others find evidence of that.

That's not how it works--the shareholders only "pay" in that the value of their shares is reduced by however much the company pays the injured person. Without this legal firewall large companies are basically non-viable and wealth is far more concentrated than it is in our society.

That's only because Amazon is too big to be brought down by a single lawsuit. But if the damage is so great (e.g., nuclear explosion) that the compensations exceed the market value of the company, the assets are sold and used to pay, and - depending on the legislation -, the company is dissolved. At any rate, the shareholders lose their shares, but not more, which is why I said "up to their shares" (well, I missed the "to" but that was a typo).

But you said the shareholders have to pay. They don't, they just lose the value of what they already bought. No bill will show up in the mail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not to those who can actually think.

BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.

If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

The getaway driver chose to participate in a serious criminal act where he knows violence often happens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

Here in the US in many jurisdiction the driver would still be charged, even without mens rea.

I remember reading a story about a guy that let a couple friends use his car. The friends went to do a drug deal and it went south. Someone got shot. The guy that let the friends borrow the car got charged along with the friends even though he was home laying on his couch.

Yup--accessory before the fact. He does have mens rea--he knowingly provided resources needed to carry out a criminal act, he becomes an accessory to that criminal act. Once again, criminals know drug deals sometimes go bad, that's a risk you take in enabling a drug deal.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are "confused". "Held accountable" is synonomous with "held responsible". Holding someone responsible is not necessarily an act of blaming.

It is at least in a very common meaning of 'held accountable', and definitely the one in use here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/accountable


"Some common synonyms of accountable are amenable, answerable, liable, and responsible.
While all these words mean "subject to being held to account," accountable suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation."

To put it charitably, your point is confused. The Pope can sincerely and rationally apologize for the actions taken under the name of the RCC.

Only if he committed them, or in a counterfactual case, if he rationally believes he committed them.

You did claim the Pope cannot sincerely apologize.

Quote me.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

The getaway driver chose to participate in a serious criminal act where he knows violence often happens.

Yes. He is guilty of that. Note that his choice before the act would have been equally guilty if no one had been hurt. He cannot be made guilty by the actions of others, and he cannot be made guilty retroactively even for his own actions. Even so, as I said, if someone was shot and he knows it, all other things equal (aote), he is more guilty for choosing to remain the getaway driver than he would be if no one had been shot (i.e., it's more immoral aote).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's only because Amazon is too big to be brought down by a single lawsuit. But if the damage is so great (e.g., nuclear explosion) that the compensations exceed the market value of the company, the assets are sold and used to pay, and - depending on the legislation -, the company is dissolved. At any rate, the shareholders lose their shares, but not more, which is why I said "up to their shares" (well, I missed the "to" but that was a typo).

But you said the shareholders have to pay. They don't, they just lose the value of what they already bought. No bill will show up in the mail.

That's a technical legal issue. I'm talking about responding with their investment. My apologizes if I misspoke.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My first WTF? Is that Individual Canadians can dissolve the government if they want.

Again, if each of them made that choice, it would be dissolved. It should be obvious.

My second is seeing the slavery apologist’s and the Northern slavery spectator’s playbook here. I saw slavery, and I watched and did nothing. Therefore, I have no part in slavery. One hears people argue this. “I didn’t rape her, I just watched that guy rape her and chose to never call the cops because he’s a frat brother, but WHO is ‘the Frat’ after all, and hence, I have nothing to apologize for.”

You see what you want. The man who watched the rapist did something wrong: namely, he refrained from calling the cops or otherwise take the action he could have taken without putting his life on the line. That is immoral, and he has something to apologize for. He does not have to apologize for raping her, as he did not. But he's obviously very guilty. And yes, the one who watched slavery and did nothing may or may not have behaved wrong, depending one whether he could have stopped it, what was the risk, etc. But many did something very wrong.

And of course, the people in the RCC who saw what was happening and could have done something had an obligation to do so, at least all other things equal (assuming they could, their lives would not be at significant risk, etc.). Many of them are guilty. And those that are alive owe an apology. Not for the actions of others, but their own. The pope, however, is not one of them.

I’ve been pondering what makes Angra Manyu’s position appear so strongly supportive of the murders - of the culture that makes those murders possible. Pondering what about his arguments sound so very much like the “don’t blame the white southerners who walked right past the blockaded Blacks at the polls, voting while knowing that others were being kept from it,” or so much like the “someone else broke the treaty, therefore the treaty is gone and I don’t have to honor it, and I’m not at all responsible for what this does to the current people who should have inherited this land.”

I keep reading his excuses and deflections for the employer who hired and harbored these murderers, who continues to harbor their names today.

That is not the same human employer. That is not the same moral agent.

He argues for stopping the investigations because no one is responsible. He argues for denying the victims their story by saying “all of them and their direct families are long dead,” despite being shown that they are alive. He seems utterly convinved that no one has a moral responsibility, let alone a legal one, to find anything out. And as long as they refuse to find anything out, that means, apparently, that there is nothing that needs finding out.

You just made all of that up. Again, very probably someone in the police has a moral obligation to investigate (unless the resources are needed to protect people, or some other more urgent matter, but probably that is not so), in the case of some of the events. Others are too distant in time - at least the probable murders I've seen mentioned -, so there probably is no obligation to investigate unless the connections make it necessary.

And very probably, someone has records and has a moral obligation to open them. On the other hand, the pope has no obligation to apologize for the kidnappings, abuses or murders, because he did not do those.

I am no longer debating AM’s points because they repeat themselves without acknowledging any of the data or responses given. They simply jump back again and again to, “there is no blame to anyone but the foot soldier. No commander, no general, no legislature, no culture is ever culpable; only the foot soldier.” And conveniently, if all those others hide the facts until the footsoldier is dead, then there is no responsibility to the victims at all.

On the contrary, when you or others misrepresent my points, I clarify them and repeat them with more detail, hoping that eventually you and others will stop misrepresenting them. But no luck so far.

It’s a deceptive and deliberate set of excuses, designed to further normalize, excuse and institutionalize the harm, providing a blueprint for how to repeat it and remain pure in AM’s eyes.

No. I am mostly focus on arguing against blaming the innocent. And I also make other points, none of which has anything to do with the above.

No mob boss is guilty of anything. They merely provide a figurehead that people can look up to. What those people choose to do, is their own business, and any amount of eye-winking and shuffliing of perpetrators out of the limelight is not an enabling activity, it’s just coincidence of shared membership.

Yes, they are guilty of ordering kidnappings, murders, etc. They are guilty of choosing to be mob bosses. They are guilty of coverups. They are guilty of a gazillion things they actually do. Now if the mob boss tells the assassin to go kill the witness so that he avoids imprisonment for his tax evasion, then he does not become any more or less guilty depending on whether the assassin actually does it. He's already guilty and deserves to be executed.

I find that to be directly in line with many examples of those who claimed, “yes, I was a member of the KKK, but my organization wasn’t bad, it was just a few wrong people,” and, “you say there were 25 rapes at my fraternity last fall, but that doesn’t mean the fraternity is bad and should be closed! There isn’t even any reason for any of us to apologize, since the paper isn’t giving out names.”

No, of course that is not in line. If he was a (willing) member of the KKK, he is guilty of racism. And guilty of some other activities. Probably including helping other KKK members get away with other crimes. He is not, however, guilty of all of the crimes of the KKK.

And if you understood my posts, you could figure out the proper answer in the fraternity case too.

I find all of that morally wrong and damaging to humankind.

Yeah, of course you do. But it is a bad caricature of my position.

 

[laughing dog]

So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.

The getaway driver chose to participate in a serious criminal act where he knows violence often happens.

So you do believe in collective guilt.

 

[laughing dog]

It is at least in a very common meaning of 'held accountable', and definitely the one in use here.

You confuse your problems with language with common use.

Only if he committed them, or in a counterfactual case, if he rationally believes he committed them.

Your position does not conform to reality: it is irrational.

Quote me.

My error. You have claimed that “He can apologize insincerely, or he can apologize sincerely and irrationally.” That is, of course, ridiculous. Now, you are contradicting yourself, since you are now saying “My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused.” Confusion is not irrationality.

I find it the height of arrogance for anyone to claim a priori that a possible apology cannot be rational and sincere.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My error. You have claimed that “He can apologize insincerely, or he can apologize sincerely and irrationally.” That is, of course, ridiculous. Now, you are contradicting yourself, since you are now saying “My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused.” Confusion is not irrationality.

That is a logic error. The statements:

S1: If he apologized, he would be either insincere or confused.

and

S2: If he apologized, he would be either insincere or irrational.

are not contradictory. While not all instances of confusion instances of irrationality, some definitely are.

 

[laughing dog]

My error. You have claimed that “He can apologize insincerely, or he can apologize sincerely and irrationally.” That is, of course, ridiculous. Now, you are contradicting yourself, since you are now saying “My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused.” Confusion is not irrationality.

That is a logic error. The statements:

S1: If he apologized, he would be either insincere or confused.

and

S2: If he apologized, he would be either insincere or irrational.

are not contradictory. While not all instances of confusion instances of irrationality, some definitely are.

As written your conclusion literally makes no sense. If you mean that not all instances of confusion are instances of irrationality, then you are contradicting yourself, since S1 and S2 cannot both be true all of the time.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My error. You have claimed that “He can apologize insincerely, or he can apologize sincerely and irrationally.” That is, of course, ridiculous. Now, you are contradicting yourself, since you are now saying “My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused.” Confusion is not irrationality.

That is a logic error. The statements:

S1: If he apologized, he would be either insincere or confused.

and

S2: If he apologized, he would be either insincere or irrational.

are not contradictory. While not all instances of confusion instances of irrationality, some definitely are.

As written your conclusion literally makes no sense. If you mean that not all instances of confusion are instances of irrationality, then you are contradicting yourself, since S1 and S2 cannot both be true all of the time.

Actually, that is another logic error. Even if it were impossible for a behavior to be confused and irrational (which is clearly not the case), S1 and S2 could both be true simultaneously, though together they would imply something I did not mean to imply. As it happens, of course S1 and S2 do make sense together. If the pope were to apologize sincerely, he would be confused, and it would be a confusion of the irrational sort.

And no, not all instances of confusion are instances of irrationality. The pope's would be, though, as he rationally ought to know he is not guilty and there is no collective guilt.

 

[laughing dog]

As written your conclusion literally makes no sense. If you mean that not all instances of confusion are instances of irrationality, then you are contradicting yourself, since S1 and S2 cannot both be true all of the time.

Actually, that is another logic error.

You are confused.
Please stop using terms you do not understand.

Even if it were impossible for a behavior to be confused and irrational (which is clearly not the case), S1 and S2 could both be true simultaneously, though together they would imply something I did not mean to imply. As it happens, of course S1 and S2 do make sense together. If the pope were to apologize sincerely, he would be confused, and it would be a confusion of the irrational sort.

First you said S1. Later you said S2. Since S1 excludes irrational that is also not confused, the two are contradictory when they stand alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts (they are true together).

And no, not all instances of confusion are instances of irrationality. The pope's would be, though, as he rationally ought to know he is not guilty and there is no collective guilt.

Anyone who grasps the basic truth that if the RCC is guilty that does not mean the Pope or any particular member of the RCC is guilty ought to know your observation is irrational.

 

[TomC]

On the contrary, when you or others misrepresent my points, I clarify them and repeat them with more detail, hoping that eventually you and others will stop misrepresenting them. But no luck so far.

That's why I stopped bothering with posting in this thread.

Nuance is responded to with semantics. 19th century reality is responded to with 21st century morality. If you're not against the RCC, you're advocating the murder and rape of children.

Oh well. It's not my first rodeo.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

On the contrary, when you or others misrepresent my points, I clarify them and repeat them with more detail, hoping that eventually you and others will stop misrepresenting them. But no luck so far.

That's why I stopped bothering with posting in this thread.

Nuance is responded to with semantics. 19th century reality is responded to with 21st century morality. If you're not against the RCC, you're advocating the murder and rape of children.

Oh well. It's not my first rodeo.
Tom

No, that's if you aren't against the Catholic church of 18**-199*. If you aren't against the Catholic church of Today, you aren't against the hiding the evidence for (catholic church actions of 18**-199*), an ongoing and current action of the Catholic church.