Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Bomb#20]

So I guess my point is, why is this now considered arson and not eviction and lawful demolition?

1. Because the arsonist didn't own the land. ...

2. Even if it had been a decision of the lawful tribal government, it was not reviewed by appellate courts to check whether it was a discriminatory action being taken in violation of the parishioners' right to free exercise of religion ...

3. The so-called "eviction" and "demolition" were not carried out by sheriff's deputies and professionals with the skill set to make sure nobody got hurt...

"The arsonist didn't own the land"?!? "Own" is a concept we forced on them. We were supposed to "share" and we are not doing that and never did, from the first moment of bad faith to the current. So reason 1 goes flush..

Well, in the first place, you shouldn't have forced that concept on them and you should have shared what you were supposed to share. So you should probably go up there and do what you can to make it up to the Similkameen people for your wrongdoings against them. But your personal culpability for whatever you confess to doesn't bear on the fact that the arsonist wasn't engaging in eviction and lawful demolition.

And in the second place, reason 1 in no way depends on their former lack of a concept of individual land ownership. It's the other way around. They would have to have such a concept and it would have to correctly apply to the arsonist and the land the churches were on in order for the "eviction and lawful demolition" defense to go through. Let's go back three hundred years, and suppose the Similkameen's ancestors had the practice of periodically setting fire to their hunting forest in order to clear brush and prevent more serious forest fires. And let's imagine one member of the tribe thought the customary burn schedule was suboptimal. So he went out in the middle of the night and started a brush fire without getting buy-in from the rest of the tribe. Afterwards, when called to answer for his actions, he says "It's Similkameen land and I'm Similkameen, so I had every right to start the fire." That argument was never going to fly.

2. The "lawful tribal government" is in fact part of what is in contention in much of the conflicts surrounding Canadian first peoples.

Thank you, Mr. "Everybody but me is a moral relativist". You are in effect proposing that whether Similkameen parishioners have a human right to the free exercise of religion depends on who people feel ought to be governing the tribe.

3. The sheriff's deputy isn't making the churches dig up their mass graves.

I.e., it's okay for people to endanger others' lives with their incompetence because you don't like the competent people. Good argument.

Which is where "asymmetric warfare" kicks in.

The ends don't necessarily justify the means, Mr. "Everybody but me is a moral relativist". "Asymmetric warfare" is a term primarily used in war-crime apologetics.

Be that as it may, "It's a legitimate act of war." is no longer a defense. Similkameen children are no longer being kidnapped and held prisoner and killed by neglect in church so-called "schools". The war's over.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Presumably, the prosecutor alleged that the guy on the couch knew his friends were using it for a drug deal, and had at least some evidence to support the allegation. If that wasn't the case and the guy was charged anyway, the prosecutor ought to be disbarred. (Of course, the U.S. court system is well stocked with prosecutors who ought to be disbarred.)

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Why do you regard this as an example of collective guilt? The getaway driver is individually guilty of the felony of helping others commit a felony that he knows, or should know, has a significant risk of causing injury or death.

 

[Rhea]

Be that as it may, "It's a legitimate act of war." is no longer a defense. Similkameen children are no longer being kidnapped and held prisoner and killed by neglect in church so-called "schools". The war's over.

This quote ignores the pages and pages of explanation that the war is not over. A group still hides bodies and the names of the perpetrators. This post seems to indicate this should be just dropped because, reasons.

It ignores the trauma that is inflicted, the real grief of real people, and the cultural damage that is ongoing.

It’s a cold take, dismissive of the crime, conveying that, hey, if you can get past some arbitrary time frame, you can discard the criminal act. It’s not uncommon for those with the spoils to say, “war’s over, there’s nothing to see here,” but it’s not true.

Many of the posts have taken that Tack. Angra Manyu has said this and when it is pointed out, he claims he is being misrepresented, then he says it again. We can read this happening here. Again, this is not uncommon for those who wish to retain the spoils of their crimes (or those who sympathize with those who want to retain the spoils of their crimes.)

And while I dn’t condone arson, I can certainly understand the intense frustration of people who are witnessing crimes being covered up, and attempts to continue to run out the clock and then claim “the wr is over, now YOU are the criminal, and that’s what we’ll try to change the conversation to.”

We are watching that happen here.

 

[laughing dog]

So you do believe in collective guilt.

Why do you regard this as an example of collective guilt? The getaway driver is individually guilty of the felony of helping others commit a felony that he knows, or should know, has a significant risk of causing injury or death.

This is a group. LP and the law consider the getaway driver guilty of the actions of the robbers even though the driver did not participate in the actual robbery. Whether the driver knows or should know about the risks is irrelevant to the issue that the driver did not engage in actual violence. Neither LP nor the law (nor apparently you) consider whether the driver protested against the use of violence or was assured of no violence as relevant.

Holding the driver accountable (i.e. guilty) for the actions of others is a form of collective guilt. Why anyone would think this is controversial is certainly fascinating.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

your logic is simply mistaken.

If you are trying to save face with your unreasoned responses, it is not working like you think.

Fortunately for society, your inhumane and irrational viewpoints do not prevail.

It's not about saving face. Your logic is just wrong. Sure, you will not realize that, so I will not 'save face' in your eyes. And the same goes for those who agree with you. But that doesn't change logic. You are still wrong.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Many of the posts have taken that Tack. Angra Manyu has said this and when it is pointed out, he claims he is being misrepresented, then he says it again.

No; I have been repeatedly misrepresented. So, I say again what I said, with more details, to try to get readers to see I've been misrepresented. And then I get misrepresented again. Which is of course what will continue to happen as long as I continue to post. B20 and some other posters are also repeatedly misrepresented (all of which is only to be expected, on the basis of the available evidence).

 

[Angry Floof]

Many of the posts have taken that Tack. Angra Manyu has said this and when it is pointed out, he claims he is being misrepresented, then he says it again.

No; I have been repeatedly misrepresented. So, I say again what I said, with more details, to try to get readers to see I've been misrepresented. And then I get misrepresented again. Which is of course what will continue to happen as long as I continue to post. B20 and some other posters are also repeatedly misrepresented (all of which is only to be expected, on the basis of the available evidence).

What will continue to happen is that children will continue to be abused and murdered by a corrupt and powerful religious organization until they are stopped by secular society. The extent to which the abuse continues to occur relies on the extent to which the corrupt organization is held accountable. At least, held accountable by enough people in the wider society to have any real effect, but that's pretty much a crap shoot, obviously.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Many of the posts have taken that Tack. Angra Manyu has said this and when it is pointed out, he claims he is being misrepresented, then he says it again.

No; I have been repeatedly misrepresented. So, I say again what I said, with more details, to try to get readers to see I've been misrepresented. And then I get misrepresented again. Which is of course what will continue to happen as long as I continue to post. B20 and some other posters are also repeatedly misrepresented (all of which is only to be expected, on the basis of the available evidence).

What will continue to happen is that children will continue to be abused and murdered by a corrupt and powerful religious organization. The extent to which the abuse continues to occur relies on the extent to which the corrupt organization is held accountable by secular society. At least, held accountable by enough people in secular society to have any real effect, but that's pretty much a crap shoot, obviously.

1. Many things happen in the world, but I was talking about the thread.
2. The religious schools in which kidnapped children were abused are gone.
3. Some children will continue to be abused by some priests. Perhaps some will be murdered. All of the above happens less frequently than before. And probably, it will continue to get better.
4. Collective blaming will continue to be unjust, and will continue to happen.
5. If by 'held accountable' you mean 'punished for their wrongdoings', only things with minds can behaved immorally and be punished. The RCC can only do so in the sense that some of their leaders, members, etc. (depending on context) do so. Francis, for example, is guilty of many things. But he is not guilty of any of the kidnappings and/or abuses and/or murders in the Canadian schools under discussion. He may or may not have engaged in a cover-up, and if he did, then he is to blame for that. But still not for the kidnappings and/or abuses and/or murders in the Canadian schools under discussion.

 

[Angry Floof]

What will continue to happen is that children will continue to be abused and murdered by a corrupt and powerful religious organization. The extent to which the abuse continues to occur relies on the extent to which the corrupt organization is held accountable by secular society. At least, held accountable by enough people in secular society to have any real effect, but that's pretty much a crap shoot, obviously.

1. Many things happen in the world, but I was talking about the thread.

No shit.

2. The religious schools in which kidnapped children were abused are gone.

The RCC is alive and well, and still abusing children as we speak, and likely murdering children somewhere as well because Catholic churches are so often trusted with orphans, kids who don't have families to keep track of them.

3. Some children will continue to be abused by some priests. Perhaps some will be murdered. All of the above happens less frequently than before. And probably, it will continue to get better.

The RCC, which operates under a world view, beliefs, and practices that give rise to abuse, has not yet been held accountable to the point where it can be relied on to behave itself without external forces keeping it in line. For the RCC to be reliable to behave itself without external powers forcing it to, it would have to undergo drastic reform, and it has barely undergone small reform over centuries. Until then, hopefully you're right in your unfounded guess that the corrupt RCC will just behave better and better on its own as time goes on in spite of not actually changing anything.

4. Collective blaming will continue to be unjust, and will continue to happen.

Not having the will or wherewithal to hold powerful organizations accountable for the abuses their structure and culture allow, encourage, and cover up ensures that abuse of vulnerable people will continue.

5. If by 'held accountable' you mean 'punished for their wrongdoings', only things with minds can behaved immorally and be punished. The RCC can only do so in the sense that some of their leaders, members, etc. (depending on context) do so. Francis, for example, is guilty of many things. But he is not guilty of any of the kidnappings and/or abuses and/or murders in the Canadian schools under discussion. He may or may not have engaged in a cover-up, and if he did, then he is to blame for that. But still not for the kidnappings and/or abuses and/or murders in the Canadian schools under discussion.

The Pope, arguably the world's most powerful person, can absolutely put a stop to the abuse quite easily, but he won't, and no Pope ever will of their own accord. An organization that uses its power to allow, encourage, and cover up abuse will always allow, encourage, and cover up abuse until the day those in its highest positions of authority either no longer love power or finally billions of believers become grown up humans and take back that power. The chances of either happening do not look good.

What the rest of us can do to hold the RCC accountable is to legislate what its authority figures can and can't do and impose strict, impinging secular oversight measures. Religion, particularly the RCC (because of its vast influence), holds a special, undeserved, and dangerous place of protection from criticism and accountability, and it will continue to be a source of abuses and corruption right up to the limits of those boundaries we set. We could easily put a stop to religious abuses if not for so many people like you making sure none of that ever happens.

 

[Angry Floof]

By the way, Angra, I didn't see your response to my earlier question for you. Given what we do know about the schools searched so far, how many of the remaining 100+ schools would you guess will be found to have children buried under them once searched?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The RCC is alive and well, and still abusing children as we speak, and likely murdering children somewhere as well because Catholic churches are so often trusted with orphans, kids who don't have families to keep track of them.

Who is the RCC?
Some priests are definitely abusing children. Some might be murdering them, though I'm less certain of that.
For that matter, some police officers are abusing children. Some might be murdering them, though I'm less certain of that. And that's because the police are often trusted in many circumstances.
For that matter, some foster parents are abusing children. Some might be murdering them, though I'm less...the point should be clear by now.

If the RCC, which operates under a world view, beliefs, and practices that give rise to abuse, has not yet been held accountable to the point where it can be relied on to behave itself without external forces keeping it in line.

"Held accountable"? What do you mean by that? Consider the RCC guilty (to go by laughing dog's "Holding the driver accountable (i.e. guilty)"?
But who is the RCC?
That is, which mind do you intend to punish or consider guilty for the decisions of kidnapping children, abusing them, etc., in the schools in Canada we are talking about?

For the RCC to be reliable to behave itself without external powers forcing it to, it would have to undergo drastic reform, and it has barely undergone small reform over centuries.

But that is an argument to say that the pope or whoever has power should try to reform the church, not that others should blame them for what other people did.

Not having the will or wherewithal to hold powerful organizations accountable for the abuses their structure and culture allow, encourage, and cover up ensures that abuse of vulnerable people will continue.

They are only 'their' abuses in the sense that they are the abuses of some human individuals. And no, one can argue that the present leaders or whoever has power should try to reform them to protect the public in the present and the future, without engaging in blaming of the innocent.

The Pope, arguably the world's most powerful person, can absolutely put a stop to the abuse quite easily, but he won't, and no Pope ever will of their own accord.

He is not remotely the world's most powerful person. And he cannot stop all of the abuse. But he could defintely do a lot better than what he is doing. And he should. And he is guilty of failure to do that. But he is not guilty of what happened in the schools in Canada. And he should not apologize for it. Because he did not do it.

What the rest of us can do to hold the RCC accountable is to legislate what its authority figures can and can't do and impose strict, impinging secular oversight measures. Religion, particularly the RCC (because of its vast influence), holds a special, undeserved, and dangerous place of protection from criticism and accountability. We could easily change that if not for so many people like you making sure none of that ever happens.

I'm not sure what you are accusing me of opposing. Just to be clear, what measures do you have in mind?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

By the way, Angra, I didn't see your response to my earlier question for you. Given what we do know about the schools searched so far, how many of the remaining 100+ schools would you guess will be found to have children buried under them once searched?

I have no idea. I would need more information about the remaining ones. Do you have a link?

With no further information, my guess would be whatever number gives you the same average as it is now, rounded to the nearest integer.

 

[Angry Floof]

By the way, Angra, I didn't see your response to my earlier question for you. Given what we do know about the schools searched so far, how many of the remaining 100+ schools would you guess will be found to have children buried under them once searched?

I have no idea. I would need more information about the remaining ones. Do you have a link?

With no further information, my guess would be whatever number gives you the same average as it is now, rounded to the nearest integer.

Yes, I'm just asking for your guess based on the ones we know about so far. I'm assuming you mean average per school. So you would expect all the schools to have some number of bodies under each of them.

So I'm wondering how you would expect that and still think that only the individuals involved in all those schools would be complicit in the deaths of those children.

What kind of organization could contain that many people in that many different places being involved in that many children's bodies being secretly buried under the organization's buildings? You can't possibly say "any organization," and you know that it was not just random evil people coincidentally all working at the same schools under the same religion.

Having a hard time understanding what you think you're defending here. It's not truth or justice, that's for sure.

 

[steve_bank]

The RCC considers itself above civil law answering to a 'higher power'.

The RCC lost its civil power of enforcement with the rise of the Italian state in the late 19th century. . In the mid 1800s there was an international story when an RCC priest essentially seized a Jewish boy from his family with the intention of raiing him Catholic. The family lost in the courts of the day.

It is the 1000 year old Vatican presumption of superiority and immunity on civil affairs.

I rad a bio of Jefferson, he did not like the papcy at all. On the question of spreading our new system abroad he was not supportive, he likened it to the RCC sending an 'army of Jesuits' over here to convert us.

Starting in the 90s the RCC has pressured Catholic politicians to vote as the RCC wants, or be punished with denial of sacraments. It was in the news recently regarding Biden and RCC threats.

Open admition of moral failure undermines the premise of the RCC, the one and only moral authority on Earth derived from a god.

 

[TomC]

Open admition of moral failure undermines the premise of the RCC, the one and only moral authority on Earth derived from a god.

Well, that is Scriptural. Derived from God.

Jesus founded His church on Peter, the first Pope. He was very clear. If you believe the Christian Testament. I don't, but I can read the plain teachings of the New Testament and that's what it says.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

your logic is simply mistaken.

If you are trying to save face with your unreasoned responses, it is not working like you think.

Fortunately for society, your inhumane and irrational viewpoints do not prevail.

It's not about saving face. Your logic is just wrong. Sure, you will not realize that, so I will not 'save face' in your eyes. And the same goes for those who agree with you. But that doesn't change logic. You are still wrong.

You are mistaken about my logic. Your posting history leads me yo believe you will never see nor admit your obvious errors in “reasoning”.

Fortunately, your views on this matter ate not even close to representing existing social arrangements or rational social arrangements.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, I'm just asking for your guess based on the ones we know about so far. I'm assuming you mean average per school. So you would expect all the schools to have some number of bodies under each of them.

No, that does not follow (though it is irrelevant, since my expecting that would not have the consequences you think).

And by the way, just in case, also I would not expect the number to be what I said. In fact, I think that for any given number x, the probability that the total number will be x is extremely low.
I just made a guess as the closest, given essentially no info.

So I'm wondering how you would expect that and still think that only the individuals involved in all those schools would be complicit in the deaths of those children.

I do not expect that. Again, I have no idea which schools were search, what the choice criteria was, how many schools had bodies under them, etc. But in any event, I never said that only the people involved in the deaths of the children already found are guilty of choosing to abuse, kidnap, etc., children. There may well be more to be found.

What kind of organization could contain that many people in that many different places being involved in that many children's bodies being secretly buried under the organization's buildings? You can't possibly say "any organization," and you know that it was not just random evil people coincidentally all working at the same schools under the same religion.

Again, 'contain'. Many organizations would have people like that. The government of a country perhaps. A large church like the RCC. Some other churches perhaps. But the organization 'contains' them only in the same that some individual members engage in that behavior, in the context of their organization-related activities. That is irrelevant to my points against blaming the innocent.

Having a hard time understanding what you think you're defending here. It's not truth or justice, that's for sure.

It is both truth and justice. In particular, I am opposed collective blame, and then blaming the innocent. But it is true you are not understanding what I am defending. If you intend to understand my view, I suggest you read this post carefully.

 

[Bomb#20]

So you do believe in collective guilt.

Why do you regard this as an example of collective guilt? The getaway driver is individually guilty of the felony of helping others commit a felony that he knows, or should know, has a significant risk of causing injury or death.

This is a group. LP and the law consider the getaway driver guilty of the actions of the robbers even though the driver did not participate in the actual robbery. Whether the driver knows or should know about the risks is irrelevant to the issue that the driver did not engage in actual violence. Neither LP nor the law (nor apparently you) consider whether the driver protested against the use of violence or was assured of no violence as relevant.

Holding the driver accountable (i.e. guilty) for the actions of others is a form of collective guilt. Why anyone would think this is controversial is certainly fascinating.

That is a bizarre way of looking at it.

What people are held accountable for is the foreseeable consequences of their own individual actions. If their own individual actions are criminal then they're criminally accountable for the consequences; if their own actions are non-criminal and merely irresponsible then they're held civilly accountable; if there's nothing wrong with their actions and the harmful consequences are an unforeseeable random fluke then they aren't accountable at all. For example, if you announce on the radio that you've hidden five $100 bills in five random books in your local Barnes & Noble, then when the store is predictably trashed by a ravenous mob of treasure hunters, the store owners will sue you for the damage, and they'll deserve to win. That's individual responsibility, not collective responsibility, even though the actual damage was committed by people other than you. You ought not to have hidden those bills and made that radio announcement.

In the event that people are held accountable, the reason is they did something wrong and predictable results came to pass. Whether the mechanism by which those results come to pass happens to pass through the decision making apparatus of some other human is an immaterial detail. Human minds are not supernatural causality interrupters; they're a part of the cause and effect structure of the universe. The people who trashed the store might as well have been robots programmed to search out Benjamins for all the legal and moral difference it makes. So it's no more reasonable to call holding a getaway driver accountable "collective guilt" than it would be to call holding a mob boss accountable "collective guilt" because he ordered a hit and the underling he told to commit the murder delegated it to some under-underling. In both cases the death is a foreseeable consequence of the individual's decision to break the law.

Whether the driver knows or should know about the risks is irrelevant to the issue that the driver did not engage in actual violence.

Why? Because you say so? If that were irrelevant then the only relevant point with the mob boss would be that he didn't pull the trigger himself. It's not as though ordering a hit creates a 100% chance the intended victim will die; it merely raises the probability.

Neither LP nor the law (nor apparently you) consider whether the driver protested against the use of violence or was assured of no violence as relevant.

Well, duh! The people the driver was protesting to and receiving assurances from were robbers. The driver knew they were robbers. The court will take due judicial notice of the fact that it is not reasonable to rely on the assurances or on the good will and virtue of people you know are robbers. That a criminal who cares so little about his fellow man that he'd rob him might well not be above going back on his given word when he finds keeping his promises would put him at risk of going to jail is a fact the getaway driver knew, or should have known. That somebody will get hurt is a foreseeable consequence of agreeing to help a person escape after the robbery, even if he says "Nobody's going to get hurt" before heading off to stick a gun in someone's face. This is not rocket science.

 

[steve_bank]

Open admition of moral failure undermines the premise of the RCC, the one and only moral authority on Earth derived from a god.

Well, that is Scriptural. Derived from God.

Jesus founded His church on Peter, the first Pope. He was very clear. If you believe the Christian Testament. I don't, but I can read the plain teachings of the New Testament and that's what it says.
Tom

I doubt the real Jusus if he existed founded a churchm he was Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

That Peter was anointed by Jesus as the head of a new church is an RCC narrative to justify power.

Why on Earth take a few lines in an ancient document of unknown authorship as literal factual reporting?