Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Rhea]

Angra Manyu, the thing is, you keep repeating, over and over, whenever the subject of the culpability of the organization that hired, housed and hid the perpetrators of the murder, you keep repeating “WHO?” And utterly ignoring the very clear answers that the organization makes actions, makes money, pays money, aproves actions and hides files.

It sounds like nothing more than an excuse for the murders every time you pretend no one answered you about how the organization is a group of conspiring individuals who use the organization’s accululated wealth and power to perpetuate these crimes. And every time you pretend no one explained how everyone else who supports the organization and aids in the use of it’s massive power is part of the organization.

I get that you think a person can hide in a church and there is no one hiding them, and they aren’t even there because there is no there. I get how you are compelled by something to argue that you CANNOT FIND a culpable individual.

How, you think because they all died, there is no one guilty. That as long as an organization can conspire to run out the clock, they can claim to never have been guilty. How you do not even ponder that if it was just a dead individual, this would have been uncovered decades ago because there would have been no conspiring organization to continue supressing the ongoing complaints of the families.

But the truth that we can all see is that there IS an ongoing organization working as a team to hide the facts. And that they have been at this since the begininning. New generations of conspiring people, carrying on the hiding of the facts, protecting the murderers for their entire lives.

There is an organization. Working as a team.
You deny this. You deny anyone has answered it, and merely repeat your insipid, “WHO is the RCC?”
But you have been answered.

A moral person wants answers. There are children missing.
The RCC does not want answers. They have shown that.
And your argument serves to help the organization in hiding a crime.
I could not morally face myself if I did that. You obviously can.

Every one of those schools should be examined by radar. It should be paid for by the organization that owned the schools, hired the people who ran them and should have had records of the children in their “care.”

Every moment they refuse is an admission of their collective effort to hide their cowardly shame.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra Manyu, the thing is, you keep repeating, over and over, whenever the subject of the culpability of the organization that hired, housed and hid the perpetrators of the murder, you keep repeating “WHO?” And utterly ignoring the very clear answers that the organization makes actions, makes money, pays money, aproves actions and hides files.

I do not ignore the answers, clear or not. I explain carefully that the organization only acts in the sense that some of its members, leaders, etc., do, and that it does not have a mind other than theirs. And for that reason, it cannot be morally guilty of anything whatsoever, except in the sense that some of its members, leaders, etc, and be morally guilty. So, when you for example talk about the culpability of the organization, I am asking who is the human being(s) that you are blaming.

Furthermore, when you replied to the who, you ended up implying absurdities.

It sounds like nothing more than an excuse for the murders every time you pretend no one answered you about how the organization is a group of conspiring individuals who use the organization’s accululated wealth and power to perpetuate these crimes. And every time you pretend no one explained how everyone else who supports the organization and aids in the use of it’s massive power is part of the organization.

I realize it sounds like that to you. I explained many times why it is not at all like that. And I do not pretend that no one answered. I carefully addressed the answers. And yes, some individuals conspired. Others acted alone. My question is: who are the individuals you blame for the kidnappings, abuses, murders, etc.

I get that you think a person can hide in a church and there is no one hiding them, and they aren’t even there because there is no there. I get how you are compelled by something to argue that you CANNOT FIND a culpable individual.

No, I am asking you to point to the person you blame for, say, kidnapping children. Who do you blame for that? (if you prefer to choose another crime instead of kidnapping, please choose whatever crime you prefer, and then tell me whom you blame).

How, you think because they all died, there is no one guilty. That as long as an organization can conspire to run out the clock, they can claim to never have been guilty. How you do not even ponder that if it was just a dead individual, this would have been uncovered decades ago because there would have been no conspiring organization to continue supressing the ongoing complaints of the families.

Again, any human being who conspires to run the clock is guilty of conspiring to run the clock. I never suggested otherwise.

But the truth that we can all see is that there IS an ongoing organization working as a team to hide the facts. And that they have been at this since the begininning. New generations of conspiring people, carrying on the hiding of the facts, protecting the murderers for their entire lives.

If there are humans conspiring as a team to hide the fact, each of them is guilty of conspiring with their team members. None of them is guilty of whatever happened in the beginning. And most Catholics of course are not conspiring to hide the facts.

There is an organization. Working as a team.
You deny this.You deny anyone has answered it, and merely repeat your insipid, “WHO is the RCC?”
But you have been answered.

I have been given answers that are very mistaken, and I pointed out that they are.

A moral person wants answers. There are children missing.
The RCC does not want answers. They have shown that.

You just did it again. Who does not want answers? But if they do not, they are not guilty of hiding anything. Not wanting answers is not the same as conspiring to prevent others to get them. And if some of them do conspire, they are guilty of that. Not of the murders they are hiding. And so on.

And your argument serves to help the organization in hiding a crime.
I could not morally face myself if I did that. You obviously can.

I am not helping anyone hide a crime. I am arguing against collective blame, blaming the innocent, etc. (not innocent of everything, but of what they are being blamed).

Every one of those schools should be examined by radar. It should be paid for by the organization that owned the schools, hired the people who ran them and should have had records of the children in their “care.”

The Canadian government was in charge since 1969, though I'm not familiar with the legal details. Different religious organizations but mostly the RCC owned them before. The RCC has a limited amount of money, so how they should use it is a difficult matter. You pay for radar searches, and that is money that is not used for feeding living people. Be that as it may, this is a complicated matter of civil responsibility, and I'm not arguing against suing the RCC so that they pay for searches. I'm talking about moral guilt, blame, etc.

Every moment they refuse is an admission of their collective effort to hide their cowardly shame.

You did that again. Who is "they"? Who refuses to pay? Nearly all parishioners, priests, etc., do not refuse to pay. Nor do they accept to pay. They simply do not have access to RCC money to make that choice. And probably aren't even considering whether to do radar searches, but how to pray or whatever.

 

[Rhea]

I already answered you myriad times. You claim that you are addressing the answers and still you ask this again.

I’ve already told you. ANY Catholic who goes to a catholic church and gives money to the catholics and calls themselves a catholic who DOES NOT clamour for their leadership to uncover the books and pay for the radar testing, is morally culpable of supporting an organization that is refusing to uncover its crimes.

We KNOW those schools were run by Catholics. The Catholic church, therefore, has a moral obligation to check whether crimes were committed at their schools, ESPECIALLY because indigenous families have been begging for information for over a century.

The WHO is anyone who has given money to the organization that paid those murderers, or who likes to call themselves by the name of that organization, or who cheerfully shakes hands with the leadership of that organization on a Sunday, or who drinks blood from the golden chalice held by a leader in that organization.

I have answered your insipid “who” question many times. And your post above pretends that I have not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's why, when the child sex abuse scandal in Boston broke wide open, it was the evidence the Church hierarchy was deliberately moving abusers from parish to parish to keep their crimes hidden that made it stick, not just knowing that some priests had abused some kids. Porter, Geoghan, Paquin, Shanley, etc. would still be free to molest kids if the Boston Globe hadn't uncovered enough evidence to indict the Archdiocese of Boston. Eventually, enough evidence came to light in many different cities and countries to indict the Church as a whole, although so far there hasn't been a true accounting. The RCC has been able to dodge or deflect most efforts to get at their records so we still don't know the true scope of the abuse.

I expect it will be much the same with the residential schools. The RCC will fight to keep the records hidden even as the bodies of thousands more victims are discovered on its properties.

That's a very different case--there was ongoing action. I'd like to see those who moved the priests around charged as accessories, but the statute of limitations is probably long past.

Obviously, many of those bishops in charge are dead. Can you find any living ones, so that they can be properly blamed?


According to the Wikipedia page, "In 1969, after years of sharing power with churches, the DIA took sole control of the residential school system.". So, it appears that the bishops in charge were in charge only up to 1969 at most. That is 52 years ago. If you take a look at the list of youngest living Catholic bishops as an indication, the youngest is almost 40. Assuming that some of Canadian bishops in charge were that age (unlikely), you'll find guilty bishops over 90 years old.

I actually did a cursory search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_archdioceses

For now, every single one I checked is dead. You can search some more if you like.

Exactly what I'm not in favor of joining this crusade. I doubt there's any wrongdoers left.

It is useful to notice that those who want to protect the murderers (and the rapists) used exactly the same deflection; claiming the church is not a culpable entity, and despite being the governing body, the assigner of human resources and the keeper of the records, they are beyond reproach grammatically and by hiding the names should succeed in preventing justice.

Same arguments they used for the rapist priests that they hid. They have a lot of money at stake. Money given by people who also don’t want the church to face justice, and who also do nothing to find guilty individuals in their organization.


Same old tactic.

Except we aren't trying to protect abusers. Rather, we think there are no abusers left to find. Save your pitchforks for the pedophile priests and their enablers, there's no point in trying to stick them in ghosts.

 

[Arctish]

That's a very different case--there was ongoing action. I'd like to see those who moved the priests around charged as accessories, but the statute of limitations is probably long past.



Exactly what I'm not in favor of joining this crusade. I doubt there's any wrongdoers left.

It is useful to notice that those who want to protect the murderers (and the rapists) used exactly the same deflection; claiming the church is not a culpable entity, and despite being the governing body, the assigner of human resources and the keeper of the records, they are beyond reproach grammatically and by hiding the names should succeed in preventing justice.

Same arguments they used for the rapist priests that they hid. They have a lot of money at stake. Money given by people who also don’t want the church to face justice, and who also do nothing to find guilty individuals in their organization.


Same old tactic.

Except we aren't trying to protect abusers. Rather, we think there are no abusers left to find. Save your pitchforks for the pedophile priests and their enablers, there's no point in trying to stick them in ghosts.

How certain are you that there are no abusers left? There are still eyewitnesses and victims. Why not perpetrators and co-conspirators?

Germany recently decided to put a 100 year old alleged former Nazi guard on trial. Is that wrong? Did his alleged crimes take place so long ago that it's pointless to pursue justice now?

We know for certain there weren't any victims of Nazi guards in Germany over the last 75 years, but we do know children went missing from those schools more recently than that. We have no reason to suppose we have found all the bodies and plenty of reasons to think we've barely begun to investigate these possible (likely) crimes.

I don't understand why people are so determined to look the other way.

 

[Bomb#20]

The NPR article is a quick rundown of the evolution of corporate personhood in the United States. It contains embedded links to further explain the 2010 ruling, and it refers to that ruling by name. Anyone interested can easily find and read up on Citizens United themselves. Text of the ruling can be found here.

My apologies for assuming you'd heard of it.

Save the sarcasm for when you're right. I've heard of it. I've read it. I've had a number of arguments about it on TFT in which it appeared I was the only participant who'd read it. So if you've also read it, then by all means, point out where in that ruling the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law, says in the US corporations are people.

 

[Arctish]

The NPR article is a quick rundown of the evolution of corporate personhood in the United States. It contains embedded links to further explain the 2010 ruling, and it refers to that ruling by name. Anyone interested can easily find and read up on Citizens United themselves. Text of the ruling can be found here.

My apologies for assuming you'd heard of it.

Save the sarcasm for when you're right. I've heard of it. I've read it. I've had a number of arguments about it on TFT in which it appeared I was the only participant who'd read it. So if you've also read it, then by all means, point out where in that ruling the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law, says in the US corporations are people.

Ah, pedantry.

You want the exact words in that exact order, and to ignore what it means to have First Amendment Rights, the ability to enter into contracts and to own property.

Well, in a sense you're right. The Citizens United case didn't grant corporate personhood. It merely reaffirmed what had already been accepted as legal precedent ever since railroads successfully argued back in the 1880s that 14th Amendment protections were not limited to 'natural' persons, but were their rights as well. Citizens United made Free Speech via political donations one of the explicit Constitutional Rights of such non-living, non-human persons.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I’ve already told you. ANY Catholic who goes to a catholic church and gives money to the catholics and calls themselves a catholic who DOES NOT clamour for their leadership to uncover the books and pay for the radar testing, is morally culpable of supporting an organization that is refusing to uncover its crimes.

First, that is not all of what you said before. You were accusing the "RCC" of much more than that.

Second, it is not clear that there is any money for radar testing, given that obligations to living people in more urgent situations takes priority.

Third, the vast majority of Catholics around the world have no idea that those crimes happened. And they give money to the church - very little, but they make an effort - in order to help with religious ceremonies, or to maintain the building, things like that. Others do not give money, but just their moral support by being there. Maybe that is impermissible due to the crimes in Canada, in the case of the very few who know about them. But let us put this into perspective. Yet, the pope, many priests, bishops, etc., do worse things than what you describe above, even assuming there is an obligation on the part of some in the RCC leadership to pay for radar searches. For example, many oppose decriminalization of abortion - an official RCC policy -, and by doing that, they've managed to keep that criminalized up to the present in most of Latin America. That is something the parishioners do know, at least in the countries in which this happens, and yet either they do not care, or deliberately participate in actions to keep it criminalized. This of course applies to many other Christian churches.

In Canada and the US, abortion is broadly legal, but the Canadian RCC has opposed it officially, and nearly all bishops and priests oppose it. And this is known by the parishioners. So, again, let us put the matter into perspective. If the campaign against abortion - done openly - were successful, clearly there would be much worse consequences than for a failure to discover the truth about past crimes. And Catholics - even those who are okay with abortion - support their religion and their local church, either with money or moral support or whatnot.


The point is that as long as your accusation is no longer for serious crimes but for supporting the RCC now, focusing on these schools misses the point, and also exaggerates their guilt: people of all religions and ideologies often support - yes, deliberately - very bad causes, which either have or would have - if successful - considerably worse results than a failure to uncover past crimes. It's a problem, but it's not as if they were engaging in a heinous crime.

And for that matter, it is the obligation of Marxists to consider their ideology carefully, stop being Marxists and stop trying to take away many of people's freedoms. And the same goes for supporters of almost any ideology or religion.

Let me put it in another way:
- Kidnapping, abuse, murder of children - terrible wrongs, done deliberately.

- Ordinary Catholics who support the RCC - wrong (usually), but daily, run-of-the-mill, usually thoughtless wrong, not in the same league.

We KNOW those schools were run by Catholics. The Catholic church, therefore, has a moral obligation to check whether crimes were committed at their schools, ESPECIALLY because indigenous families have been begging for information for over a century.

The Catholic Church has no moral obligations, except in the sense some of its leaders, members, etc., do. Now you said earlier it's "ANY Catholic who goes to a catholic church and gives money to the catholics and calls themselves a catholic who DOES NOT clamour for their leadership to uncover the books and pay for the radar testing, is morally culpable of supporting an organization that is refusing to uncover its crimes". Well, no, it does not follow from the fact that we know that those schools were run by Catholics does not entail that the parishioners, etc. know that. And they certainly do not know that anyone has been begging for information for over a century. But leave that aside, even if they know it, that does not enough to conclude that the parishioners would have that obligation themselves. For example, it's not within their power, and even if it were, the available resources might be needed elsewhere.

Be that as it may, let us say it's their obligation. It's also their obligation not to support an organization that tries to ban abortion in Canada ( of course, in the sense that some its leaders do, and many other members do with different degrees of intensity; organizations can act...in the sense some of their leaders, members, etc.). And they just shouldn't indoctrinate their own children (if they have any) in Christianity, or support the indoctrination of others (not kidnapped children, but with complicity of their parents), etc.

I have answered your insipid “who” question many times. And your post above pretends that I have not.

I do not pretend anything. You keep saying I do. I addressed repeatedly your reply, and I pointed out that it was absurd, in light of the accusations that you were hurling against those you identified as the "who". Now you have clearly scaled down the accusations and narrow the target a lot. That's progress, actually. But let us look at things in perspective (see above). These are not the crimes you and others were talking about. Rather, these are the daily wrongdoings of religionists/ideologues. The combined effects of them can be very bad, though, and trying to reduce their influence using reason is a good thing. But hurling wild accusations is not.

 

[Bomb#20]

The NPR article is a quick rundown of the evolution of corporate personhood in the United States. It contains embedded links to further explain the 2010 ruling, and it refers to that ruling by name. Anyone interested can easily find and read up on Citizens United themselves. Text of the ruling can be found here.

My apologies for assuming you'd heard of it.

Save the sarcasm for when you're right. I've heard of it. I've read it. I've had a number of arguments about it on TFT in which it appeared I was the only participant who'd read it. So if you've also read it, then by all means, point out where in that ruling the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the highest authority on US law, says in the US corporations are people.

Ah, pedantry.

You want the exact words in that exact order,

No, I want you to stop spreading disinformation. AM called "corporations are people" an interpretation, and you called it a ruling, and in point of fact it's an interpretation -- and not a very sensible one.

and to ignore what it means to have First Amendment Rights, the ability to enter into contracts and to own property.

I do not want to ignore those things; you just made that up about me. But those are three different policies, not an unholy trinity that collectively equal "corporations are people". You can come up with a list of properties corporations share with people; well, we can equally make a list of properties that distinguish them. Corporations have owners. Corporations don't get to vote. Corporations don't have the right to remain silent. Corporations are prohibited from price-fixing. What the heck makes your list of shared properties outweigh somebody else's list of unshared properties?

The properties you list don't really have anything to do with each other. Allowing corporations to enter contracts is a service the courts provide to business owners: it makes it easier for them to do business. Allowing them to own property is a service the courts provide to the customers and suppliers of businesses: if the business executives screw them over they can sue the corporation and collect a judgment without having to track down every shareholder and haul them all into court. Having First Amendment rights doesn't really have anything to do with the corporations; it's simply that the owners and employees have First Amendment rights and those rights don't disappear in a puff of legal sophistry every time the government wants to censor them and intones the magic incantation "corporate speech".

A corporation is a piece of legal machinery; it's not conceptually much different from a piece of mechanical machinery. The Constitution guarantees "Freedom of the Press". The SCOTUS has held that this covers not just actual literal printing presses, but movie projectors too. If leftists thought about the fact that your press freedoms don't disappear in a puff of legal sophistry when you speak with a movie projector instead of with a printing press the same way they think about "corporate speech", then they'd be ranting about how the Supreme Court ruled that movie projectors are people. Corporations don't speak; people speak using corporations.

Well, in a sense you're right. The Citizens United case didn't grant corporate personhood.

Of course it didn't. It didn't even grant First Amendment rights to corporations. That speaking using a corporation doesn't make your First Amendment rights go poof has been well-established since New York Times Company v. United States, when the SCOTUS ruled that Richard Nixon wasn't allowed to censor publication of the Pentagon Papers. So explain it to me. Why are leftists so gung-ho to censor their political opponents that they're prepared to throw the Pentagon Papers under the bus in order to do it?

It merely reaffirmed what had already been accepted as legal precedent ever since railroads successfully argued back in the 1880s that 14th Amendment protections were not limited to 'natural' persons, but were their rights as well.

That's a case that was about treating corporations like people; it would have made sense for you to point us at that one. Only one item for your list of shared properties, and that one debatable, but at least it's ammo for your case. Citizens United in effect said the government isn't supposed to be in the business of suppressing movies; the corporateness of the movie maker was immaterial.

Citizens United made Free Speech via political donations one of the explicit Constitutional Rights of such non-living, non-human persons.

Where do you get this stuff? (Rhetorical question. I know where you get it: the left-wing echo chamber. Somebody says it; lots of people repeat it; none of them fact-check it; pretty soon everybody believes it.)

No, Citizens United left the legal limits on political donations unchanged. Giving money to a politician is not speech. Speaking out against the politician's opponent is speech. The Supreme Court can tell the difference, even if the SC's countless disparagers cannot.

 

[Rhea]

[… long snip of stuff that boils down to…]

That's a case that was about treating corporations like people; it would have made sense for you to point us at that one. Only one item for your list of shared properties, and that one debatable, but at least it's ammo for your case. Citizens United in effect said the government isn't supposed to be in the business of suppressing movies; the corporateness of the movie maker was immaterial.

[…]
No, Citizens United left the legal limits on political donations unchanged. Giving money to a politician is not speech. Speaking out against the politician's opponent is speech. The Supreme Court can tell the difference, even if the SC's countless disparagers cannot.

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point. He admits that there are some cases where the Supreme court talked about treating corporations like people, but because it was not argued explicitly in language that prevented his dodge and weave, he dodged and wove. Essentially burying, yeah you are right that is a thing amidst a gish gallop of but you didn’t say so right, so we don’t have to talk about it.

It’s the same thing Angra Manyu is doing with his, Catholics in Peru don’t know this happened schtick.


Meanwhile, 1500+ bodies of dead children have been found on Catholic property and the catholic church refuses to spend any of the billions of dollars they have on finding whether there are more, and who was involved in the murders and the cover up, and the catholic parishioners refuse to ask them to.`


1500+ bodies of dead children found on 3 Catholic Church properties.

I’m calling for an investigation. Are you?

 

[Jarhyn]

[… long snip of stuff that boils down to…]

That's a case that was about treating corporations like people; it would have made sense for you to point us at that one. Only one item for your list of shared properties, and that one debatable, but at least it's ammo for your case. Citizens United in effect said the government isn't supposed to be in the business of suppressing movies; the corporateness of the movie maker was immaterial.

[…]
No, Citizens United left the legal limits on political donations unchanged. Giving money to a politician is not speech. Speaking out against the politician's opponent is speech. The Supreme Court can tell the difference, even if the SC's countless disparagers cannot.

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point. He admits that there are some cases where the Supreme court talked about treating corporations like people, but because it was not argued explicitly in language that prevented his dodge and weave, he dodged and wove. Essentially burying, yeah you are right that is a thing amidst a gish gallop of but you didn’t say so right, so we don’t have to talk about it.

It’s the same thing Angra Manyu is doing with his, Catholics in Peru don’t know this happened schtick.


Meanwhile, 1500+ bodies of dead children have been found on Catholic property and the catholic church refuses to spend any of the billions of dollars they have on finding whether there are more, and who was involved in the murders and the cover up, and the catholic parishioners refuse to ask them to.`


1500+ bodies of dead children found on 3 Catholic Church properties.

I’m calling for an investigation. Are you?

To be fair, I don't blame Catholics in Peru for not knowing. The Catholics in Peru will, doubtless, have responsibility for myriad "missions" and their terrible effect in THAT region against THOSE indigenous peoples and the ongoing intractability there

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

No, it is an example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false. And it's something that B20 has successfully argued in several threads. But the claims about Citizens United keep coming, and B20 keeps arguing against them.

Of course, you have no good reason that B20 is doing that to avoid discussing what you consider the main point. He is discussing a point he's often discussed, and finds of interest. And he has also been discussing a number of other issues in this thread.

It’s the same thing Angra Manyu is doing with his, Catholics in Peru don’t know this happened schtick.

No, I am not doing what you accuse me of doing. You made claims with implications for Catholics everywhere. But then again, in addition to explaining that mistake of yours, I also address the case of Catholics in Canada.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

To be fair, I don't blame Catholics in Peru for not knowing. The Catholics in Peru will, doubtless, have responsibility for myriad "missions" and their terrible effect in THAT region against THOSE indigenous peoples and the ongoing intractability there

You mean missions that happened in the past? Well, clearly present-day Catholics are not guilty. Incidentally, many (very probably most) of the Catholics in Peru are the descendants of some of those indigenous people, and also the descendants of some of the European invaders. Do you count them as victims or perpetrators?

If you're talking about Catholic proselytism in the present, well, sure it happens in Peru. And those who promote Catholicism are guilty of that. But that's ordinary wrongful behavior, not atrocities.

 

[Arctish]

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

No, it is an example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false.

Not really.

He acknowledged that the 1880s case in which railroad corporations successfully argued 14th Amendment protections were not limited to 'natural' persons, but were the rights of 'persons' such as themselves (which in turn rested on earlier judicial determinations that such 'persons' existed) was, in his words "a case that was about treating corporations like people",and did indeed bolster my claim.

And this is in the context of me answering your endlessly repeated question.

You ask who was responsible for the well being of those children whose bodies are being found in unmarked graves. The answer is the staff of the residential schools where those children were sent, the clergy that were assigned there, the Archdiocese that oversaw and operated them, and ultimately the Catholic Church of Canada that oversaw and operated the whole system.

I believe Rhea is correct. You guys appear to be arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

No, it is an example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false. And it's something that B20 has successfully argued in several threads. But the claims about Citizens United keep coming, and B20 keeps arguing against them.

Of course, you have no good reason that B20 is doing that to avoid discussing what you consider the main point. He is discussing a point he's often discussed, and finds of interest. And he has also been discussing a number of other issues in this thread.

It’s the same thing Angra Manyu is doing with his, Catholics in Peru don’t know this happened schtick.

No, I am not doing what you accuse me of doing. You made claims with implications for Catholics everywhere. But then again, in addition to explaining that mistake of yours, I also address the case of Catholics in Canada.

The irony of this response is that is a prime example of arguing the minutiae to avoid the main topic.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it is an example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false. And it's something that B20 has successfully argued in several threads. But the claims about Citizens United keep coming, and B20 keeps arguing against them.

Of course, you have no good reason that B20 is doing that to avoid discussing what you consider the main point. He is discussing a point he's often discussed, and finds of interest. And he has also been discussing a number of other issues in this thread.


No, I am not doing what you accuse me of doing. You made claims with implications for Catholics everywhere. But then again, in addition to explaining that mistake of yours, I also address the case of Catholics in Canada.

The irony of this response is that is a prime example of arguing the minutiae to avoid the main topic.

That main topic being that an organization is currently overseeing a continuing coverup of many thousands of cases of child murder, and the members of that organization are sticking by their sides.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it is an example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false. And it's something that B20 has successfully argued in several threads. But the claims about Citizens United keep coming, and B20 keeps arguing against them.

Of course, you have no good reason that B20 is doing that to avoid discussing what you consider the main point. He is discussing a point he's often discussed, and finds of interest. And he has also been discussing a number of other issues in this thread.


No, I am not doing what you accuse me of doing. You made claims with implications for Catholics everywhere. But then again, in addition to explaining that mistake of yours, I also address the case of Catholics in Canada.

The irony of this response is that is a prime example of arguing the minutiae to avoid the main topic.

That's an example of arguing against false, unwarranted accusations against other posters. Generally, when you accuse someone falsely in a debate, it is reasonable for them or others to challenge the accusation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

No, it is an example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false.

Not really.

He acknowledged that the 1880s case in which railroad corporations successfully argued 14th Amendment protections were not limited to 'natural' persons, but were the rights of 'persons' such as themselves (which in turn rested on earlier judicial determinations that such 'persons' existed) was, in his words "a case that was about treating corporations like people",and did indeed bolster my claim.

First, Rhea's claim was about the Citizens United case, not the other one.

Second, when you brought up the other one, yes B20 also acknowledged it.

And this is in the context of me answering your endlessly repeated question.

You ask who was responsible for the well being of those children whose bodies are being found in unmarked graves. The answer is the staff of the residential schools where those children were sent, the clergy that were assigned there, the Archdiocese that oversaw and operated them, and ultimately the Catholic Church of Canada that oversaw and operated the whole system.

Actually, I was asking whom you were blaming. So, you blame the staff for their actions, and the clergy assigned there. Okay, no problem. As for the Archdiocese and the Catholic Church of Canada, those are not morally guilty except to the extent that some of their members, leaders, etc., are.

By the way, let me point out that the Archdiocese and the RCC were in charge up to 1969, and no later.

I believe Rhea is correct. You guys appear to be arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

False and unwarranted accusations are not minutiea, as they happen in the thread. But nobody is avoiding anything.

 

[Rhea]

First, Rhea's claim was about the Citizens United case, not the other one.

Oh? Quote me.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, Rhea's claim was about the Citizens United case, not the other one.

Oh? Quote me.

In this post, you accused B20 of "arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.". Since you accused him of arguing and in your quotation he was arguing about the Citizens United case but not about the other one, it looked to me that your unwarranted and false accusation was about the Citizens United case only. But if it wasn't, let me add a reply for the other case.

This is a prime example of arguing minutiae to avoid discussing the main point.

No, it is:

1. An example of B20 explaining that some of the claims made here by Arctish in support of his position, are false (in Re: Citizens United). And it's something that B20 has successfully argued in several threads. But the claims about Citizens United keep coming, and B20 keeps arguing against them.

2. An example of B20 not arguing the other case, that Arctish had not at first mentioned.


Of course, you have no good reason that B20 is doing that to avoid discussing what you consider the main point. He is discussing a point (Citizens United) he's often discussed, and finds of interest. And he has also been discussing a number of other issues in this thread.

It’s the same thing Angra Manyu is doing with his, Catholics in Peru don’t know this happened schtick.

No, I am not doing what you accuse me of doing. You made claims with implications for Catholics everywhere. But then again, in addition to explaining that mistake of yours, I also address the case of Catholics in Canada. .