Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Gospel]

I have never seen a hair split so fine.
That was astonishing.

Hair splitting?
The difference is absolutely massive. Do you not realize that? It's not even related in any significant way!

I'm just happy you're not running the EPA. Absolutely no fines or criminal convictions would be handed out to any organization because it's made up of individuals you can't blame & the violation happened 2 decades ago while you swim in oil blackened oceans and breathe toxic emmisons.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have never seen a hair split so fine.
That was astonishing.

Hair splitting?
The difference is absolutely massive. Do you not realize that? It's not even related in any significant way!

I'm just happy you're not running the EPA. Absolutely no fines or criminal convictions would be handed out to any organization because it's made up of individuals you can't blame & the violation happened 2 decades ago while you swim in oil blackened oceans and breathe toxic emmisons.

That has nothing to do with whether it's massively different. I'm not sure why you would quote that reply of mine if you wanted to talk about something else. I will address your (very different) point in a later post, but since you reply here, in case there is a misunderstanding let me explain why I say there is a massive difference: Consider the following statements.


S1: Every Catholic wants everyone to convert to Catholicism.

S2: There is an entity with a mind, namely the RCC, who wants everyone to convert to Catholicism. This mind is not one of the minds of the Catholics, or any other human mind, but a mind beyond that.

Surely, S1 and S2 are massively different sorts of claims. S2 is a bigger confusion, as there is no such entity. S1 is just false, because not every Catholics wants that, but it's not the same sort of confusion.
Now, I definitely did not anything like S2. Did anyone here? I'm not sure. Two posters may have come close, though it is unclear whether they did that. What about S1? While I did not make a claim about the mind of every people in a group, that per se would not be confused in any of the ways I addressed in this thread. In fact, it might not be confused at all - it would depend on the claim.

Now let us consider another claim, of the sort I made in the other thread.

S3: Most Catholics believe that they are not going to end up in Hell.

That one is a claim about most individuals in the group "Catholic". There is nothing wrong per se by ascribing a mental property to most or even all individuals in a group. The issue is whether the claims are false. The type of claim I made in the other thread is of the type S3. We might debate whether it's true or false, but it is surely not of the S2 kind, or anything like that.


That aside, there is another kind of claim that my claims are not at all like. Consider:

S4: Some of the Jews who lived about 2000 years ago sold out Jesus, and for that reason, their present-day descendants are guilty.
S5: The ancestors of John Doe engaged in kidnapping, rape and murder, and John Doe is at fault for that.

This is another type of error: it consists in blaming a person for the actions of another (and regardless of whether the claims about those others are correct). Now, in this thread, the claims were usually not so obvious, but the demand of an apology implies it. Consider:

S6: Pope Pius XII behaved in a wrongful manner by remaining neutral in WW2. Pope Francis should apologize.

So, what is the error?
I explained that before, but we have the following:

1. If the demand were just that Francis acknowledge that Pious XII behaved wrongfully, that would not be an apology, but an instance of Francis blaming Pius XII. So, we are not in this case, as an apology is demanded.
2. If the demand were that Francis relay an apology from Pius XII, the error would be that Pius XII did not apologize. If the person asserting S6 is aware of that (as in the similar cases in this thread), then we are not in this case.
3. If the demand involves Francis acknowledging guilt on his part - which is what a sincere apology involves -, then S6 is a confusion of the S4-S5 kind.
4. If the demand involves Francis speaking for an entity other than himself or any human, then the error either involves thinking there is a non-human entity with a mind involved here (as in S2), or believing that entities without a mind are the sort of thing that behaves immorally.
5. If S6 is a combination of the above (it can involve more than one thing), then it is still a confusion (or two).

There is no other realistic interpretation of S6 in a context similar to this thread. On the other hand, what I did in the other thread was, again, akin to S3. And even if my assessment were in error, it would not involve the sort of confusion that is involved here.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have never seen a hair split so fine.
That was astonishing.

Hair splitting?
The difference is absolutely massive. Do you not realize that? It's not even related in any significant way!

I'm just happy you're not running the EPA. Absolutely no fines or criminal convictions would be handed out to any organization because it's made up of individuals you can't blame & the violation happened 2 decades ago while you swim in oil blackened oceans and breathe toxic emmisons.

Fines or criminal convictions against an organization, for something that happened 2 decades ago? Well, after two decades, the same people might be in charge, so that complicates the matter. But let us say it's 5 decades and the people who actually engaged in wrongful acts related to this case, are dead.

Let us see.

1. Is there any moral blaming going on, or do the people imposing the fines or passing the criminal convictions are just consciously engaging in fiction? Or are they simply not thinking about it?

2. What is the intent of the criminal conviction or the fines against the organization?

3. Who is predictably going to get hurt?

4. Other pertinent questions, which depends on context.

You would have to give me more details before I can tell you whether there would be fines or criminal convictions. It might be useful to achieve some goal to have those fines, even if no one is blamed except for the dead. And then the question is whether this particular goal justifies this particular means. Criminal convictions can be used in that manner too - though I think lawmakers should be careful while weighing the pros and cons, given the tendency of so many people to engage in the sort of confusion that results in blaming the innocent.

But as I mentioned, if you want a more specific answer, I will ask you to give me a specific case involving such fines and criminal convictions, so that I can read what happened and tell you what I think about the matter.

 

[Emily Lake]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Is the Canadian Government investigating the grounds of other schools? That would seem like a reasonable first step to me.

Beyond that, yes, looking into the school grounds on US soil also seems reasonable.

I admit that I'm at a loss as to who would investigate the behavior of the church as a whole. Vatican is a city-state in its own right, so I don't know how that would work.

 

[Gospel]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Is the Canadian Government investigating the grounds of other schools? That would seem like a reasonable first step to me.

Beyond that, yes, looking into the school grounds on US soil also seems reasonable.

I admit that I'm at a loss as to who would investigate the behavior of the church as a whole. Vatican is a city-state in its own right, so I don't know how that would work.

Sanction they fucking ass. No more freedom from taxes biotches!!! The government would then use that money and its recourses to apply the best remedy they can for the Aboriginal community at the direction of the Aboriginal community. You get your tax free status back when the Aboriginal community says so ya punk as biotch!

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Elixir]

Some people may think that since only 3 schools have been inspected, there are only 3 schools with bodies. And they might think that since the three inspected are in Canada, then there is no possibility that the RCC behaved ientically at other institutions in the US where they also had schools.

But that’s why many of us are insisting on an investigation into the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church - and organized entity that owned and operated the first three investigated schools where the bodies of 1500+ dead children have already ben found.

Is the Canadian Government investigating the grounds of other schools? That would seem like a reasonable first step to me.

Beyond that, yes, looking into the school grounds on US soil also seems reasonable.

I admit that I'm at a loss as to who would investigate the behavior of the church as a whole. Vatican is a city-state in its own right, so I don't know how that would work.

Sanction they fucking ass. No more freedom from taxes biotches!!! The government would then use that money and its recourses to apply the best remedy they can for the Aboriginal community at the direction of the Aboriginal community. You get your tax free status back when the Aboriginal community says so ya punk as biotch!

Prob’ly we should be bombing The Vatican.
Screw those self righteous fat cats in their funny dress up outfits.

 

[Derec]

Sanction they fucking ass.

*their
*asses
Maybe those nuns should have whipped out that ruler more often in your elementary school, lmao.

No more freedom from taxes biotches!!!

What are "biotches"?
Churches should not be tax exempt on general principle. Any actual charitable activities should be spun off into 503c organizations (or the Canadian equivalent thereof north of the border). But no more special privileges for so-called "aboriginals". They get so much special treatment already.

 

[Derec]

Prob’ly we should be bombing The Vatican.

I'd much rather bomb Iran. Unlike Vatican they are actually a clear and present military danger (they are close to making the nuclear bomb), and they promote international terrorism.

Screw those self righteous fat cats in their funny dress up outfits.

Fits Iranian theocrats too, so you should have no objections at bombing them, right?

 

[laughing dog]

The Catholic Church is morally responsibility for their historical attempts in bringing indigenous peoples into “ civilization” and their view of Christianity. But we shouldn’t forget that their misbegotten efforts were typically sanctioned and abetted by national governments.

 

[TomC]

But we shouldn’t forget that their misbegotten efforts were typically sanctioned and abetted by national governments.

I started to point this out.

If you're gonna bomb the source of the disasters that have befallen Aboriginal Americans, you should start with Washington DC and Ottawa.
Not the Vatican.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The Catholic Church is morally responsibility for their historical attempts in bringing indigenous peoples into “ civilization” and their view of Christianity. But we shouldn’t forget that their misbegotten efforts were typically sanctioned and abetted by national governments.

So you're saying we should first eliminate governmental support for, and cut off all diplomatic relations with, the Vatican, and then bomb it?

Sounds good.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[laughing dog]

But we shouldn’t forget that their misbegotten efforts were typically sanctioned and abetted by national governments.

I started to point this out.

If you're gonna bomb the source of the disasters that have befallen Aboriginal Americans, you should start with Washington DC and Ottawa.
Not the Vatican.
Tom

A good argument can be made that the Catholic Church’s teachings (along with a healthy dose of racism) helped to “civilizing” those heathens.

 

[Toni]

But we shouldn’t forget that their misbegotten efforts were typically sanctioned and abetted by national governments.

I started to point this out.

If you're gonna bomb the source of the disasters that have befallen Aboriginal Americans, you should start with Washington DC and Ottawa.
Not the Vatican.
Tom

A good argument can be made that the Catholic Church’s teachings (along with a healthy dose of racism) helped to “civilizing” those heathens.

In the sense that ‘the only good Indian is a dead Indian,’ sure.

The efforts to ‘civilize’ indigenous peoples were more efforts to ‘domesticated care’ them as one would forcibly domesticate a wild animal. Only the Indians were supposed to become domestic servants for their white overlords. And farmers, even where land was unsuitable for agriculture.