Page 65 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 825

Thread: Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

  1. Top | #641
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,478
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,389
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post

    1. Because the arsonist didn't own the land. Being the same ethnicity as the landowning group does not make you the personal landowner. This was not an action voted on openly by the lawful tribal government; it was some hothead.

    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 and therefore unconstitutional.

    And, most importantly,

    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 was relying on his own incompetent opinion that the buildings were unoccupied. He could easily have killed somebody.

    There seems to be a widespread notion that destroying property as a protest counts as civil disobedience. "Non-violent and non-destructive are two different things. Also, not everyone defines acts of violence as things that can be done to inanimate objects like buildings or institutions.", according to somebody upthread. That's garbage. My father knew a guy who was murdered by a gang of Viet Nam War protestors who thought blowing up an "unoccupied" building that was partly used for military research would be a good way to make their political point. Well guess what? Somebody was working late that night, a post-doc who wasn't even doing military research and wasn't even in the part of the building used for military research. The idiot "protesters" got confused about where to put their bomb and blew up the physics lab.

    If the answer is "we have weapons", or "there are more of us", the underlying principle of those applications is "might makes right", and the response is "asymmetrical warfare by whatever means works until sanity is restored".
    But that's not the answer; and I think you knew that. Reasons 1, 2 and 3 above are all painfully obvious, and if you didn't figure them out for yourself you certainly should have.
    "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..

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

    3. The sheriff's deputy isn't making the churches dig up their mass graves. Which is where "asymmetric warfare" kicks in.

    Do you need some toilet paper? Maybe a scented candle? Maybe turn on a fan when you drop them like that.

  2. Top | #642
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,596
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    We have been through this before. In this particular case, saying the the gov't of Canada and the RCC bear some responsibility for the treatment and deaths of these children does not mean that every living Canadian citizen and Catholic are responsible. No one in their right mind would come to such a conclusion.
    The word 'responsible' is pretty ambiguous, but as I said, it can be used without assigning blame. For example, it may well be about paying compensation. That is not the same as blaming people for the actions of others. It is very, very different to assign blame and demand apologies.

    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.

    The people in the current Canadian government did nothing wrong in re. the treatment and deaths of those children. Neither did Francis. It's not just every Catholic and/or Canadian: Francis is not guilty, Trudeau is not guilty, and so on.

    Whether the Catholic Church and/or the Canadian government owes compensation to the victims and/or the families is a different matter. I am not arguing against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    It means that the gov't of Canada and the RCC as institutions are bring held responsible for the actions taken under the name.
    Again, 'held responsible' is a pretty ambiguous term. If you are talking about compensation, I am not making a case against it. But when people demand apologies, I am, because that is not merely about compensation. It is about blaming people. And the people from whom the apology is being demanded are not to blame for the kidnappings, abuse, murder, etc.

    Let me insist on a distinction that I have been making throughout the thread: I speak against putting moral blame on Francis, Trudeau, or generally the leadership of the RCC or Canada. And that is also why I oppose an apology. Compensation is a very different matter; it is a very complicated for a number of reasons, but I did not argue against it at all.

  3. Top | #643
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,596
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post

    The treaties were not broken by "the white man"; "the white man" did not demand special rights; "the white man" is not claiming it was right to break the treaties; and the theory that Native rights are superior rights is not being pushed by "the Native man". These things were done by particular individuals, not by some "the <insert race here> man" archetype who exists only in the minds of racists; and as far as I can tell, the great majority of the folks demanding special rights for "the Native man" are white folks.
    The treaties continue to be broken.

    The treaties continue to be broken by particular individuals, on behalf of a group. Either the group rejects the offenders, and quits the offending behavior of it's ranks, or the group is complicit.
    No, that is not true at all.
    First of all, the treaties are not broken 'on behalf' of the group 'white men'.

    Second, even if it were, your claim is absurd. Let us grant that the US government continues to break the treaties. And let us say that a POTUS - say, Trump -, decided when he broke a treaty with the Comanche that his breaking the treaty would be on behalf of 'the white man'. That of course does not make all white men in the world or even in the US complicit if they fail to quit the offending behavior from the ranks of 'the white man'. Indeed, the vast majority of 'the white people' even in the US, were in no position to remove a sitting POTUS, or otherwise prevent him from breaking the treaty and declaring - by absurdity - that they did so 'on behalf of the white man'.

    Third, your claim has even more morally absurd consequences. You claim that the treaties continue to be broken on behalf of a group. And you identified the group that you earlier claimed breaks the treaties: 'the white man'. So, it was not just Trump, but Biden as well. Or whoever does it. And then all white men in America (or is the world? How far do you go with the blaming of white men? ) are complicit. Not white women who voted for Biden. Not black men or women who voted for Biden. Not brown men or women who voted for Biden. Not Han men or women who voted for Biden. But a white man who voted Jorgensen. Why? Because some other white man beyond his control choose to break a treaty, allegedly (i.e., because you allege so) on his behalf? What was his wrongdoing? Failing to expel Biden from the group 'white man'? Failing to prevent Biden from breaking the treaty?
    Last edited by Angra Mainyu; 07-28-2021 at 04:25 AM.

  4. Top | #644
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,552
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    61,495
    Rep Power
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    We have been through this before. In this particular case, saying the the gov't of Canada and the RCC bear some responsibility for the treatment and deaths of these children does not mean that every living Canadian citizen and Catholic are responsible. No one in their right mind would come to such a conclusion.
    The word 'responsible' is pretty ambiguous...
    In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.

    You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.

  5. Top | #645
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,596
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.
    No, that is not what to 'blame' means. To blame someone is to say that that someone is morally guilty of some wrongdoing.




    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.
    Who is the RCC?

    If when you say " Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual" you mean 'Asking or expecting the pope to apologize for his role in this tragedy is not blaming the pope or any individual', that is obviously false. So, by 'the RCC' you do not mean the pope. So, who would be asked to apologize, above? The pope, on behalf of the guilty parties? That makes no sense. It is of course proper to relay an apology, but other than that, to apologize on behalf of others is either not an apology but an instance of blaming those others (and so, the pope's apology would be insincere), or a confusion as the person who apologizes believes he is to blame for the behavior of others.

  6. Top | #646
    Contributor Arctish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    5,646
    Archived
    4,540
    Total Posts
    10,186
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    In the context of "blame", it is not - to blame means to assign someone(s) or something(s) responsibility for an action. In this context, it is not ambiguous at all.
    No, that is not what to 'blame' means. To blame someone is to say that that someone is morally guilty of some wrongdoing.




    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    You appear incapable of grasping the simple concept that that blaming an institution is not blaming the individuals because you continue to repeat the straw man about holding particular (or all) individuals blameworthy. Asking or expecting the RCC to apologize for its role in this tragedy is not blaming the Pope or any individual. It is irrational to even bring that possibility up.
    Who is the RCC?
    Not who, what.

    What is the RCC?

    It is an institution. It is a legal entity. It is a landowner, an employer, and here in the US, a political donor.

    It is, and was, responsible for the care and well being of children enrolled in its schools and participating in activities in its facilities. That is why it was held to account for the altar boys raped by priests in its buildings. That is why it is being held to account for the thousands or dead students buried in unmarked graves on its school grounds.

  7. Top | #647
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.
    Saying that doesn't make it so.

    Collective blame implies wrongdoing on part of individuals who have done nothing wrong.
    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.

  8. Top | #648
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    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.

  9. Top | #649
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,596
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    Not who, what.

    What is the RCC?

    It is an institution. It is a legal entity. It is a landowner, an employer, and here in the US, a political donor.
    Okay, then what is an institution?
    It seems to me that it is some of the activity of some people. In which case, the question remains relevant: Who are the people from whom an apology is demanded? Those would be the people guilty of some wrongdoing.

    But regardless of what it is, it is not a mind above and beyond the minds of the members. It cannot act except in the sense that some of its members act, perhaps some of the leaders. And it cannot behave immorally except in the sense that some of its members are guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    It is, and was, responsible for the care and well being of children enrolled in its schools and participating in activities in its facilities.
    Actually, some members of the church were responsible for the care and well being, in the sense they had a moral obligation to act in some manners conducive to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    That is why it was held to account for the altar boys raped by priests in its buildings.
    Who was 'held to account'? Because 'held to account' in this context seems to mean 'punished'. And then, the answer is some priests were punished, by their own wrongdoings.
    Or do you mean something else by 'held to account'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    That is why it is being held to account for the thousands or dead students buried in unmarked graves on its school grounds.
    Who is being punished for whose wrongdoings? And if you do not mean punished for their wrongdoings, what do you mean? Could you present some examples of entities (human or otherwise) 'held to account' for behaviors, and which aren't about punishment?

    Maybe by 'held to account' you meant that some people's actions were assessed, and then they were punished for their wrongdoings? If so, again we are talking about individuals.

  10. Top | #650
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,596
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    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).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •