Page 67 of 83 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 825

Thread: Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

  1. Top | #661
    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 laughing dog View Post
    Ah, so you were mistaken in your response in post 645.
    You are talking about something that is irrelevant. No one is blaming the wrong people when they hold the RCC accountable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    What does it even mean to apologize on behalf of an institution?

    If the pope says 'I apologize for X on behalf of the RCC' and he is not accepting that he himself behaved immorally, then he is not apologizing sincerely at all. Rather, he is blaming other people for their wrongdoings, or just uttering words some people want to hear to appease them, or some other thing.
    Either you are using an idiosyncratic notion of "apologize" (a real possibility) or you are simply arguing to save face. The Pope can genuinely rue the wrongful acts done in the name of the RCC which means he can sincerely apologize. The Pope is the head of the RCC and speaks for the RCC. Your claim that he is not sincerely apologizing cannot be taken seriously.
    I can totally apologize, sincerely, for something my husband did, assuming that I allow this to impact my opinion of my husband and assuming I do what I can to cease continuing culpability in continuing acts.

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

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

    A failure to do this is a failure of responsibility.

  2. Top | #662
    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

    I'm glad you were able to figure out which kind of institution we're talking about and which definition applies. The synonyms are there because most people who understand English well enough to read the entry find such comparisons useful. But if you don't then just do a little more research. There are plenty of other sites where you can find out what an institution is.
    No, because my problem isn't that I lack knowledge. I already explained why you are mistaken. The reason I ask for a definition is because you reject my point that it is some of the activity of some people, without argument or reason.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    If you didn't mean you think it's some of the activity of some people, then what do you think it is?
    Yes, an institution is some of the activity of some people. It does not follow that every instance of activity of some people is an institution, just as from the statement that playing poker is some of the activity of some people it does not follow that every instance of activity of some people is an instance of playing poker. That is why your objections fail. But also, I was just giving enough background for the purposes of my points, not to try to characterize which activity we are talking about in detail. That would be too difficult, and unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    You obviously don't know what an institution is or why it can be held accountable for actions.
    Again, you fail to gave any good reasons. I am arguing the point. What do you mean to 'hold accountable'? To make a list of its actions and punish it for unethical behavior? But then, "its" actions are the actions of individual humans, and they are the ones who can behave unethically. No hive mind there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    Let's try this: do you understand what a corporation is? Do you know why a corporation can be sued, fined, or otherwise penalized for the results of its acts or failure to act?
    It is some of the activity of some people. And also - depending on what you mean - a legal construct bundling some of those activities together for the purpose of assigning legal rights and obligations. I am talking about moral guilty, moral obligations, etc., not legal ones.

    A corporation, of course, cannot behave unethically except in the sense that the members/representatives/etc. can do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    It means that the responsible party is the institution.
    Again, 'responsible' is ambiguous. Are you talking about the law, or morality? Are you talking about compensation? At any rate, I'm talking about morality. And if you look beneath the hood of the legal construct so to speak, humans are responsible for compensation in different ways, usually limited to some part of their assets in this context (yes, morally too). As for moral guilty, only humans can be guilty. Or other monkeys and I'm not sure if something else, but that does not apply here anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    Institutions like the RCC have legal standing here in the US. They also have responsibilities. Failure to act responsibly has legal consequences, as anyone who knows about the ongoing RCC child sex abuse scandals already knows.
    Again, I am not talking about either the law or compensation. I'm talking about moral guilt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctish
    To be perfectly honest, I think you're being disingenuous when you claim to not understand how the RCC can be held responsible for what its clergy and staff did on its properties.
    You simply do not even understand my points.

  3. Top | #663
    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
    Ah, so you were mistaken in your response in post 645.
    No, I was not, and it is baffling that you think what I said implies I was. That I also consider for the sake of the argument that other people might mean something else is not the same as my implying that I was wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    You are talking about something that is irrelevant. No one is blaming the wrong people when they hold the RCC accountable.
    Yes, some people very much are. Look at their posts. They are not saying that the assets were assigned in such a manner that it would be just to use them to pay compensation even if the current users and/or owners are not guilty. That would be a matter to be discussed in a case by case basis, and a very, very different debate. And look at their tone. The very "held accountable" term you use is an act of blaming, at least in usual speech, and in this context too.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    Either you are using an idiosyncratic notion of "apologize" (a real possibility) or you are simply arguing to save face.
    Neither one.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    The Pope can genuinely rue the wrongful acts done in the name of the RCC which means he can sincerely apologize.
    Rue?
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rue
    to feel sorry about an event and wish it had not happened; regret
    One properly can feel sorry for one's actions, not for the actions of others. The pope of course can feel sorry for the actions of others, and sincerely apologize. I never said otherwise. My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused. I never claimed the pope cannot confusedly and sincerely apologize.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    The Pope is the head of the RCC and speaks for the RCC. Your claim that he is not sincerely apologizing cannot be taken seriously.
    When did I claim that? But actually, he is not apologizing at all in re: any of the wrongful behavior involving those schools.

  4. Top | #664
    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
    No, I was not, and it is baffling that you think what I said implies I was.
    Of course to both.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    That I also consider for the sake of the argument that other people might mean something else is not the same as my implying that I was wrong.
    Whatever you need to save face. Just be assured it is not working.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Neither one.
    That response along with your claims below suggest that is both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    One properly can feel sorry for one's actions, not for the actions of others.
    Nonsense. I think it is
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    The pope of course can feel sorry for the actions of others, and sincerely apologize. I never said otherwise. My point is that if he were to apologize, he would be either insincere, or confused. I never claimed the pope cannot confusedly and sincerely apologize.
    To put it charitably, your point is confused. The Pope can sincerely and rationally apologize for the actions taken under the name of the RCC.


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

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    When did I claim that? But actually, he is not apologizing at all in re: any of the wrongful behavior involving those schools.
    More confusion on your part. You did claim the Pope cannot sincerely apologize. And I did not claim the Pope was actually apologizing - I was simply extending our discussion.

  5. Top | #665
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    12,209
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    21,249
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Let me put try again: Some people engage in certain behavior, and when people talk about, say, what the Canadian government did, they are talking about the activities of some people, human individuals, not about some hive mind beyond that. And if each of those people decided to do something else and dissolve the Canadian government, they would be able to do so. It's some of the activity of some people. And the point in pointing that out is that there is no unethical choice of Canada beyond the unethical choices of some human individuals.
    My first WTF? Is that Individual Canadians can dissolve the government if they want.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  6. Top | #666
    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
    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).
    But you said the shareholders have to pay. They don't, they just lose the value of what they already bought. No bill will show up in the mail.

  7. Top | #667
    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
    Not to those who can actually think.

    BTW, you have no problem holding the unwitting driver of a holdup responsible for any actions of the actual perpetrator.
    If they don't know it's to be a holdup they're not guilty. (It has happened on occasion.)

    What I have no problem with is holding the getaway driver equally culpable for whatever happens in the robbery.
    So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.
    The getaway driver chose to participate in a serious criminal act where he knows violence often happens.

  8. Top | #668
    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 ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.
    Here in the US in many jurisdiction the driver would still be charged, even without mens rea.

    I remember reading a story about a guy that let a couple friends use his car. The friends went to do a drug deal and it went south. Someone got shot. The guy that let the friends borrow the car got charged along with the friends even though he was home laying on his couch.
    Yup--accessory before the fact. He does have mens rea--he knowingly provided resources needed to carry out a criminal act, he becomes an accessory to that criminal act. Once again, criminals know drug deals sometimes go bad, that's a risk you take in enabling a drug deal.

  9. Top | #669
    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
    You are "confused". "Held accountable" is synonomous with "held responsible". Holding someone responsible is not necessarily an act of blaming.
    It is at least in a very common meaning of 'held accountable', and definitely the one in use here.

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


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

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    To put it charitably, your point is confused. The Pope can sincerely and rationally apologize for the actions taken under the name of the RCC.
    Only if he committed them, or in a counterfactual case, if he rationally believes he committed them.

    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog
    You did claim the Pope cannot sincerely apologize.
    Quote me.

  10. Top | #670
    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 laughing dog View Post
    So you do believe in collective guilt. After all, if the perp shoots someone in the robbery, the getaway driver may have had no foreknowledge or any knowledge of potential violence.
    The getaway driver chose to participate in a serious criminal act where he knows violence often happens.
    Yes. He is guilty of that. Note that his choice before the act would have been equally guilty if no one had been hurt. He cannot be made guilty by the actions of others, and he cannot be made guilty retroactively even for his own actions. Even so, as I said, if someone was shot and he knows it, all other things equal (aote), he is more guilty for choosing to remain the getaway driver than he would be if no one had been shot (i.e., it's more immoral aote).

Posting Permissions

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