A&A Feedback

Pherekydes

Cabaal wrote: »

The above actually suggests antiskeptic...

...is an American.

You do hear the odd brit use it

It appears to be nation........
.........agnostic

smacl

On another note, the thread opened with a comment that this forum has been exceptionally quiet of late. Any ideas on why that might be? Is it just the forum, or is atheism in general quite quiet at the moment? I am in Germany so do not have my finger on the Irish pulse much at the moment, but it seems so to me. With the Catholic Church suffering all kinds of issues, the battles on things like marriage equality and abortion essentially won, is there much left for the banner of atheism to even do these days? Aside from, of course, moving to remove Religious Instruction ever more from our education systems?

Not sure, I think most people's minds are on the pandemic and lockdowns at this point in time, along with what the future might hold. Seeing a few 'the end is nigh' type threads, but more so on the Christianity forum. Realistically, not sure there is much to say about atheism per se, as opposed to secularism or even anti-church sentiment. I think in this day and age in this county, most people don't really care about the religious beliefs of other people, which to my mind is a good thing. Even in the abortion debate it was interesting to see how much of the pro-life rhetoric came from relatively few people, and how much of it derived (and was funded by) external influences. The whole issue of religion is school is also rapidly becoming diluted by the fact that there are precious few clergy involved in schools and the lay teachers by and large have little interest in religion. No doubt it will linger for some time yet, but it is only going one way and we're rapidly coming to the point where our politicians could lose rather than gain their seats through support of the status quo.

More importantly perhaps, we're not seeing many new posters and I question whether this forum is considered a fun place for atheist, agnostics and others to hang out and have a natter?

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

The whole issue of religion is school is also rapidly becoming diluted by the fact that there are precious few clergy involved in schools and the lay teachers by and large have little interest in religion. No doubt it will linger for some time yet, but it is only going one way and we're rapidly coming to the point where our politicians could lose rather than gain their seats through support of the status quo.

We saw how many of them flipped once they finally and very belatedly realised that public opinion on abortion had profoundly changed...

There is a rearguard action being taken in some schools at the moment against opting out but others are reluctantly accepting of it (hey, it IS a constitutional right after all ) and others realise it's already a lost battle. There are many kids finishing primary school now who were the first or among the first to opt out in their schools and in many cases their parents got grief as a result, but for others who follow it will be easier and once everyone is aware that it is (a) possible (b) easy and (c) beneficial to opt their kids out, many many more will question why so much of their kids' time is wasted filling their heads with baloney.

Once that goes and only a minority of kids even bother doing the sacraments in school, the game really is up for the catholic church in this country.

More importantly perhaps, we're not seeing many new posters and I question whether this forum is considered a fun place for atheist, agnostics and others to hang out and have a natter?

I was on boards for years before I knew this place existed :pac: a lot of people only discover a forum when it features regularly on the front page, maybe euthanasia will be the next "church v. state" battleground? If so expect that to drive a lot more traffic here.

Hotblack Desiato

Is euthanasia really that controversial any more though...? I suppose we will find out but I doubt it will arouse 2015 never mind 2018 levels of posting. Also it's unlikely to involve a referendum.

As to whether this is still a fun place, we haven't had a good pineapple on pizza row or biscuits discussion in ages :pac: and in fairness a lot of the entertainment value came from some of the more... odd.. theistic posters here, the supply of the latter appears to have dried up!

In relation to this post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117314724&postcount=390

Saying that someone is engaging in a trait common to a cohort of people is not the same as saying that they are one of said cohort, this is particularly clear given the conclusion of my post where I expressed hope that the poster in question has misspoke. But I see "bigot" is a specifically prohibited word so fair enough I am sorry.

However, I think the commentary on that thread, in relation to the downplaying and justification of past discrimination and suffering of Catholics in England/Britain, is most objectionable from any poster. One can think of numerous examples of "insert "x" instead of Catholic here" that would (and should) lead to immediate censure. I believe that this commentary falls foul of the charter and indeed the general rules of the site - downplaying and trying to justify discrimination (of course, it was far more than mere discrimination) of any group of people because of their religion is wholly wrong. (Of course as a Catholic, and an Irish Catholic at that, I am particularly attuned to this particular horrendous example, perhaps as a Muslim would be to similar objectionable commentary downplaying historic discrimination against Muslims, or a Jew to similar offending commentary about Jews).

Also objectionable is the suggestion that I should or need to make comment in that context about misdeeds of my co-religious in the past.

I have reported a selection of the offending posts, with a link to this post which explains the issue.

smacl

Aldo Fancy Soap wrote: »

In relation to this post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117314724&postcount=390

Saying that someone is engaging in a trait common to a cohort of people is not the same as saying that they are one of said cohort, this is particularly clear given the conclusion of my post where I expressed hope that the poster in question has misspoke. But I see "bigot" is a specifically prohibited word so fair enough I am sorry.

However, I think the commentary on that thread, in relation to the downplaying and justification of past discrimination and suffering of Catholics in England/Britain, is most objectionable from any poster. One can think of numerous examples of "insert "x" instead of Catholic here" that would (and should) lead to immediate censure. I believe that this commentary falls foul of the charter and indeed the general rules of the site - downplaying and trying to justify discrimination (of course, it was far more than mere discrimination) of any group of people because of their religion is wholly wrong. (Of course as a Catholic, and an Irish Catholic at that, I am particularly attuned to this particular horrendous example, perhaps as a Muslim would be to similar objectionable commentary downplaying historic discrimination against Muslims, or a Jew to similar offending commentary about Jews).

Also objectionable is the suggestion that I should or need to make comment in that context about misdeeds of my co-religious in the past.

I have reported a selection of the offending posts, with a link to this post which explains the issue.

In addition to being in clear violation of the charter, your post was also extremely condescending, hence the red card. While you seem very keen to celebrate that the UK now has a Catholic PM, your enthusiasm isn't of much relevance to this forum. Reporting posts that run contrary to your own world view isn't likely change this. I would advise taking some time out to read and understand the charter and limit your reports to those posts that fall foul of it where you can specifically show where the breach has occurred. Reasoned criticism of religion, including discussion of misdeeds of the Catholic church throughout history, is entirely acceptable in this forum.

Bannasidhe

Aldo Fancy Soap wrote: »

In relation to this post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117314724&postcount=390

Saying that someone is engaging in a trait common to a cohort of people is not the same as saying that they are one of said cohort, this is particularly clear given the conclusion of my post where I expressed hope that the poster in question has misspoke. But I see "bigot" is a specifically prohibited word so fair enough I am sorry.

However, I think the commentary on that thread, in relation to the downplaying and justification of past discrimination and suffering of Catholics in England/Britain, is most objectionable from any poster. One can think of numerous examples of "insert "x" instead of Catholic here" that would (and should) lead to immediate censure. I believe that this commentary falls foul of the charter and indeed the general rules of the site - downplaying and trying to justify discrimination (of course, it was far more than mere discrimination) of any group of people because of their religion is wholly wrong. (Of course as a Catholic, and an Irish Catholic at that, I am particularly attuned to this particular horrendous example, perhaps as a Muslim would be to similar objectionable commentary downplaying historic discrimination against Muslims, or a Jew to similar offending commentary about Jews).

Also objectionable is the suggestion that I should or need to make comment in that context about misdeeds of my co-religious in the past.

I have reported a selection of the offending posts, with a link to this post which explains the issue.

As the writer of the post you find objectionable I feel I should point out that at no point did I say, imply, or infer that I personally believe the prosecution by a State of a minority group for any reason is justifiable. And that includes members of minority religions. Yet you sought to personalise it by attacking my character and making frankly insulting and condescending comparisons.

What I did say - and I stand by it - is that from the perspective of those charged with the security of the Realm of England Roman Catholics were a security issue especially after the rebellion by powerful RC Earls followed by the Pope issuing a Papal Bull ordering English Catholics to disobey their monarch. This was compounded by a later Pope literally helping fund an invasion force and supplying 1/6th of the troops on board the ships.
Therefore anti-Catholic sentiment (and I never denied it existed) was not created in a vacuum but was the result of the direct interference in the Realm of England by a foreign power intent on re-imposing Roman Catholicism on a majority Protestant population.
These are historical facts.

And as religion is not 'protected' in A&A, I - and every other poster - are free to discuss the historical actions of all and any religions. Especially when the evidence is there to support any claims.

As a mod I feel I should point out in general terms that simply because you do not agree with a post that does not make that post objectionable or give you leave to launch a personalised attack.
If the post you disagree with is factually incorrect you are free to provide a counter-argument with evidence to support your case. This you failed to do.
If the post infringes the Charter you should report it explaining why you believe it deserves to be infracted.
If you believe the MODS are not being fair or objective in dealing with reported posts then Helpdesk is available.
If you feel you have been unfairly sanctioned DRP is available.

What you may not do is use the Feedback thread to raise objections to other posters comments in an effort to justify you attacking them.
And no point are you free to imply/state/contend a fellow poster is a bigot or allied with bigots or any of the other uncharming allusions you included.

robindch

Aldo Fancy Soap wrote: »

[...] the downplaying and justification of past discrimination and suffering of Catholics in England/Britain, is most objectionable from any poster.

Nobody has attempted "justification" or the "downplaying" of any past crimes.

On the contrary, it was politely pointed out that the crimes that you refer to obliquely, despicable as they were and remain, did not - as you appear to think - appear ex nihilo. Many, possibly most, strands of christianity have taken issue with each other to the point that they took up the sword to lay about and murder each other as they could, very often in the thousands. The only downplaying that I can see is yours in pretending that christians, historically, have behaved otherwise.

As for this appearing in A+A? I see no charter breach of any kind and you might benefit from reading it. Thanks.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

In addition to being in clear violation of the charter, your post was also extremely condescending, hence the red card. While you seem very keen to celebrate that the UK now has a Catholic PM, your enthusiasm isn't of much relevance to this forum. Reporting posts that run contrary to your own world view isn't likely change this. I would advise taking some time out to read and understand the charter and limit your reports to those posts that fall foul of it where you can specifically show where the breach has occurred. Reasoned criticism of religion, including discussion of misdeeds of the Catholic church throughout history, is entirely acceptable in this forum.

My "world-view" is that state-sanctioned discrimination, murder, confiscation of property etc. etc. of people just because of their religion is wrong, and is always wrong. As is any defense and attempt to justify such terrible actions.

My "keenness" and "enthusiasm" was limited to a post in response to someone else who posted a news article about the religion and marriage of the British PM, including how he was the first Catholic PM.

The historic discrimination (that makes the PMs religion noteworthy) against Catholics in England and the UK, as well as in England's colonies including Ireland is well established and it is this which makes it remarkable that the British PM is a Catholic. This is the rather tame opinion I offered (I dare say it is shared by many) and it was met with a deluge of cherry-picked "proof" about why Catholics were so treated, terrible justifications including the old canard of Catholics being disloyal. Of course, it is not all history, anti-catholicism is certainly a live issue in Scotland and the north.

I have no issue with criticism of the catholic church. Much is justified. What I do have an issue with is an attempt to justify and downplay terrible treatment and suffering of Catholics (or indeed members of any religion). "Reasoned criticism", or even totally unreasoned criticism, is one thing but using this criticism to justify the actions of the British/English state against Catholics is altogether something else. Just as "reasoned criticism" of Islam is altogether separate to defending the policies of a state that were/are aimed at wiping out that religion, confiscating their property and a whole assortment of other horrors up to and including killing them. How would "criticism" of Jews and "explanations" of the reasons for the motivations of Nazi's go down in the context of a post about the noteworthiness of Jewish Chancellor in Germany? I'm sure it won't, but on the off-chance anyone should think "but the stuff the English thought about Catholics was true, they had good reasons" you really need to reflect. No action of a Pope, or anyone else, (or the Popes opinion on a marriage ) justifies that treatment of an entire people. No member of a religion, or a race/ethnicity should be held collectively responsible for the actions of others, and discriminatory treatment cannot be justified on those grounds. Indeed, the fact that that was the very foundation of such treatment, this collected suspicion and responsibility, serves to underline the objectionable nature of said treatment. That is what I object to, not someone criticising Christ's Church (indeed, the church can rightfully be accused of at times doing what I am speaking against here).

I would not expect criticism of any religion to be prohibited here. What I do expect is that any justification of persecution, discrimination etc. is so prohibited. Does it not give you pause for thought, that a catholic interloper should remark that the religion of the PM is noteworthy given the history, and they are met with a series of posts seemingly defending and justifying that history?

Of course, a semi-retreat from the commentary, that the poster was somehow only seeking to offer the perspective of the English/British rulers at the time, is welcome. The idea that the posts in question were merely to offer context to my post, and were ultimately a condemnation of the treatment of Catholics, and hence generally in adherence and support of my first post is comforting. Perhaps, in the future, the poster could be clearer and they can avoid appearing to be attempting to justify and downplay religious discrimination etc. and any unpleasantness can be avoided.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Nobody has attempted "justification" or the "downplaying" of any past crimes.

Is that so?

Here are some quotes.

it's fair to say there was provocation.

Ah, they were provoked. Of course, this is an "interesting" point in time from which to commence the narrative of someone being "provoked".

So interfering were the Jesuits that at various points in time the French, Spanish, and Portuguese also expelled them.

The Jesuits were "interfering" and sure, others kicked them out too. (Of course, if only the discrimination was restricted to a single religious order).

It is also worth noting that the Penal Laws as enacted in all the constituent parts of the eventual United Kingdom were aimed at all non-Anglicans - Protestant dissenters were just as restricted as Roman Catholics. That's the kind of thing that tends to happen when there's an official State religion.

"That type of thing happens, it happened others, and happened equally" (ignoring of course that this is not true, see toleration acts etc.).

In summary - Realm with official State religion penalised those who are members of other religions, and Roman Catholics were viewed with distrust after the Pope calls on them to overthrow the monarch leading to a serious rebellion by RC nobles.

In this same realm a Roman Catholic monarch had hundreds of Protestants burned to death.

How is none of the above a downplay or a justification?

I was responding to a specific comment you made - I have quoted it in bold above - regarding the so-called "horrendous discrimination ... for hundreds of years" by pointing out some historical facts

It was only "so-called" horrendous discrimination it seems.

But none of this is downplaying or justifying. :rolleyes:

On the contrary, it was politely pointed out that the crimes that you refer to obliquely, despicable as they were and remain, did not - as you appear to think - appear ex nihilo. Many, possibly most, strands of christianity have taken issue with each other to the point that they took up the sword to lay about and murder each other as they could, very often in the thousands. The only downplaying that I can see is yours in pretending that christians, historically, have behaved otherwise.

When did I downplay and say that others have not sinned? (I didn't) All I said was that given the historical treatment of Catholics it is significant that a Catholic is PM. Because am I catholic, is it required that I take on collective responsibility and engage in an extensive mea culpa on behalf of others? It is very sad, that this type of invective is tolerated. Should an orange man be so foolish as to speak in the manner that has occurred here, justifying explaining the reasons for the ill-treatment of Catholics, repeating canards that have long dominated anti-catholic speech from these islands to America (namely that Catholics are not trustworthy), we will see how that is viewed...

But such commentary is welcome here it seems, which is disturbing. But I suppose it is not I that make the rules, and you are welcome to set whatever ones you wish. Sin é, I guess. I will say no more on this score, you all seem quite decided, as am I.

As a final observation, May is the month in which the feast day of the English and Welsh martyrs falls, 20 June is that of the Irish martyrs. July 11 is of course the feast day of the great St Oliver Plunkett, may they all pray for us.

smacl

Aldo Fancy Soap wrote: »

I would not expect criticism of any religion to be prohibited here. What I do expect is that any justification of persecution, discrimination etc. is so prohibited. Does it not give you pause for thought, that a catholic interloper should remark that the religion of the PM is noteworthy given the history, and they are met with a series of posts seemingly defending and justifying that history?

Perhaps you should reflect more on your own posts, which seem rather incendiary in a general sense before moving to personal attacks once challenged. e.g. you start by referring to bigots in the North of Ireland and Scotland here

This is your take? It would be funny if it were not so serious. I am sure that bigots in the north of Ireland or Scotland, or indeed any other place in the world where Catholics are still subject of discrimination or oppression (indeed, sadly, martyrdoms in certain parts of the world are almost routine) would also claim that there is "provocation", "interference" and that papists are disloyal.

and then move onto aligning one of the mods with such bigotry here;

Aldo Fancy Soap wrote: »

How sad, that you persist in trying to downplay and equivocate about the treatment of Catholics in Britain and England. With your comments you are engaging in what was and is one of the common traits of the bigot, holding an entire group of people responsible for actions and statements of their leaders. (of course, the date you chose to start your trip down history lane is interesting).

This style of posting is both unpleasant and condescending not to mention soap-boxing. In this forum we expect reasoned and civil replies to posts made by others. As a religious person you seem to be taking criticism of the Catholic church rather personally and responding on that basis. You remonstrate against the persecution of Catholics and take affront when it is pointed out that Catholics have likewise carried out more than their fair share of persecution. This type of behaviour will not be tolerated here. As per my previous post, please read and understand the charter before posting here again.

smacl

Aldo Fancy Soap wrote: »

As a final observation, May is the month in which the feast day of the English and Welsh martyrs falls, 20 June is that of the Irish martyrs. July 11 is of course the feast day of the great St Oliver Plunkett, may they all pray for us.

Mod warning: In case it has escaped your notice, you're on the wrong forum for prayer. You're also on a forum that prohibits soap-boxing. Please keep any further feedback on-topic and leave the prayers for those places where they're appropriate. I further consider asking for prayers in this forum to be condescending to the point of being offensive and will deal with such posts on that basis going forward.

Mark Hamill

From the "Mass unmakred grave for 800 babies in Tuam " thread:

smacl wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All of your posts are filled with the most vacuous of wishful thinking. You are literally presenting your feelings as evidence without any reference to factual evidence I found with all of 10 seconds of googling. And what worse, you are doing it to white wash and excuse for-profit child murder.

Mod warning: Given this is a sensitive topic, it is against the rules of the charter to use emotive terms such as 'murder' in this context unless supported by credible 3rd party sources that state murder took place. I would also ask you to play the ball rather than the man in any comments you make. Any feedback via PM or to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention.

1. Emotive Use of "Murder":
What do you call it if not murder?
The homes received equivalent to the average industrial wage in funding, per mother and child sent to them, and they made up to $3,000 in "headage payments" per child adopted to the US. And despite all that profit, they still had dilapidated, crowded homes and had children dying of "debility", being a "congenital idiot" or starvation. How does a cared for baby die of starvation? Or from "debility" or from being a "congenital idiot", whatever that means? They don't. They were let die, starved to death, or killed through inattention if they were not profitable.
That is murder.



2. Play the Ball, not the Man:
I did play the ball. Yellow_Fern's ball is their own feelings (the literally say "I am not a doctor, but I feel a lot of the mortality in Tuam and Bessborough was caused avoidable negligence/ and bad apples and the appointed doctors not doing their jobs.")
That, coupled with them repeatedly pulling unreferenced and unsupported claims from the ether, like that the likes of Regina Coeli were well run (despite the very Commission being discussed saying they were also abhorrent with nearly 800 deaths as well), means the best and nicest thing you can say about their claims, and only by giving them the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt, is that they are wishful thinking or naive willful ignorance.

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From the "Mass unmakred grave for 800 babies in Tuam " thread:



1. Emotive Use of "Murder":
What do you call it if not murder?
The homes received equivalent to the average industrial wage in funding, per mother and child sent to them, and they made up to $3,000 in "headage payments" per child adopted to the US. And despite all that profit, they still had dilapidated, crowded homes and had children dying of "debility", being a "congenital idiot" or starvation. How does a cared for baby die of starvation? Or from "debility" or from being a "congenital idiot", whatever that means? They don't. They were let die, starved to death, or killed through inattention if they were not profitable.
That is murder.



2. Play the Ball, not the Man:
I did play the ball. Yellow_Fern's ball is their own feelings (the literally say "I am not a doctor, but I feel a lot of the mortality in Tuam and Bessborough was caused avoidable negligence/ and bad apples and the appointed doctors not doing their jobs.")
That, coupled with them repeatedly pulling unreferenced and unsupported claims from the ether, like that the likes of Regina Coeli were well run (despite the very Commission being discussed saying they were also abhorrent with nearly 800 deaths as well), means the best and nicest thing you can say about their claims, and only by giving them the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt, is that they are wishful thinking or naive willful ignorance.

The Charter clearly states

In the normal run of discussion, posters should avoid disputed terms without agreeing on what precisely the terms might mean, and should definitions be agreed, these terms should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward. An example of such a disputed term is "murder" in the context of abortion.

In this context 'murder' - which implies deliberate intention to kill the children is a disputed term and therefore you have been politely asked to modify your language. No-one - and personally I think this is a crime itself - has ever been charged with 'murder' never mind convicted so using that term can be disputed.
Yes. Children died of neglect, starvation, abuse. No-one on the mod team disputes that however, whether that was the intention or the byproduct of an appalling system has yet to be clarified.

As for playing the ball - " you are doing it to white wash and excuse for-profit child murder" is a very personal comment which can be considered subscribing anti-social motives to another poster. Also against the Charter.

As mods we understand emotions run high, and we are not immune to them, however it is our role to ensure a civilised level of discourse prevails and that is what we are doing.

Politely asking you, and others, to not inflame an already emotive topic by using disputed terms so that important points are not lost in the white noise of outrage and flame wars is, imo, not outrageous.

ohnonotgmail

If the use of murder is prohibited is involuntary manslaughter allowed in its place?

Bannasidhe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If the use of murder is prohibited is involuntary manslaughter allowed in its place?

Looking at the Law Reform's definition, I think the term certainly seems appropriate.

Involuntary manslaughter currently comprises two sub-categories. First, manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, where the killing involves an act constituting a criminal offence, carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to the person killed. ... The second sub-category is gross negligence manslaughter, where the death arises from a negligent act or omission by the accused involving a high risk of substantial personal injury.

https://www.lawreform.ie/2008/290108-report-on-homocide-murder-and-involuntary-manslaughter.180.html

However, I would caution care as, unfortunately, no-one has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter either so a caveat of 'imo', 'I believe' would be the route I, personally, would take.

Edit: to clarify - 'murder' is not prohibited - it is a very specific crime in which the intention to kill a born human being has to be present

Murder occurs if a person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, another person who dies as a result.

. It is also a term that was used like snuff at a wake in relation to abortion causing petrol to be poured on flame wars. The result of such intemperate use was a stricture requiring it to be carefully used being placed in the Charter . The best way to carefully use it is to stick to it's literal meaning.

ohnonotgmail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Looking at the Law Reform's definition, I think the term certainly seems appropriate.

https://www.lawreform.ie/2008/290108-report-on-homocide-murder-and-involuntary-manslaughter.180.html

However, I would caution care as, unfortunately, no-one has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter either so a caveat of 'imo', 'I believe' would be the route I, personally, would take.

I think it would be safe to say that acts of involuntary manslaughter took place.

Bannasidhe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think it would be safe to say that acts of involuntary manslaughter took place.

I am inclined to agree.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Charter clearly states

In this context 'murder' - which implies deliberate intention to kill the children is a disputed term and therefore you have been politely asked to modify your language. No-one - and personally I think this is a crime itself - has ever been charged with 'murder' never mind convicted so using that term can be disputed.
Yes. Children died of neglect, starvation, abuse. No-one on the mod team disputes that however, whether that was the intention or the byproduct of an appalling system has yet to be clarified.

You don't need someone to be convicted of murder to know a murder occurred.
And "allowing" children to die of neglect, starvation and abuse is murder. The only way to argue it isn't is to claim the perpetrator had no way of knowing their actions would lead to the child deaths. But there is no way that the people who ran these institutes, for over half a century in some cases, were clueless that the level of neglect they were engaged in was going to result in anything but death. They even tried to hide the causes by telling doctors the supposed cause of deaths to hide their neglect (see "dying of congenital stupidity" reference in my last post).

These groups, by informed choice and despite more than enough funding and a supposed moral obligation, watched on as the un-adoptable (i.e unprofitable) children in their care needlessly died. They murdered them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for playing the ball - " you are doing it to white wash and excuse for-profit child murder" is a very personal comment which can be considered subscribing anti-social motives to another poster. Also against the Charter.

As mods we understand emotions run high, and we are not immune to them, however it is our role to ensure a civilised level of discourse prevails and that is what we are doing.

Politely asking you, and others, to not inflame an already emotive topic by using disputed terms so that important points are not lost in the white noise of outrage and flame wars is, imo, not outrageous.

All claims are emotive, if the target decides they are so. How many times have we had posters try to tell us that we can't say that god doesn't exist because that offends their beliefs?
I agree that we should avoid calls to emotion were possible, especially disputed ones. If nothing else, it keeps other posters posting (as such I have altered my post to emphasise I was disputing Yellow_Fern's argument, not them). But there comes a point when the truth is inescapable, regardless of how that truth offends those who would like to pretend otherwise.


So yes, it may be emotive and not nice to hear "murder". But I am not just throwing it out, I have justified why it is murder. Sanitising the language to pretend the harsh reality didn't happen is what the government and Commission is trying to do and I don't support that.

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You don't need someone to be convicted of murder to know a murder occurred.
And "allowing" children to die of neglect, starvation and abuse is murder.

As this is the Feedback thread I am not going to argue what did or did not happen. In fact I suspect we are in agreement.

What I will say is the Mods are going by what it says in the Charter and in this context the correctness of the term 'murder' is disputed. We are here disputing it.

You cannot prove the intention from the on-set was to kill the children.

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think it would be safe to say that acts of involuntary manslaughter took place.

This certainly seems to be the case. Murder seems considerably less likely, though not impossible. At the same time, murder is an exceptionally serious accusation and as such demands correspondingly robust evidence beyond mere opinion and speculation. In the context of these discussions, asserting murder has taken place without providing credible supporting evidence is not reasonable.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You don't need someone to be convicted of murder to know a murder occurred.
And "allowing" children to die of neglect, starvation and abuse is murder. The only way to argue it isn't is to claim the perpetrator had no way of knowing their actions would lead to the child deaths. But there is no way that the people who ran these institutes, for over half a century in some cases, were clueless that the level of neglect they were engaged in was going to result in anything but death. They even tried to hide the causes by telling doctors the supposed cause of deaths to hide their neglect (see "dying of congenital stupidity" reference in my last post).

These groups, by informed choice and despite more than enough funding and a supposed moral obligation, watched on as the un-adoptable (i.e unprofitable) children in their care needlessly died. They murdered them.



All claims are emotive, if the target decides they are so. How many times have we had posters try to tell us that we can't say that god doesn't exist because that offends their beliefs?
I agree that we should avoid calls to emotion were possible, especially disputed ones. If nothing else, it keeps other posters posting (as such I have altered my post to emphasise I was disputing Yellow_Fern's argument, not them). But there comes a point when the truth is inescapable, regardless of how that truth offends those who would like to pretend otherwise.


So yes, it may be emotive and not nice to hear "murder". But I am not just throwing it out, I have justified why it is murder. Sanitising the language to pretend the harsh reality didn't happen is what the government and Commission is trying to do and I don't support that.

A few thoughts here;

• Appeals to emotion and any form of personal attacks actually undermine your own argument and provide the other poster with an opportunity to either engage in a slagging match, reasonably dismiss your otherwise valid argument or report your post and wind you up at odds with the mods.
  
• It is important to distinguish between opinion and fact. If you'd said 'in my opinion what happened here was tantamount to murder', or 'I believe this should be investigated as murder' it is reasonable. If claim 'the nuns murdered those babies' as a statement of fact it is unreasonable unless supported by sufficiently strong evidence.
  
• Theists might well take offence when we state their god or gods are fictitious, something I have done myself here on numerous occasions and is the assumed position of many posters here. While the theist might well take offence it is allowed in this forum as attacking a belief system is not considered to be a personal attack. Religious belief is not accorded any special privilege here as it is for example on the Christianity forum.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

These groups, by informed choice and despite more than enough funding and a supposed moral obligation, watched on as the un-adoptable (i.e unprofitable) children in their care needlessly died. They murdered them.

At the risk of belabouring the point already made more than adequately by Bannasidhe and smacl - I don't believe that any of the regular A+A posterhood, mods included, thinks that the children who died by the hundreds, died without the active, premeditated neglect of the inadequate individuals and poisonous systems charged with their care. Neither, however, has anybody ever been convicted of murder in a court of law for any of these deaths, indisputably questionable and as they most certainly are.

What is beyond doubt though, is that emotive words like "murder" and other terms specifically, but not exhaustively, listed in the charter do not contribute to the smooth discussion of the many scandals surrounding the Mother and Baby homes - any more than exactly the same terms contribute to the smooth discussion of abortion.

The charter clearly states, disputed terms "should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward" and your use of the term here is neither sparing, nor does it bring the discussion forward. As such, the moderators kindly request, for the final time, that you cease using it. Thank you.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You cannot prove the intention from the on-set was to kill the children.

The intention was to make money from the children they could and to get rid of the children they couldn't sufficiently profit from.
The crux of this dispute seems to the legal semantics of what constitutes murder vs man slaughter vs other possible terms in those areas.

But consider this: If one of the nuns one day, just opened a top floor window, held out a child and let them fall to their death, wouldn't that be murder? Or would we say "well, you can't prove that the nun intended for the child to hit the ground" or "it was the fall that killed the child"?

If that is murder, then why is doing the same thing, but tortuously slower, starving and infant to death, not murder?

ohnonotgmail

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The intention was to make money from the children they could and to get rid of the children they couldn't sufficiently profit from.
The crux of this dispute seems to the legal semantics of what constitutes murder vs man slaughter vs other possible terms in those areas.

But consider this: If one of the nuns one day, just opened a top floor window, held out a child and let them fall to their death, wouldn't that be murder? Or would we say "well, you can't prove that the nun intended for the child to hit the ground" or "it was the fall that killed the child"?

If that is murder, then why is doing the same thing, but tortuously slower, starving and infant to death, not murder?

yes it is murder because it is one individual responsible for the child's death. The intent to kill was very clear. In the case of the institution the INTENT to kill is not clear. The deaths are certainly the result of the neglect but proving intent from that is close to impossible. I know you consider this "legal semantics" but when discussing murder vs manslaughter legal semantics are all we have to differentiate the two.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

A few thoughts here;


[*]Appeals to emotion and any form of personal attacks actually undermine your own argument and provide the other poster with an opportunity to either engage in a slagging match, reasonably dismiss your otherwise valid argument or report your post and wind you up at odds with the mods.

Again, any point made can be declared an appeal to emotion or a person attack if the person holding the counterpoint holds it emotionally.

smacl wrote: »

[*]It is important to distinguish between opinion and fact. If you'd said 'in my opinion what happened here was tantamount to murder', or 'I believe this should be investigated as murder' it is reasonable. If claim 'the nuns murdered those babies' as a statement of fact it is unreasonable unless supported by sufficiently strong evidence.

I have argued in detail above that it is murder (i.e. I didn't just state it as objective unquestioned fact) and while I always treat, and would expect everyone else to treat, everything I say as "in my opinion", I will make sure to add that to my posts if this particular issue comes up again in other threads.

smacl wrote: »

[*]Theists might well take offence when we state their god or gods are fictitious, something I have done myself here on numerous occasions and is the assumed position of many posters here. While the theist might well take offence it is allowed in this forum as attacking a belief system is not considered to be a personal attack. Religious belief is not accorded any special privilege here as it is for example on the Christianity forum.

I didn't personally attack Yellow_Fern. I called their arguments wishful thinking and said their arguments white wash the horrible things done to children in those homes (I did edit it slightly after this discussion to emphasis that this was inadvertent).
This is the problem with pandering too much to claimed offense. If someone keeps doing the same flawed arguments and you point out they keep making the same flawed arguments, then all of a sudden despite discussing their arguments, they can easily claim personal attack.
It's like a fallacy made once is a fair target, but a repeated fallacy is somehow a personality trait and above reproach.

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The intention was to make money from the children they could and to get rid of the children they couldn't sufficiently profit from.
The crux of this dispute seems to the legal semantics of what constitutes murder vs man slaughter vs other possible terms in those areas.

But consider this: If one of the nuns one day, just opened a top floor window, held out a child and let them fall to their death, wouldn't that be murder? Or would we say "well, you can't prove that the nun intended for the child to hit the ground" or "it was the fall that killed the child"?

If that is murder, then why is doing the same thing, but tortuously slower, starving and infant to death, not murder?

You are playing semantics to prove what point exactly?

What if the nuns did this, that, or the other with a shotgun/candlestick in the Conservatory/Library would it be murder then? Seriously Mark. Is this the hill you want to fight on?

We know that they did. No one (bar a tiny minority of excusers) is either denying or defending the horrors they inflicted.

What the mods are going here is upholding the Charter and a stricture that is in there for a bloody good reason.

You can argue to have the Charter changed - but you cannot argue that using the very specific crime of 'murder' in this context isn't a disputed term.
It's been the subject of dispute for some days now which really proves the point of the in-thread warning saying it should be avoided in this instance.

You want us to ignore the Charter as you are rightfully angry.
I'm sorry, we can't do that.
That really would be a slippery slope.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

What is beyond doubt though, is that emotive words like "murder" and other terms specifically, but not exhaustively, listed in the charter do not contribute to the smooth discussion of the many scandals surrounding the Mother and Baby homes - any more than exactly the same terms contribute to the smooth discussion of abortion.

And if those white-washing the history of the abuses done in the homes decide that "man-slaughter" is emotively distasteful, what then? Will "man-slaughter" be added to the list of prohibited words? What about if the decide that "killing children" is distasteful, will that be added to? What if they break down and stall every discussion because they don't like the actions done in these homes being described as "abuses"? Will we be no longer allowed call them such?

I am not against making pragmatic concessions to keep the other side actually engaged in discussions. But if we continue sanitise all discussion, then what can we actually discuss?

"God doesn't exist" is an emotive thing to say as "child murder" is to many of theists, moreso for some.

robindch wrote: »

The charter clearly states, disputed terms "should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward" and your use of the term here is neither sparing, nor does it bring the discussion forward. As such, the moderators kindly request, for the final time, that you cease using it. Thank you.

My use of the term is as part of my arguments for why the term applies and should be used. The only thing stopping the discussion going forward is the constant redundant fallback on how the charter says we shouldn't use the term. Explain how it is not murder without just saying we shouldn't call it murder.

Mark Hamill

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yes it is murder because it is one individual responsible for the child's death. The intent to kill was very clear. In the case of the institution the INTENT to kill is not clear. The deaths are certainly the result of the neglect but proving intent from that is close to impossible. I know you consider this "legal semantics" but when discussing murder vs manslaughter legal semantics are all we have to differentiate the two.

Why? Why does it being an institution obscure the intent rather than share it?
I know that modern law likes to allowing groups of people to pretend that their group is some magical sentient entity separate from themselves in choice and action, but they aren't really.
If you want to claim that the management level had no idea what was going on in the homes themselves, then at best all you claim is that operations level is guilty whilst the management is unfit for purpose.