A&A Feedback

ohnonotgmail

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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?

It is not a case of finding terms distasteful. It is a case of making claims that you can substantiate. With the information we have you cannot substantiate a claim that the children were murdered.

ohnonotgmail

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

you still have not established intent. until you do then claims of murder are not correct.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

It seems to me to are two adjacent but slightly different issues that keep crossing -
1) Is what happened strictly "murder" or is it "man-slaughter" (or some other similar term)
2) Should we use the term "murder" at all, even if we agree what happened was murder.


So, for 1), I would say that I am not playing semantics. What they did was just a slow version of an act that you agree would be murder. Therefore it is murder.

For 2), your argument is that because "murder" is disputed, therefore we shouldn't use that term. Isn't that a slippery slope to allowing any loud minority to declare any accusation they dispute "emotive" and "offensive" so that we sanitise the accusations?


I am not asking you to ignore the charter, I am asking you to fix it. Censoring terms where there is reasonable dispute is if they happened at all? Sure, I can agree with that. Censoring terms because of very minor categorisation disputes? That's a slippery slope to the whole category being banned. That turns sh*t into manure, and then manure into fertilizer, to pretend something negative into something positive.

Mark Hamill

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is not a case of finding terms distasteful. It is a case of making claims that you can substantiate. With the information we have you cannot substantiate a claim that the children were murdered.

For some maybe, but for others the dispute is based on distaste. We already have a poster in the Tuam thread who is trying to claim it was just individual bad apples and not problems with the institutes in general.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you still have not established intent. until you do then claims of murder are not correct.

Intent is profits. Naturally healthy kids are profitable - cheaper to keep and easier to adopt out (at a profit). Weaker kids who need more help cost more. Easier to let them die, which they did.

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems to me to are two adjacent but slightly different issues that keep crossing -
1) Is what happened strictly "murder" or is it "man-slaughter" (or some other similar term)
2) Should we use the term "murder" at all, even if we agree what happened was murder.


So, for 1), I would say that I am not playing semantics. What they did was just a slow version of an act that you agree would be murder. Therefore it is murder.

For 2), your argument is that because "murder" is disputed, therefore we shouldn't use that term. Isn't that a slippery slope to allowing any loud minority to declare any accusation they dispute "emotive" and "offensive" so that we sanitise the accusations?


I am not asking you to ignore the charter, I am asking you to fix it. Censoring terms where there is reasonable dispute is if they happened at all? Sure, I can agree with that. Censoring terms because of very minor categorisation disputes? That's a slippery slope to the whole category being banned. That turns sh*t into manure, and then manure into fertilizer, to pretend something negative into something positive.

What is happening it that you personally believe it was murder therefore you should be at liberty to say it was murder.
Exactly the same arguments were made by the Pro-Life lobby which is why, in this forum, we err on the side of literal meanings to avoid flame wars, and ask that people take care when using terms that can be disputed.

In fact the Pro-Life lobby could put forward the strong case that the intention to kill was present - the dispute was whether the 'killing' involved a person or a potential person.

Do we allow abortion to be called murder going forward or are you advocating we only allow it when it suits? One rule for us and another rule for them.

No one on the mod team is sanitising anything - and I resent the accusation we are enabling others to do so.

If you think

gross negligence manslaughter, where the death arises from a negligent act or omission by the accused involving a high risk of substantial personal injury.

is sanitising then that's your prerogative. I disagree. I believe it is exactly what the evidence supports.
Which is even more heinous imo. They didn't care enough to intentionally kill.

If you can prove murder happened - use the term murder. If you cannot then you need to qualify your statement to show this is your personal opinion/belief and not based on the available evidence.

I really cannot make it any clearer than that.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Explain how it is not murder without just saying we shouldn't call it murder.

For reasons which have been laid out to you, in simple English, multiple times, by each of the forum moderators - no convictions for murder have been secured in courts, you have not substantiated your claim, and the mods have judged that you are using the term "murder" to inflame rather than inform the debate - in much the same fashion that religious individuals use the term "murder" to inflame rather than inform that debate.

I also note that you are not discussing the issue itself, but instead bickering about the language you want to use, then getting shirty when the moderators point out, correctly, that you are breaking the forum charter. The charter rule was inserted specifically to prevent this kind of pointless bickering and you appear to have missed this point too.

There are two ways that this can end a) you stop using the term "murder" to refer to what happened in the M+B homes; or b) the moderators apply increasingly strict sanctions to your account until you do. The choice is yours, and (a) is a more peaceful way to proceed.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

For reasons which have been laid out to you, in simple English, multiple times, by each of the forum moderators - no convictions for murder have been secured in courts, you have not substantiated your claim, and the mods have judged that you are using the term "murder" to inflame rather than inform the debate - in much the same fashion that religious individuals use the term "murder" to inflame rather than inform that debate.

I also note that you are not discussing the issue itself, but instead bickering about the language you want to use, then getting shirty when the moderators point out, correctly, that you are breaking the forum charter. The charter rule was inserted specifically to prevent this kind of pointless bickering and you appear to have missed this point too.

There are two ways that this can end a) you stop using the term "murder" to refer to what happened in the M+B homes; or b) the moderators apply increasingly strict sanctions to your account until you do. The choice is yours, and (a) is a more peaceful way to proceed.

I was told by a moderator on the Tuam thread to come here for feedback about my disputed use of the term "murder", so why wouldn't I discuss that here? This is the A&A forum feedback thread, where else should feedback go?
And I have since continued the discussion of the issue itself on the Tuam thread, without reference to murder as well.

It's very insulting, given that I have followed instructions on other threads and have made and engaged in discussion in this thread in good faith, for you to come along and belittle my input as "bickering" and "getting shirty".

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In fact the Pro-Life lobby could put forward the strong case that the intention to kill was present - the dispute was whether the 'killing' involved a person or a potential person.

Do we allow abortion to be called murder going forward or are you advocating we only allow it when it suits? One rule for us and another rule for them.

We don't allow abortion to be called murder because the dispute is really on whether or not the subject is classed the same as a born independent human. Throwing in "murder" before that dispute is settled enflames that discussion and halts it's progress. Has anything been halted in the Tuam thread? The poster I had replied to with "murder" didn't even comment on it in the thread.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think is sanitising then that's your prerogative. I disagree. I believe it is exactly what the evidence supports.
Which is even more heinous imo. They didn't care enough to intentionally kill.

If you can prove murder happened - use the term murder. If you cannot then you need to qualify your statement to show this is your personal opinion/belief and not based on the available evidence.

I really cannot make it any clearer than that.

The only way to say they didn't intentionally kill is to argue that even after decades of children starving to death around them, the nuns still didn't know that death was the outcome of starving an infant.

And I didn't actually want to have to look this up, but here are the first two (of many) results that come up if you google cases of people who starved children to death being put on trial for murder:
Metro.co.uk and Sun.ie.

I don't really want to search and read any more like this so please tell me what part I'm missing here? What the people in charge of Tuam did was the same as what other people did that got them put on trial for murder.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was told by a moderator on the Tuam thread to come here for feedback about my disputed use of the term "murder", so why wouldn't I discuss that here? This is the A&A forum feedback thread, where else should feedback go?

You have fed back, the mods have replied and the issue is now closed.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

You have fed back, the mods have replied and the issue is now closed.

The mods asked me to justify using the term "murder" and I showed in this post how other people who did the same thing were trialed for murder. That's clear justification for using the term "murder".
At this point, with no further response, the only way for the issue to be close is if you are in agreement.