Catholics vs. Hitler

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people within an organization do work.

And you say I think illogically... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people within an organization do work.

And you say I think illogically... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever. The courts disagree. Reference books disagree. Not much point in arguing with someone who decides that words mean things different then everyone else.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
an organization can do 'work'... weird how an organization can accomplish that without "acting."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, people within an organization do work.

And you say I think illogically... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever. The courts disagree. Reference books disagree. Not much point in arguing with someone who decides that words mean things different then everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
If a judge says something, it's therefore true? If a reference book prints it, it's true?

Maybe you should try using your brain and realizing that an abstract thing like an organization can't "act". Only people within an organization can act.

For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont understand the problem with allowing the word act to apply to organisations. If my partner and I both agree to buy the block of land next door, would you object to me claiming our partnership had bought the land? Legally, that would be true, since the partnership would have control of the asset (neither of us would individually be able to make any decisions regarding it) and it seems everyone would know what was going on, so where's the problem?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, some people say the U.S. made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Does that mean everyone within the U.S. made such a decision or just certain people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just the people within the organisation who decide how it will act?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, just people who act. Those people might tell other people what to do and then those other people act as well, but the abstraction doesn't "act".

[/ QUOTE ]

This means that things like 'the Church' are completely meaningless. Every single person in the church acts at his own behalf and his own whim and has nothing to do with the others in the group?

Of course not. The reason we say the Church acts is because it implicitly states a bunch of things we all agree on:

People who chose to associate with the group acted.

The actions of these people can be attributed to some shared property of all members of the group.

Any people who join the group are likely to embrace and encourage said actions.

These are all implied in the phrase "The Church helps millions of people worldwide."

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
This means that things like 'the Church' are completely meaningless. Every single person in the church acts at his own behalf and his own whim and has nothing to do with the others in the group?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's meaningless to assign fault to an inanimate object when it is certain people who are really the ones who have caused the damage.

[ QUOTE ]
People who chose to associate with the group acted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine

[ QUOTE ]
The actions of these people can be attributed to some shared property of all members of the group.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok

[ QUOTE ]
Any people who join the group are likely to embrace and encourage said actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. Do you think all the Catholics of the days of the Inquistion were fine with such actions? Do you think many Catholics agree with those actions today? This is where such a view of "action" leads you to misplace blame where it is deserved. If we are to use the OP's view of action, those who associate with the Church are just as guilty as those who performed those actions in the past. Do you really think that's a useful view to take? If so, then we need to condemn a hell of a lot more than just the Catholic Church...

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
If a judge says something, it's therefore true? If a reference book prints it, it's true?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. Obviously if a dictionary says a word means something it isn't true. Whatever YOU believe is right and everyone else is wrong.

Others foolish believe that words have meaning. You know better.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should try using your brain and realizing that an abstract thing like an organization can't "act". Only people within an organization can act.


[/ QUOTE ] And a baseball team doesn't win a game. The people playing win it. My company doesn't put out a product, the people do it. A church doesn't teach, its people do. You're so right.

I think it would be helpful when you have discussions that you define what words and ideas mean in your world so that people realize using the reference point that everyone else has is meaningless when conversing with you. It would probably save people a lot of time.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously if a dictionary says a word means something it isn't true. Whatever YOU believe is right and everyone else is wrong.

Others foolish believe that words have meaning. You know better.

[/ QUOTE ]
The dictionary definitions didn't help your case. You made a jump from an organization being made up of people who work towards a goal and the idea that it is the organization and not the people who are acting.

[ QUOTE ]
And a baseball team doesn't win a game. The people playing win it. My company doesn't put out a product, the people do it. A church doesn't teach, its people do. You're so right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're starting to get it. I know it's probably tough since we're used to referring to organizations as acting.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be helpful when you have discussions that you define what words and ideas mean in your world so that people realize using the reference point that everyone else has is meaningless when conversing with you. It would probably save people a lot of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not redefining anything. I'm just not using the shorthand we sometimes get used to saying when we refer to action by large groups of people. When we talk about "action" only actual, animate objects can perform them. An organization is essentially an abstraction. It is inanimate and therefore cannot act. People within organizations act. Is this really so hard to grasp?