Catholics vs. Hitler

[kurto]

I'm still puzzled by BCPVPs inability to perceive a group as a viable entity.

As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

If the KKK develops a philosophy, meets as a group to create a strategy and all the people work together to enact that strategy.... that "organization" is acting. Certainly individuals are acting withing that organization. But the organization is ALSO working.

The KKK can enact a campaign of terror. Not simply the members, but the group as a whole is greater and different then the sole actions of individuals. It is completely appropriate to talk about and be critical of the the actions of the organization.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still puzzled by BCPVPs inability to perceive a group as a viable entity.

As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

If the KKK develops a philosophy, meets as a group to create a strategy and all the people work together to enact that strategy.... that "organization" is acting. Certainly individuals are acting withing that organization. But the organization is ALSO working.

The KKK can enact a campaign of terror. Not simply the members, but the group as a whole is greater and different then the sole actions of individuals. It is completely appropriate to talk about and be critical of the the actions of the organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, but what if there are some members who call themselves members of the KKK, yet do not agree with or follow the philosophy that was developed by the majority/those in power. Do we still group those people with those who are doing wrong?

What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

I believe that is what BCPVP is trying to say ...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring statute of limitation issues - If we found a 100 year old guy that was harmed by the KKK in 1915, could he sue the current KKK and have damages awarded? ( assuming no members of the 1915 roster are still involved).


luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still puzzled by BCPVPs inability to perceive a group as a viable entity.

As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

If the KKK develops a philosophy, meets as a group to create a strategy and all the people work together to enact that strategy.... that "organization" is acting. Certainly individuals are acting withing that organization. But the organization is ALSO working.

The KKK can enact a campaign of terror. Not simply the members, but the group as a whole is greater and different then the sole actions of individuals. It is completely appropriate to talk about and be critical of the the actions of the organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, but what if there are some members who call themselves members of the KKK, yet do not agree with or follow the philosophy that was developed by the majority/those in power. Do we still group those people with those who are doing wrong?

What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?

I believe that is what BCPVP is trying to say ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking two different questions. Lets go back to your Cowboys analogy. Do we need to know (or care) about what the 70's Cowboys were like in order to assess the quality of THIS year's team? Of course not, it might be helpful but it might be misleading. Either way, this years team stands on its own merits. And this question really can be asked about the sum total contribution of some number of team members, whether they be players, owners, whatever.

But thats not what we are asking. We are asking about the net history of the Cowboys FRANCHISE. Clearly this is a question about a group that supercedes the individuals in that group. There are NO individuals who are responsible for the net history of the Cowboys franchise, so it makes no sense to speak about individuals. The history is a history of an entity, influenced at different times by different individuals.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, the actions of a group are often different then the actions of any individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, no one has pointed out an "action" performed by a group that is not performed by individuals of the group. I know because I've been reading the thread. People have given examples where they employ personification, but that's all it is; simply humans attributing human characteristics to non-human things. From the wiki on personification:
"Personification is also widely used by individuals and mass media outlets when describing the actions of governments or corporations. Such as, "U.S. Defends Sale of Ports Company to Arab Nation" [1] or "Microsoft embarrassed one final time over SP2". [2] Personification is frequently employed in media headlines and cartoons."

Personification may be useful as a figure of speech, but you have to realize that's all it is.

[hashi92]

If Hitlers great great grandson was running for the United States Presidency what are the chances that this person would be elected. This person would have the ideal qualifications.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
right, but what if there are some members who call themselves members of the KKK, yet do not agree with or follow the philosophy that was developed by the majority/those in power. Do we still group those people with those who are doing wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[ QUOTE ]
What if many years after the ones who developed the "bad" philosophy have died, the KKK has now developed a more peaceful and loving philosophy. Do we continue to condemn the CURRENT KKK, or do we (be reasonable) and condemn the KKK of the past?


[/ QUOTE ]

They are essentially not the same group. You can judge an organization at different times. There are different levels that you can judge an organization.

Can you hold every member of the catholic church today with what happened during the inquisition? Of course not. Was the inquisition perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Of course it was. It was the direct consequence of a decision made by its governing body, based on its philosophies and enacted by the organization. Does that mean the organization cannot change over time? Of course not.

Though I believe The OP is arguing that the organization has consistantly done things to deserve contempt. (I'm not agreeing or disputing... just observing)

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it you're the only person who doesn't agree that a group or organization is capable of action.

I've said before that debating with people who define their own truths are rathar difficult to debate with. Countless examples (practical, legal, etc.) have been offered none of which you've satisfactorily countered.

I really don't see the point. You're arguing using defintions that only you seem to agree.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about luckyme's homophobic boy scouts example? If the organisation has a whole bunch of homophobic rules, yet all it's members are not homophobic - if somebody felt aggrieved at being excluded who should they blame? This seems to me a good reason to blame the organisation as it stops people doing bad things by hiding in a group.

Another reason would be that we allow organisations to own assets and to enter into legally binding contracts (which are not binding on their individual members). If we are not going to grant them the ability to act, how do they buy the assets? Or how do they reach agreements with other entities?