So you are essentially making the argument, “if someone suffers something to happen, that thing is their goal.” Do you think that is a universal maxim? If so, are you familiar with how absurd that would be in a number of ways? E.x. we have food stamps, which we know will be used fraudulently, since we suffer to allow that, that is an intended goal of the food stamp system. That seems logically deficient.
Uh, I don’t think Pratt or the Canadian politicians were personally torturing any children to death. There was systemic torture and rape of children in an Ohio juvenile facility within the last ten years. Is it fair to say then Governor John Kasich raped children? That seems to be the line of logic you are establishing with your chosen word usage.
As for good buys and bad guys, I don’t do that. I specifically believe that thinking is in the “dumb dumb” school of historical analysis. If all you care about is finding guys to label good and bad, you aren’t much worth a bucket of warm piss as I reckon, in terms of historical analysis.
I think you’re struggling to associate this, frankly stupid, analogy of yours to what actually happened here. The larger portion of the students of these schools did survive to adulthood and benefitted undeniably from being educated and literate. A better historical example might be something like Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, it actually did pay serious developmental dividends for the Chinese people. There is danger in being ignorant if you do not recognize that. There is danger in being barbarous if you don’t recognize the unacceptable cost of those programs. That maxim would apply here as well, which is all I have said. If anyone has attempted to “exonerate” someone here I don’t know who, I certainly haven’t. I’m simply advocating rational context and not emotional nonsense. No one here went to one of these schools, and I believe from all we can tell during the worst period of these schools operation virtually none of the men who ran them are alive. We’re talking about history here, properly understanding the context is important. “Exoneration” isn’t a goal, nor should be.
True but irrelevant. Christianity has been aggressively about forced conversion and religious violence for the lion’s share of its history, and at a level most would consider “quite common” up until the 19th century and arguably into the early 20th.
I mean this is a major aside and getting way off topic. But yes–I believe Christianity is a violent and evil religion. I believe the same of Islam and Judaism. I.e. all the major Abrahamic religions. I believe all three religions contain some beautiful philosophies and ideas that can bring out the best of us, but I don’t ignore the worst of them, and in many ways the closer one gets to the orthodox or actual historical forms of these religion, the closer you get to evil, as far as I see it.