Issue with Online Proselytizing (Trigger Warning)

petzl logicwrote:

I strongly think that because the reactions to that act of 'selling' can be hostile for various reasons ranging from having been abused at the hands of religious people, to the recent disclosure of the hundreds of indigenous kids that were murdered, Mountain Project would function better with an absence of soliciting by these groups.

Can we please stop this hate propaganda?
What is a purpose for spreading this lie about hundreds of murdered children?

What we know:
Some people from Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc tribe borrowed ground-penetrating radar and brought it to a location of a closed residential school.
Then they issued a statement where they said that they may have found remains of 215 children.
It looks like they knew where exactly to bring this radar. It seems to me that they were already aware of a location of an abandoned cemetery.

Right now we do not know exact number of buried children. There may be remains of 500 children or 5 children.
To confirm the number of buried children we need an exhumation and a review of cemetery records.

Word "murdered" have not been used in this statement. It was inserted in this post by petzl logic to dramatize this discovery.
To clarify the causes of the death we need to review records of this school.
Prior to invention of antibiotics and introduction of universal vaccination children's mortality was much higher than today.
Without a contrary evidence I assume that these children died of natural causes.

If you want to talk about murder, we need to compare children's mortality in this residential school and on natives reserve.
I would not be surprised to discover lower children's mortality n this school than on a reserve.
Would we start talking about children saved by this school instead?

Right now we do not know enough details to discuss this situation.
It seems to me that spreading hate is the likely reason for use of "murdered children" expression.

Yurywrote:

Can we please stop this hate propaganda?
What is a purpose for spreading this lie about hundreds of murdered children?

What we know:
Some people from Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc tribe borrowed ground-penetrating radar and brought it to a location of a closed residential school.
Then they issued a statement where they said that they may have found remains of 215 children.
It looks like they knew where exactly to bring this radar. It seems to me that they were already aware of a location of an abandoned cemetery.

Right now we do not know exact number of buried children. There may be remains of 500 children or 5 children.
To confirm the number of buried children we need an exhumation and a review of cemetery records.

Word "murdered" have not been used in this statement. It was inserted in this post by petzl logic to dramatize this discovery.
To clarify the causes of the death we need to review records of this school.
Prior to invention of antibiotics and introduction of universal vaccination children's mortality was much higher than today.
Without a contrary evidence I assume that these children died of natural causes.

If you want to talk about murder, we need to compare children's mortality in this residential school and on natives reserve.
I would not be surprised to discover lower children's mortality n this school than on a reserve.
Would we start talking about children saved by this school instead?

Right now we do not know enough details to discuss this situation.
It seems to me that spreading hate is the likely reason for use of "murdered children" expression.

Yury, if you spend any time researching these "schools" outside of any church sponsored influence please let us know. There are more accounts of church sponsored abuse on indigenous people than one can shake a stick at. Lets not even go into church sanctioned sexual child abuse or how it happens more in back alleys than it does in the preachers bed.

SinRopa wrote:

I don’t hard have any hard data, but I remember seeing a news segment that overviewed how much one person consumes over the course of their lifetime.  Fresh water, meat, grain, petroleum, plastics, etc etc, and the trickle down impact of all that stuff (what went into giving someone that kilowatt of electricity, loaf of bread, pair of shoes, etc).  It was hard to wrap your head around how astronomically high the numbers were.

I’m not saying the only part of your equation that can change is the number of people, and the living can reduce consumption/waste, but certainly having less people on the planet will have a more environmentally positive impact than having than more.  I can’t think of any singular, personal action or decision that would have a bigger impact than not having kids.  

The numbers are astronomically high, and do need to come down. And it seems like an awful lot of that is stuff we don't actually need to be wasting; put a sweater on inside in the winter! But I like your point about a singular, personal action. Outside of the rare person who has to decide, "should I get drunk while I pilot this oil tanker around," the snip is probably the biggest single decision for most of us. All the other ones are just day by day stuff. I see your point.

Yury wrote:
Right now we do not know enough details to discuss this situation.
It seems to me that spreading hate is the likely reason for use of "murdered children" expression.

This is also an important statement. Sure, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission already covered that there was abuse and neglect and beating and children were killed as part of a cultural genocide. But we can only hope that the bodies that were found are those of the missing children. It's still entirely possible that the more brutally treated children were buried elsewhere, and so far only the ones that would be considered "manslaughter" in a modern context have been found. The 215 number is just a fraction of the 4,100 missing, and may just be in addition to that.

Christian Heschwrote:

Bill, (three pages ago) I have zero issue w/ an ideology filter but, again, that wasn't the OP's desire, his desire seemed a bit more totalitarian than a simple filter.

Yes.   Back at that time, I ack’d (linked) that about the OP’s ..... “conclusion” was the word you used.  This is much in line with my first post which was #2 in this thread.  

I know - lots of personalities to keep straight here.

Still, not a soul has said the reason why they don’t want an ideology filter.  

Bill Lawrywrote:

Yes.   Back at that time, I ack’d (linked) that about the OP’s ..... “conclusion” was the word you used.  This is much in line with my first post which was #2 in this thread.  

I know - lots of personalities to keep straight here.

Still, not a soul has said the reason why they don’t want an ideology filter.  

Because we're grown ups who have a built in filter. Very simple. Just ignore it.

Parachute Adamswrote:

Because we're grown ups who have a built in filter. Very simple. Just ignore it.

I choose differently - if your point was to belittle which seems interesting in itself.   No surprise there except this is devoid of condescension.

Not belittling anything. Just stating some facts. 

I choose to go through life not being triggered by things that don't have an affect on my well being. Try it. Very liberating.

Again, I choose differently. Not reactionary (a.k.a. “triggered”). Post #2 was five days ago after all. Been quite consistent.

Third post for the day. Glad we could clear that up before I have to wait a day. :)

Parachute Adamswrote:

Not belittling anything. Just stating some facts. 

I choose to go through life not being triggered by things that don't have an affect on my well being. Try it. Very liberating.

I have this weird thing where I actually think about how some thing have an impact on other people's well being. People who are living with actual difficult societal stuff to deal with as opposed to belief in magical sky man who told his kid to feed everyone, but who's only message that stuck was hate the homos

Hey guys I’ve been out fishing.

What have I missed?

Mandy K wrote:

I originally wasn't going to say anything but ...I’m not Russian or here to be someone's honey pot!

Thank you to those who offered encouragement and support - it didn’t go unnoticed and it's appreciated. We need more love in this world!   

Peace out,

The CFC Gal

Dangit, was hoping there was a rack of totems in exchange for pledging allegiance to Putin... are you sure you’re not a honey pot???

Mandy K wrote:

1. My post wasn’t to proselytize or convert anyone and I’m not exclusive. My non-believing friends can vouch for me. I was simply looking for like minded people because I rarely find them in the climbing community. I don't think that is too much to ask. 

Everyone is like minded until you ask them their opinions, then you quickly realize that no one is.

Mandy K wrote:

I originally wasn't going to say anything but can we please stop the hate and making assumptions about people we don’t know personally? If you knew my heart and intentions, I don’t think these things would be said. It might also be helpful to address your concerns directly with the source versus blasting them on the internet. Would you say these things to my face? As the OP to the post in reference here, let me clear a few things up. I’ll keep it super simple ,,.

Personally, my participation in this thread was not just about you or just your recent post. I suspect the OP feels the same. There, a judgment seems to have been made to not clutter up your thread which seems respectful to me. Others may wish the “Christ” titled thread to have been used; there are perspectives here that would not want that to happen.

Let’s try here to take that in-person path by getting off the internet so to speak: Imagine a dozen folks climbing at some crag. A party arrives and announces to everyone that they climb for Christ and are looking to climb with like-minded people.

After not much discussion, a couple pairs of the earlier folks walk out to the parking lot. And there  the discussion turns to the C4C announcement at the crag and their preference to climb without ideological interruptions / disturbances.

The C4C announcer walks in on the discussion, introduces themselves, and offers justification.

If I were there in person in that parking lot discussion, I would pretty much say what I have said here as long as the discussion remained civil and respectful.  In other words, if I knew your heart and understood your intentions - my response is the same. Because it comes not from an ephemeral emotion like hate.

M Mwrote:

You basically just admitted you cant prove it and admitted that building an ark is a good idea!

I'm thinking a solid 60'+ sailboat is what I'll have ready to go in the yard.

Honestly I think nothing will be done until people are starving and poor, almost half of our country thinks science is corrupt and not worth learning. Plus we just need our stuff, new everything made in god knows where. Even in liberal hotbeds like CT you are surrounded by consumerism and military contracting, humans have no problem turning a blind eye until it hits them in the pocketbook or their stomach.

Maybe Jesus can save us?

Mason Jennings said it best!

“

Oh Jesus I love you
And I love Buddha too
Rama Krishna Guru Dev
Daodejing and MuhammadWhy do some people say
That there is just one way
To love you god and come to you
We are all apart of youYou are a nameable
You are a knowable
All we have is Metaphor
That's what time and space are forIt's the universal thought (i think thats right)
You are and you are not
You are many you are one
Ever ending just begunAll right
All right
All right Oh Jesus I love you
And I love Buddha too
Rama krishna Guru dev
Daodejing and MuhammadAll right
All right
All right I love you and Buddha tooOh Jesus I love you
And I love Buddha too
Rama Krishna Guru Dev
Daodejing and MuhammadWhy do some people say
That there is just one way
To love you god and come to you
We are all apart of youYou are a nameable
You are a knowable
All we have is Metaphor
That's what time and space are forIt's the universal thought
You are and you are not
You are many you are one
Ever ending just begunAll right
All right
All right I love you and Buddha tooAnd Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha too
And Buddha tooAww yeah!”

SinRopa wrote:

I don’t hard have any hard data, but I remember seeing a news segment that overviewed how much one person consumes over the course of their lifetime.  Fresh water, meat, grain, petroleum, plastics, etc etc, and the trickle down impact of all that stuff (what went into giving someone that kilowatt of electricity, loaf of bread, pair of shoes, etc).  It was hard to wrap your head around how astronomically high the numbers were.

I’m not saying the only part of your equation that can change is the number of people, and the living can reduce consumption/waste, but certainly having less people on the planet will have a more environmentally positive impact than having than more.  I can’t think of any singular, personal action or decision that would have a bigger impact than not having kids.  

Maybe there’s something else that matters more, but any way you argue it, not putting someone else on Earth is huge from a resource conservation standpoint.  It’s just not a popular talking point because most adults have kids and no one wants to be told that their decision contributes to the problem.

Post limit response for Jim: I’m in the military. Getting told to do something that the average person wouldn’t want do themself is a pretty regular occurrence for me. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the positive impact, or that it’s not important.

The problem here is the pillbillies are having three kids to your zero kids. See where that leaves our country? 

Looks like Mandy’s post is gone but i am really confused how one could say it wasn’t about proselytizing, which some people really insist. 

The about page of C4C defines it as about a passion for “climbing and about sharing the love of Jesus”. 

Does it matter what the invite on mountain project says if you’re representing an organization that says that? 

And anyway, of course people would be welcome to join, more people to share to. I can’t reference a post if it’s gone but it just seems like a disconnect to me. 

Also, I can’t even remember the last time I asked someone’s religion but if the goal is just “looking for peeps to climb with” why join c4c as opposed to a local AAC or AF group? Is this a rhetorical question? i just can’t wrap my head around any answer that isn’t a bit... idk.

Mandy, I already have Totems but maybe one day we can talk about this stuff in person. If these questions aren’t out of line anyway. 

i’ll take my answer off the air for real this time because i feel like we are just talking past each other but i’ll try to listen harder. 

Petzl, are you a registered republican, Democrat, or independent? Do you mind if I ascribe to you every single thing in their online platform? Obviously you’re in 100% agreement with everything they publish online, right?

I know this might come as a shock but, I can be a member of AAC *without* being in 100% agreement for every policy they promulgate - just because I happen to have a paid membership doesn’t mean I *must* help them push every stated goal. 

Yeah, I don't think anyone was saying that because CFC says it wants to proselytize, every member of of CFC wants to proselytize. I don't think anyone is surprised Mandy seems like a nice person, most folks are cool individually.

I thought the question was whether it was cool for someone to post on behalf of an organization that proselytizes. I don't think anyone ever said the questionable bit would be Mandy personally, just the organization she claimed to be representing. I really hope Mandy doesn't take people's concerns personally; they're about the organization, not about you!

Ok, fine, drag me back in. Let's say I am a Republican and the party stands for the following things:

- lower the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans
- voting should be treated as a right for some and a privilege for others
- coronavirus was overhyped and it is not a state responsibility to protect citizens from disease
- china is not a competitive nation but a devil to be confronted on any/every issue
- the earth is warming but that could be from solar flares, the moon affecting the orbit, or any other reason that we'll never know and moreover do we care
- now that civil rights laws have been overturned it is time to turn our attention to women's rights to prevent them from getting so uppity about their bodies

That's a fair amount of issues, maybe some I agree with strongly, others less so, others not at all, but overall they represent me in a big tent kind of way.

Is it easier or harder to ascribe the motivations of someone that belongs to this group? (Again, taken from the website. Two sentences.)

The Mission of Climbers for Christ is to encourage, equip and empower climbers to share the love of Christ with the climbing community.
The Vision of Climbers for Christ is that every climber throughout the world will have the opportunity to experience and follow Jesus Christ.

JonasMRwrote:

Sure, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission already covered that there was abuse and neglect and beating and children were killed as part of a cultural genocide.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission was created to show how bad was treatment of children in these schools. Uncovering truth never was its purpose.

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth… :
the commission had shown "indifference to robust evidence gathering, comparative or contextual data, and cause-effect relationships," which resulted in the commission's report telling "a skewed and partial story."
The Truth and Reconciliation Report did not compare its findings with rates and causes of mortality among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children attending public schools. 

And again, children mortality back there was much higher than today:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-child-mortality-rate/