Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Nov 24, 2018 5:03:01 GMT
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:04:32 GMT
I accept the tribe being who they are, I just don't agree with them killing an unharmed man. What exactly is your argument on here fatpaul?
If you accept them for who they are, you have to accept them wholeheartedly for their actions as well, without any conditions or selective notions of what is right, wrong, good, bad, black, white. It is just what it is. That is what you don't appear to understand or want to accept. You are placing a judgement on actions based on what you are told is inappropriate behavior, based on your own conditioning, based on your own background. There is not a this or that, or them or us scenario, only just what is.
my argument is, regardless of culture, I don't think a non-violent threat should be met with violence and I would hold any culture, even my own, to this.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 24, 2018 5:05:43 GMT
The assumptions you have made are in the arguments that you have forwarded for why you believe the behaviour by the island dwellers was not appropriate. I don't deny making assumptions, what I do deny is making demands and being disrespectful and you still haven't shown me how I am being disrespect or demanding.
Why am I wrong to assume that a threat of violence should only warrant a threat of violence, regardless of culture? What is it about their culture specifically that I should say it's okay then? You don't have to comment on them in the first place if you don't find anything Okay with them.
Because of the specific case involved.
Those people are nearly the same as average humans were more than 10,000 years ago. They have had no contact with outside world and so anyone new may ignite fear in them if that new person looks totally different to them. We are talking about people of stone age "culture". The thing that baffles me is how you cannot fathom this?
As for me showing how you have been disrespectful to them. Well, simply by implying that their behaviour was unwarranted based on your moral values and uncalled for assumptions in finding them guilty of their action (and calling it unwarranted) looking aside their case specific circumstances.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:05:52 GMT
But how is that playing devil's advocate? Your pretense says it all. There is no pretense on my part, I mean what I type.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:15:44 GMT
You don't have to comment on them in the first place if you don't find anything Okay with them. I know I don't have to do anything but I commented all the same. What is it about being a stone age culture that I should accept the killing of a non-violent man? You keep pointing to their culture but not specifying why being primitive warrants the killing of a man. If you say just being different warrants murder then I just don't agree. I am not saying that their morality and behaviour is less than mine, I am saying that I, by my own morality, think it is wrong. How is this disrespectful?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:21:26 GMT
They were violent because they don't know any better. It wasn't wrong or right to them, and they are not basing their actions on any intellectualizing of right or wrong either. I think that they do know the difference between a non-violent threat and a violent threat. But it still doesn't mean I should think murder is warranted in this instance.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:23:06 GMT
I know I don't have to do anything but I commented all the same. What is it about being a stone age culture that I should accept the killing of a non-violent man? You keep pointing to their culture but not specifying why being primitive warrants the killing of a man. If you say just being different warrants murder then I just don't agree. I am not saying that their morality and behaviour is less than mine, I am saying that I, by my own morality, think it is wrong. How is this disrespectful? So you are then saying your morality is right? According to what doctrine, yours or the theirs? No, I am saying that I can only go by my own sense of morality.
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on Nov 24, 2018 5:25:28 GMT
He did that to himself. You can't just barge into someone's home and start preaching your "foreign" religion.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:29:22 GMT
That is not for you decide. I never said it was. I never said that they were bound by my morals, I just don't think it is right killing an unharmed man in any circumstances.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:31:00 GMT
No, I am saying that I can only go by my own sense of morality. What are morals? Well I don't believe that morals are objective for a start.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 24, 2018 5:35:32 GMT
You don't have to comment on them in the first place if you don't find anything Okay with them. I know I don't have to do anything but I commented all the same. What is it about being a stone age culture that I should accept the killing of a non-violent man? You keep pointing to their culture but not specifying why being primitive warrants the killing of a man. If you say just being different warrants murder then I just don't agree. "Killing of a non-voilent man" or elimination of a potential threat that likely evoked fear in them. The thing that you have to understand is that there is likely no concept of violent or non-violent outsiders for them. They are not your regular primitive people who have had some contact with world but choose to assimilate less. They simply have no concept of outside world and very few instances others have tried to make contact with them they have not accepted it. This goes back to 19th century. So their history is rather supportive of assertion that they likely have fear of outsiders. They don't have a team of psychologists to work around on that and further by law they are to be left alone (people are not to enter within 4 km of that island from what I remember).
While I generally respect people sharing their opinions respectfully the way you phrased your belief about conduct of those islanders seemed to not consider their situation and history and hold them responsible for doing something that they wouldn't be expected to do when in fact the ban on visiting them to save them and outsiders says otherwise.. If you made statements like below then I personally would have no problems:
"I wish they start assimilating with outside world and embrace normal standards of what is recognized as moral in most parts of the current world."
But they haven't yet assimilated with outside world and so I try to see their actions in what their situation currently may be. Even you agree that you judged them by your own standards/values.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:38:09 GMT
My point is what you bolded!
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:40:41 GMT
I believe that morals are judgments we make about other people's behaviour.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:42:56 GMT
So in other words, you really don't have much of a cohesive or valid one to make then. What is invalid about thinking a non-violent person should not be killed under any circumstances?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 24, 2018 5:51:45 GMT
I know I don't have to do anything but I commented all the same. What is it about being a stone age culture that I should accept the killing of a non-violent man? You keep pointing to their culture but not specifying why being primitive warrants the killing of a man. If you say just being different warrants murder then I just don't agree. "Killing of a non-voilent man" or elimination of a potential threat that likely evoked fear in them. The thing that you have to understand is that there is likely no concept of violent or non-violent outsiders for them. They are not your regular primitive people who have had some contact with world but choose to assimilate less. They simply have no concept of outside world and very few instances others have tried to make contact with them they have not accepted it. This goes back to 19th century. So their history is rather supportive of assertion that they likely have fear of outsiders. They don't have a team of psychologists to work around on that and further by law they are to be left alone (people are not to enter within 4 km of that island from what I remember).
While I generally respect people sharing their opinions respectfully the way you phrased your belief about conduct of those islanders seemed to not consider their situation and history and hold them responsible for doing something that they wouldn't be expected to do when in fact the ban on visiting them to save them and outsiders says otherwise.. If you made statements like below then I personally would have no problems:
"I wish they start assimilating with outside world and embrace normal standards of what is recognized as moral in most parts of the current world."
But they haven't yet assimilated with outside world and so I try to see their actions in what their situation currently may be. Even you agree that you judged them by your own standards/values.
AJ, I'm off to bed now but I promise I'll give you a considered reply to your post tomorrow. Have a good night, or day.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 24, 2018 5:55:13 GMT
"Killing of a non-voilent man" or elimination of a potential threat that likely evoked fear in them. The thing that you have to understand is that there is likely no concept of violent or non-violent outsiders for them. They are not your regular primitive people who have had some contact with world but choose to assimilate less. They simply have no concept of outside world and very few instances others have tried to make contact with them they have not accepted it. This goes back to 19th century. So their history is rather supportive of assertion that they likely have fear of outsiders. They don't have a team of psychologists to work around on that and further by law they are to be left alone (people are not to enter within 4 km of that island from what I remember).
While I generally respect people sharing their opinions respectfully the way you phrased your belief about conduct of those islanders seemed to not consider their situation and history and hold them responsible for doing something that they wouldn't be expected to do when in fact the ban on visiting them to save them and outsiders says otherwise.. If you made statements like below then I personally would have no problems:
"I wish they start assimilating with outside world and embrace normal standards of what is recognized as moral in most parts of the current world."
But they haven't yet assimilated with outside world and so I try to see their actions in what their situation currently may be. Even you agree that you judged them by your own standards/values.
AJ, I'm off to bed now but I promise I'll give you a considered reply to your post tomorrow. Have a good night, or day. Thanks. Sorry if I came as being impolite. Accept my apologies for that. That said I have done my end of talking on this subject and will not pursue the thread anymore.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Nov 24, 2018 6:26:57 GMT
eleuththeri
You are so full of bigoted manure! Take a laxative!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 24, 2018 7:30:03 GMT
What exactly is your argument on here fatpaul?
If you accept them for who they are, you have to accept them wholeheartedly for their actions as well, without any conditions or selective notions of what is right, wrong, good, bad, black, white. It is just what it is. That is what you don't appear to understand or want to accept. You are placing a judgement on actions based on what you are told is inappropriate behavior, based on your own conditioning, based on your own background. There is not a this or that, or them or us scenario, only just what is.
my argument is, regardless of culture, I don't think a non-violent threat should be met with violence and I would hold any culture, even my own, to this. So we are back to I hope you realise that you are doing exactly the same thing that the stupid egotistical arrogant and foolish missionary did when he invaded the territory of the islanders(armed or not, it is irrelevant in these circumsances of cross cultural shock) and overlaid HIS morality and opinions/faith, on those of a stone age culture, who could NOT be expected to have any interest nor understanding of them. You are putting YOUR modern take on a morality which is NOT an objective one and ONLY your opinion. Further you show a complete ignorance of sociology 101 which needs an understanding of stone age peoples their societies and the nature of 'tribalism'. Your comments are therefore inappropriate, arrogant and as foolish as those that led to the initial incident
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 7:58:53 GMT
He wasn't non-violent...
He deliberately invaded their land. He planned to destroy their culture. He planned to bend them to his will. He took pathogens that could kill them all (genocide).
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Nov 24, 2018 10:24:29 GMT
Thinking outside the box not your forte? Please enlighten me with your outside the box thinking. Being able to see from another perspective helps. 👍 I'm sure if I burst into a church, dressed like the Unibomber, yelling pig Latin while approaching people with a big manic grin while throwing gardenias about, I'd be greeted with open arms.
|
|