|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 24, 2018 15:14:53 GMT
All races are artificial dick brain. There is only one race of people, homo sapiens sapiens... We've moved on from defining race by skin colour. Race is a social construct, not a biological one. Hence it now encompasses minorities discriminated against on the basis of other characteristics than just skin colour. You can quote me on that. Prejudicing People because they are Irish, or Irish descent is racism these days. LOL
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 24, 2018 15:19:56 GMT
He took pathogens that could kill them all (genocide). None of that can be considered violent behaviour So according to you, wiping out people with biological warfare is not "violent behaviour". Good to know.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 24, 2018 15:29:48 GMT
None of that can be considered violent behaviour So according to you, wiping out people with biological warfare is not "violent behaviour". Good to know. Violence “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 24, 2018 15:38:18 GMT
Sounds like a great man. His courage and faith should be commended. No, he sounds like a completely deranged idiot who should be nominated for a Darwin award for his rank stupidity. Tell me, pumpkin: given that no one on the planet can speak this tribe's language other than members of the tribe, how was he supposed to bring them to Jesus in the first place? Yeah... I'm siding with "This guy's a moron" side of the discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 15:54:23 GMT
So according to you, wiping out people with biological warfare is not "violent behaviour". Good to know. Violence “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you? So your definition of violence ends at physical violence? A cold, or other virus you are carrying, or a strain of bacteria you are made of, is a minor irritation, unnoticed, or even beneficial to you, or the cockwomble in question... To the Sentinelese it can be a death sentence. Not just individually, but for their whole tribe... You don't care though... You're a colossal asshat.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2018 16:05:49 GMT
So according to you, wiping out people with biological warfare is not "violent behaviour". Good to know. Violence “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you? "If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you?"
That's really not the same thing. The natives on the island have been isolated for centuries, they've had no contact with outsiders, thus no foreign diseases, they're immune systems may not be able to cope with foreign disease. We know this is possible because it's happened befpre (the Native Ameircans come to mind). In fact the US colonialists used to purposesly give the Natives blankets infected with small pox to kill them off, so yeah that would definetly be a form of physical force. I don't like that he died, but he was putting them at risk. It was dumb and reckless, both for himself and the natives.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 24, 2018 16:11:09 GMT
Violence “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you? So your definition of violence ends at physical violence? A cold, or other virus you are carrying, or a strain of bacteria you are made of, is a minor irritation, unnoticed, or even beneficial to you, or the cockwomble in question... To the Sentinelese it can be a death sentence. Not just individually, but for their whole tribe... You don't care though... You're a colossal asshat. No, Enstein, I’m using the definition of violence. Ive already told you, redefining words to suit your own argument is intellectually dishonest and makes you look foolish. As hard as you try to twist facts, it will not change reality. The Irish people will remain a nationality and not a race and passing infectious diseases through air droplets will not be classified as using violence.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 24, 2018 16:14:50 GMT
Violence “behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you? "If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you?"
That's really not the same thing. The natives on the island have been isolated for centuries, they've had no contact with outsiders, thus no foreign diseases, they're immune systems may not be able to cope with foreign disease. We know this is possible because it's happened befpre (the Native Ameircans come to mind). In fact the US colonialists used to purposesly give the Natives blankets infected with small pox to kill them off, so yeah that would definetly be a form of physical force. I don't like that he died, but he was putting them at risk. It was dumb and reckless, both for himself and the natives. I don’t deny he was putting them at risk. But to say him visiting the tribe can be construed as using violence is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2018 16:18:20 GMT
"If you catch a cold from somebody have they used physical force to infect you?"
That's really not the same thing. The natives on the island have been isolated for centuries, they've had no contact with outsiders, thus no foreign diseases, they're immune systems may not be able to cope with foreign disease. We know this is possible because it's happened befpre (the Native Ameircans come to mind). In fact the US colonialists used to purposesly give the Natives blankets infected with small pox to kill them off, so yeah that would definetly be a form of physical force. I don't like that he died, but he was putting them at risk. It was dumb and reckless, both for himself and the natives. I don’t deny he was putting them at risk. But to say him visiting the tribe can be construed as using violence is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion. It's not directly using violence, and perhaps "violence" isn't quite the right word, but it was definetly a threat to their well being, even if it was unitentional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 16:23:33 GMT
I don’t deny he was putting them at risk. But to say him visiting the tribe can be construed as using violence is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion. It's not directly using violence, and perhaps "violence" isn't quite the right word, but it was definetly a threat to their well being, even if it was unitentional. Ah come on now...How so could it be unintentional? He either knew the risk he posed to the Sentinelese people, and didn't care because he was a selfish bastard... Or he was braindead, like our Cody® here?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2018 16:25:56 GMT
It's not directly using violence, and perhaps "violence" isn't quite the right word, but it was definetly a threat to their well being, even if it was unitentional. How so could it be unintentional? He either knew the risk he posed to the Senitelese people, and didn't care... Or he was braindead, like our Cody® here? Because I don't think he went there with the intention of spreading disease (there's no evidence to suggest that), albiet it was still dumb and rather selfish decision on his part.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 24, 2018 16:31:28 GMT
I don’t deny he was putting them at risk. But to say him visiting the tribe can be construed as using violence is quite frankly a ridiculous suggestion. It's not directly using violence, and perhaps "violence" isn't quite the right word, but it was definetly a threat to their well being, even if it was unitentional. I agree. But I also strongly suspect that the victim wasn’t fully aware of the risk factors involved in visiting the island. Neither to himself nor the tribe. He was likely just a young intrigued overly enthusiastic person looking for some adventure.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 24, 2018 17:11:09 GMT
None of that can be considered violent behaviour So according to you, wiping out people with biological warfare is not "violent behaviour". Good to know. You morons are way too sick. You really think that young man put his blood under a microscope and saw influenza microbes and stood up in glee and said "Yahoo! I've got germs to give to these people. Now to go spread them. Lets see, I think I'll take a bible and make it look like Jesus gave them germs. Hardy har har!" You really think that. Or are you just being a demon possessed liar? Moron or liar. Two choices. That's all. That's fact. No offense. Any way, I can just see you and Father Jack at a funeral. "Oh, Claude? Let me say a few words about Claude. He was a monster, spreading his germs to people in the hospital when he visited me there that one day. And then there was the day he was too sanctimonious to visit me in the hospital! Sanctimonious hypocrite! Glad he's dead! He wins the Darwin award for not knowing he had Cancer. Probably thought he could pray it away. Another one of them there sanctimonious Christians."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2018 17:22:40 GMT
So according to you, wiping out people with biological warfare is not "violent behaviour". Good to know. You morons are way too sick. You really think that young man put his blood under a microscope and saw influenza microbes and stood up in glee and said "Yahoo! I've got germs to give to these people. Now to go spread them. Lets see, I think I'll take a bible and make it look like Jesus gave them germs. Hardy har har!" You really think that. Or are you just being a demon possessed liar? Moron or liar. Two choices. That's all. That's fact. No offense. Any way, I can just see you and Father Jack at a funeral. "Oh, Claude? Let me say a few words about Claude. He was a monster, spreading his germs to people in the hospital when he visited me there that one day. And then there was the day he was too sanctimonious to visit me in the hospital! Sanctimonious hypocrite! Glad he's dead! He wins the Darwin award for not knowing he had Cancer. Probably thought he could pray it away. Another one of them there sanctimonious Christians." Ah now, you should come to a planting with Father Jack. Was my cousins last year. Stupid bastard killed himself because he could no longer live with the pain after having both his legs smashed up in a revenge attack by some fecking cowards. Left his mum and daughter heartbroken... He got a good send off, slow horse drawn hearse doing a lap of honour around town, everyone bowed their heads. Chapel was full, every local old school firm sent someone to pay respect. He was a record breaker you know... Took the record for the Parkhurst prison half marathon. Wake was top notch.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 25, 2018 2:00:48 GMT
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. You’ve nothing to apologise for AJ, but thanks anyways. And I respect your decision not to get further involved in this discussion.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 25, 2018 2:08:19 GMT
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 I have stated that I have no sympathy for either side on this matter. All the things said about the missionary, I agree with, and the reason I only mentioned about not having sympathy for the tribe is just to give a different perspective on the event in question as all what was said about the missionary was said and I didn’t want to repeat the same old lines. I don’t like echo chambers, they make my ears bleed! I’m not saying everyone should think like me nor am I advocating for any of the tribe members to be punished for this matter, What’s done is done. And yes, it’s just my opinion but as far as I’m concerned, all moralising is just a matter of opinion. I think that morality is subjective and that I can only rely on my own subjective feelings on this. If you have something to offer that shows how ignorant I am on this matter, then I’m all ears and I’m not a dogmatic person, in that I am willing to change my view. For example, you say that I am ignorant of sociology, and this is true, but you seem to imply that you know something of sociology. So maybe you could help me understand the sociological aspect a bit more, maybe expand on what cross cultural shock is (in my ignorance, it is just a bunch of words to me). Because implying you know sociology just doesn’t cut it.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 25, 2018 2:11:12 GMT
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. I would still say those people were wrong if they killed you because acting crazy is not threatening violence. And like I said, I can only moralise from my subjective view.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Nov 25, 2018 2:12:52 GMT
The likes of AJ, Toast, Father Dougal, Prog etc truly are a pathetic bunch. Nah, they just have a different view that’s all. And besides, the world would be a boring place if everyone thought alike.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 25, 2018 5:36:28 GMT
lt 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 I have stated that I have no sympathy for either side on this matter. All the things said about the missionary, I agree with, and the reason I only mentioned about not having sympathy for the tribe is just to give a different perspective on the event in question as all what was said about the missionary was said and I didn’t want to repeat the same old lines. I don’t like echo chambers, they make my ears bleed! I’m not saying everyone should think like me nor am I advocating for any of the tribe members to be punished for this matter, What’s done is done. And yes, it’s just my opinion but as far as I’m concerned, all moralising is just a matter of opinion. I think that morality is subjective and that I can only rely on my own subjective feelings on this. If you have something to offer that shows how ignorant I am on this matter, then I’m all ears and I’m not a dogmatic person, in that I am willing to change my view. For example, you say that I am ignorant of sociology, and this is true, but you seem to imply that you know something of sociology. So maybe you could help me understand the sociological aspect a bit more, maybe expand on what cross cultural shock is (in my ignorance, it is just a bunch of words to me). Because implying you know sociology just doesn’t cut it. OK. I don't know where to start because it is just as difficult for me to hazard a guess at your level of knowledge in this field and the differences between us, and your apparent lack of a reasonable perspective demonstrating the vast levels of perceptive differences between a 'stone age', totally (almost except for the forays from fishermen an missionaries and one presumes some Indian governmental officials) cut off from EVERYTHING that has taken perhaps 30,000 years of human and societal evolution to achieve in modern man... and this modern man from America with all that we assume that he knows, and his religious fundamentalism. Yes, I have studied Anthropology, Sociology Psychology and History at tertiary level. There is plenty you can read on the subject if you are interested, however I wish to point out the INCREDIBLE gap in almost all discrepancies between the two parties in this issue. Tribal'ism' is the most basic of societal units because humans are social animals and was crucial to the survival of hunter gatherer societies which again were the first form of society before evolutions of settlement agriculture, fire enclosure of land, rules for sex and marriage and 'property'. Allegedly this tribe has few or none of those. It is difficulty of fully understand this, especially as such psychological and philosophical issues you brought up such as 'morality', violence and defence overran and overrule any more modern concepts which are perceived by more advanced societies. Anthropologists believe that it was not until a certain level of physical surety in supply of food and security, by settlement and agriculture, that early man EVEN had time to develop any thought of 'religion' values leisure, art and music. The concepts were just not there or at least in their infancy. To expect a stone age tribe to have any concept of NOT asserting aggression when challenged for their territory, perceived or real, is just plain ridiculous. There would possibly not even have been an actual concept of 'murder in such early tribal societies. Yes it would be interesting to find out at what level these people are, butt this has thus far proved futile fruitless and, it appears dangerous for BOTH sides. Best left.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Nov 25, 2018 5:59:19 GMT
It's not directly using violence, and perhaps "violence" isn't quite the right word, but it was definetly a threat to their well being, even if it was unitentional. I agree. But I also strongly suspect that the victim wasn’t fully aware of the risk factors involved in visiting the island. Neither to himself nor the tribe. He was likely just a young intrigued overly enthusiastic person looking for some adventure. Id say he knew full well the risks.
|
|