Reply With Quote
DerpMC cares a lot.
The guy is totally ed up isn't he? What's really sad is he actually tries to....no I don't....when we all see the idiot doing nothing other than being a pest.His nickname is "Skeeter". He's like a mosquito in your tent, or that redneck at the bbq who has to butt in on every conversation.
It's pretty simple. He gets off to it and if you don't engage him, he'll stop. Don't put a quarter into the carousel if you don't want to go in countless circles.
Dude, you told me that no ya didn't just bug others. So you lied ....right?
Pavlov, why do you bug everyone all the time, well?
I don't try to hide my love for my fellow humans. We are all God's children, God just had some re s along the way.
I get a kick out of the obvious sick . I toy with the idiot.
Sentinel Island = Jurassic Park of Humans
haven't seen you this upset since the last time I got you this upset.
A country's jurisdiction and sovereignty override ethics and morals of foreigners.
(shrugs)
Have fun with that strawman. Here is a stick, beat it up some more.
If you aren't personally invading that island, you obviously aren't outraged.
As I understand it, anthropologists believe these Islanders are so isolated that merely exposing them to outsiders puts them at terrible risk of mass infection. Is it acceptable to wipe them out because maybe they practice cannibalism or some such? It seems to me that Indian govt / anthropologists made the right choice
um, actually no.Sentinel Island = Jurassic Park of Humans
it's a place on earth. an Asian place-name.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-26-2018 at 07:41 PM.
let's send people who don't agree
If you go there and get killed, it's on you. The natives aren't aware of modern times despite seeing planes and boats their entire lives and being what, 20 miles from a populated area?
So what if someone went in there with night vision and suppressed weapons and killed them all? Other than criminal trespass, what crime would have been committed? Murder doesn't exist there.
I mean, the Chinese Kirk Cameron got killed by Sleestaks and Chaka while looking for a pylon, but would it be morally wrong to go into the land of the lost and kill them all? Would it be considered poaching?
just call it a crusade
I don’t think slaughtering all of the island inhabitants would be necessary. Let’s just stop selling the Sentinels arms. Why are you still trying to pretend there’s any equivalence to the Khashoggi murder? Nobody’s buying into that ridiculous bull .
One thing doesn't invalidate the other, tbh... he *can* be a stupid idiot, and at the same time, we could have questions about this tribe and how they operate.
What you're asking about, however, it's a very thin line that countries like the US has only blurred more and more over the years, and obviously presents a very difficult slippery slope.
Plenty of example of this: Cir cision can be seen both as child abuse or hygienic need depending on who you ask, it's been maintained mostly out of traditionalism, and generally viewed as socially accepted. What if that perception changes though? (the hygienic benefits have already come largely into question) Does countries invade Israel to stop child abuse?
Or take Saudi Arabia, not just on killing journalists on their embassy, but the stonings to death, etc. The world generally looks the other way, because it's their country and their laws.
How about the death penalty in the US? Can some other country deem that inhumane? why not?
I mean, the US has invaded countries because their leaders have killed their own people. I suppose some of them were meanies and some others were not?
They're actually under Indian law, so that applies.
mm
Yes...just like you are a journalist critical of your own country, and then step into an embassy in a completely different country and get dismembered, just like that. The Parallels are astounding.
I accounted for that with illegal trespass and poaching. Since murder isn't prosecuted that's all I can come up with.
Like I said, we don't seem to know anything about the North Sentinelese, so I don't really want to assume cannibalism is happening... if it was, I can't say I'd be too concerned about the death of such a civilization. If you assume a worst case scenario, the question becomes whether it's better to exist on such a civilization or not to exist at all. Not sure I know the answer. It's entirely likely, though, that they're a peaceful and self-sufficient community that is just understandably wary of outsiders.
But, as some here have suggested, the current policy does treat them as less than human. They're protected as though they are an endangered species, but they're left to whatever natural survival of the fittest dynamics may govern the community. Regardless of their practices, they don't know any better. They're completely insulated. People are born, live, and die there without knowing any other options exist.
So with that in mind, does society have a responsibility to make contact with people like this in good faith? Risk of infection is definitely a concern, but I have a hard time believing a well-staffed (and well-protected) medical team couldn't effectively blunt and treat the spread of disease. History has a lot of bad examples of this kind of contact, but I think it's probably more a question of effort than feasibility. Past visits to this island and to other tribes, like the one Winehole posted about, weren't in good faith.
Again, I'm not saying we SHOULD do any of this. In the real world, it probably isn't much of a priority for the Indian government (or the UN, or whomever) to devote the manpower and resources to such an effort. I think it's an interesting philosophical discussion, though. Is it a human right to have a fundamental awareness of the world you live in?
I agree.
The civilized world has a spectrum of options other than invasion to deal with human rights issues. Normal practice is sanctions or trade embargoes, putting pressure on leadership to enforce a movement away from those practices. (And we both know that when the US invades Syria, Iraq, etc., it's not because their leaders are killing their own people... that's just part of the PR campaign to justify military action.)What you're asking about, however, it's a very thin line that countries like the US has only blurred more and more over the years, and obviously presents a very difficult slippery slope.
Plenty of example of this: Cir cision can be seen both as child abuse or hygienic need depending on who you ask, it's been maintained mostly out of traditionalism, and generally viewed as socially accepted. What if that perception changes though? (the hygienic benefits have already come largely into question) Does countries invade Israel to stop child abuse?
Or take Saudi Arabia, not just on killing journalists on their embassy, but the stonings to death, etc. The world generally looks the other way, because it's their country and their laws.
How about the death penalty in the US? Can some other country deem that inhumane? why not?
I mean, the US has invaded countries because their leaders have killed their own people. I suppose some of them were meanies and some others were not?
I wouldn't punish the North Sentinelese for protecting their island, or for any of their internal practices. But they don't know any better, and my questions are more about whether we have any moral responsibility to help them get there, or if we just let them do their thing no matter what it is.
Propping them up like some museum piece is pretty twisted. I could understand it if this was a place that was very difficult to reach and a tribe lived there. Instead it's just put off limits by civilizations laws and that's the only thing keeping these people alive.
I mean if they're viable as a society then let them defend their own shores instead of having the modernized navy and police force do it for them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions