Sentinelese tribe: Rare footage captures one of world's last uncontacted indigenous people

[Origanalist]

And your answer is what?

In that scenario, you would be okay with the intervention or not?

Read my edit.

 

[Origanalist]

I've had enough interventionism for tonight, carry on.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The victim(s) of the NAP violation(s) to which I referred.

I meant in who's name the intervention is being being done in.

That's what I thought you meant when I gave that answer.

More often than not people who do this claim it's for someone else when it's for their own desires.

That may be true - but in this case, it's irrelevant.

As long as there is, in fact, a clear violation of the NAP, then it doesn't matter what the intervenor's private motives might "really" be. He is still permitted to forcibly intervene.

This is what the NAP is for, after all - namely, to determine when force/violence may justifiably be used.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Read my edit.

I read it.

Yet again, you're rejecting the hypothetical and changing the goalposts to avoid having to answer the question.

O well

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are they cannibals?
Do they have sex with infants?
What about human sacrifice? Do they burn their own children to make the coconuts grow?
Do they practice slavery?

Stop please.
Where ya headin tonight, sir?
Had any drinks?
Where ya comin from?
What have you been doing tonight?
Mind if I look in your trunk?
Got an ID?
Passengers got an ID?
What's in their pockets?
What have they been doing tonight?
What's in your pockets?
Blow in this....no?...don't wanna?...well, come with me to the cage and await your forced blood draw...
I have a dog if you don't consent...cuz you know...I'm suspicious of something, so....


Right?

 

[Occam's Banana]

We have no proof these people are hurting anyone besides trespassers and I don't see any reason to bother them. It's ridiculous.

I agree. That's why I've been careful to state my position in conditional terms (such as "If clear NAP violations are occurring ...").

Tresspassing is a NAP violation. Death is an extreme punishment for such a transgression, but the NAP does not forbid it. Thus, I do not think that intervention can be justified on this basis (and I say this as someone who is vehemently opposed to capital punishment, on both moral and practical grounds).

The NAP is an ethical precept, and the question of what punishments are or are not apporpriate for what crimes is a jurisprudential issue, not an ethical one. The NAP identifies when it is permissible to use force/violence, but it has nothing to say about the degree or form of that permissible force/violence. IOW: The NAP is not a "theory of everything" ...

 

[Natural Citizen]

I read it.

Yet again, you're rejecting the hypothetical and changing the goalposts to avoid having to answer the question.

O well

Oh gawd. Monarchist the great is back. lol. We kissin rings for our arbitrarily granted freedoms again? lol. Wait, lemme go grab muh knee pads n muh chap stick, yo highness. I's a good house nigga, now.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I agree. That's why I've been careful to state my position in conditional terms (such as "If clear NAP violations are occurring ...").

Tresspassing is a NAP violation. Death is an extreme punishment for such a transgression, but the NAP does not forbid it. Thus, I do not think that intervention can be justified on this basis (and I say this as someone who is vehemently opposed to capital punishment, on both moral and practical grounds).

The NAP is an ethical precept, and the question of what punishments are or are not apporpriate for what crimes is a jurisprudential issue, not an ethical one. The NAP identifies when it is permissible to use force/violence, but it has nothing to say about the degree or form of that permissible force/violence. IOW: The NAP is not a "theory of everything" ...

You can't really make a moral case. Those people are likely sun worshipers. The question becomes what does the interventionist define as his own primary foundation for moral code? And does he know the primary foundation for moral code of those whom he would intervene?

Those people are likely of a survival of the fittest mindset. Natural selection.

 

[Origanalist]

That's what I thought you meant when I gave that answer.



That may be true - but in this case, it's irrelevant.

As long as there is, in fact, a clear violation of the NAP, then it doesn't matter what the intervenor's private motives might "really" be. He is still permitted to forcibly intervene.

This is what the NAP is for, after all - namely, to determine when force/violence may justifiably be used.

So, we become World Police in the name of the NAP? These things have a bad habit of going astray.

 

[Suzanimal]

I agree. That's why I've been careful to state my position in conditional terms (such as "If clear NAP violations are occurring ...").

Tresspassing is a NAP violation. Death is an extreme punishment for such a transgression, but the NAP does not forbid it. Thus, I do not think that intervention can be justified on this basis (and I say this as someone who is vehemently opposed to capital punishment, on both moral and practical grounds).

The NAP is an ethical precept, and the question of what punishments are or are not apporpriate for what crimes is a jurisprudential issue, not an ethical one. The NAP identifies when it is permissible to use force/violence, but it has nothing to say about the degree or form of that permissible force/violence. IOW: The NAP is not a "theory of everything" ...

Interestingly enough, one must violate the NAP (trespass) in order to find out if the Sentinelese are violating the NAP.

 

[tod evans]

So, we become World Police in the name of the NAP? These things have a bad habit of going astray.

It's not my place to get involved.

Especially with people on a different continent that have no affect on my life.

And...............I adamantly oppose any other person acting in my stead interfering with these peoples lives.

 

[Suzanimal]

So, we become World Police in the name of the NAP? These things have a bad habit of going astray.

Not me, I have enough NAP violations in my own house to keep me busy for years. :o

 

[Dr.3D]

Even if they're in the process of murdering and eating you, or your friends and family, or a complete stranger on Sentinel Island?

They are not coming to my home and doing such things. The stranger went where he didn't belong.

I would be the bad guy if I went to their home and started murdering them. Especially if I did it in the guise of liberty.

 

[Suzanimal]

Even if they're in the process of murdering and eating you, or your friends and family, or a complete stranger on Sentinel Island?

If they invited the stranger and ate him, then feel free to go teach the tribe our peaceful ways with my blessing. Just know, I'll not be joining you. I'm allergic to getting shot with arrows. I will make up some flyers warning people not to accept invitations from the tribe, though. Kinda like how I warn people not to send money to Goodluck Jonathan.

If you go trespassing and end up on the spit, then you only have yourself to blame. It's not like they haven't made it clear what they do to trespassers. Even still, I would write something nice about you in the Memorial thread.

 

[timosman]

Even if they're in the process of murdering and eating you, or your friends and family, or a complete stranger on Sentinel Island?

Open borders

 

[Dr.3D]

Open borders

Yes, diversity.

 

[timosman]

Yes, diversity.

They would not survive diversity. The bacteria we would bring with us to that tribe would kill everybody.

 

[Dr.3D]

They would not survive diversity. The bacteria we would bring with us to that tribe would kill everybody.

Yeah, I was thinking the other way around. We really need those people to come to the U.S to increase our diversity. /s

 

[timosman]

Yeah, I was thinking the other way around. We really need those people to come to the U.S to increase our diversity. /s

They would not know how to exploit our gullibility to their advantage. We should send some Hollywood movies there first.

 

[William Tell]

Could be. Could be philanthropic. Doesn't matter.

Can you answer the question?



Is Miss Lindsey's goal to minimize aggression?

Lindsey sees something bad he calls in terrorism, you see the same thing you call it aggression. That's the only difference I see.