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

[Origanalist]

Alright, so suppose the intervention is by a private company, funded on a voluntarily basis.

Now you're okay with it?

A private company? Why would they do this? Is there a profit there for them?

 

[Dr.3D]

So, murderous cannibals living within a certain, arbitrarily defined geographic area can be shot for their crimes....

...but murderous cannibals living outside that arbitrarily defined geographic area get a pat on the head.

Makes sense.

Why do you think your social norms are correct? Perhaps you have just been programmed all your life to think they are but really they are just different from what another society would find correct.

People often have a very hard time discovering the truth about such things.

Are all these folks wrong, or are they just different?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-brutal-tests-manhood-around-world.php

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So what is it exactly you propose that we as a country do about those that offend our sensibilities outside our borders?

I'd propose that the US, or any other state, pursue aggression minimizing interventions abroad.

Just as each state should pursues aggression minimizing interventions within its own borders.

Aggression is aggression, whether in San Antonio or Sentinel Island.

 

[Origanalist]

I'd propose that the US, or any other state, pursue aggression minimizing interventions abroad.

Just as each state should pursues aggression minimizing interventions within its own borders.

I take back my previous conjecture, you're really Lindsay Graham, right?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Why do you think your social norms are correct? Perhaps you have just been programmed all your life to think they are but really they are just different from what another society would find correct.

We could go off on a long conversation about why I'm a libertarian... In short, it's for consequentialist reasons.

Are you a libertarian (I always assumed you were...)? If not, is there some other ethics to which you subscribe, or are you a nihilist?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

A private company? Why would they do this? Is there a profit there for them?

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

Can you answer the question?

I take back my previous conjecture, you're really Lindsay Graham, right?

Is Miss Lindsey's goal to minimize aggression?

 

[Dr.3D]

We could go off on a long conversation about why I'm a libertarian... In short, it's for consequentialist reasons.

Are you a libertarian (I always assumed you were...)? If not, is there some other ethics to which you subscribe, or are you a nihilist?

I just believe in treating others as I would like them to treat me.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Permissible for who exactly to intervene?

Whoever feels sufficiently impelled to do so.

Who is being represented in said intervention?

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

 

[Origanalist]

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

Can you answer the question?

Of course it matters. Either they are doing it for financial gain, taking advantage of resources, or they could be "philanthropic" like Bill Gates.

Is Miss Lindsey's goal to minimize aggression?

He certainly would like you to believe that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I just believe in treating others as I would like them to treat me.

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

 

[Origanalist]

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

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Of course it matters. Either they are doing it for financial gain, taking advantage of resources, or they could be "philanthropic" like Bill Gates.

Okay, so let's say its philanthropic - a bunch of libertarians who want to use their wealth to reduce aggression on Sentinel Island.

Supposing their intervention would actually reduce aggression, you'd be okay with it or not?

He certainly would like you to believe that.

Right, but since she doesn't actually believe that, it's really not a very apt comparison is it?

 

[Origanalist]

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

Let me summarize what's going on here. R3V like he always does is making up a bunch of hypothetical scenarios and then proceeding with them like they are facts and asking people to stipulate how they will respond to them.

 

[Origanalist]

Okay, so let's say its philanthropic - a bunch of libertarians who want to use their wealth to reduce aggression on Sentinel Island.

Supposing their intervention would actually reduce aggression, you'd be okay with it or not?

I suppose it all depends on how they went about it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I suppose it all depends on how they went about it.

Suppose they go in, set up a court system running on strict libertarian principles, and then try, convict, and punish criminals.

The result is a dramatic decline in the crime rate.

No one is aggressed against; the only people on the receiving end of violence are criminals.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Do they have oil?

Coconut oil, fish oil, very valuable to health conscious SJWs and neocons. But the lack of a controlled central bank is reason enough. We need to send in the Economic Hitmen to give them some IMF loans right away.

Oh yeah, not convincing enough. The horrors! They are barbarians! They kill people! They throw babies out of incubators! They want nuclear weapons! It's for the children! They use gold as money!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Let me summarize what's going on here. R3V like he always does is making up a bunch of hypothetical scenarios and then proceeding with them like they are facts and asking people to stipulate how they will respond to them.

Another word for that process is reasoning.

The purpose of using hypothetical is to clarify concepts.

If you can't explain how your ethics works in every hypothetical, you don't have a clear ethics.

 

[Origanalist]

Suppose they go in, set up a court system running on strict libertarian principles, and then try, convict, and punish criminals.

The result is a dramatic decline in the crime rate.

No one is aggressed against; the only people on the receiving end of violence are criminals.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I know, we only let the really principled libertarians run the courts, right?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Ha ha ha ha ha

And your answer is what?

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

 

[Suzanimal]

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