Well, nationalism certainly has the cure for doors.

It's possible, but I do also think the two sides in a war will generally disagree on what constitutes as "reasonable".

We could of course assume we can find someone who is relatively unbiased, but the idea of an "independent adjudicator" puts the idea of moral relativity to the test in itself.

you're probably one of these clowns that claims there's a difference between democratic socialism and socialism, but no difference between nationalism and national socialism.

People who carry out imaginary debates in their own mind will likely find no shortage of clowns.

Well, now that the useless tangent seems to have died out... I'll return to the discussion at hand.

I find myself in disagreement with a lot of the sentiment in this thread. I do not find reason to justify the killing of the young missionary.

I can understand why it happened, I can even accept that visiting this tribe is a bad idea and even a needless risk, but even with all that I can't see the killing as justified.

The reason is not overly complicated. If I accept this killing as justified a long the lines of some argument based on relative morals, it seems to be a very slippery slope. What gives some small group the justification for killing that should not apply to other groups? Should a small commune in my country suddenly be justified in declaring their territory? Should a small nation be justified in killing a peaceful visitor?

The fact that a small isolated hunter-gatherer tribe is not directly comparable to some random group in our more interwoven society is not lost on me. However, our history isn't exactly empty of people who has espoused the virtue of returning to "ancient times" and aggressively pursued dogmas that lead to murder and mayhem.

I can even accept that perception and past history has led the tribe to believing they acted in self-defense. But for wrongful perception to justify killing seems like a thin argument. At best in the ethics I believe in, such misunderstandings could perhaps lead to a classification of killing from "murder" to "manslaughter". And the crime seen as less severe, does not mean it is excused.

At the end of the day I think killing a visitor is wrong. I can understand that there are cultural views that see it differently, but I can't see them as justified. It seems like an aggressive and destructive view.

I tend to agree.

I wonder if maybe some people saying it was justified mean in essence that they don't think there should be any retribution for it, or that they don't think the US should attempt to prosecute it as a crime. Because I also agree with that, but I think the question is separable from whether or not the killing is morally permissible/justified.

I agree with that and that is the basis of my reasoning. I haven't considered retribution / prosecution, but merely whether I could see the killing in itself as justified.

This is where my accusations of hypocrisy came from. You cannot defend the tribesmen for wanting to prevent people from entering their territory, and condemn others for wanting to prevent people from entering their territory ( yes, you can have a debate on exactly whos territory is what, but thats a different discussion).

I never condemn others for wanting to prevent people from entering their territory. I think all the countries on earth should have the right to stop people from entering.


I can think that and think my country should have opened boarders without being a hypocrite. I can even be for the goal of a no boarders movement where countries can join but countries who dont want to can keep people from entering their boarders.

As far as the tribes people like i said i dont think im in position to judge. They see outsiders as a dangerous enemy. And for all i know they think that for good reason. Every time in their history they encountered outsiders they probably had death and war. Their people have been taken before. Their population has gone down. And people still today steal what they see as their resources which causes even more hardship.

Really i dont know why we cant respect just one time the rights of isolated populations to be left alone if thats what they want.


Btw aliens if you are reading this we should not be let into the galactic federation of planets because we wont follow the prime directive. Among other things.

So you support the people in the US who want restrictions on, or no, immigration?

It is not hypocritical or inconsistent to think a country has a right to restrict immigration while at the same time thinking it is immoral or unwise for them to do so.

Define support. If you mean i think they should have a say in our democratic system to vote for what type of immigration they want sure. If you mean i cant have a different opinion and have to support theirs no.

Well, you could. Someone supporting open borders in their own country could very well support another country's right to closed borders. A silly analogy could be supporting no flower-beds in your garden, but accept that your neighbor is free to do what he wants.

They could even support their own country's right to closed borders, but simply disagree that the right should be used.

Perhaps an unnecessary point, but I think immigration debate in general would benefit from some nuance.

If we go into a debate on the right to territory and how exactly that is achieved I think you're either going down a rabbit's hole to which there is no end, or you accept "Because." as a valid answer.

There was a story the other day about a woman who was at her second home. She received an alert that her other home was being broken into. Nobody home. No children or adults.

She rushes there and beats the police and sees a young man coming out of the window and shoots him dead.

I saw the story posted in a popular message forum, and almost everybody thought the killing was justified.

I don't.

I made a post expressing the idea that nobody's life was in danger, and maybe he had stolen some stuff, as it were. But the idea that we can kill someone because they are taking our television or something is unchristian, at best.

Jesus said that if someone takes your shoes, offer him your tunic as well.

I think she should be charged with manslaughter, at least.

I was surprised that nobody agreed with me. There was a ton of resistance to my post, from the right and the left, the religious and non-religious.

It's very easy to get caught in emotional responses to events like that, and when things get emotional it is much easier to fall into a "us vs them" line of thinking.

We might see a worthless criminal, a hair-trigger gun-owner, one tragedies, two tragedies or perhaps even just "life as usual". Laws protecting either (castle doctrines vs more restrained self-defense laws) seem either overly forgiving or unjustly narrow.

Personally I try to go for a rational approach. The aim of criminal law should be to reduce the amount of violent or unethical acts towards people (I word myself like that because it is dangerous to say that criminal law should be about reducing crime, because that leaves the door open for meddling with the definitions rather than stopping the acts). This is usually done best with "catch and reform"-approach to law enforcement and punishment.

But when it gets personal and close, views like those are often the first to go.

Comparing missionars to immigrants... the USA (the worlds richest and strongest country) to a tiny isolated tribe...

Its funny, if the tribe is truely isolated they wouldnt know about the horrors that happend to underdelevoped tribes throughout history. So they couldnt use that arguement as justification. I think its a fair argument btw.

The Missionary knew what he was getting himself into, he was a lot more aware of the risks than the tribe was of the missionarys intentions.

Also, what exactly did happen? Did he land ashore on the boat and immediatly got killed? Or did he make contact and possibly did something that justified the tribes actions by the tribes laws?

Speaking of that, how do US laws even apply if the US allowed that isolated tribe to be isolated there in the first place? Shouldnt the tribes laws be the relevant laws on the island? I mean there is this rule, that not knowing laws doesnt prevent you from punishment if you happen to accidently break them (which is pretty stupid considering the vast amount of laws), but this tribe didnt even had a chance to know US law (due to isolation), so judging them by that law would be pretty unfair, which law shouldnt be.

I can imagine an extreme property rights type of argument coming from some on the right but, out of curiosity, what other reasons did you hear?

Here is a news report of the story. https://youtu.be/TJ1d7Rc9iSs

Based on all evidence, I am with the family on this one. If nobody's life was in danger, then she should have waited for the police to arrive. Instead, imo, she was looking to shoot someone.

I think this story might be a few years old, now that I am looking into it.

What is insane is this Florida law that allowed her to go uncharged:

Florida Statute 776.013 (2a)

The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;

and

The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Basically people quoting this law, and using "stand your ground" arguments.

I mean, the law allows you to shoot someone leaving your house with both hands wrapped around your television set. It also seems to allow you to kill someone ransacking your car. Which is different if there are children in your car, or in your house...maybe.

Wow @ the comments under that video. EVERY top level comment was shockingly casual racism. It's disgusting.

Is that the kind of response you were talking about?

PS How does someone justify summary execution as the just punishment for burglary? Alleged burglary, in fact. Or simple trespass.

It was all "stand your ground" stuff and "protect your property." I can't tell you how many comments I received asking for my home address.

There was even another more-recent story that drove me crazy, that I commented on the day it hit the news.

Original story: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...police-n959691

Updated: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ns/3747472002/

I knew at once the police department was lying. Because they were using all of this legal jargon and legalese, instead of pointedly stating that the kid pointed 'what looked like a gun' at the officer, instead--it was relayed to us that the "officer felt threatened."

Whenever you see that legal phrasing, a murder has taken place by cop.

I actually predicted that the kid was probably shot in the back based on all of the legal terminology the department was using to explain the shooting.

I have watched that video a few times.

It was an assassination. A hit, it looked like, from an officer hiding behind a garbage can.

I know that is strong verbiage, but if you watch the video, I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.

Anyway, in the forum I am active in, I was killed for my reactions to the initial facts of the story.

Because he had stolen a replica gun from the car, it was justified, because "cop saw gun."

Yet, the video shows no gun. The video shows a 14 year old kid running away from a cop, back turned to him.

The racist reactions on YouTube are expected. Fine. YouTube comment threads have always been a cesspool.

It is that the average person can't see what is going on, and that there are real issues here--that drives me crazy.