The challenge of "reasonableness" is that what is "reasonable" is always contextualized. If the last time a stranger came by, the stranger did something harmful, it is "reasonable" to think the next one might do the same and for you to treat them accordingly. (It is even more "reasonable" if the last five strangers did something. Therefore, preemptive actions are "justified".)

@aaron: are you honestly not understanding how proportion works? in civilization, we all encounter plenty of people who are not a threat everyday. the proportion of real threats to our lives are percentages so miniscule, we need to have a "reasonable" amount of evidence to justify lethal force, so we don't end up killing someone who falls into the 99.99% of people that aren't a legitimate threat.
isolated tribes have either 0 contact with outsiders, which leaves only tribal instinct to lead their decision making, and if they have had contact, it was most likely 100% of those cases led to deaths.
it's 100% logical and reasonable for a tribal reaction like this, the same way it's 100% logical for a person to trust everybody if they've never been wronged before.

A couple points:

1) You're doing that thing again where you're literally not addressing a single thing that I've actually said, and are running off on a tangent. Your statement was "defender is always justified." I pointed out that the defender is not always justified. And now you're arguing that the defender isn't always justified because you've introduced a new concept.

2) Thank you for proving my point. The defender is not always justified.

John Allen Chau knew they were violent and it was against the law to go there. He was there before and they shot arrows at the boat so he knew he was unwelcome. I know we are only supposed to judge the tribe but is he immoral? I think so.

edit* defending army is always justified. as in the comment i was replying to (that you said you read). am i being trolled, or are you really this anal?
the story in the op can be analogized to a situation of war, as the justification of lethal force is based on rational perception. either perceived proportion of violent encounters, or raw tribal instinct when no info is given.
lawns within civilization don't warrant lethal force, but that's not saying the lawn owner isn't justified in defending his lawn by reasonable means. using the same logic as the last sentence of the last paragraph. of course we have all had enough encounters with non-violent people, that we are forced to differentiate. and of course this means that tribal instinct automatically doesn't apply since we have info.

You mean this?

Yeah... The word "army" has never appeared in this thread before this point. Nor has militia or any other word that would suggest an armed standing force of some type. The logic of the post is that "in almost any war the sides will presumably think that "something" is a threat or hindrance to their way of life."

The observation you responded to had nothing to do with defending armies or anything of the type. It was that it seems possible to broadly justify virtually any war. And your comment was a specific example of a broad justification:

The "defender" is not always justified.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. All you're doing is further contextualizing your claim, which only serves as greater justification for my position. But notice also that you're engaging in exactly the type of rationalization that your original post was responding to. You can probably justify wars on a wide range of grounds with a broad collection of rationalizations.

You can think of yourself as being trolled, but really you're just not that good at constructing arguments. Perhaps if you took more time to think through and learn about what it is you're arguing about rather than arguing from the top of your head, you might do better. Your habit of inserting extra ideas and not staying on point are going to continue to hinder your success.

Vintage. ****ing. Aaron.

Still obsessing, eh?

The killing of the peaceful missionary was clearly a morally wrong act by Christian standards and by legal standards and by humanist standards.

India does not prosecute the islanders for killing people who break the law by going there.

Maybe so but the original article said a murder case was registered against the Islanders

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I know i read it. Do you think someone that tries to come into your home against your will is acting peacefully? Not that i think killing someone for trespassing is necessarily moral or should be legal like it is in some southern states with castle laws but saying he was acting in a peaceful way is wrong imo.

You're assuming various things in your moral calculus, and not all of them seem appropriate. You're assuming a type of absolute version of morality where it would be considered immoral to do something even if you were under the impression that it was something else. You are *assuming* that it is known that the person is a "peaceful missionary" and you're implicitly assuming the outcome will be particular actions that you see as being "morally good" outcomes. That's a lot of assuming.

Also fwiw i would question India's claims of authority over the islanders in the first place. They have never been conquered or accepted India's authority or laws and probably have no knowledge of those laws.

I'm sure that can be fixed...

Interesting, given that from what I have seen you say before, you are for open and unfettered immigration.

I cant have walls/doors on my house to keep people out if i believe in opened boarders. Really? Straight for fox news...

I can be for opened immigration or even no borders and still think others have the right to them. If they or any other country wants to join my idealistic one world government they can but should not be force to. And they can lock their car doors if they live there.

what did you mean by

perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but it appeared that you were saying that the person who was killed wasnt acting peacefully by landing on the island. If that is what you are saying, then you are a huge hypocrite

I have no idea why and since you are playing games instead of explaining im ok with that either way.

How am I playing games? I asked a straightforward question

I have no idea why im a huge hypocrite. You are unwilling to explain. So be it.

again, nope. I said IF that is what you are saying, then you are a huge hypocrite. I am happy to explain why once you confirm what you mean by the quote I quoted

We’re done here. You and I will have to live with my hypocrisy.

globalism/multicultualism creates the need to lock our doors.
boomers love to reminisce about those days, and they're the ones took them away.

For sure.

NSFW



We should of kept the Irish out.