May 30, 2008: Uncontacted Indigenous People

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Interestingly, it seems to be the forum's liberals who advocate - or at least suggest - leaving them alone. No-one has yet addressed the issue that they are in a remote location, with no money and nothing viable to trade, so how will the modern world benefit them? Oh of course, they suck off the Government teat. It's odd to hear those with more right wing views than me espouse that.

Hey, don't lump me in with the god damn liberal hippy freaks on this board. I'm currently registered republican I'll have you know...

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by jinx

Hey, don't lump me in with the god damn liberal hippy freaks on this board. I'm currently registered republican I'll have you know...

A "rippy" if, you will...


I don't know who I'm being "lumped" in with, but suffice it to say if I have no party affiliation, no one can claim it for me.

My party does not currently exist.


You should interrupt their lives with modern medicine. They aren't safe!! lol!!! They could die. Ludicrous!

They should contract one of our diseases so we can cure it, for their safety? Is this sound logic? We should cure them of "the bloody flux"? Do they even have that? Do they have the plague? The black death? This is a revisit to the time once again we came to "help savages". They don't know what they are doing until we give them small pox or something. We should give them whiskey too, fuck it. Maybe some narcotics to cure their "savageitis".
:p

They don't look like they've been paying any taxes. Assholes. Put them in jail.

[HungLikeJesus]

I wonder if the American Indians are better off since they were "contacted" by Europeans. And what about the Australian Aborigines?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Just because "we" haven't contacted them, doesn't necessarily mean they haven't been in contact with neighboring tribes or that they are unaware there are people of different colors/cultures out there. Maybe they don't give a shit.

If they are threatened by loggers, I don't see the value of warning them, warn the damn loggers to leave them alone.

[smoothmoniker]

They weren't contacted, they were colonized. Nobody has suggested that we do that here. But, if that's the straw man you'd like to set on fire, by all means, go right ahead.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Cicero

My party does not currently exist.

Cicero. Cicero. Party of one. Cicero. Your platform is ready.

[DanaC]

We should give them whiskey too, fuck it. Maybe some narcotics to cure their "savageitis".

*chuckles* savageitis, i like that.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Flint

You're so certain that your position is the correct one that you're not stopping to think about what I'm saying.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Is every preventable death the absolute right thing under every circumstance? Take a minute to ponder that.

It is perfectly reasonable to say "Pain is bad" and to also say "Pain, in some circumstances, is preferable to the alternative." My father is recovering from a painful surgery. The pain is bad. The pain is also preferable to the option of not having the surgery, and dying of cancer in 6 months. That doesn't make pain good, or neutral, it places it in a context where its value is outweighed by other competing factors.

Preventable death is bad. There may be some circumstances where it is preferable to the alternative, where competing factors make it morally allowable, or even the morally preferable option.

What about a life unnaturally prolonged by life support machines or massive doses of toxic medications? What if the person is braindead? Then you have a QUALITY OF LIFE issue.

There is a trade-off to save that life. It isn't 100% right all the time; it isn't beyond discussion.

While I appreciate the bold, I think you'll find that the discussion in these circumstances centers around whether the competing factors outweigh the inherent "badness" of the preventable death.

The exception is the braindead case, where the discussion is over whether simple organ-sustainment counts as life.

A "preventable death" means one thing to you, but it opens a big can of philosophical worms. Firstly, you can't prevent death. It's a part of life; there's a death for every birth. This is the natural order. You can DELAY death, but by what means? You will always bring about a set of related consequences.

Good god, has language lost all purpose? "Preventable Death" means a loss of life that could have been kept from happening. If you'd like to suggest an alternate meaning, please do so. Until then, let's assume that language works by lining up letters in a certain order to indicate a specific idea, like "prevent" or "death".

The question is whether the trade-off is worth it, and you can only answer that question for yourself. You aren't a spokesperson for UNIVERSAL moral constructs.

Well, I was, until UNIVERSAL moral constructs started bouncing their checks, and I had to go look for another gig. Damn hippies.

But, like I said, if we can't agree on the bare minimum that preventable death is "A Bad Thing," keeping in mind the clarifications given above, then I think we have no possibility of meaningful conversation about anything else.

Did you hear that Lindsey Lohan slept with Bobby Brown's son? OMG! That Brown family is out to ruin every good thing in hollywood LOL!!!!1!

[Flint]

You like to hear the sound of your keyboard going clickety-clickety-clack, don't you?

Of course, there's nothing pig-headedly arrogant about making decisions you know nothing about for people you know nothing about.

[Undertoad]

Well that response is a fine substitute for thinking.

[Flint]

And going around in completely disconnected circles was getting us...where?

I get his point. He's right because he's right, and his rightness is a rightness that doesn't have to be explained or examined.

[smoothmoniker]

yes, that's basically exactly what I said. I certainly didn't clarify and defend a substantive idea with direct bearing on the conversation about infant mortality and modern medicine.

[Sundae]

Neither did you explain how people with no money get modern medicine on the borders of countries that can't provide their existing citizens with life saving medicines or clean water.

[smoothmoniker]

"Ma'am, your babies keep dying because you shit upstream from where you drink."

Just one example of how a modern medical idea might help save lives, without the need for money or evil pharmaceuticals. We can brainstorm some others, if you like.

[Sundae]

Oh sorry. I thought they were uncontacted, not stupid.