On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/28/2015 5:48 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/28/2015 2:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 12/27/2015 3:56 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/23/2015 1:12 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:31 PM, John Clark < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 Telmo Menezes < <[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and their land is not your land. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I do not have the same faith in the divine right of inherited wealth >>>>>>> as you do. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nice dodge. Yes, let's put all in the same bag, Wall Street trust >>>>>> fund kids and remote tribes wanting to keep living their way in *the >>>>>> place >>>>>> they were born in*. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not a big fan of >>>>> >>>>> Wall Street trust fund kids >>>>> >>>>> either, and if one of them owned one of the 3 places on the planet >>>>> where a thirty meter telescope could be built and refused to let it be >>>>> used >>>>> for that purpose I would be in favor of using the law of eminent domain to >>>>> force the brat to sell it. And by the way, no native Hawaiian or anybody >>>>> else was ever born atop Mauna Kea, there is nothing living up there except >>>>> for a few astronomers, and if native Hawaiians >>>>> >>>>> get there way soon there won't even be that, they want to remove all >>>>> telescopes from the mountain including the world class ones that have been >>>>> there for decades. Why do you defend these people? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't defend them. I think they should not interfere with the >>>> construction of the telescope. All I am saying is that ramming things down >>>> people's throats isn't working out so well. I am suggesting that something >>>> like the "prime directive" is probably a good idea. It would be nice to put >>>> a telescope in a certain mountain, but it's not our mountain, so tough >>>> shit. >>>> >>>> >>>> ?? Why isn't it our mountain? The Hawaiians didn't create it. The >>>> ownership of land is a concept invented and enforced by the U.S. and >>>> Hawaiian state government. There's no ownership of land apart from the >>>> society that enforces it. In this case the state of Hawaii owns the land >>>> and they approved the use of the land for astronomy. >>>> >>> >>> This is the usual confusion between lawful and ethical. >>> The desire and need to have some control over one's environment already >>> existed in biological species much more ancient than the Homo Sapeins. >>> >>> >>> But among social animals it was joint ownership...which is exactly the >>> kind of ownership the government exercises over. The Hawaiians are like a >>> small fraction of the tribe who wants to have exclusive control of a part >>> of the joint territory because they have supernatural myths they tell about >>> it. >>> >> >> Suppose that centuries from now we are capable of traveling to inhabited >> planets in other star systems. We come across a planet populated by >> humanoids who are roughly in the middle ages. They are terribly afraid of >> us and regard us as the demons of some ancient prophecy of their religion. >> Do we see them as part of our tribe, take over the planet and impose our >> values and technology for the greater good? Or do we try to remain >> benevolently distant until they are ready? And if we chose the first, isn't >> it true that they were right to consider us demons to being with? >> >> >> The ethical choice is number one. And the answer is no. >> > > In fact, I have another ethical dilemma for you. The EU considers the > death penalty to be a barbaric and uncivilized practice. A country can only > join the EU if it rejects capital punishment, and the world wide abolition > of the death penalty is a stated goal of the EU. > > Should the EU attempt to use its military power to subjugate the USA, as > to abolish the death penalty and move civilization forward? > > > No, because (a) they'd fail, (b) thousands of times as many people would > be killed as are executed, > Of course. The point of these thought experiments is to remove such practical considerations from the equation and see if you are able to stick to your views in extremes scenarios. > and (c) the death penalty is mostly a state decision - so if the EU can > conquer Texas, I say go for it. > Ok, this is coherent with your position. Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
