On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:11 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >>
>> be warned, your liberal membership card could be revoked;
>>
>
> >
> Wow, that would ruin my day...Seriously though
> [...]
>
Seriously I actually think it would indeed ruin your day because I can't
think why else you would feel compelled to defend something that is
absolutely positively 100% indefensible. I say to hell with liberals and
their sacred cultural diversity, I say some cultures are inherently dumber
than others and recent events in Hawaii have proven it.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>>
>>> I am a pacifist and I oppose the initiation of force. I do accept the
>>> use of force in self-defense.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> Then you're not a pacifist, I'm not a pacifist either, and neither are
>> the heroes of Kung Fu movies even if they do talk about the virtues of
>> pacifism while they're beating the shit out of people. Martin Luther King
>>
>> and Gandhi
>> were pacifists, we're not.
>>
>
> >
> Alright, I am "against the initiation of the use of force". It doesn't
> roll off the tongue so well but ok.
>
Nearly everybody is "against the initiation of the use of force" or at
least says they are, if that is what "pacifism" means then we're going to
need to invent a new word to describe what Martin Luther King and
Gandhi were because most people (including you and me) do not behave as
they did.
>>
>> Are "native Hawaiians" people who were born in Hawaii or is that
>> insufficient, do you also have to have the correct bloodline to be allowed
>> into that exclusive club?
>>
>
> >
> There are cultures that emerge from populations. They might survive even
> when other cultures become dominant.
>
As the modern western culture did in Hawaii. Is somebody who has the proper
bloodline but knows nothing about the ancient Hawaiian way of life and
identifies with western pop culture still a "native Hawaiian"
? Is an expert on ancient Hawaiian customs who was born in Hawaii but has
European bloodlines a
"native Hawaiian
"
? Is this entire matter ridiculous and becoming offensively racist?
I think it is.
> >
> What I said was simply: "something akin to a prime directive might be a
> good idea".
>
Apparently you don't find anything even a little bit patronizing in
treating human beings as if they were some endangered species of tree frog.
I do. I
f the prime directive says we must respect the ignorant beliefs of
barbarians and not enrich the entire human race by building the Thirty
Meter Telescope then the prime directive must also say we must respect the
ignorant beliefs in very bad inner city schools and not try to improve
them. Why does the prime directive say we must respect things that are not
respectable?
> >>
>> 1) Anyone who opposes the Thirty Meter Telescope because they believe the
>> construction noise will disturb the sleep of Mother Earth and Father Sky is
>> a moron.
>> 2) Anyone who feels it is his duty to make lame excuses for people in the
>> above category is also a moron.
>>
>
> >
> These are not assumptions, these are value judgements.
>
They are axioms, I didn't make a judgement to derive them they are self
evident truths, rather like "induction usually works" or "pleasure is
preferable to pain" or "knowledge is preferable to ignorance".
John K Clark
--
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.
