American missionary tries to convert indigenous island people; receives the Magellan treatment
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41605
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:10 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
This conclusion being drawn by many, that the deserved to die, seems more rooted in a bigotry against Christian-based faiths in my view at least, more so than logic.


Is there an undercurrent of that in this thread and in the larger internet reaction? Yes. I pointed this out on the second page of this thread. Then I moved on, because arguing about religious bigotry is just as futile as arguing about religion. You should move on, too.


Actually, the only people who have harped on the religious aspect of this have been the contrarian trolls. The fact that the idiot who attempted to visit the island is a missionary was incidental to most of us. It may have been the function and motivation that drove him to go to the island. But those of us who have stated that he got the result he should have expected, and thus was deserved, have been very clear that the reason for that conclusion has nothing to do with his religion and everything to do with the willfully stupidity to go to a place he was not only forbidden, but where he knew he wasn't likely to survive.

The discussion was to the arrogance that was the impetus for that decision. I can't speak for everyone who has spoken in that regard, but to me his religion was simply a factor in his decision, and the decision is my focus - not the motivator behind it. I would say the same thing about whomever made the same asinine and self-destructive decision. Whether it be Chau or a documentarian who went there to make a movie thinking he was making the next "Nanook of the North".

Now I will certainly admit to taking shots at religion in this thread. But that has nothing to do with the condemnation of this Darwin Award Winner of the Century.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41605
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:26 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
This conclusion being drawn by many, that the deserved to die, seems more rooted in a bigotry against Christian-based faiths in my view at least, more so than logic.


You made a leap there (in your defense, probably without realizing it) in order to justify your conclusion.

"Deserved their fate" is not the same thing as "deserved to die." It was YOU who said the latter.

To try to explain it by way of example, if I jump into a bear cage, then whatever negative consequences I experience are deserved (result directly from my poor decision), which in this case may be up to and including death (because this is what could happen when you jump into a bear cage). This is not the same thing as saying I deserve death. If you don't understand the distinction, we can talk about it further.

You're trying to argue a strawman in order to justify a conclusion, and that strawman is needed in order to back-fill a rationalization so that you can get to that specific conclusion. I wish you wouldn't do that.


I won't belabor the point. But I need to clarify one thing in your post. I did not say that he deserves to die nor did I put those words in anyone's proverbial mouth.

Check your facts. Scroll back to the beginning and look and see who it was that said this man deserved to die a "cold, hard, and violent death."

I WAS arguing against that exact position.

If you support it, fine, but I think it's disturbing and felt the need to challenge it. But I will relent going forward.


I said it. And what I said was that his decision resulted in the death he knew was likely - a brutal death. I didn't chose his manner of death - HE chose that. I just commented on the nature of it, and the reason for it. And I did so for emphasis. Chau's decision lead to him being shot with arrows and dragged across a remote beach with a rope around his neck.

I'd say that's a cold, hard and violent death.

A death that he knowingly brought upon himself.

Are you really stupid enough to argue with any of that?
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10049

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:09 am    Post subject:

The Japanese government has signs posted everywhere surrounding Fukishima warning people of exposure to radiation poisoning and certain death. If somebody still enters, unprotected, and with full knowledge of what awaits them, then that's suicide, plain and simple. No different than pulling out a gun as you attempt to have a conversation with American Police. The cops aren't going to wait to hear about what you've got to say. They're going to start blasting away. Little do those islanders know, but they could be instant hires at American PD's.🔫
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 3117

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:31 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
When you presume that you know what's better for someone than they do, and your judgement trumps their judgement about their own needs as well as their autonomy, that's arrogance.


Well, you just described pretty much everyone on the internet there.

Look, all I'm trying to get at is -- why do people say he deserved what he got? Like WHY say that? What's the purpose there and why the anger towards him?

Is it because he did something where he knew there could be consequences and did it anyway?

Or did he deserve it because he was a religious man and tried to convert people to his religion?


Yup, we all deserve our fate that we have total control over.

If I’m going to go mess with a cobra and I get bit and die, I deserve that fate.

If I don’t study for a test and go take it, I’m probably going to fail that test.

There are fates that we control and we accept the consequences. That’s just life.


Here's the thing. I don't believe that the comments such as "he deserved to die or deserved his fate" are rooted in pure logic. I think there is some other motivating factor at play here whether it be his religious beliefs or his nationality, but that the folks making those comments are trying to make it seem it is based in logic.

If it is based in logic, then, all scenarios which qualify within that logic must apply. As you said...

If you mess with a cobra, and you get bit, you deserve your fate.

If the law says that the speed limit is 65mph and you drive 100mph and get a ticket, you deserve your fate.

With that then, would we ALL agree that the following is true?

If the law says you cannot enter a particular and clearly marked facility or zone, and you do it anyway and get caught, you deserve your fate?

(FWIW, I'm not a missionary lol, and am disinterested in organized religion -- it's more that for me, whether a person deserves their fate depends entirely on whether the combination of the action and motivation for the action was egregious enough to warrant the outcome). Is this a wrong way to look at it?


I don't understand your logic in red. What were you getting at with this example?

I'll comment on this part:

Quote:
whether a person deserves their fate depends entirely on whether the combination of the action and motivation for the action was egregious enough to warrant the outcome). Is this a wrong way to look at it?


Yes, this is wrong to look at it this way and I'll tell you why. You're focused on the "egregious enough to warrant the outcome" part. That's what's holding you up and it shouldn't. I'll explain why.

Because things are unfair in this world. And I'll give you an example.

North Korea. North Korea is an unfair country. There's nothing fair about going to North Korea. You will not have any rights when you go there. You are warned. The US bans its citizens from going to North Korea.

So, knowing this, that it's an unfair country, and knowing that you've been banned and warned against going to North Korea, should you choose to do so, then whatever unfair thing that happens to you, becomes deserved.

Because everyone tried to warned you, tried to stop you, but you still chose to go.

So whatever unfair thing that happens to you over in North Korea, is your fault.

That's not to say that what North Korea does to you isn't still wrong, unjust and unfair. But whatever they do to you, it's still on you. You chose to put yourself into an unfair and unjust situation.

So if you can separate the two, then you can understand where people are coming from.

Is death a just punishment for stepping on that island? Nope.

But, you already knew that. You already knew that should you go to that island, chances are, you will be treated unjustly by the native people.

Once you are fully aware of that but you still choose to go anyways, then it's no one's fault but your own. And that unjust punishment - well, you had it coming.

And if you're still having trouble with this - then maybe you can look at it another way. What if the next missionary that goes to that island is a boy. A 16 year old boy. And the choice to go there wasn't made by the boy but by his father. His father sent him there knowing full well that the chances of the boy surviving are slim.

Who do you blame? The boy? The father? The indigenous people? The government? Who do you really blame? The father's going to take most if not all of the blame.

But according to your logic, the father would not be to blame because his crime - sending his son to an island as a trespasser - was not that egregious.

Most people won't look at it that way. Most people would say the father's crime was sending his son to death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB