US Christian Missionary endanger the lives of inhabitants on isolated Indian island

cincybearcat

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

Or they just disagree with you. I mean, you may not be correct, that is an option. 

No, it isn't, lol. Not this time. What they're doing is assuming that the missionary guy wasn't as dangerous as a murderer/rapist to those people on that island. But that isn't the case. I think they are failing to see it from that perspective. They have to be. Otherwise they would at least understand my comparison, if not agree with it. But this concept seems to have whooshed right over most of their heads.

you make a direct statement saying nobody deserves to die if this guy doesn't. people come up wth questions/examples to counter that (vague) statement, and you are mocking them for doing so with this "Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?". 

your statement could be taken in any number of ways, and the fact that so many people apparently misunderstood it is more of a comment on the person who stated it than those interpreting it. all you have to do is clarify it rather than getting all high and mighty about it. 

Oh well!

I so completely don't give a shit this time. I 100% stand behind everything I have said. I guess I'm coming off as high and mighty because I find the arguments against what I said irritating and rather dimwitted, frankly. Just being honest - I don't need people to like what I'm saying.

For someone that likes to lecture me, calling people dimwits is pretty funny.

I didn't call anyone a dimwit. I said the arguments are dimwitted. There really is a significant difference.

I also don't know what you're finding funny or how it related to me lecturing you, haha.

You seem to be going off the rails here since no one agrees with you. I’ve been there too...thinking it’s clear when apparently it isn’t. And you are doubling down on being patronizing instead of trying to even describe what the heck you meant other than what everyone else seems to think you meant.  Oh well, since you don’t care if people “like” what you are saying I won’t try to understand what the hell you are trying to say anymore. Even though it’s not about “like”...

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

I've said I think the missionary was wrong and the tribe should be left alone.
But I consider a rapist one of the lowest people on earth. This guy was much better than that. He made a bad decision, but that decision had good intentions whether you agree with him or not.
I think saying he deserved this and comparing him to anyone bad, especially a rapist, is not accurate and overreaching. 

Okay then, murderer, just to avoid the subjective ideas about the seriousness of rape and the comparisons of it to the concepts driving colonization I suppose? So a MURDERER breaking into a family's home is comparable. Is that better for you? I'm not AT ALL talking about what this guy was like as a person. I'm talking only of the threat he posed to the tribe, in their minds. And I do still think that rapist is as good a comparison in that context as anything. 

I'm sure some slave traders had good intentions too btw. That doesn't seem like something that would have been very relevant to the slaves though, does it?

I don't like it because of the intent.
You talk about a murderer breaking into someone's home it implies he meant to hurt them.
Although he very well could have carried disease and viruses to kill these people, that is definitely no this intent. So  Ijust don't see the comparison between rapist or murderer.

I can't think of a single good intent a slave trader could have towards the slaves. Not ones that didn't involve freeing them.
And I think intent does matter. If a man sees a homeless guy and helps him build a fire to get through a freezing night, and that fire goes out of control and burns down a house with a family in it, would you treat him the same as an arson who intentionally burns down a house with a family inside?
The first guy definitely made a mistake, but I wouldn't compare him to the second. 
This guy made a mistake (and was very stupid) and paid a big price for it. And its a sad story. He doesn't deserve it though, not like someone going to the island to intentionally kill off these people.

his intent is irrelevant to the act of the tribespeople killing him. they don't know his intent. they don't care. if they care they may die. 

I think where this spiralled out of control is where she said the vague comment"nobody does". people got confused by that (and I still don't know who the "nobody" is in this context). and she doubled down on it. and here we are. 

I agree.
But I think it matters in terms of if he deserved it or not, and if he should be compared to a murderer/rapist or not. I saw several say he deserved it. I just can't understand why anyone would say he deserves this. Say its his own fault, he was stupid or careless. But he didn't deserve to get killed.

I guess you're interpreting the word different than I am then... You're using some kind of emotional interpretation of it. I'm using the word more objectively. He literally deserved it. He did something illegal that is known to be likely to get him killed, and, most importantly, that threatened the lives of a bunch of other people who are well known to defend themselves in that manner, which is half the reason approaching them is illegal in the first place. Therefore, he deserved the consequences of his actions. Kind of like someone who knowingly walks into a cage occupied by a starving wild tiger deserves to get mauled and eaten by the tiger. Actions = consequence.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

Or they just disagree with you. I mean, you may not be correct, that is an option. 

No, it isn't, lol. Not this time. What they're doing is assuming that the missionary guy wasn't as dangerous as a murderer/rapist to those people on that island. But that isn't the case. I think they are failing to see it from that perspective. They have to be. Otherwise they would at least understand my comparison, if not agree with it. But this concept seems to have whooshed right over most of their heads.

you make a direct statement saying nobody deserves to die if this guy doesn't. people come up wth questions/examples to counter that (vague) statement, and you are mocking them for doing so with this "Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?". 

your statement could be taken in any number of ways, and the fact that so many people apparently misunderstood it is more of a comment on the person who stated it than those interpreting it. all you have to do is clarify it rather than getting all high and mighty about it. 

Oh well!

I so completely don't give a shit this time. I 100% stand behind everything I have said. I guess I'm coming off as high and mighty because I find the arguments against what I said irritating and rather dimwitted, frankly. Just being honest - I don't need people to like what I'm saying.

For someone that likes to lecture me, calling people dimwits is pretty funny.

I didn't call anyone a dimwit. I said the arguments are dimwitted. There really is a significant difference.

I also don't know what you're finding funny or how it related to me lecturing you, haha.

he also didn't call me an idiot, he said I sounded idiotic, which is the "lecture" he's referring to I believe. 

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

I've said I think the missionary was wrong and the tribe should be left alone.
But I consider a rapist one of the lowest people on earth. This guy was much better than that. He made a bad decision, but that decision had good intentions whether you agree with him or not.
I think saying he deserved this and comparing him to anyone bad, especially a rapist, is not accurate and overreaching. 

Okay then, murderer, just to avoid the subjective ideas about the seriousness of rape and the comparisons of it to the concepts driving colonization I suppose? So a MURDERER breaking into a family's home is comparable. Is that better for you? I'm not AT ALL talking about what this guy was like as a person. I'm talking only of the threat he posed to the tribe, in their minds. And I do still think that rapist is as good a comparison in that context as anything. 

I'm sure some slave traders had good intentions too btw. That doesn't seem like something that would have been very relevant to the slaves though, does it?

I don't like it because of the intent.
You talk about a murderer breaking into someone's home it implies he meant to hurt them.
Although he very well could have carried disease and viruses to kill these people, that is definitely no this intent. So  Ijust don't see the comparison between rapist or murderer.

I can't think of a single good intent a slave trader could have towards the slaves. Not ones that didn't involve freeing them.
And I think intent does matter. If a man sees a homeless guy and helps him build a fire to get through a freezing night, and that fire goes out of control and burns down a house with a family in it, would you treat him the same as an arson who intentionally burns down a house with a family inside?
The first guy definitely made a mistake, but I wouldn't compare him to the second. 
This guy made a mistake (and was very stupid) and paid a big price for it. And its a sad story. He doesn't deserve it though, not like someone going to the island to intentionally kill off these people.

his intent is irrelevant to the act of the tribespeople killing him. they don't know his intent. they don't care. if they care they may die. 

I think where this spiralled out of control is where she said the vague comment"nobody does". people got confused by that (and I still don't know who the "nobody" is in this context). and she doubled down on it. and here we are. 

I agree.
But I think it matters in terms of if he deserved it or not, and if he should be compared to a murderer/rapist or not. I saw several say he deserved it. I just can't understand why anyone would say he deserves this. Say its his own fault, he was stupid or careless. But he didn't deserve to get killed.

I guess you're interpreting the word different than I am then... You're using some kind of emotional interpretation of it. I'm using the word more objectively. He literally deserved it. He did something illegal that is known to be likely to get him killed, and, most importantly, that threatened the lives of a bunch of other people who are well known to defend themselves in that manner, which is half the reason approaching them is illegal in the first place. Therefore, he deserved the consequences of his actions. Kind of like someone who deliberately walks into the cage occupied by a starving wild tiger deserves to get mauled and eaten. Actions = consequence.

I guess that is the difference. I just don't see how "deserve" doesn't have an emotional attachment.  A guy speeding in a car deserves a speeding ticket, he doesn't deserve to wreck and kill himself.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

Or they just disagree with you. I mean, you may not be correct, that is an option. 

No, it isn't, lol. Not this time. What they're doing is assuming that the missionary guy wasn't as dangerous as a murderer/rapist to those people on that island. But that isn't the case. I think they are failing to see it from that perspective. They have to be. Otherwise they would at least understand my comparison, if not agree with it. But this concept seems to have whooshed right over most of their heads.

you make a direct statement saying nobody deserves to die if this guy doesn't. people come up wth questions/examples to counter that (vague) statement, and you are mocking them for doing so with this "Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?". 

your statement could be taken in any number of ways, and the fact that so many people apparently misunderstood it is more of a comment on the person who stated it than those interpreting it. all you have to do is clarify it rather than getting all high and mighty about it. 

Oh well!

I so completely don't give a shit this time. I 100% stand behind everything I have said. I guess I'm coming off as high and mighty because I find the arguments against what I said irritating and rather dimwitted, frankly. Just being honest - I don't need people to like what I'm saying.

For someone that likes to lecture me, calling people dimwits is pretty funny.

I didn't call anyone a dimwit. I said the arguments are dimwitted. There really is a significant difference.

I also don't know what you're finding funny or how it related to me lecturing you, haha.

he also didn't call me an idiot, he said I sounded idiotic, which is the "lecture" he's referring to I believe. 

 This distinction can sometimes feel like a fine line, as I'm sure everyone here can attest to, hahaha.

(I tried to find a good gif for "walking the razor's edge" and all I got was fucking Razor Ramon wrestling gifs, lol)

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

I've said I think the missionary was wrong and the tribe should be left alone.
But I consider a rapist one of the lowest people on earth. This guy was much better than that. He made a bad decision, but that decision had good intentions whether you agree with him or not.
I think saying he deserved this and comparing him to anyone bad, especially a rapist, is not accurate and overreaching. 

Okay then, murderer, just to avoid the subjective ideas about the seriousness of rape and the comparisons of it to the concepts driving colonization I suppose? So a MURDERER breaking into a family's home is comparable. Is that better for you? I'm not AT ALL talking about what this guy was like as a person. I'm talking only of the threat he posed to the tribe, in their minds. And I do still think that rapist is as good a comparison in that context as anything. 

I'm sure some slave traders had good intentions too btw. That doesn't seem like something that would have been very relevant to the slaves though, does it?

I don't like it because of the intent.
You talk about a murderer breaking into someone's home it implies he meant to hurt them.
Although he very well could have carried disease and viruses to kill these people, that is definitely no this intent. So  Ijust don't see the comparison between rapist or murderer.

I can't think of a single good intent a slave trader could have towards the slaves. Not ones that didn't involve freeing them.
And I think intent does matter. If a man sees a homeless guy and helps him build a fire to get through a freezing night, and that fire goes out of control and burns down a house with a family in it, would you treat him the same as an arson who intentionally burns down a house with a family inside?
The first guy definitely made a mistake, but I wouldn't compare him to the second. 
This guy made a mistake (and was very stupid) and paid a big price for it. And its a sad story. He doesn't deserve it though, not like someone going to the island to intentionally kill off these people.

his intent is irrelevant to the act of the tribespeople killing him. they don't know his intent. they don't care. if they care they may die. 

I think where this spiralled out of control is where she said the vague comment"nobody does". people got confused by that (and I still don't know who the "nobody" is in this context). and she doubled down on it. and here we are. 

I agree.
But I think it matters in terms of if he deserved it or not, and if he should be compared to a murderer/rapist or not. I saw several say he deserved it. I just can't understand why anyone would say he deserves this. Say its his own fault, he was stupid or careless. But he didn't deserve to get killed.

I guess you're interpreting the word different than I am then... You're using some kind of emotional interpretation of it. I'm using the word more objectively. He literally deserved it. He did something illegal that is known to be likely to get him killed, and, most importantly, that threatened the lives of a bunch of other people who are well known to defend themselves in that manner, which is half the reason approaching them is illegal in the first place. Therefore, he deserved the consequences of his actions. Kind of like someone who knowingly walks into a cage occupied by a starving wild tiger deserves to get mauled and eaten by the tiger. Actions = consequence.

no, deserve literally means "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)." to me, someone doing something ignorant doesn't "deserve" to die. and no, that's not "emotional". that's using the definition literally and objectively. 

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

I've said I think the missionary was wrong and the tribe should be left alone.
But I consider a rapist one of the lowest people on earth. This guy was much better than that. He made a bad decision, but that decision had good intentions whether you agree with him or not.
I think saying he deserved this and comparing him to anyone bad, especially a rapist, is not accurate and overreaching. 

Okay then, murderer, just to avoid the subjective ideas about the seriousness of rape and the comparisons of it to the concepts driving colonization I suppose? So a MURDERER breaking into a family's home is comparable. Is that better for you? I'm not AT ALL talking about what this guy was like as a person. I'm talking only of the threat he posed to the tribe, in their minds. And I do still think that rapist is as good a comparison in that context as anything. 

I'm sure some slave traders had good intentions too btw. That doesn't seem like something that would have been very relevant to the slaves though, does it?

I don't like it because of the intent.
You talk about a murderer breaking into someone's home it implies he meant to hurt them.
Although he very well could have carried disease and viruses to kill these people, that is definitely no this intent. So  Ijust don't see the comparison between rapist or murderer.

I can't think of a single good intent a slave trader could have towards the slaves. Not ones that didn't involve freeing them.
And I think intent does matter. If a man sees a homeless guy and helps him build a fire to get through a freezing night, and that fire goes out of control and burns down a house with a family in it, would you treat him the same as an arson who intentionally burns down a house with a family inside?
The first guy definitely made a mistake, but I wouldn't compare him to the second. 
This guy made a mistake (and was very stupid) and paid a big price for it. And its a sad story. He doesn't deserve it though, not like someone going to the island to intentionally kill off these people.

his intent is irrelevant to the act of the tribespeople killing him. they don't know his intent. they don't care. if they care they may die. 

I think where this spiralled out of control is where she said the vague comment"nobody does". people got confused by that (and I still don't know who the "nobody" is in this context). and she doubled down on it. and here we are. 

I agree.
But I think it matters in terms of if he deserved it or not, and if he should be compared to a murderer/rapist or not. I saw several say he deserved it. I just can't understand why anyone would say he deserves this. Say its his own fault, he was stupid or careless. But he didn't deserve to get killed.

agree 100%

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

If this guy didn't deserve to die then NOBODY does.

So someone trying to spread his religion deserves to die more than the dozens of people on death row for multiple intentional homicides? 

Nope, lol. SMH. I find it ridiculous that everyone's mind went to the DP when I said that. Silliness.

Also, did everyone suddenly lose their full grasp of the English language, when they thought my sentence means that this guy deserves death more than anyone else on earth? Wtf?

Well, you compared him to a rapist-burglar who gets shot in the head. I don't think its that big of a leap when you compare an unarmed missionary trying to share the Bible religion to a rapist. I'm not going to scroll up, but I'm pretty sure you said "no one deserves to die as much as him" or something very close to that.
SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

I've said I think the missionary was wrong and the tribe should be left alone.
But I consider a rapist one of the lowest people on earth. This guy was much better than that. He made a bad decision, but that decision had good intentions whether you agree with him or not.
I think saying he deserved this and comparing him to anyone bad, especially a rapist, is not accurate and overreaching. 

Okay then, murderer, just to avoid the subjective ideas about the seriousness of rape and the comparisons of it to the concepts driving colonization I suppose? So a MURDERER breaking into a family's home is comparable. Is that better for you? I'm not AT ALL talking about what this guy was like as a person. I'm talking only of the threat he posed to the tribe, in their minds. And I do still think that rapist is as good a comparison in that context as anything. 

I'm sure some slave traders had good intentions too btw. That doesn't seem like something that would have been very relevant to the slaves though, does it?

I don't like it because of the intent.
You talk about a murderer breaking into someone's home it implies he meant to hurt them.
Although he very well could have carried disease and viruses to kill these people, that is definitely no this intent. So  Ijust don't see the comparison between rapist or murderer.

I can't think of a single good intent a slave trader could have towards the slaves. Not ones that didn't involve freeing them.
And I think intent does matter. If a man sees a homeless guy and helps him build a fire to get through a freezing night, and that fire goes out of control and burns down a house with a family in it, would you treat him the same as an arson who intentionally burns down a house with a family inside?
The first guy definitely made a mistake, but I wouldn't compare him to the second. 
This guy made a mistake (and was very stupid) and paid a big price for it. And its a sad story. He doesn't deserve it though, not like someone going to the island to intentionally kill off these people.

his intent is irrelevant to the act of the tribespeople killing him. they don't know his intent. they don't care. if they care they may die. 

I think where this spiralled out of control is where she said the vague comment"nobody does". people got confused by that (and I still don't know who the "nobody" is in this context). and she doubled down on it. and here we are. 

I agree.
But I think it matters in terms of if he deserved it or not, and if he should be compared to a murderer/rapist or not. I saw several say he deserved it. I just can't understand why anyone would say he deserves this. Say its his own fault, he was stupid or careless. But he didn't deserve to get killed.

I guess you're interpreting the word different than I am then... You're using some kind of emotional interpretation of it. I'm using the word more objectively. He literally deserved it. He did something illegal that is known to be likely to get him killed, and, most importantly, that threatened the lives of a bunch of other people who are well known to defend themselves in that manner, which is half the reason approaching them is illegal in the first place. Therefore, he deserved the consequences of his actions. Kind of like someone who knowingly walks into a cage occupied by a starving wild tiger deserves to get mauled and eaten by the tiger. Actions = consequence.

no, deserve literally means "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)." to me, someone doing something ignorant doesn't "deserve" to die. and no, that's not "emotional". that's using the definition literally and objectively. 

Again we're on different wavelengths with this. Yes, that is exactly what definition of deserve that I feel I'm using. He absolutely did something worthy of his death. He did deserve that death. Actions = consequences. That means worthy of his "punishment" of death for doing something (illegal and that he was warned not to do repeatedly) that would most likely lead to his death or the death of many others. And see, I actually don't think what he did was out of ignorance. It was out of arrogance. He knew exactly what he was doing, and knew exactly what effect he wanted to have on the those people. Just because he didn't think he was a stupid arrogant jackass for doing what he tried to do, it doesn't mean he wasn't. IMO. The only "ignorance" that would make me feel how you're saying is if he had no clue it was illegal, no clue it was dangerous, and no one had ever warned him of anything. If that were the case I definitely wouldn't be saying he deserved it. I would think it's tragic.

HughFreakingDillon

speaking as someone who despises those who try to convert others, I don't consider trying to spread the word of who he thinks saved his soul is worthy of death, but that's just me. that sounds like middle east type shit. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

speaking as someone who despises those who try to convert others, I don't consider trying to spread the word of who he thinks saved his soul is worthy of death, but that's just me. that sounds like middle east type shit. 

You're hinting that I've got a jihadist's mentality? It's like you're avoiding the nuance of what I'm saying on purpose or something, lol.

Obviously there is a huge difference between, "He deserved to die for purposefully doing something that predictably caused his death" and "He is worthy of death for his beliefs." I know you know that.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

speaking as someone who despises those who try to convert others, I don't consider trying to spread the word of who he thinks saved his soul is worthy of death, but that's just me. that sounds like middle east type shit. 

You're hinting that I've got a jihadist's mentality? It's like you're avoiding the nuance of what I'm saying on purpose or something, lol.

Obviously there is a huge difference between, "He deserved to die for purposefully doing something that predictably caused his death" and "He is worthy of death for his beliefs." I know you know that.

that's also not what I said/inferred. 

I know you know that. 

I'm saying I don't agree that what he was doing had a natural consequence of death. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

speaking as someone who despises those who try to convert others, I don't consider trying to spread the word of who he thinks saved his soul is worthy of death, but that's just me. that sounds like middle east type shit. 

You're hinting that I've got a jihadist's mentality? It's like you're avoiding the nuance of what I'm saying on purpose or something, lol.

Obviously there is a huge difference between, "He deserved to die for purposefully doing something that predictably caused his death" and "He is worthy of death for his beliefs." I know you know that.

that's also not what I said/inferred. 

I know you know that. 

I'm saying I don't agree that what he was doing had a natural consequence of death. 

I really don't know that. I really did think you were hinting that my attitude about this reflects a jihadist mentality. And I still feel like that's what you meant by "middle east type shit"... or just using the word "worthy" in that loaded context. But whatever... moving on!

HughFreakingDillon

worthy is a synonym for deserve. 

that is an insane leap to make. but ok. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

worthy is a synonym for deserve. 

that is an insane leap to make. but ok. 

I just told you that I took it as a loaded word. You know, context? That word along with the middle east reference... yeah, there is context there IMO, if I didn't see it I wouldn't have commented. I mean, if that's not what you meant, then you meant what? Nothing at all?

Dude... discussing something with dictionary definitions and ignoring context doesn't generally lend itself to any kind of decent discussion, don't you think?

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

worthy is a synonym for deserve. 

that is an insane leap to make. but ok. 

I just told you that I took it as a loaded word. You know, context? That word along with the middle east reference... yeah, there is context there IMO, if I didn't see it I wouldn't have commented. I mean, if that's not what you meant, then you meant what? Nothing at all?

Dude... discussing something with dictionary definitions and ignoring context doesn't generally lend itself to any kind of decent discussion, don't you think?

yeah, and I just told you, you took it wrong.

I'm not ignoring context. I didn't mean it that way. it wasn't "loaded" in my mind when I typed it. But I guess I'm wrong about my own intentions. 

didn't you recently bitch about this place being too sensitive lately?

you don't like dictionary definitions when there was, at your insistence, different interpretations of the word being used and claimed you were using the word more "objectively" than anyone else?

alrighty.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

worthy is a synonym for deserve. 

that is an insane leap to make. but ok. 

I just told you that I took it as a loaded word. You know, context? That word along with the middle east reference... yeah, there is context there IMO, if I didn't see it I wouldn't have commented. I mean, if that's not what you meant, then you meant what? Nothing at all?

Dude... discussing something with dictionary definitions and ignoring context doesn't generally lend itself to any kind of decent discussion, don't you think?

yeah, and I just told you, you took it wrong.

I'm not ignoring context. I didn't mean it that way. it wasn't "loaded" in my mind when I typed it. But I guess I'm wrong about my own intentions. 

didn't you recently bitch about this place being too sensitive lately?

you don't like dictionary definitions when there was, at your insistence, different interpretations of the word being used and claimed you were using the word more "objectively" than anyone else?

alrighty.

What? I'm not being sensitive. I'm not mad or anything like that, or taking anything personally. I'm just telling you how your comment came off, for good reason.

Please do explain, then, what you meant by "middle east type shit".

njnancy

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 saidP

SO with that being said, comparing him to a rapist, yeah, I can see why several on here are thinking that.

Well I made that comment before I mentioned a rapist, but I do stand by the comparison in any case, and am surprised that so few think it's apt. It tells me that most aren't really thinking about the perspective of the tribes people at all.

I've said I think the missionary was wrong and the tribe should be left alone.
But I consider a rapist one of the lowest people on earth. This guy was much better than that. He made a bad decision, but that decision had good intentions whether you agree with him or not.
I think saying he deserved this and comparing him to anyone bad, especially a rapist, is not accurate and overreaching. 

Okay then, murderer, just to avoid the subjective ideas about the seriousness of rape and the comparisons of it to the concepts driving colonization I suppose? So a MURDERER breaking into a family's home is comparable. Is that better for you? I'm not AT ALL talking about what this guy was like as a person. I'm talking only of the threat he posed to the tribe, in their minds. And I do still think that rapist is as good a comparison in that context as anything. 

I'm sure some slave traders had good intentions too btw. That doesn't seem like something that would have been very relevant to the slaves though, does it?

I don't like it because of the intent.
You talk about a murderer breaking into someone's home it implies he meant to hurt them.
Although he very well could have carried disease and viruses to kill these people, that is definitely no this intent. So  Ijust don't see the comparison between rapist or murderer.

I can't think of a single good intent a slave trader could have towards the slaves. Not ones that didn't involve freeing them.
And I think intent does matter. If a man sees a homeless guy and helps him build a fire to get through a freezing night, and that fire goes out of control and burns down a house with a family in it, would you treat him the same as an arson who intentionally burns down a house with a family inside?
The first guy definitely made a mistake, but I wouldn't compare him to the second. 
This guy made a mistake (and was very stupid) and paid a big price for it. And its a sad story. He doesn't deserve it though, not like someone going to the island to intentionally kill off these people.

his intent is irrelevant to the act of the tribespeople killing him. they don't know his intent. they don't care. if they care they may die. 

I think where this spiralled out of control is where she said the vague comment"nobody does". people got confused by that (and I still don't know who the "nobody" is in this context). and she doubled down on it. and here we are. 

I agree.
But I think it matters in terms of if he deserved it or not, and if he should be compared to a murderer/rapist or not. I saw several say he deserved it. I just can't understand why anyone would say he deserves this. Say its his own fault, he was stupid or careless. But he didn't deserve to get killed.

I guess you're interpreting the word different than I am then... You're using some kind of emotional interpretation of it. I'm using the word more objectively. He literally deserved it. He did something illegal that is known to be likely to get him killed, and, most importantly, that threatened the lives of a bunch of other people who are well known to defend themselves in that manner, which is half the reason approaching them is illegal in the first place. Therefore, he deserved the consequences of his actions. Kind of like someone who knowingly walks into a cage occupied by a starving wild tiger deserves to get mauled and eaten by the tiger. Actions = consequence.

no, deserve literally means "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)." to me, someone doing something ignorant doesn't "deserve" to die. and no, that's not "emotional". that's using the definition literally and objectively. 

Again we're on different wavelengths with this. Yes, that is exactly what definition of deserve that I feel I'm using. He absolutely did something worthy of his death. He did deserve that death. Actions = consequences. That means worthy of his "punishment" of death for doing something (illegal and that he was warned not to do repeatedly) that would most likely lead to his death or the death of many others. And see, I actually don't think what he did was out of ignorance. It was out of arrogance. He knew exactly what he was doing, and knew exactly what effect he wanted to have on the those people. Just because he didn't think he was a stupid arrogant jackass for doing what he tried to do, it doesn't mean he wasn't. IMO. The only "ignorance" that would make me feel how you're saying is if he had no clue it was illegal, no clue it was dangerous, and no one had ever warned him of anything. If that were the case I definitely wouldn't be saying he deserved it. I would think it's tragic.

The missionary dude had said that going to this island was on his bucket list. He evidently knew all about the facts that the tribe was off-limits and isolated. It is against the law to go onto that island. 

People may say that what he did was ignorant or out of an abundance of love for the tribe, etc. I do not agree

He did not care about the tribe. If he truly were a person that believed in the word of God, he would have respected the tribe's protected status which he knew all about having been there on prior occasions and hiring people to ferry him there in the middle of the night illegally. This is not Christian and it is not treating your neighbor as you would want to be treated. 

He went there because he WANTED to. It was something that HE wanted to do for HIS bucket list. He cared more about what he wanted to do than the tribe. That is not a Christian way of thinking. That is selfish and fanatical. 

He even said or wrote before he left the boat that he probably would die. He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet he could not show any measure of constraint which a true person of faith would show. Religion is all about following rules and doing some things and not doing other things in order to get to heaven. Very simplified but it's the reason and use of religion. His desire to go there and cross it off his bucket list was more important to him than respecting the tribe. 

His death was predictable. If he had jumped into a cage at the zoo, as I said earlier, and tried to convert lions it would be just as futile as trying to convert these people that do not understand anything about him, his language, his purpose. He was a danger to them just as a pack of lions would see a person entering their protected space. And the understanding of his purpose there is equal. 

He chose to risk death to make his dream come true and he said he was at peace with what would happen. He was selfish and he died doing something dangerous. Someone should have intervened prior to his multiple attempts because he was acting in a delusional fanatical way. Yet no one did. So his family and friends thought that what he was doing was fine. It wasn't and he died. He took a huge risk and died as he knew he probably would. 

njnancy

I had to delete some comments because the body of the text was too long, so I apologize to anyone I deleted. 

LongestRoad

HughFreakingDillon said:

LongestRoad said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

oftenreading said:

LongestRoad said:

my2hands said:

This is a perfect example of "shit white people do"... dude paddled up with a bible & cross lol

Lol, you managed to be a bigot and make a racist statement. I’m glad we get to read everyone’s real thoughts on immigration. 

In what way do you think responses to this story reflect posters’ opinions on immigration, given that it is about a completely different issue? 

It’s not different in the least. Someone was attempting to go to a land. They weren’t welcome. The people there believed that the alien may have come to take over their way of life or to harm them or put stress on their people. They made sure it didn’t happen. You all (most) believe they were right in what they did.

Are you high? 

No, sorry I don’t partake. Maybe I should so I can block out the hypocrisy I see from all of us. I have to pass on it though. 

There is no hypocrisy on display here in this thread. Your analogy was poorly constructed.

This idiot wasn’t even looking to immigrate so the scenarios can’t even be compared for one. And if he was... well then the two situations still aren’t comparable. At all.

Oh, they are. Just like saying the Indians should have kept the Europeans out of North America. 

No.

You're being silly now.

For the record (and without a doubt), if the Indians had known what was ahead for them... they should have met the European invasion with as much force as they could muster. Saying this is not suggesting I am apologizing for my existence- I'm not.

Is that why we’re sending troops to the border? For what might be???? 

I am assuming so. You’re worried that a caravan of broken Honduran people fleeing the violence of their home country is the first step in the decimation of the US people.

No?

You all seem to be the ones against immigration. I was just pointing out hypocrisy. 

No you are not pointing out hypocrisy -- you show your own problems with connecting dots and thinking out analogys.

No, I can connect the dots that some people refuse to acknowledge. Read what’s written. 

the caravan is not an invasion. 
most here are not against legal immigration or claiming asylum
the christian was SEEN by the inhabitants of the island as an invasion, and was dealt with accordingly. and whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, his intent is irrelevant to whether he was actually an invader or not. he most likely did not intend to infect them with bacteria we are immune to. but that's what he very likely could have done. 
they didn't know he was christian. they don't fucking know what a christian even is. I would have the same non-feelings towards the guy had he been an ahtiest going there to peddle his Scientific ways. 

An invasion. Armed with a Bible. 

njnancy

LongestRoad said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

LongestRoad said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

LongestRoad said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

LongestRoad said:

oftenreading said:

LongestRoad said:

my2hands said:

This is a perfect example of "shit white people do"... dude paddled up with a bible & cross lol

Lol, you managed to be a bigot and make a racist statement. I’m glad we get to read everyone’s real thoughts on immigration. 

In what way do you think responses to this story reflect posters’ opinions on immigration, given that it is about a completely different issue? 

It’s not different in the least. Someone was attempting to go to a land. They weren’t welcome. The people there believed that the alien may have come to take over their way of life or to harm them or put stress on their people. They made sure it didn’t happen. You all (most) believe they were right in what they did.

Are you high? 

No, sorry I don’t partake. Maybe I should so I can block out the hypocrisy I see from all of us. I have to pass on it though. 

There is no hypocrisy on display here in this thread. Your analogy was poorly constructed.

This idiot wasn’t even looking to immigrate so the scenarios can’t even be compared for one. And if he was... well then the two situations still aren’t comparable. At all.

Oh, they are. Just like saying the Indians should have kept the Europeans out of North America. 

No.

You're being silly now.

For the record (and without a doubt), if the Indians had known what was ahead for them... they should have met the European invasion with as much force as they could muster. Saying this is not suggesting I am apologizing for my existence- I'm not.

Is that why we’re sending troops to the border? For what might be???? 

I am assuming so. You’re worried that a caravan of broken Honduran people fleeing the violence of their home country is the first step in the decimation of the US people.

No?

You all seem to be the ones against immigration. I was just pointing out hypocrisy. 

No you are not pointing out hypocrisy -- you show your own problems with connecting dots and thinking out analogys.

No, I can connect the dots that some people refuse to acknowledge. Read what’s written. 

the caravan is not an invasion. 
most here are not against legal immigration or claiming asylum
the christian was SEEN by the inhabitants of the island as an invasion, and was dealt with accordingly. and whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, his intent is irrelevant to whether he was actually an invader or not. he most likely did not intend to infect them with bacteria we are immune to. but that's what he very likely could have done. 
they didn't know he was christian. they don't fucking know what a christian even is. I would have the same non-feelings towards the guy had he been an ahtiest going there to peddle his Scientific ways. 

An invasion. Armed with a Bible. 

It doesn't matter if he was 'armed' with a violin. It was illegal to be there, he knew it and he didn't care. His needs were more important than those of a protected tribe. WWJD. He would have left them alone.