NationStates

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:20 am**

Minzerland II wrote:I like how people on this thread pretend to know why the Sentinelese killed John Chau as if they were communicating with them, and those reasons somehow justify his murder.

Well done, NSG!
(Image)

It's called educating yourself about the tribe's past encounters, which are pretty easily available, and about the laws surrounding that island BECAUSE of their violent reaction.

You might try it sometime.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:39 am**

Katganistan wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:I like how people on this thread pretend to know why the Sentinelese killed John Chau as if they were communicating with them, and those reasons somehow justify his murder.

Well done, NSG!
(Image)

It's called educating yourself about the tribe's past encounters, which are pretty easily available, and about the laws surrounding that island BECAUSE of their violent reaction.

You might try it sometime.

Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:54 am**

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Risottia wrote:Why protect YOU? There's no point to it. You'll eventually die of old age, disease, incident, fire or violence anyway. What makes you so special that you and your way of life and your home deserve the protection you think the Sentinelese don't deserve?

I don't murder strangers on sight, for one.

The protection hasn't been given because they murder strangers on sight. Also, you haven't murdered people on sight YET. Everything else is just conjecture.

Try again.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:58 am**

Minzerland II wrote:
Katganistan wrote:It's called educating yourself about the tribe's past encounters, which are pretty easily available, and about the laws surrounding that island BECAUSE of their violent reaction.

You might try it sometime.

Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Self-defense. Of course we don't have their input, but again, it's the only one that makes sense. Or would you prefer your savages to be irrational as well?

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:14 am**

Minzerland II wrote:
Katganistan wrote:It's called educating yourself about the tribe's past encounters, which are pretty easily available, and about the laws surrounding that island BECAUSE of their violent reaction.

You might try it sometime.

Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Based on rudimentary hand signals and pictographs I personally understood their philosophy of life and death as enunciated in Kierkegard’s 1843 work of Fear and Trembling, albeit written under the pseudonym, Johannes de silentio. It was really that dichotomy of human logic against blind faith expression of god’s will expressed through the story of Abraham and Isaac. If Abraham is to be seen an admirable figure in spite of his murderous intentions, this is because he confronts with courage the loss of the person whom he loves most dearly. According to Kierkegaard, and by proxy the Sentinelese, Abraham is a hero not by virtue of his obedience to God's command, but because he maintains his relationship to Isaac after giving him up.

Or that’s what I understood, as they explained..

.as Abraham raises his knife over Isaac's body, this symbolises the fact that every human relationship is haunted by the prospect of death. Love always ends in loss, at least within this life. One response to this existential fact – perhaps the most common response – is to avoid the issue of mortality as much as possible. An alternative response is to face up to the inevitable pain of loss and to relinquish the beloved in advance, so to speak, by giving up hope of enjoying a happy relationship within this lifetime.

Clearly this is view that human relationships are important, if not most important in our understanding of our mission according to God’s command.

But strangers.. fuck ‘em.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:23 am**

Minzerland II wrote:
Katganistan wrote:It's called educating yourself about the tribe's past encounters, which are pretty easily available, and about the laws surrounding that island BECAUSE of their violent reaction.

You might try it sometime.

Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Ok.
Since you apparently can't be bothered yourself.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:32 am**

Kaggeceria wrote:
Caracasus wrote:
Okay, what happened to this guy really sucks, there's few things out there that really would make me think 'yeah that person deserves shooting' and as reckless and thoughtless as this person was, he didn't deserve death. In a better universe the fishing boats were intercepted and he's waiting a trial in an Indian jail cell for endangering the population of this island etc.

However, I'm struggling to see exactly what can be done here. We don't know who killed him and the insurmountable barriers of culture and language make an investigation impossible so it's not like a normal investigation can take place.

While there are patrols and such in place around the island, if someone isn't deterred by the many, many warnings and in this instance by thr fact they fired an arrow at him the last time he dropped by, I'm struggling to see how we can reasonably expect the Indian govt. To be able to stop every determined effort.

I'm assuming your comment about bombing was a joke and you aren't detatched from reality to the extent that you'd actually be OK with that so what is the solution here?

Personlly I'm struggling to see one aside from chalking this up as a damn good reason not to go there.

Personally, I'd prefer ending the idiotic idea of tribal sovereignty and then perhaps sending in some troops to quell their violent and animalistic tendencies so that they can't murder anymore fishermen and missionaries. And vaccinate the less violent ones so they don't run the risk of dying from preventable diseases.

But really what should be done right now is to retrieve the body so his family could at least give him a proper burial. The idiots who brought him there saw where it was buried. Just send in a really big boat. Make some loud noise, maybe shoot off some flairs to scare the Sentinelese (who knows, maybe they'll start worshipping the boat as a God or something). Then send in some men for quick retrieval of the corpse.

A cargo ship ran aground off North Sentinel and the Sentinelese scrapped it. They aren't afraid of ships. If anything they might be eager to get more metal.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:34 am**

Bombadil wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Based on rudimentary hand signals and pictographs I personally understood their philosophy as enunciated in Kierkegard’s 1843 work of Fear and Trembling, albeit written under the pseudonym, Johannes de silentio. It was really that dichotomy of human logic against blind faith expression of god’s will expressed through the story of Abraham and Isaac. If Abraham is to be seen an admirable figure in spite of his murderous intentions, this is because he confronts with courage the loss of the person whom he loves most dearly. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham is a hero not by virtue of his obedience to God's command, but because he maintains his relationship to Isaac after giving him up.

Or that’s what I understood, as they explained..

.las Abraham raises his knife over Isaac's body, this symbolises the fact that every human relationship is haunted by the prospect of death. Love always ends in loss, at least within this life. One response to this existential fact – perhaps the most common response – is to avoid the issue of mortality as much as possible. An alternative response is to face up to the inevitable pain of loss and to relinquish the beloved in advance, so to speak, by giving up hope of enjoying a happy relationship within this lifetime.

Clearly the is view that human relationships are important, if not most important in our understanding of our mission according to God’s command.

But strangers.. fuck ‘em.

Excuse me, I am too much of a moron to understand how Kierkegaard relates, tbh, unless what you mean is to say that, basically, relationships between close people are inherently more valuable than a relationship with an utter stranger(?). And this dichotomy is the one you see in the Sentinelese people. Please elaborate.

Of course they don’t like strangers, but why don’t they like strangers? We don’t know, and I think we ought to be careful in ascribing ‘disease’ or ‘self-defense’ to these people because it ‘makes sense’.

Duhon wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Self-defense. Of course we don't have their input, but again, it's the only one that makes sense. Or would you prefer your savages to be irrational as well?

They are irrational, but so are we, I think that is a fundamental part of humans. Whatever, ‘self-defense’ isn’t particularly convincing either, and it’s just another assumption, another reason you’re ascribing to them without any confirmation. How do you know that assumption is correct?

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:37 am**

Katganistan wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Ah, yes, I see. You were able to sit down with the Sentinelese and ask them why they kill visitors to their island? Do enlighten us, why is it that they attack people? Is it to prevent transmission of disease? Well, I am afraid that I find that hard to believe. Is it because six members were kidnapped in 1880? Perhaps, but they were already attacking people before then, as in 1867.

Go on, why don’t you tell me, since you’re so privy and educated in their justification.

Ok.
Since you apparently can't be bothered yourself.

Ah, so you can’t answer my questions then? Those links neither answer my questions nor reveal any new information that cannot be found on Wikipedia.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:45 am**

Minzerland II wrote:They are irrational, but so are we, I think that is a fundamental part of humans. Whatever, ‘self-defense’ isn’t particularly convincing either, and it’s just another assumption, another reason you’re ascribing to them without any confirmation. How do you know that assumption is correct?

I don't know if my assumption is correct, but I don't pretend that the number of reasons for their actions equal infinity, or that all assumptions are equally improbable just because I have no way of knowing for certain.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:45 am**

Minzerland II wrote:
Bombadil wrote:
Based on rudimentary hand signals and pictographs I personally understood their philosophy as enunciated in Kierkegard’s 1843 work of Fear and Trembling, albeit written under the pseudonym, Johannes de silentio. It was really that dichotomy of human logic against blind faith expression of god’s will expressed through the story of Abraham and Isaac. If Abraham is to be seen an admirable figure in spite of his murderous intentions, this is because he confronts with courage the loss of the person whom he loves most dearly. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham is a hero not by virtue of his obedience to God's command, but because he maintains his relationship to Isaac after giving him up.

Or that’s what I understood, as they explained..

.las Abraham raises his knife over Isaac's body, this symbolises the fact that every human relationship is haunted by the prospect of death. Love always ends in loss, at least within this life. One response to this existential fact – perhaps the most common response – is to avoid the issue of mortality as much as possible. An alternative response is to face up to the inevitable pain of loss and to relinquish the beloved in advance, so to speak, by giving up hope of enjoying a happy relationship within this lifetime.

Clearly the is view that human relationships are important, if not most important in our understanding of our mission according to God’s command.

But strangers.. fuck ‘em.

Excuse me, I am too much of a moron to understand how Kierkegaard relates, tbh, unless what you mean is to say that, basically, relationships between close people are inherently more valuable than a relationship with a utter stranger(?). And this dichotomy is the one you see in the Sentinelese people. Please elaborate.

Of course they don’t like strangers, but why don’t they like strangers? We don’t know, and I think we ought to be careful in ascribing ‘disease’ or ‘self-defense’ to these people because it ‘makes sense’.

No.. I’m.. I’m just parodying the idea that they’d have any deeper motivation than ‘dun like strangers’.. I mean it’s an emotion as old as the hills, it’s the same emotion I have when I see an alien cockroach in my house.. kill it.. kill it with fire! (or arrows, real hard to hit those sneaky cockroaches with arrows..)

They don’t like strangers, time and again they’ve attacked strangers.. so, you know, don’t expect any different in going more than once.

Did people here state they thought the Sentinelese were specifically against disease, no they just noted this guy was endangering them. I think anyone can know they’re aggressive against strangers and he should have known too.

Of course his motivation was sharing the love of Jesus, an even poorer motivation than ‘oi, get orff moi laaaand’.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:07 am**

Bombadil wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Excuse me, I am too much of a moron to understand how Kierkegaard relates, tbh, unless what you mean is to say that, basically, relationships between close people are inherently more valuable than a relationship with a utter stranger(?). And this dichotomy is the one you see in the Sentinelese people. Please elaborate.

Of course they don’t like strangers, but why don’t they like strangers? We don’t know, and I think we ought to be careful in ascribing ‘disease’ or ‘self-defense’ to these people because it ‘makes sense’.

No.. I’m.. I’m just parodying the idea that they’d have any deeper motivation than ‘dun like strangers’.. I mean it’s an emotion as old as the hills, it’s the same emotion I have when I see an alien cockroach in my house.. kill it.. kill it with fire! (or arrows, real hard to hit those sneaky cockroaches with arrows..)

They don’t like strangers, time and again they’ve attacked strangers.. so, you know, don’t expect any different in going more than once.

Did people here state they thought the Sentinelese were specifically against disease, no they just noted this guy was endangering them. I think anyone can know they’re aggressive against strangers and he should have known too.

Of course his motivation was sharing the love of Jesus, an even poorer motivation than ‘oi, get orff moi laaaand’.

Duhon wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:They are irrational, but so are we, I think that is a fundamental part of humans. Whatever, ‘self-defense’ isn’t particularly convincing either, and it’s just another assumption, another reason you’re ascribing to them without any confirmation. How do you know that assumption is correct?

I don't know if my assumption is correct, but I don't pretend that the number of reasons for their actions equal infinity, or that all assumptions are equally improbable just because I have no way of knowing for certain.

It is just guesswork, conjecture, speculation, nonsensical grasping at straws. I can speculate all day on their motivation, but it would all be worthless because it isn’t true. Why even participate in such a thing?

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:18 am**

To abdicate the obligation to form a reasonable conclusion based on incomplete circumstantial evidence is at best laziness and at worst an invitation to malice.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:21 am**

I think we can all agree on thing. This guy was fucking stupid as hell. And he does carry some of the blame for this incident.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:26 am**

Andsed wrote:I think we can all agree on thing. This guy was fucking stupid as hell.

You'd think so wouldn't you, but even that point is up for debate it seems.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:28 am**

The New California Republic wrote:
Andsed wrote:I think we can all agree on thing. This guy was fucking stupid as hell.

You'd think so wouldn't you, but even that point is up for debate it seems.

If his death was justified is what is up for debate. But this guy well how is breaking the law to visit an isolated violent tribe despite the last four of five time you attempted this you were attacked not stupid?

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:28 am**

The more this thread runs (the more posts I read), the less sympathetic towards the isolated tribe I feel. At this rate, I’m going to be advocating that they be forcefully integrated into India and those responsible for the murder arrested and put on trial...

Getting really tired of posters defending what’s essentially a bunch of savages murdering a preacher with arrows (and going in very strange circles to make it “self defense”)... the amount of mental gymnastics and victim blaming here is truly truly outrageous...

They know literally Spit about disease (they are a bunch of primitives). They saw a person walking in who looks different so they shot him dead. Why are we defending this murder again? “self defense” is so distorted...

Anyhow, that’s how I feel

I’m totally okay if India or the USA decides to use military action to solve this problem

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:28 am**

Duhon wrote:To abdicate the obligation to form a reasonable conclusion based on incomplete circumstantial evidence is at best laziness and at worst an invitation to malice.

It’s not a case of ‘incomplete circumstantial evidence’, it’s a case of little to no evidence at all. I am sorry, but any reason ascribed to these people will likely be erroneous. I could very likely say that these people, their culture, simply deal in murdering strangers as some sort of ritual. I could be wrong, but who’ll prove me wrong?

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:30 am**

Andsed wrote:I think we can all agree on thing. This guy was fucking stupid as hell.

Apparently not, unless I'm reading too much into certain posts.

In any case, for the evangelistically inclined: if you wanna preach the word of your preferred deity, go ahead, I'm not gonna and I can't stop you -- but if you're spreading whatever it is you wanna spread without giving two shits about the people you're preaching to (as this poor man did), you're not really there to proselytize, you're there to scratch an itch.

Notching a check mark on your spiritual bucket list, as it were, before kicking the bucket.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:31 am**

Minzerland II wrote:
Duhon wrote:To abdicate the obligation to form a reasonable conclusion based on incomplete circumstantial evidence is at best laziness and at worst an invitation to malice.

It’s not a case of ‘incomplete circumstantial evidence’, it’s a case of little to no evidence at all. I am sorry, but any reason ascribed to these people will likely be erroneous. I could very likely say that these people, their culture, simply deal in murdering strangers as some sort of ritual. I could be wrong, but who’ll prove me wrong?

The peaceful interactions they've had with strangers.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:31 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:The more this thread runs (the more posts I read), the less sympathetic towards the isolated tribe I feel. At this rate, I’m going to be advocating that they be forcefully integrated into India and those responsible for the murder arrested and put on trial...

Getting really tired of posters defending what’s essentially a bunch of savages murdering a preacher with arrows (and going in very strange circles to make it “self defense”)... the amount of mental gymnastics and victim blaming here is truly truly outrageous...

Anyhow, that’s how I feel

You do realize why that is almost impossible at this time. First off investigating this is impossible as the tribe speaks a different language that we are not even close to translating. Second bringing them into society puts them at great risk and will lead to innocents death. And yes this guy carry some of the blame for this. He had gone four or five times before and was chased off he should of known not to go back yet he did and has gotten multiple fishermen in trouble as well.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:36 am**

Andsed wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:The more this thread runs (the more posts I read), the less sympathetic towards the isolated tribe I feel. At this rate, I’m going to be advocating that they be forcefully integrated into India and those responsible for the murder arrested and put on trial...

Getting really tired of posters defending what’s essentially a bunch of savages murdering a preacher with arrows (and going in very strange circles to make it “self defense”)... the amount of mental gymnastics and victim blaming here is truly truly outrageous...

Anyhow, that’s how I feel

You do realize why that is almost impossible at this time. First off investigating this is impossible as the tribe speaks a different language that we are not even close to translating. Second bringing them into society puts them at great risk and will lead to innocents death. And yes this guy carry some of the blame for this. He had gone four or five times before and was chased off he should of known not to go back yet he did and has gotten multiple fishermen in trouble as well.

But the fact remains that he was murdered

If you simply say “well it’s unfortunate and there is a murder involved but I can’t see how it’s in India or the USA’s political and economic self interest to prosecute this properly due to bad PR...”

Then fine. I begrudgingly accept the real politik.

But I just hate it when people go: “he died and he should have died. It’s not murder because (insert some extremely mental gymnastic heavy explanation involving common law) and in the same breath say “well common law doesn’t apply to them.””

It’s annoying and jarring

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:37 am**

Ifreann wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:It’s not a case of ‘incomplete circumstantial evidence’, it’s a case of little to no evidence at all. I am sorry, but any reason ascribed to these people will likely be erroneous. I could very likely say that these people, their culture, simply deal in murdering strangers as some sort of ritual. I could be wrong, but who’ll prove me wrong?

The peaceful interactions they've had with strangers.

If anything, that only goes to prove my point. What I ascribed to them was likely wrong. Why didn’t they kill T. Pandit on his friendly visits in ‘self-defense’ like they did with others?

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:40 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:At this rate, I’m going to be advocating that they be forcefully integrated into India and those responsible for the murder arrested and put on trial...

They would die. Their immune systems wouldn't handle even the common cold. And I doubt they understand murder as a concept. Ignorance of the law usually isn't an excuse, but in this case it is, since it is impossible for these people to learn the law because of their way of life.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Getting really tired of posters defending what’s essentially a bunch of savages murdering a preacher with arrows (and going in very strange circles to make it “self defense”)... the amount of mental gymnastics and victim blaming here is truly truly outrageous...

The guy had arrows fired at him on a previous visit for fuck's sake, hardly mental gymnastics. He knew fine well what he was doing. If someone gets killed by doing something incredibly stupid and therefore a victim of their own stupidity, then the victim blaming is entirely justified.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:41 am**

To blame the missionary for his own murder is to treat the tribe like savage animals where we do not extend them the moral franchise we extend to otrher human beings. People seem to blame him in the same way they'd blame a man who tried to pet a tiger for being mauled.

So either we treat the tribesmen as normal human moral actors and blame them for murder, or we blame the missionary for his own death and treat them as wild beasts; like an Alaskan forest full of bears the island is to be avoided and quarantined because of all the savage mankilling creatures about.

NationStates

Missionary killed after trying to convert isolated tribe