05-06-2015, 04:47 AM
University of Hawaii Law Professor Williamson Chang:
First, when we say: “Mauna Kea” is sacred, We do not mean use “sacred” the way most people use that term. We mean “sacred” not just in the sense of “to worship.” We use “sacred” in the sense of “precious” and things, and lives, things and persons “so important that nothing else counts”—we apply it to those things and people that we care so much about that we would do anything, even flout and break the law, to preserve their existence.
I am left not knowing what sacred means, not only to most people, but to Sir Chang himself. "so important that nothing else counts" suggests to me almost a thought disorder. "nothing else counts" suggests to me means there can be no further discussion, that the sacredness of Mauna Kea is an "a priori", an ideation that is _given_ and incontrovertible, on the order of the bible to fundamentalists Christians, or the Euclid's 5th postulate--no, not the 5th, maybe the first 4 though. If Chang actually believes this, I wonder why anyone should take the time or effort to respond, as Dakine expects us all to do. Are we not to bow down now without rationality and worship Mauna Kea because Chang declares it sacred? What is left to talk about?
The child of a parent, especially a young child is “sacred” in this sense. So are parents to their children. So are grandparents. Even the family pet is “sacred.” If your house was burning down would you risk your life to go into the burning house to rescue your children, your mother, your grandparents, even your beloved dog or cat.
Perhaps if I turned off my frontal cerebral cortex, I would. If I discern that I would die along with my children, mother, grandparents, and/or dog or cat, then I wouldn't. That nasty money-worshiping western frontal lobe of mine can not help wondering how Chang's "arguments" above justify blocking the construction of the TMT. Ah yes, I just don't get it. Sorry.
If a pet is sacred like Mauna Kea, I guess there _really_ should be no further discussion.
Would you go even if forbidden by first responders, firemen or policemen? Yes, many of us would go without hesitation—without thinking of the consequences.
So the protestors have a certain pride that they have acted without thinking of the consequences...?
Would you give a kidney to save or extend the life of your child, your brother, your uncle?
In some cases yes, some cases no. It certainly depends on many factors.
Would you spend all of your money to save a loved one from cancer?
No. It would fail.
From Lou Gehrig’s disease?
No. It would fail.
Or spare a loved one from a life in prison without parole?
No. Especially, no, if they committed the crime. And in Hawaii they would have to kill someone twice to get life without parole.
Yes, we all would.
Wowser. Is he trying to speak for all of humanity, or to suggest that if anyone disagrees they are less than human, or at least beneath dignity, or for sure, that anyone who would say no to dying for their pet must not be a sacred person...?
Dakine, if you expect anyone to slog through over 30,000 words as the price of entry to be worthy of discussing the issue, you are not being very realistic. Speaking for myself, the weakness of what you posted above from Chang assures that I would not spend my time that way.
But that's just because I don't get it...(:
Cheers,
Kirt
30,00 to 30,000
First, when we say: “Mauna Kea” is sacred, We do not mean use “sacred” the way most people use that term. We mean “sacred” not just in the sense of “to worship.” We use “sacred” in the sense of “precious” and things, and lives, things and persons “so important that nothing else counts”—we apply it to those things and people that we care so much about that we would do anything, even flout and break the law, to preserve their existence.
I am left not knowing what sacred means, not only to most people, but to Sir Chang himself. "so important that nothing else counts" suggests to me almost a thought disorder. "nothing else counts" suggests to me means there can be no further discussion, that the sacredness of Mauna Kea is an "a priori", an ideation that is _given_ and incontrovertible, on the order of the bible to fundamentalists Christians, or the Euclid's 5th postulate--no, not the 5th, maybe the first 4 though. If Chang actually believes this, I wonder why anyone should take the time or effort to respond, as Dakine expects us all to do. Are we not to bow down now without rationality and worship Mauna Kea because Chang declares it sacred? What is left to talk about?
The child of a parent, especially a young child is “sacred” in this sense. So are parents to their children. So are grandparents. Even the family pet is “sacred.” If your house was burning down would you risk your life to go into the burning house to rescue your children, your mother, your grandparents, even your beloved dog or cat.
Perhaps if I turned off my frontal cerebral cortex, I would. If I discern that I would die along with my children, mother, grandparents, and/or dog or cat, then I wouldn't. That nasty money-worshiping western frontal lobe of mine can not help wondering how Chang's "arguments" above justify blocking the construction of the TMT. Ah yes, I just don't get it. Sorry.
If a pet is sacred like Mauna Kea, I guess there _really_ should be no further discussion.
Would you go even if forbidden by first responders, firemen or policemen? Yes, many of us would go without hesitation—without thinking of the consequences.
So the protestors have a certain pride that they have acted without thinking of the consequences...?
Would you give a kidney to save or extend the life of your child, your brother, your uncle?
In some cases yes, some cases no. It certainly depends on many factors.
Would you spend all of your money to save a loved one from cancer?
No. It would fail.
From Lou Gehrig’s disease?
No. It would fail.
Or spare a loved one from a life in prison without parole?
No. Especially, no, if they committed the crime. And in Hawaii they would have to kill someone twice to get life without parole.
Yes, we all would.
Wowser. Is he trying to speak for all of humanity, or to suggest that if anyone disagrees they are less than human, or at least beneath dignity, or for sure, that anyone who would say no to dying for their pet must not be a sacred person...?
Dakine, if you expect anyone to slog through over 30,000 words as the price of entry to be worthy of discussing the issue, you are not being very realistic. Speaking for myself, the weakness of what you posted above from Chang assures that I would not spend my time that way.
But that's just because I don't get it...(:
Cheers,
Kirt
30,00 to 30,000
]
