05-08-2015, 11:53 PM
I would suggest that it's not JUST about the TMT and within the protest movement there are a wide range of motivations. While this mixed message isn't easy to condense, it also gathers support from a range of views as evidenced by the reasons given with the 58000+ signatures on the Stop TMT petition.
Some express concern over environmental preservation, or reducing development, or government over-expansion, etc. Others see the issue as one of cultural & religious freedom, or native rights, or a platform for sovereignty, etc.
Each of these topics are complex and most views are a mix of many of them, some expressed clearly and others not so much. The willingness demonstrated here to pick one person's statements, especially the more fringe or extreme, as a summary of what the whole group believes is both simplistic and absurd.
If you're going to cherry-pick your evidence, why not tackle the arguments of real substance? What about the criticism of UH's stewardship of Mauna Kea, or the legal requirements of ceded lands? How does constitutional freedom of religion factor in on both sides? Are there moral obligations arising from privileges gained by a history of cultural oppression? When does a lack of representation severely limit self-determination, and what might be a solution?
There is plenty of wheat amongst the chaff if you bother to both look for and recognize it.
Some express concern over environmental preservation, or reducing development, or government over-expansion, etc. Others see the issue as one of cultural & religious freedom, or native rights, or a platform for sovereignty, etc.
Each of these topics are complex and most views are a mix of many of them, some expressed clearly and others not so much. The willingness demonstrated here to pick one person's statements, especially the more fringe or extreme, as a summary of what the whole group believes is both simplistic and absurd.
If you're going to cherry-pick your evidence, why not tackle the arguments of real substance? What about the criticism of UH's stewardship of Mauna Kea, or the legal requirements of ceded lands? How does constitutional freedom of religion factor in on both sides? Are there moral obligations arising from privileges gained by a history of cultural oppression? When does a lack of representation severely limit self-determination, and what might be a solution?
There is plenty of wheat amongst the chaff if you bother to both look for and recognize it.