Worst of Social Justice

[I am lizard]

I have to agree with Art here. The example I would use is this. A skeleton called Kennewick Man was discovered in Washington, and a local tribe wanted to have the remains buried in accordance with their traditions. That would have been the wrong decision, as the scientific value of the remains is far greater. Culture does not trump the advancement of knowledge, and I have always believed, in the most literal snese, that nothing is sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

So you want to have your value of the advancement of knowledge (even if said knowledge provides no real benefit) should be held above the value of respecting the dead held by that tribe.

[lord gibbon]

Yes.

[Art Vandelay]

I have to agree with Art here. The example I would use is this. A skeleton called Kennewick Man was discovered in Washington, and a local tribe wanted to have the remains buried in accordance with their traditions. That would have been the wrong decision, as the scientific value of the remains is far greater. Culture does not trump the advancement of knowledge, and I have always believed, in the most literal snese, that nothing is sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

So you want to have your value of the advancement of knowledge (even if said knowledge provides no real benefit) should be held above the value of respecting the dead held by that tribe.

"No real benefit", huh? So I take it you actually have the necessary background knowledge in archaeology, anthropology and other relevant fields to make such a bold claim, and are not at all just some layman who has no idea what he's talking about, yes?

Even if you're correct, though, I would argue any knowledge, much less knowledge that furthers our understanding of ancient history to be far more valuable than humouring someone's psuedo-spiritual beliefs.

[I am lizard]

I have to agree with Art here. The example I would use is this. A skeleton called Kennewick Man was discovered in Washington, and a local tribe wanted to have the remains buried in accordance with their traditions. That would have been the wrong decision, as the scientific value of the remains is far greater. Culture does not trump the advancement of knowledge, and I have always believed, in the most literal snese, that nothing is sacred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

So you want to have your value of the advancement of knowledge (even if said knowledge provides no real benefit) should be held above the value of respecting the dead held by that tribe.

"No real benefit", huh? So I take it you actually have the necessary background knowledge in archaeology, anthropology and other relevant fields to make such a bold claim, and are not at all just some layman who has no idea what he's talking about, yes?

The emperor has no clothes huh? I take it you have the knowledge of fabric, sewing, and fashion to make such a bold claim.

If you can provide me with evidence studying the skeleton will provide practical benefit to people I will concede keeping the skeleton was the right thing.

Even if you're correct, though, I would argue any knowledge, much less knowledge that furthers our understanding of ancient history to be far more valuable than humouring someone's psuedo-spiritual beliefs.

Why? Explain why your arbitrary beliefs and values are different than theirs.


http://www.ohio.edu/people/thompsoc/Body.html

[Art Vandelay]

The emperor has no clothes huh? I take it you have the knowledge of fabric, sewing, and fashion to make such a bold claim.

If you can provide me with evidence studying the skeleton will provide practical benefit to people I will concede keeping the skeleton was the right thing.

From the Wiki article.

The discovery of the Kennewick Man, along with other ancient skeletons, has furthered scientific debate over the exact origin and history of early Native American people.[15] One hypothesis holds that a single source of migration occurred, consisting of hunters and gatherers following large herds of game who wandered across the Bering land bridge. An alternative hypothesis is that more than one source population was involved in migration immediately following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) that occurred ~22k to ~18k years BP, and that the land migration through Beringia was preceded by, or roughly synchronous with, a waterborne migration from coastal Asia.[34] The similarity of some ancient skeletal remains in the Americas, such as Kennewick Man, to coastal Asian phenotypes is suggestive of more than one migration source.[2][15][24][35] Classification of DNA from ancient skeletons such as Kennewick Man and others of similar phenotype may or may not reveal genetic affiliation between them, with either Beringian[36][37] or coastal Asian[38][39] source populations.

Regardless of the debate over there being one or more than one source of migration following the LGM, the Kennewick Man has yielded insight into the marine lifestyle and mobility of early coastal migrants.[29]

Quite useful, scientifically speaking.

Why? Explain why your arbitrary beliefs and values are different than theirs.

So basically, you want to compare the tangible benefits of science vs clinging to the remnants of a dead culture? Is this really something that needs to be explained in depth to you?

[I am lizard]

So basically, you want to compare the tangible benefits of science vs clinging to the remnants of a dead culture? Is this really something that needs to be explained in depth to you?

I'm not talking about science with tangible benifits, I'm talking about discovery for discoveries sake.

Quite useful, scientifically speaking.

So no real practical value?

[RavynousHunter]

Just because something has no immediately tangible value doesn't mean its useless.  Look at most of quantum physics.

[I am lizard]

Just because something has no immediately tangible value doesn't mean its useless.  Look at most of quantum physics.

Yes, but calculating gluon wave function doesn't infringe on the rights of a group that's been shat on for the past 500 years.

[I am lizard]

*posts something to unsubtly change subject*

Why are queer people significantly less problematic and dramatic than gay people??? What is it about monosexuality that drives people off their fucking rockers?

[Even Then]

Ah, monosexuality. That age-old alliance between gay people and straight people.

Seriously though, although lateral aggressions are a thing and gay people are still capable of biphobia, "monosexuality" can die in the same fire as "straight-acting".

[Art Vandelay]

So no real practical value?

So by "practical value", you mean immediately useful in your day to day life? In that case, would you support tearing down all publicly funded museums? After all, it's of no practical value to anyone, those tax dollars could be better spent on other things, yes?

Or to use your logic, what is the practical value of as a society going out of our way to validate a miniscule group's psuedo-religious beliefs?

[I am lizard]

So no real practical value?

So by "practical value", you mean immediately useful in your day to day life? In that case, would you support tearing down all publicly funded museums? After all, it's of no practical value to anyone, those tax dollars could be better spent on other things, yes?

Or to use your logic, what is the practical value of as a society going out of our way to validate a miniscule group's psuedo-religious beliefs?

My argument isn't that we shouldn't bother with things that don't have practical value, my argument is we shouldn't do so if it infringes on a groups rights.

Edit: natives have been shit on for the past 500+ years, could we at least give them this?

[Art Vandelay]

My argument isn't that we shouldn't bother with things that don't have practical value, my argument is we shouldn't do so if it infringes on a groups rights.

Rights? What, the right to have their beliefs validated by everyone else? I'm pretty sure that's not a right anybody has or should ever have.

Edit: natives have been shit on for the past 500+ years, could we at least give them this?

In short, no. Giving up something as rare and scientifically valuable as a near complete prehistoric human fossil just to validate someone's psuedo-spiritual beliefs is pants on head stupid. While it's unfortunate that they've been treated so poorly in the past, that doesn't give them any more right to have whatever woo they believe validated by the rest of society as anyone else.

[pyro]

Rights? What, the right to have their beliefs validated by everyone else? I'm pretty sure that's not a right anybody has or should ever have.

Property rights.

It's not a question of agreeing with them. It's a question of taking something (a corpse, in this case) that belongs to them. Without a very compelling reason, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it.

[Art Vandelay]

Rights? What, the right to have their beliefs validated by everyone else? I'm pretty sure that's not a right anybody has or should ever have.

Property rights.

It's not a question of agreeing with them. It's a question of taking something (a corpse, in this case) that belongs to them. Without a very compelling reason, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it.

That Fossil is actually the property of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, not any native tribe. The natives were trying to claim it under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, but that failed because the skeleton could not be positively linked to any modern tribe, and as such the scientists' claim took precedence.