# data[].attributes.body
Yes. we do have the right to intervene with the life of indigenous creatures.

# data[].attributes.body
primitive people can’t make their own way of life, have control over their own education, healthcare and so on, unless their lands are secure.
www.theguardian.com

# data[].attributes.headline
Claim

No, people can't talk to other people cause the people might
be weird on the internet,if they talk to people outside their own home on the internet. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Claim

No, people can't talk to other people cause the people might
be weird on the internet,if they talk to people outside their own home on the internet. 

# data[].attributes.body
we shouldn't mess with anyone who doesn't want us there or to contact them plus if someone throws spears and arrows at you there's a big chance of you dying

# data[].attributes.body
No we should not go and create contact with the indigenous  creatures that don't want to intervene with us.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, we do have a right to intervene with the lives of indigenous cultures because it would help us understand what they go through in life and we could teach them our ways.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes we should have the right to intervene with indigenous cultures. Intervening could help to teach other cultures new and useful things

# data[].attributes.body
We should not have a right to intervene with the life of in native creatures because they deserve to be left alone, and they'll let us know if they went us to intervene or not.

# data[].attributes.body
without land

# data[].attributes.body
We don't have the right to intervene with indigenous culture
Evidence supporting:
John Allen Chau a man from Canada tried to spread the word of God to the isolated tribe. On November 16 he set off to meet the tribe once again, but was met by arrows till death.
source: www.cba.ca
The man seemed to approach the tribe in the wrong way. There is no way for us to contact these tribes, so he set off without warning. These tribes just need to learn to trust us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've been actively participating in some discussions about the Japanese whaling issue over on Darin's blog. I don't want to discuss the ethics of hunting endangered species, nor do I want to get into the complex legal background of the issue. What I'm more interested in is this question: Do right and wrong depend upon culture?

In other words, could hunting endangered species be "wrong" in western countries, but "right" in Japan? Could inflicting pain on dogs to cause them to release chemicals that make them taste better be "right" in Korea, but "wrong" in Australia? Could creating absurd quantities of greenhouse gasses be "wrong" in Europe, but "right" in America? My feeling is that if something is "wrong", it's wrong regardless of culture. Maybe the things I listed above are all "wrong", but only a little bit so.

Think about slavery. Would anybody actually defend slavery as just part of the "culture" in the southern states of the US 150 years ago? Could anybody defend the concentration camps and gas chambers in Nazi Germany, or the chemical and biological toxins experiments the Japanese performed on the Chinese during World War II as "culture"? Obviously, some things that large numbers of people think are ok, or at one point thought were ok, are still wrong. It's my contention that relative ethics are no ethics at all. Still, boundary cases, such as cases in which one thing is good for an individual's rights and another is good for society in general, require that conflicting values are weighed against each other. Obviously not all people and cultures will put the same weight on the same values. What are your views? Should you ignore what happens outside of your own culture and let other cultures decide what is right for themselves, or should you stand up for what you think is right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've been actively participating in some discussions about the Japanese whaling issue over on Darin's blog. I don't want to discuss the ethics of hunting endangered species, nor do I want to get into the complex legal background of the issue. What I'm more interested in is this question: Do right and wrong depend upon culture?

# data[].attributes.headline
no we shouldn't be able to talk to people because there are stalkers, rapists, and kidnappers in the outside world.

# data[].attributes.subject
no we shouldn't be able to talk to people because there are stalkers, rapists, and kidnappers in the outside world.

# data[].attributes.body
No, we shouldn't talk to ppl in the outside world cause who knows..they're probally not who they say they are..
According to the site (

# data[].attributes.body
From "Should we contact uncontacted people?" on Debate.org is, "Leave them be; let them live as they are. Their systems might just out way ours. We should protect them by leaving them be."

# data[].attributes.body
Cited from "Nine ways to support the rights of indigenous people", "Brazil’s an example – all Indian tribes in Brazil should have had their land protected in law by 1993 according to the constitution."

# data[].attributes.body
forghiners don't want outsiders like us destroying there way of living they don´t really need us to help because if we were to help or try what priest would happen to usthey would not have killed that poor dude just telling people they need god.

# data[].attributes.body
The indigenous people should contact us,  as in outside culture so we can observe the way of life ,and live in a simple but hard working life so technology will not damage our lifestyle in the future. :) :) :) :).....

# data[].attributes.headline
the  indigenous people do not own a land so technically if the sates or country there are in if the governor or president decide to kick them out of there land i witch it is not because they do not a the same rights as people in america so they do not get shots to protect  them salves from viruses like  influenza and they do not have the same lifestyle as us they do not own the land and so they probably would  shot arrows at us but it is the 21st setree and we have a lot more things then we did before. 

# data[].attributes.subject
the  indigenous people do not own a land so technically if the sates or country there are in if the governor or president decide to kick them out of there land i witch it is not because they do not a the same rights as people in america so they do not get shots to protect  them salves from viruses like  influenza and they do not have the same lifestyle as us they do not own the land and so they probably would  shot arrows at us but it is the 21st setree and we have a lot more things then we did before. 

# data[].attributes.body
yes, we should be able to talk to people on the internet no matter who they are no matter if they have a bad record or history.