> People still shoot arrows at each other in urban centres
My mother (who is a doctor, although she's retired now) was part of the medical team who worked on this case: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arrow-attack-attempted-rape-in-...
My mother isn't mentioned in that article, but the "Allan Mason" it mentions is her husband
It's ongoing in both PNG and the Northern Territory (Australia).
~ (Sept 2026) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-07/nt-14yo-boy-speared-i... ~ (today) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-15/nt-100-people-in-wade...Going back to the 1970s and 80s: Kiaps, known formally as district officers and patrol officers, were travelling representatives of the British and Australian governments
Kiap Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ
Maybe they are using traditional weapons for a completely different reason, but I'm reminded of why India and China have their soldiers on the disputed border carry poles and clubs. It looks old school, but it prevents clashes from turning into a larger shooting war where everyone's getting killed.
Maybe for the simple reason that a pike doesn't need to be charged up, or stocked up with ammunition. Maybe sharpened.
Im fully on the spectrum, but my first thought when I hear about stuff like this is what would be the moral implication of "recreational gang war" experience. I.e you pay a lot of money, you get guns and armor, you go into gang territory, they shoot arrows at you, you defend yourself. Seems like you would have the right to use deadly force, but you would obviously be at a big advantage.
There is no moral or philosophical debate to be had here. It's morally wrong to do this and in my opinion that's clear as day. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation and provoking a "self-defense" scenario like that only serves as a thinly veiled excuse to murder people you consider inferior.
Do you often have violent power fantasies? Do you find yourself daydreaming about them regularly?
Spare me the psycho analysis please, its pretty cringe.
Explain to me how is this different from safari hunting trips where you can get attacked by a wild animal (often an agressive one thatvattacks villagers) and have to shoot it to defend yourself? And the argument of them being human versus safari trip featuring an animal is not something that is given, you have to show that their lives are worth more than the animal life
They are both bad.
I agree, but there is a market for the former, hence the question.
There being a market for something does not justify its existence, at least morally.
There being a market for something doesn't make it morally right, but it highlights the demand aspect where someone is willing to pay money, which means that there is some level of it not being universally bad.
In the case of a Safari, there is this moral middle ground - according to the countries policy, if an animal attacks a human, it generally is a candidate for being put down because of perceived danger to humans in the area, but on the flip side, its also morally wrong to kill an animal just because it does that.
In the case of the gang warfare, you are doing a service by reducing the number of gang members and crime, but its also morally wrong to take someones life in offense for personal entertainment? (If its not clear, the difference in doing that in PNG versus any other country is because specifically of the lack of law enforcement that is the way of life there)
Another hypothetical scenario - say you have a country where age of consent is low, and certain type of porn that is highly illegal in the rest of the world is freely available (which is not far from reality, scarily). You can't stop the creation or distribution of that porn without basically invading the country and changing its law. However, what if you used said porn and supplied to convicted pdf files in your home country so that they are less likely to exploit young kids irl? Is that morally wrong, or is it morally justified?
Did you know there have been literal slave markets in the past? And they still exist today (e.g. in Lybia). Please explain how this is "not universally bad". Actually don't. Spare us your disgusting mental gymnastics that you shamelessly try to disguise as autism.
>Please explain how this is "not universally bad".
Lets say that you have a country where slavery is legal. The slaves of course don't like it. But lets say that the populace is largely in favor of it, because slave labor keeps the barebones economy going and people can trade and have food to eat. Most people don't actively capture slaves, they just buy them at the market.
If you had the power to eliminate slavery in that country, you would free the slaves, but you would basically condem a lot of the people to die from starvation.
So whats the "correct" moral stance? Real world isn't black and white like you would want it to be.
I am holding my finger on the nuclear bomb button and I say if you don't murder everyone except me and you, I will press the button and it will murder everyone including me and you. So what's the "correct" moral stance?
Do you have a desire to kill people?
Not at all. But the world we live in is pretty fucked up from that perspective. There are ex military contractor guys on youtube talking about their weapons and how they used a certain rifle to fight off invaders in the middle east. Nobody seems to care that the people on the other end of those bullets may have families.
My interest in this is purely philosophical. If you have a what is effectively a lawless country, where native populace has the desire to kill you, to what extent could you engage with that in a moral framework?
sounds vaguely similar to pirate hunting tours, put yourself in a dangerous situation where you can respond with deadly force.
https://www.sail-world.com/USA/Russian-luxury-yachts-offer-p...
Not that you've explicitly claimed it's authentic, but the very idea of a pirate hunting tour is a hoax that resurfaces across the Internet every so often in different forms:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/somali-pirate-luxury-cruis...