My previous reply was a bit terse - sorry.

I was referring to two (apparent) opposite points of view, and it seemed like you were using semantics to disagree. I read the last part of that sentence as you personally stating that the OP had a moral obligation, which I now realise might have been incorrect.

--

I understand that people form their own moral compass, and that views differ - but sometimes, I think there are issues which are so universally felt that the whole of society has to learn how to deal with them in a united way.

There are so many examples of self-proclaimed 'superior' societies dominating and assimilating smaller cultures which aren't able to defend themselves.

Many of these examples are well documented and - now that we have the benefit of hindsight, we can see exactly what kind of effect was left behind.

I think most people can agree that gross injustices took place.

--

Would you voice any objection to a holocaust denier?

The cultural contamination taboo is pretty clearly not so "universally felt", though. You must contaminate (significantly) to discover their decision so you can respect it, or you must prevent all contamination, when you could be improving their lives (note: could be. To disagree is to state our/your culture / technology is in every way deficient compared to theirs, the "noble savage" viewpoint).

Whether it's a majority opinion or not, it's hard to say. I encounter both sides very regularly, while you apparently don't. Such is life.

As to the holocaust deniers, yes, I would. Because I disagree with them, and because it's essentially an intentionally-ignorant standpoint that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

---

But as to contaminate-or-not, I do prefer contamination so they can choose. Otherwise, it seems to me we're treating them like animals in a zoo, incapable of choosing intelligently for themselves. It also implies our culture is just so virulent that any who come in contact with it are sure to lose their way, join us heathens, and destroy their culture; again, insulting their intelligence and based on what's essentially a superiority complex.

For myself, I'll always choose contamination over being walled off. Others will disagree. But until we're capable of knowing they disagree, we either force some contamination to find out or we force them behind walls, taking away their choice. I find walls to be more offensive to sentients as a whole.