DescentBB

I had to Google 'Neal Boortz'.

Hmm...Let's see Tiger... by being born it gets a few dozen years of misery and despair usually ending with a slow, pain-wracked, cruel death while the mother sits there in misery and despair and watches her child die.

or

Take every precaution possible and don't pump out a litter in the first place. What isn't born doesn't suffer.

Did I really even have to answer that??

x3 to what Ford said.

No you didn't Testi..........

I guess for some people it is easier to pretend that the world is black and white, that human nature is just an excuse instead of reality and that is needed to change the world for everyone to listen to their version of \"reason\".
Looks like Testi and Hostile are in the minority on this site at least. That is a sign for hope.

BTW I chose this guy Boortz because there was a report that he used his radio show to tell the world that the people of New Orleans brought it all on themselves.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802010015

All we need is a string of educated leaders that actually care about the people of the country more than wealth.

I also need all the atoms in this room to spontaneously assemble themselves into a Pyro with a hot-chocolate maker inside. I'd also like cookies, but that might be a stretch.

Spaceboy wrote:I'd also like cookies, but that might be a stretch.

Dirt Cookies?

It is well-known that the birth rate is much higher in poor countries than in rich ones. I did some statistical analysis to prove it to myself, but perusing the birth rate Wikipeda list (consulting the per-capita income list as necessary) ought to convince you. Testi criticizes this as stupidity, and Ford defends it as arising from the human need for love. Both seem to associate having children with the need for sex and love, something Testi sees as foolish, and Ford sees as tragic but understandable. This is actually a rich-minded projection; in a poor country, children represent something completely different.

In a rich country, children are expenses. Raising a family is a hobby. You might enjoy it (a lot), you might gain a lot emotionally from it, but it ultimately costs you a lot of time and money, and there's very little (finanial) return. A lot of people choose not to do it, or to do it on a small scale. Ten kids is preposterous, unthinkable, an invitation to abject poverty! The birth rate in the rich countries is very low, in spite of the fact that everyone in those countries has more money with which to raise children.

In a poor country, children are investments. Children work on farms or family businesses, or as street vendors or . . . in worse places. Depends on how dire things are, and what people are willing to do. For poor families, it's an important source of income; for some it's the only source of income. Wikipedia says, \"About 66% of all Haitians work in the agricultural sector, which consists mainly of small-scale subsistence farming.\" It doesn't say how many kids, but it does say that \"the enrollment rate for primary school 67%, of which less than 30% reach 6th grade.\" That's 80% of 12-year-olds not in school. I guarantee it's not because they're busy playing WoW.

Rich people have the luxury of morality. Poor people have higher priorities. They're too busy trying not to starve to have time to worry about petty things like child labor or slavery or even eating dirt. It is truly heart-breaking.

\"Stop breeding\" is thoroughly first-world advice for a thoroughly third-world situation. In America, having a large family is an outrageously expensive hobby. In Haiti, it's a survival strategy.

I'm surprised it took so long for someone to point that out.

I never thought of it that way.

As usual Drakona your post is cogent, relevant and thoughtfully researched. Your contributions are always a welcome addition to any thread.

At least you spelt financially wrong so I don't feel totally inferior.

and there's very little (finanial) return

Drakona wrote:It is well-known that the birth rate is much higher in poor countries than in rich ones. I did some statistical analysis to prove it to myself, but perusing the birth rate Wikipeda list (consulting the per-capita income list as necessary) ought to convince you. Testi criticizes this as stupidity, and Ford defends it as arising from the human need for love. Both seem to associate having children with the need for sex and love, something Testi sees as foolish, and Ford sees as tragic but understandable. This is actually a rich-minded projection; in a poor country, children represent something completely different. .....ETC...

DFTW!

I hate it when people make up acronyms and make me feel like the old fuddy duddy I really am.
DFTW does not come up in any of the web acronym dictionaries I checked. I am guessing it is the equivalent of \"Word!\". How did I do?

Drakona For The Whitehouse?


...lol i kill myself sometimes!!!

lol. Ya know, that's the first time I've used that acronym. And personally, i can't really stand it. Was in a game the other night and some guy on my team ran around yelling \"Nades FTW!!\"

yeah.. whatever.

and it's \"win\" flabby, not whitehouse. .. sheesh .. dang foreigners. Don't feel bad, I had to ask too a while back.

Nice Drakona, in a forum with ever decreasing traffic and new topics, you always come in and spike the ball. I bet you are no fun to play ping pong with.

Duper wrote:DFTW!

OMGWTFBBQ!!!7

Flabby Chick wrote:Drakona For The Whitehouse?

...lol i kill myself sometimes!!!

from the context of what Duper was quoting, i honestly thought it was:

Don't F**king Trust Wikipedia

(edit: woa i bypassed the censorship)

(edit by Lothar: woa i bypassed your bypass. PWN3D!)

roid wrote:(edit: woa i bypassed the censorship)

No, you knew what you were doing which says a lot about you, and failure to apply the EDIT command says more. Hopefully a mod will delete what your unwilling to do, so this DBB doesn't turn into the other DBB.

Bee

i copied Flabby's syntax
(get over yourself)

roid wrote:get over yourself.

i copied Flabby's syntax

intersting. then get your hand outta the cookie jar.

TIGERassault wrote:

Duper wrote:DFTW!

OMGWTFBBQ!!!7

roflmfaoDFTWlolzk?

Uhh... thanks, I guess. I think maybe you guys kinda need to get over me. No offense.

Just, it's kind of disturbing that I can write about starvation and child slavery happening in our back yard, and the reaction is more along the lines of \"Wow, your research is awesome and you are awesome\" than \"Wow, that is sad and depressing\".

Not that I mind the kind words or anything. Just sayin'.

Evil combined with national sovereignty is a sobering problem. It's tempting to want to just knock the government down, annex the world, fix everything. Heh, that doesn't really work, and is hardly the right thing to do. It's tempting to want to just give people money, or try to give the right people money to solve the problem. There's merit in showing mercy, but it can create worse problems, or perpetuate the existing one. And anyway, we already do that; something like 40% of Haiti's national budget is aid from the US. Fat lot of good it appears to be doing . . .

It's an interesting moral quandry, isn't it? There's no substitute for a country fixing itself. You can try to help, you can be heartbroken at what's going on, but if you help in the wrong way, that's evil, too.

There's an interesteing parallel here. Looking at this particular problem, the US might as well be God, what with the amount of firepower and wealth we have. We could do anything. And it's not for lack of desire; we genuinely want to help. The fact that we choose to encourage a little here, and give emergency relief a little there, and mostly leave people to work things out for themselves . . . well, it's interesting. God seems to follow the same strategy with us, doesn't he? Permits evil that breaks his heart, and which he certainly has the firepower and wealth to do something about. A little incentive here, a little emergency relief there--but mostly we have to deal with it. Very interesting. There must be wisdom in the strategy.

Drakona wrote:Uhh... thanks, I guess. I think maybe you guys kinda need to get over me. No offense.

Sorry Drakona, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.

From what I've seen, pretty much everything you say is to the point, easy to understand, and your level of awareness is higher than alot of the people on this planet. You have a way of sharing your insight and wisdom that shows you simply want to help. And God knows, we ALL need all the help we can get.

The LAST thing we need is to "get over" you.

Drakona wrote:Uhh... thanks, I guess. I think maybe you guys kinda need to get over me. No offense.

Take the compliment like a man, woman.

Seriously though, the points you made, i was taught in high school (industrial revolution, England ect ect) you didn't say anything clever, it's just that everyone else is thick....there do you feel better now.

Drakona wrote:It's tempting to want to just give people money, or try to give the right people money to solve the problem. There's merit in showing mercy, but it can create worse problems, or perpetuate the existing one. And anyway, we already do that; something like 40% of Haiti's national budget is aid from the US. Fat lot of good it appears to be doing . . .

That's why the good charities don't give away money, they use it to buy basic food and supplies for those that need it.

Drakona wrote:There must be wisdom in the strategy.

Leaders who permit evil to occur in some places while providing aid in others have an underlying political reason. For example, they will always provide aid to areas with known oil reserves or some other asset we can use, while genocide occuring in other places, that have no benefit for us, are simply monitored. Those leader types disgust me.

When your God visits a childrens hospital, He also makes a decision. He will permit a little girl to walk out cured of cancer, but the little boy next to her must die a horrible death. The God entity disgusts me too.

So yes, I do see the parallel.

Bettina

In a way, I tend to agree with Bet here, Drakona.

The problem is that analogy between your description of national foreign policy of \"assisting some, letting others work it out themselves\" and God's work with mankind implies a couple of things I can't agree with.

Sure, I understand the analogy in the sense that the U.S. doesn't simply hand out food and money, and God doesn't simply give us everything we need, because that's not always the best way to help people. That makes sense.

However, your analogy implies a similarity of motives between God and national policy, and that's where I take exception. There are times when U.S. national foreign policy is almost arbitrary, times when it doesn't help a particular group of people simply because it's too expensive, or the politicians in control just don't care enough. I'm assuming you didn't mean it, but that analogy implies God has similar motivational flaws.

Ok, I'll bite... what are God's motives? hmmm...

God does not go into a hospital and decide 'You live... you die'. To claim any motive is not God's motive is to claim to know what is in the heart and mind of a god. Why would you think God's motives are different from any other god's? All gods have flaws.


The motives of those who receive the foreign aid is to keep receiving foreign aid, that why they keep the people down as much as they can. It's their source of income. That's why foreign aid is evil.

Ha! I didn't mean to imply that I thought the US had the same motives and power as God. But I do think there's a strong parallel in this particular situation.

I'm fairly alert for counterexamples to the problem of evil, since it comes up on forums so much. If the US is powerful enough to solve Haiti's problems, and the US is aware of Haiti's problems, and the US would like to solve Haiti's problems, why does Haiti still have problems? It's certainly not because we're weak or unaware. And while others might argue we have corrupt leaders who don't care, I disagree. I think once you factor out some noise, our foreign policy reflects our character as a people, and we do care.

No, the answer to the dilemma is . . . well, the situation is complex. It's not that we don't want to help or can't, it's that we can't while still honoring other commitments we consider important. Little things like national sovereignty and the right and responsibility of a people to solve their own problems.

That's all. I'm just alert for situations where \"it's complex\" is the answer to the problem of evil. Lots of people think such situations don't exist, but I think that's just because they aren't alert. I've got a long list.

That God encounters similarly complex situations shouldn't surprise anyone who's had to deal with the headache of actually handling power.

That's all, really. I percieve a superficial similarity in strategy between two entities I regaurd as smarter than me; that's worth taking seriously.

Drakona wrote:HI'm fairly alert for counterexamples to the problem of evil, since it comes up on forums so much. If the US is powerful enough to solve Haiti's problems, and the US is aware of Haiti's problems, and the US would like to solve Haiti's problems, why does Haiti still have problems? It's certainly not because we're weak or unaware. And while others might argue we have corrupt leaders who don't care, I disagree. I think once you factor out some noise, our foreign policy reflects our character as a people, and we do care.

No, it's because your people genuinely don't care enough! For example, your country has donated very little of what it promises to donate to the WFP (don't have the actual figures handy, but America is one of the lowest of GDP donated that promised to donate).
And don't blame it on the government either, charity work is quite distinctly a problem with the people.

Drakona wrote: ....And while others might argue we have corrupt leaders who don't care, I disagree. I think once you factor out some noise, our foreign policy reflects our character as a people, and we do care.

You can disagree if you wish but the fact still remains that our foreign policy is a reflection of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney...not the people.

...No, the answer to the dilemma is . . . well, the situation is complex. It's not that we don't want to help or can't, it's that we can't while still honoring other commitments we consider important. Little things like national sovereignty and the right and responsibility of a people to solve their own problems.

Well, oil is important to the powers that be and so are places that serve our other "interests". But... what happens when those men, women, and children, can't solve their own problems. What do you do when they're being slaughtered by the thousands, by terrorist groups bent on reshaping ethnic groups or religion.

That's all. I'm just alert for situations where "it's complex" is the answer to the problem of evil. Lots of people think such situations don't exist, but I think that's just because they aren't alert. I've got a long list.

That God encounters similarly complex situations shouldn't surprise anyone who's had to deal with the headache of actually handling power.

That's all, really. I percieve a superficial similarity in strategy between two entities I regaurd as smarter than me; that's worth taking seriously.

You're still trying to draw a parallel between the two entities but it's not going to work for the reasons I explained in my previous post.

Bettina

Drakona wrote:No, the answer to the dilemma is . . . well, the situation is complex. It's not that we don't want to help or can't, it's that we can't while still honoring other commitments we consider important. Little things like national sovereignty and the right and responsibility of a people to solve their own problems.

Yes, by letting them eat dirt, we are respecting their sovereignty, so by letting them eat dirt, we are actually doing them a favor! You're right that there is a parallel here between justifying both God and the U.S. not helping the Haitians: you have to gravely overvalue some virtue like "allowing people to solve their own problems" in order to absolve either party of ethical responsibility for not helping. (I'm also skeptical that helping the Haitians would threaten their national sovereignty, especially if they wanted us to help them, although I'm not sure if this is the case.)

The U.S. does have justification that God can't claim--we only have so much money, so much good will, etc., but God should not have these shortcomings.

Jeff250 wrote:...you have to gravely overvalue some virtue like "allowing people to solve their own problems" in order to absolve either party of ethical responsibility for not helping...

I agree there. That argument is too-often used, in my experience. It makes sense in some cases, but it's become a favorite excuse for those who are essentially defending a "looking out for number one" strategy.

For example, U.S. policy in many cases seems much more like apathy than an intentional goal of "letting them solve their own problems". Does it really help a country reeling from starvation and civil war to "let them solve their own problems"?