 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 81 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614067 Today 11 Topics 127540 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah said: "Yeah, 'cause when you read posts on this mb, you're reading all I've ever done..." So you HAVE donated money or contributed to solving the problem this movie documents? Could you tell me specifically what you've done? DM said: "Also, do you think the point of making such a movie is just to document? Most documentaries have an agenda, and here it is to make people aware of the situation so that they can join together in the millions and demand justice!" I'm not accusing the documentary makers of doing nothing to solve the problem. They've obviously done a lot in raising awareness. I'm accusing YOU of doing nothing to solve the problem, but paradoxically blaming others for not contributing either. DM said: "You also missed the profit point up there: I specifically mention profits and proceeds because, as I say, normal people will usually loose something while corporations can still make money while giving parts of their proceeds to the poor africans." This makes no sense. Are you saying that "normal people" lose money by donating to a charitable cause, but corporations somehow don't? If that's what you mean, then please explain how corporations don't lose money from philanthropic endeavors, but ordinary folks do. Or are you making the argument that corporations DO lose money by donating to charitable causes, but it's ok because they can afford to lose a few bucks? If that's what you're saying, then I'd say this: you too can spare a few dollars and your life will essentially be the same. But you're not donating. How are you blameless? Finally, if you're arguing that corporations can donate MORE money than ordinary people, then you fail to recognize that when you break a large CORPORATE donation down and see how much each EMPLOYEE contributed, it's not going to be very much. It's going to be an amount that YOU could have paid. A seemingly large donation of 100,000 dollars from a company of 1,000 employees is only 100 dollars a piece -- whi |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*which is an amount that you yourself could pay. DM said: "And, yes, they are being harmed in the sense that they're not treated fairly." This is a totally circular statement. You may as well have said, "They're being harmed in that they're not being treated fairly. They're not being treated fairly in that they're being injured without justification. They're being injured in that they're not being treated fairly. Etc..." How precisely are the companies HARMING the Africans? DM, you accused me of indirectly blaming Africans for the situation. I asked how I did this. You said the following: "Yeah, I said indirectly: It's easier to do stuff like that indirectly because then you can say you didn't say it. Either way your entire post smacks of disdain for those who haven't seen the opportunities right under their noses." Again, I pose my question: How did I blame Africans for the situation they're in? Your first response was basically "how DIDN'T you blame them?". You couldn't be less general. Please specify and back up your accusation. DM said: "And the obligation.. it isn't only stealing that's unethical: In this case, I'm betting some country or union of countries has demanded that tanzania open their borders and allow corporations from other countries to come in and pillage if they want to be part of something.. like a trade union." How does this conspiratorial, unsubstantiated idea of a trade union ordering Tanzania to open its borders to "pillage" explain how these companies are obligated to pay back the Africans? You said "I'm BETTING some country or union...". You BET, huh? You mean, "I'm pulling this entire thing out of my ass"? You mean, "I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just make shit up"? Is that what you meant to say? I asked how these companies are obligated to pay back the Africans, and you literally just made something up. Please try harder. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now for Tolstoyed's responses, which are regrettably more ad hominem attacks than actual arguments. Tolstoyed said: "[the companies] are not obliged to do anything [about the problem]. it's common sense that should tell them they ought to help in any way they can. but i don't expect you to get that as you're just plain ignorant." Rather than telling me specifically WHY the companies in question are obligated to donate some of their profits to the resident Africans, you simply say "it's common sense", then call me ignorant. Maybe I should rephrase my question: why is it COMMON SENSE that these companies should help out in any way they can? And furthermore, why are THEY more obligated than YOU to help out? Tolstoyed said: "what are you 11?" NINE eleven, actually. Tolstoyed said: "you didn't create [the Africans'] problems? did they create them?" I didn't create them, no. Did they create them? I don't know. Africa has been in the garbage can for a while now, and so it may be that the area's economic problems are entirely due to the actions of previous generations of people who are no longer alive. Other countries have certainly fucked Africa in the past. And some countries probably continue to fuck them now. And the fact that a lot of people over there seem to be fond of genocide, war and the like probably doesn't help either. So whose fault is it? Not sure. But it certainly isn't mine. Tolstoyed said: "they've always lived that way and don't have the knowledge or posibilty to turn things around." I think that's a stretch. You say that no one in Africa knows how to make money or utilize resources? And that there's no possibility for them to improve their lives? Now it sounds like YOU'RE being cynical. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"why not help less fortunate if you can? because you didn't create their problems?" Because A) I didn't create their problems, and B) they're complete strangers to me, and I will never meet any of them, and I will probably never meet anyone who has met any of them. "as for constantly going on about my hypocrisy - this thread isn't about me. i saw the documentary and it made me mad..since there are people on this message board that do care about people i thought i'd mention it and as you see you're pretty much the only one with a different opinion." You did do that -- you saw a documentary which outraged you, and you talked about it. That's fine. What I take issue with (and I've said this too many times already) is that you arbitrarily blame wealthy corporations for not fixing the problem by throwing money at the situation, when you yourself are in all probability capable of donating, but don't. "maybe one day one of us will be in a position to help in some way " You ARE in a position to help. You seem to think tossing money at Africa will fix its problems. So send some money, dipshit. Practice what you preach. "it's one of those films that help people from developed countries to understand african problems better. so they don't stay ignorant like governaments want them to be. like you." Yeah. I'm a government mind-slave. I definitely haven't used a bit of critical thought in this entire debate. Nor have I demanded evidence for claims. Nor have I devoted significant amounts of time to addressing your claims. I'm just a redneck honky that doesn't give a single thought to any of these issues. Right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here's a summary of my arguments, if you're having trouble getting your head around it: 1. Unless the companies that utilize Africa's resources are actually HARMING the Africans, or the resources were obtained unethically, then the companies don't owe the Africans anything. 1a. If this ISN'T the case, and wealthy corporations are obligated to aid the Africans just because they have money, then so are ordinary folks like you and me. Anyone with a premium XLT account can probably afford to donate. If you DON'T donate, then you have no room to criticize corporations for not donating. 2. It is unrealistic to expect wealthy corporations to aid Africa's problems because such aid would hurt their profits. And corporations get wealthy by placing profits first. Thus, any company in a position to help is very likely to be too profit-oriented to splurge on some humanitarian crisis. 3. Throwing money at enormously complex, generations-old economic and social problems typically doesn't work, or is only a temporary, superficial fix. And FINALLY (I missed this one), DM said: "Actually, what he's saying is that if he didn't create anyone's problems, they're not his responsibility and thus he doesn't care. So if his mother becomes ill, and it's not something because of something he did to her, he doesn't care. Or wait: Will it feel different to him if it's closer to home?" Terrible analogy. Really. First of all, I have a tremendous obligation to my mother: she gave birth to me. She sacrificed incomprehensible amounts of time and money to further my own livelihood. There is perhaps no one on this earth that I owe more to. Second of all, I know my mother, therefore I care about her. I know my friends, therefore I care about them. I don't, on the other hand, know these starving Africans. And I am not about to shed tears for some person whose face I wouldn't recognize, whose name I don't know, and whose life I am in no way connected with. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my first argument: say some foreign cunts came to MY country, give no discernable reason for being there apart from leaching resources from MY land, giving NOTHING back in return...well then i'd want them THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY thank you very much. which has already happened here, and the natives are still pissed off about it which is fair enough my second argument: fuck you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What have I done specifically: Nothing about this particular problem because I didn't really know about this particular problem. I'm a poor student, so I can't donate money to stuff any more, but there's this thing here in Norway called tv-aksjonen which is a national fund raiser for a worthy cause each year. I'm one of the people walking around knocking doors (while all the cunts of your calibre has locked their doors and hidden under the sofa (I've actually heard people shuffle to get away from the windows when I ring their bell)). I also used to donate to save the children (if that's what it's called in English). That I haven't done anything about this problem specifically doesn't mean that I can't be outraged and demand from the corporations in question that they do something, which leads me on to the next point. Profit: I'm saying I, as a student, only have enough money to pay my rent and buy my books and food. A very rich person or a corporation with huge profits each year isn't going to lose anything (but money) by donating. Sending a few dollars wouldn't help much, but I do it anyway when that national fund raiser comes along. I usually put the first money in. You once again assumed I'm not doing anything, but I'm still not blameless; I could do so much more, but this would degrade my quality of life too much for me, and I am like you in that I feel it harder when it hits home, but I still manage to care for other people than myself. Your argument about breaking down the corporation won't work: The workers get their pay even if the corporation donates something to charity; nothing comes out of them unless they use their pay to donate themselves as well. The corporation is the corporation and when it donates, it donates, not the people on ground floor. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How are the corporations harming them: By not treating them properly. They hire them at low low lowest wages, barely enough to sustain life, and definitely not enough to send their child to school so that he may one day see the opportunity to start a local business and make money off something they, as a huge foreign corporation, can make money off instead. "Open your borders, allow free trade, and we will trade with you! (we fail to mention that we will take all your resources, ship them abroad for refining and then we'll sell them back to you at a price you can't afford)." Your indirect blaming: I have already answered you. Read my answer again. I'm betting: I was trying to be vague. You should've seen that. Tanzania is a member of the world bank. That means a shady deal where they have to open their borders and allow foreign corporations the right to do business there. Whenever the world bank does this, the result is that a horde of foreign companies move in with lots of money and expertise, and take advantage of the resources (social as well as natural), leaving next to nothing behind when they're done. If you had cared even slightly about what happens in the world you'd have understood this in my first wording. You fail. You also blatantly misunderstand tolstoyed's arguments. He says there is no obligation, and you once again ask for an obligation. He's right in that in one sense there is no obligation, but that's in your sense. In most people with a sense for ethics instead of economics, the obligation is clear for the very reason I've mentioned (exploiting resources), but also for the simplest reason of all: Compassion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I would also like to note that your responses are as ad hominem as tolstoyed's, but once again you do it covertly: Claiming we're not doing anything to try and make it look like we're "just as bad." Actually, the simple act of trying to convince your bonehead you should do something (like demand from these corporations that they donate money) makes us both instantly better than you. Just add water. No-one in Africa: It's not a stretch. You've had schooling from you were a child (even though it doesn't show). They haven't. They also don't have excess time to study because all they do all day is make sure they and their family is fed (which is a lot of hard work; you don't just get a job at 7-11 when you're 16. You get a job working the field or a mine when you're 12, and you still earn less than a beggar on the streets of a developed country when you're 20). So, without schooling, without knowledge of international affairs, how the fuck are you supposed to know that fish you occasionally catch and eat for dinner is considered a delicacy in France? How are you supposed to even know there is such a thing as France? Arbitrarily blaming corporations: It's not arbitrary. The corporations are a cause in this. One among many, but not an insignificant one. Practice what you preach: That one doesn't work any more. Lots of people say sensible things without practising them because it's just too hard to do. Let's say I say we should pollute less. I'm doing what I can, shutting off lights, riding a bike, taking the bus, etc, but I still automatically pollute more than many others just by living in Norway. Just like I don't have too much money for sending away to Africa (even though I send occasionally anyway), that doesn't mean I can't tell a corporation they should. Critical: Being critical is good, but you aren't being critical. You're being ignorant. Maybe you should read up on politics, history and the problems of the world before you make another post. Now I have to go. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're evil. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"why is it COMMON SENSE that these companies should help out in any way they can? And furthermore, why are THEY more obligated than YOU to help out? " it's not just companies that should help, whole society should try and turn things for better. big companies are just in better position for doing this as they can afford it and since western society is based on economics that means these companies have huge political powers as well..which basically means it's pretty much in their hands. but, managers are affraid they may lose their milion dollar jobs if they don't make enough profit for the share holders, so they do anything to bring more money in. even pillage from people that don't know better. now i ask you - to whom would a 100 dollars make more difference to - those poor people or managers and share holders? i never said they're more obligated, it's just that they could help solving these problems in much bigger extent. not sure what to think of that nine eleven comment. probably nothing. "so it may be that the area's economic problems are entirely due to the actions of previous generations of people who are no longer alive." so you're basically talking out of your arse here? maybe you should read/see something and stop being so ignorant. "And the fact that a lot of people over there seem to be fond of genocide, war and the like probably doesn't help either. So whose fault is it? " did you ever ask yourself where they get weapons from? furthermore, when this was happening in iraq states solved the problem rather quickly. why don't they give a fcuk about other african regims? "You say that no one in Africa knows how to make money or utilize resources? And that there's no possibility for them to improve their lives?" im saying it's a responsibility of the whole world..lots of africans are just as responsible as everyone else. why is it so important you find someone guilty for the situation anyway? main african cities are pretty well developed and there's proba |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
probably less poverty, but the problem is rural africa. and people there can't help the,selves. "they're complete strangers to me, and I will never meet any of them, and I will probably never meet anyone who has met any of them. " you can't posibly get any more ignorant. i don't get why you think it isn't your responsibilty if you never met them? aren't they in title of a worthy life? just because you never met them it means they can live in shit? well great. "when you yourself are in all probability capable of donating, but don't. " im not able to donate atm if it bugs you so much. but i've donated in the past..no idea if any of it ever helped people who need help though. "You seem to think tossing money at Africa will fix its problems." you're making stuff up. education, seting up infrastructure, medical care are just as important. "I'm a government mind-slave. I definitely haven't used a bit of critical thought in this entire debate. I'm just a redneck honky that doesn't give a single thought to any of these issues." well, i sure hope you really mean that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
your arguments are a load of crap so im not going to comment on them. they've all been replied to through debate anyway. "And I am not about to shed tears for some person whose face I wouldn't recognize, whose name I don't know, and whose life I am in no way connected with." maybe if you ever took time to see a film where you actually see faces and hear names you wouldn't be this ignorant. and you are connected to everyone on this planet. we're all the same, part of one big thing. some of us are more fortunate and some of us aren't so maybe it would work out fine for everyone if the fortunate actually cared about this. but again, i don't expect you to get it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM said: "I'm one of the people walking around knocking doors (while all the cunts of your calibre has locked their doors and hidden under the sofa (I've actually heard people shuffle to get away from the windows when I ring their bell))." Actually, I'd tell you to your face that you can take your indiscriminate, idealistic and self righteous generosity and fuck yourself with it. I'm not a coward, and I feel no shame in saying that I don't give two shits about Africa, except inasmuch as it affects my life and the lives of those close to me. You continue to talk about corporations as though they're ethereal entities with resources independent of the people that comprise them. Taking significant cuts of profit and donating them to some charitable cause would trickle down to people's paychecks and pensions. Somehow you believe that if a check is made out in a company's name, the gold is just materialized in the country of origin's treasury, and the notes representing it printed. I know that I wouldn't accept my supervisor taking MY fucking money and tossing it at a cause of his choosing. It's not his right to make that decision. DM said: "I would also like to note that your responses are as ad hominem as tolstoyed's, but once again you do it covertly: Claiming we're not doing anything to try and make it look like we're "just as bad."" No. I think that spending one's money on one's own interests, and fulfilling personal obligations with the people around you, are much more sensible pursuits than attempting to bring about the absurd ideology of treating all human beings the same regardless of personal connection or obligation, where you are to ideally value your own life no more than a stranger's. No--I think that your not donating is the right decision to make. It is not your lack of contribution I take issue with. It is your quickness to blanket the issue with a catch all "fucking Westerners, fucking corporations, fucking George Bush, fucking rich people." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
-- just scrolling down this thread gives me a headache -- (pustting Darwin's Nightmare on our blockbuster lists...now) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now as for corporations treating the natives unfairly, let's agree that the wages paid are atrocious. I would ask, however: are the corporations in any way forcing the natives to work for them, either directly by force or indirectly by elimination of competition? If this is the case, then yes, a wrong has been committed and it must be rectified. As I said quite clearly multiple times, and with the utmost clarity and straightforwardness in the summary of my arguments, if these corporations have in fact harmed the natives, then they are strongly obligated to compensate them. "No-one in Africa: It's not a stretch. You've had schooling from you were a child (even though it doesn't show)." You don't know me personally; your judgment of me is based entirely upon the posts I've written in this thread. You haven't seen any certificates or degrees from the schools I've attended. Meaning your statement that I've had schooling is an assessment you made based upon my posts, for what else could it be based upon? Many are home schooled in my country, and poorly, and so the fact that I'm from the states doesn't mean I'm educated. You came to the conclusion that I've had schooling from my posts, yet paradoxically claim my education doesn't show. How strange. I think you're just fond of calling your opponents stupid rather than addressing their arguments? I know this is totally off topic, but I kind of just wanted to nit pick. Sorry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread has lots of potential to post some triumph pics as well. i won't though. but for the record, i think it'd be a good idea. it basically sums everything up in a most efficient way. and when i say efficient, i mean borderline existentialist efficient. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
With respect to you saying "I bet that a shady deal took place with the world bank, etc...", you said: "If you had cared even slightly about what happens in the world you'd have understood this in my first wording. You fail." You said you were TRYING to be vague. So you were vague on PURPOSE, and then BLAMED me for not understanding your meaning precisely. What the fuck? "Practice what you preach: That one doesn't work any more. Lots of people say sensible things without practising them because it's just too hard to do. Let's say I say we should pollute less. I'm doing what I can, shutting off lights, riding a bike, taking the bus, etc, but I still automatically pollute more than many others just by living in Norway. Just like I don't have too much money for sending away to Africa (even though I send occasionally anyway), that doesn't mean I can't tell a corporation they should. " These "sensible things" you refer to--they're only sensible if you can reasonably expect the suggestion to be followed. I might suggest, for instance, that we all ought to save the pubic hair we trim or shave off in order to weave it into socks. Ideally, this might work: using an alternative to wool or cotton that grows back faster, and usually goes to waste. But it's not sensible in that no one will do it. And few sensible companies will start taking significant profit cuts in some blind, ineffective effort to equalize the wealth of the world. What you're suggesting is, in fact, not sensible. You're basically just whining about how everyone in the world should just start sharing more. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Resources independent: Are you stupid or are you not reading what I'm saying? A company has profits. Profit is another word for surplus money. When a company is profitable, it means it makes more money than it needs. This can be paid out to (a) undeserving stock holders who do nothing or (b) the people whose land and workforce they've exploited. Any company that exploits resources like this automatically has enough profits to donate without it cutting into neither their workers' pay nor their pensions, and they just wouldn't do it. Firstly because of cunts like you who would deny them this, and secondly because of their image, the reparation of which probably would be what made them donate in the first place. Many companies do stuff like this all the time without anyone getting a cut in their paycheck. Pursuits: You can't do both? I manage to both contribute when I can and spend time with friends and have fun: Helping out every once in a while doesn't deplete your biological energy cells or anything like that: You just spend a little bit of time actually helping other people. The only hindrance to making all men equal is cunts like you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats whats wrong with extensive replys, people have thier opinion and they want to shove it down someone elses throat, as does the other person likely: you wont change thier mind and your just improving your typing skills |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They're not forcing them to work for them, no, but they know they're the only work around, so they know they don't have to compete with anyone else about wages. Thus, they decide to pay as little as possible. That's what they'd do everywhere else as well, if they didn't have competition: Whenever there's a shortage of some kind of worker, like engineers or electricians, companies are raising their wages in a sort of action-like bidding round. I based my assumption that you've been to a school on the information I have about you being an American, not on anything in your posts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM said: "Actually, the simple act of trying to convince your bonehead you should do something (like demand from these corporations that they donate money) makes us both instantly better than you. Just add water. " How unbelievably self righteous, condescending, and overly simplified. You think you're better than me because you're advocating sending money to strangers? You send money to strangers. I give my friend money for down payment on a house. You send money to someone whom you know nothing about, someone who could in fact, be a complete shit head. The money is not a reward for personal attributes the recipient exhibits, some good deed the recipient performed, but the product of a generalized feeling you have towards people in general. I spend some of MY resources and time on family members and friends. You think you're better because you spend YOURS on strangers? How does that make you a better person? The way you talk about this whole thing... it's almost as though you donate (and advocate donation) not out of true generosity, but in a desire to feel self satisfaction. To summarize against DM: you have not addressed ANY of my summarized arguments. I put it nice and clear for you so you could attack it. And you didn't. I said in my first summarized argument that if the companies are HARMING the Africans, then they must compensate. So if the resources the companies obtained were STOLEN or otherwise obtained unethically, then compensation is due, and I am on your side. If the natives are being FORCED (directly or indirectly) to accept the pitiful wages, and the company is quite capable of paying them more, then compensation is due. If this companies have behaved ethically in obtaining the resources, then any obligation the companies have, YOU have. You also have not explained how it is reasonable to expect the corporations to take a significant profit hit for humanitarian endeavors. And until you due, you are just an idealist, crying for rainbows and world peace. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh man. We have to slow down -- apparently you responded to one of my first posts before I was finished typing the whole thing. This could get really complicated. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And I want to say, before this goes on, that I appreciate your argument. You (DM) are thorough and determined. It's refreshing. I also appreciate Tolstoyed's posts, but to a lesser extent, due to his constant, indiscriminate use of the catch-all word ignorant and other insults. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not to be a DICKHEAD but... You two should "hook-up", the chemisty is there. sorry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM and tolstoyed will give you a good time here on xlt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
x |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, I was trying to be vague to see if you actually knew what you were on about: If you had known anything about this, you would've gotten it, even if you think the world bank is a fine institution; either side of this knows the other side's arguments. You didn't, so you'll have to do some reading before you can make a statement about this. Pubic hairs: No, that isn't sensible because it isn't a good replacement for cotton or wool, it doesn't have the same properties as either of these fabrics. Pubic hair socks would probably be very uncomfortable and rigid. And the main point isn't sharing, it's caring (whoah, that should be someone's slogan); it's about caring for other people. Now, you could probably go on about something like "caring? well caring doesn't get you anywhere!" and stuff like that, but caring, if genuine, often leads to sharing: I care, so I help. You don't care, so you're a cunt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, on second thought.. Tolstoyed, you're not really making any arguments against me. You're just kind of saying "how atrocious!" a bunch and calling me ignorant. You said: "you can't posibly get any more ignorant. i don't get why you think it isn't your responsibilty [to help] if you never met them [the Africans]? aren't they in title of a worthy life? just because you never met them it means they can live in shit? well great. " I'm not the ruler of the world. I'm not God. I'm not responsible for Africa's economy being fucked up. That fact, combined with the fact that I don't know any of these people, makes it decidedly not my problem. " and you are connected to everyone on this planet. we're all the same, part of one big thing. " I'm sorry, but I find this to be just some vague, feel-good bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I DO care, Drunken Mastah. I don't lie to my friends. I'll sacrifice a lot to help them out. The same applies to my family. I don't break promises. I just don't care about strangers suffering from problems that are entirely not my responsibility. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This doesn't mean that I don't find it unfortunate or unfair. I see the problem. It's not as though I'm totally indifferent to human suffering or something. It's just a. Not my fault b. Not connected to my life in any way. I don't see how feeling this way makes me a total cunt. I think the majority of people feel this way. As much as they might say "my God, someone needs to DO something about this!" when they see tragic problems, their ACTIONS are much more in line with my code of ethics than yours. And you know what they say about actions speaking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As I said, I spend my time on both friends and strangers. If you don't have money to give (like me), you can spend a little time.. just every once in a while. Help out at a fund raiser (for free) once. The main source for money donations to the people down there would have to be corporations with profits or very rich people who have enough money to give some away without it affecting their lives too much. Preferably the corporations that exploit the people, but there it would be better if they'd hire locals, and pay them decent wages. The companies are acting unethically, as I said above (not by coercion, but by knowingly limiting wage to just enough to keep the worker alive (they won't benefit if their workforce dies, nor if they get enough money to get themselves out of the shithole they're in)). Once again: It's reasonable for these corporations to donate because their profits are mainly "saved money" from exploiting resources. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, the majority of people feel like you do, but most people are cunts who wouldn't offer a single minute to help anyone they don't know, but that's only because it's so far away. If you truly feel it's wrong, it wouldn't exactly kill you to spend an afternoon or something helping out. Imagine if everyone did, if everyone realised how little it costs to be nice. I have little doubt that many problems could be solved if people just cared enough to either spend some money or some time (or, collectively, resources) helping out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean, people sleep in line to buy the new Harry Potter book! They'll get the book in time anyway, so why don't they just do something useful with their time?! Two days in a line for a book or two days helping out somewhere: Which makes more sense? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Harry Potter book. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Buy it / don't buy it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i personally dont give a F**k about the books. the movies are cool laura, brady and i went to the mall to get her some shorts, shirts, we stopped by the bookstore, and at 6:30pm there were already about 200 kids at one store to get the midnight book more power to them, i suppose |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I haven't seen any of the movies, nor read any of the books. It just doesn't appeal to me. I think I saw half of the movie where he's taken from a house in the beginning and buys a magic wand or something, but it was just sporadic bits and pieces. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i couldnt tell you any of the characters buy harry, the chic, the orange hair kid, the two twins, and the bad little boy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Tell me a little about the two twins. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahahah, ?????, its just a movie to me, no more, no less. hahahahhahah they are like, ya know.......twins blond hair or something hahhahaah, nevermind :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thx! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i know there's lots of people who agree with sirmailbox but rather dont talk about it. i agree with sirmailbox. Considering myself a hippy-type person, i suppose it is kind of odd that i don't give a toss about what happens to africa and its people. Why should i, when in my opinion humanity is equally doomed in all places? I prefer to donate money to institutions like the world wide fund. And hope Terence Mckenna is right about 2012. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's actually another point that may have gone missing in all of this: no-one has to spend all their time on charity because there are so many causes and you have to help everyone, but a little charity never harmed anyone. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
" GIVE ME SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME " |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
indeed, it's not only about africa..the world is fcuked up. it just so happens this documentary was about africa so i refered everything to that place. there's no way sirmailbox will ever get why i opened this thread. it wasn't to say people should donate money to africans..it's more about raising peoples awareness of the problem. harry potter book was a good example..then there's i-phone - people waiting in line to get that 600 $ phone when on the other side of the world people fight for a fistfull of rice.. why i call you an ignorant? it was you who started calling me a hypocrite without even knowing what my point is (you still don't know what it is though, so i'll keep calling you a complete ignorant). here are some examples from your last posts why i think you're an ignorant; "I know that I wouldn't accept my supervisor taking MY fucking money and tossing it at a cause of his choosing. It's not his right to make that decision." drunkem mastah already explained so im not going to.. "are the corporations in any way forcing the natives to work for them, either directly by force or indirectly by elimination of competition?" drunkem mastah already exaplined so im not going to.. "You think you're better than me because you're advocating sending money to strangers? " i don't think im better than you in any way..im pretty shit and im quite ashamed of myself for being an ignorant most of my life. and as i said before, i never said anyone to send their money. "I'm not responsible for Africa's economy being fucked up. That fact, combined with the fact that I don't know any of these people, makes it decidedly not my problem." you're part of a western society so that makes it your problem. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I said in my first summarized argument that if the companies are HARMING the Africans, then they must compensate. So if the resources the companies obtained were STOLEN or otherwise obtained unethically, then compensation is due, and I am on your side. " this is what this thread is all about. people from developed countries exploited africa through out its history. now that they are sucked dry and most westerns left they're on their own.. im not going to explain the history of africa to you through a message board as there's plenty you can read about on the net or elsewhere.. until you get the idea i'll keep calling you an ignorant. also, why am i being vague? simply because you're concerned with small talk that doesn't mean a god damn thing same as mine doesn't..it's all about individuals awareness and what they'll do about it. if everyone thought like you to help yourself and your friends first this place would be an even bigger shit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Tolstoyed -- the comment on you thinking you're better than me was directed at Drunken Mastah, not you. He said that his charity made him BETTER than me. I know you didn't say you were better than me. DM said: "The companies are acting unethically, as I said above (not by coercion, but by knowingly limiting wage to just enough to keep the worker alive (they won't benefit if their workforce dies, nor if they get enough money to get themselves out of the shithole they're in))." You said in an earlier post that the workers are sort of indirectly forced to work for these companies, in that they're the only jobs available. To me, that says the companies created jobs where there previously weren't any. Doesn't that mean that these companies have in fact improved the situation? Or are there other ways in which the companies harm the workers that I'm not seeing, such as eliminating competing jobs? Suppose a company goes to Africa. It goes to an area where unemployment is completely out of control, and it creates jobs where there weren't any before. The jobs pay wages that are atrocious, but the company doesn't force the workers into those jobs by eliminating competition or any other unethical means. That the company's jobs are the only ones available is not due to some action of the company, but just happenstance--no other employers have come around. I think that this would be an improvement to the situation, albeit a small one. From what I understand, in this simplified version of the situation, you would criticize the companies for not paying larger wages. You might say, "perhaps it's an improvement, but the companies could be doing so much more than they are". This is the crux of the discussion. The companies could significantly improve the standard of living, if only they paid more. But I think that there is a problem here. Let's see what it is. (I will try to finish the next post before I have to go to work) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If we agree that the company's business was conducted without stealing resources, and that competing jobs were not eliminated, and workers were not forced into the company's jobs by any action of the company, then we might agree that: ***The company has improved the situation in an ethical way***. (I place special emphasis on the last qualification: that the jobs offered by the company may be the workers' only choice, but not because of something the company did, but because of happenstance: Africa's economy is shit, and no other employers are around.) So, if we agree that the company has improved the situation, if only slightly, then we begin to see a problem. You blame the company for not doing MORE. You blame the company that has already done something to alleviate the situation for not having alleviated the situation FURTHER. It's like this: imagine a beggar asks you for some food. You give him your sandwich. And someone criticizes you for not taking him out to steak dinner. See the problem? Why is this hypothetical company that has already helped alleviate the situation more obligated to help FURTHER than companies and individuals who have so far done NOTHING? Why is this company obliged to help out FURTHER simply by virtue of conducting business in the area? I'd like to elaborate but I've got to run. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Humanity is evolution/darwin's nightmare. The only life worse then them will spawn from their technology just before they're exterminated. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
