|
|
|
|
|
| |
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/17/2005 6:00:24 PM | the downside of it becoming a social standard...and obligatory thing is when someone says, "you are rich, you must give because you are rich." No one has the right to the property of another. Obligatory charity changes that. It robs the person not only of their property, but of their free will. It takes the choice away...now you have a double down fall. A faulty abuse of the word and idea of charity, as well as infringement of pesonal choice. Ideally, in the democractic society, there is nothing more sacred then personal choice...not even charity. The ability to give does not make you a good person, especially when you try to give away what is not yours to give. The ability to produce, combined with the ability not only to give, but to give in such a way as to help another escape the "need" of another is what makes a good person.
There is everything wrong with aiming for the "feeling good." If it was just about "feeling good," we might as well all go shoot up and waste away. Charity is helping someone stand on their own two feet. It's not giving a dollar and allowing some war veteran, or the mentally illed, to spend another day on the street, just so they can beg for another dollar and make someone else "feel good." Charity is to push them to shake loose the noose of "good intentions."
Yes, I do think there are perfect ideologies, but our ability to live them is questionable. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/17/2005 6:19:17 PM | | So yes, world hunger/poverty...we do care, I don't think we deal with it the right way...especially when we infomercial and sell charity whole sale on late night television. If you really want to help someone in Africa...save the dolllar and join the peace corp. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/17/2005 6:27:20 PM | | this goes back to the first page to lass lass the jack ass. no, its never paradise. but ya know what, makin paradise starts somewhere. and you are gonna rot in hell for that nasty attitude | |
|
| |
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/18/2005 4:26:48 AM |
There is everything wrong with aiming for the "feeling good." If it was just about "feeling good," we might as well all go shoot up and waste away. Charity is helping someone stand on their own two feet. It's not giving a dollar and allowing some war veteran, or the mentally illed, to spend another day on the street, just so they can beg for another dollar and make someone else "feel good." Charity is to push them to shake loose the noose of "good intentions."
The fact that someone feels good about doing something to help others doesn't mean it is "just" about feeling good. It almost seems like you make the argument NOT to help others... why be so judgmental about what is going on in someone's head? If the outcome is positive, who are you to dismiss?
I understand your point, but I think you're overreacting a little to the whole "good intention" thing. In one breath you say that "obligatory charity" is bad (not that there is such a thing, but we'll go with it.) In the next breath you say that it's bad for people with "good intentions" to try to help, unless they make huge sacrifices and do exactly what YOU think would be effective. (This is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.) Baffling. Judging others so harshly doesn't help anyone, and really makes no sense. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/18/2005 9:37:41 AM | Mytho,
Again...charity by definition is NOT obligatory...it is a personal choice. And you have a choice to ignore the societal norms pressuring you to give....just don't give.
Who said anything about doing anything JUST to feel good. But if it feels good and helps others.. or at least does no harm to others... what's wrong with that. And to suggest that giving to charity is somehow akin to shooting up and wasting away is a s t r e t c h to say the least.
But I guess you are denying the fact that charity, unless as Nittany has stated, it is done your way, does the recipient any good.
"Perfect Ieologies"..Really? If they were "perfect"...they would be perfectly easy to live...because they're perfect in everyway. No? | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/18/2005 5:29:36 PM | as for myself, of course i care about all of the people in the world that do without, and i do occasionally feel guilty for spending money on frivelous things, when it could be put to "better use". but we can only do so much.
i do contribute to charitable causes from time to time. and if i had more money i would love to give more. but i feel like just as much good can be done with kindness. why not start with some problems in our general area. i'm not suggesting that we should not care about the starving people in other countries...or aids stricken countries etc... but honestly how much can we possibly do???? why not strive for something more attainable. such as visit the elderly in a nursing home, volunteer somewhere, hell just smile at someone that looks like they need it. all of these things cause a ripple effect that can make many peoples lives a little better.
my belief of why we are on earth is that we are here to all learn a lesson.. as harsh as this might sound, maybe that is what their souls need fore some reason to be complete. they may have some neg. karma that needs to be corrected from a previous life, and thats why tragic things must happen. i do have a soft spot for suffering children though. saddens my heart to think about. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/19/2005 12:21:25 AM | I understand your point, but I think you're overreacting a little to the whole "good intention" thing. In one breath you say that "obligatory charity" is bad (not that there is such a thing, but we'll go with it.) In the next breath you say that it's bad for people with "good intentions" to try to help, unless they make huge sacrifices and do exactly what YOU think would be effective. (This is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.) Baffling. Judging others so harshly doesn't help anyone, and really makes no sense.
I said it is bad when people don't recognize the self-serving portion of the "good intentions." You say there is not "obligatory charity," but I say there is...I see it everytime some self-promoting vanity centered individual cry the words, "BUT ITS FOR THE CHILDERN!" I see it implied in the ethics permeating this thread..."you are a bad person if you don't give!"
I would never use the word "sacrifice..." Regarding your last sentence...this is my world-view, I'm not asking you to like it or live it, I'm merely sharing it.
All I'm saying is that giving doesn't necessarily help people...it only blinds us by sating a brief and passing urge to do something. Ultimately, it's only about closure on our part and not that of the starving African child.
Again...charity by definition is NOT obligatory...it is a personal choice. And you have a choice to ignore the societal norms pressuring you to give....just don't give.
You are right, charity in its intended form is a personal choice...that's what give it matchless value. But I also think "obligatory charity" exists....like the rich pay a lot more tax money into medicare/social security than most of the country, and still have to bare the burden of being called greedy money mongers? Even though the money is going to pay for medicare, education, and national security...for/to include those who are "helpless" within our nation. Note, I do make a distinction between "giving a few dollars on the street to a random homeless person" with giving to "an organized/validated charity working towards elevating all spectrums of social and economic standards of living."
"Perfect Ieologies"..Really? If they were "perfect"...they would be perfectly easy to live...because they're perfect in everyway. No?
No, they are perfect because they are rational. We, humans, as a collective, are hardly rational. I am interested in hearing why you think perfection should be easy...but that's off topic...and better discussed else where.
or at least does no harm to others... what's wrong with that. And to suggest that giving to charity is somehow akin to shooting up and wasting away is a s t r e t c h to say the least.
If you find a beached whale...and all you do is rinse it with salt water...you have done no harm to it...but it will still die, you've only managed to prolong its misery. If you all that you do is give a few dollars on the street...without attempting to change the conditions which made it such that you felt it necessary to give that money in the first place, all you are really doing is prolonging someone else's misery. Take the late night infomercials for donating to the kids in third world countries for example...yes, they look sad and would benefit from a dollar a day...but what they don't tell you is that these nations do not have the infrastructure to support these kids when they grow up...even with a college education, they cannot find a job which will uplift either themselves or their loved ones out of proverty. Personally, I don't find it a stretch to make the comparison since giving a few dollars a day IS merely giving someone the illusion of doing something. If you've walked the slums of Pattaya, Manila, and Rangoon...if you've actually sat down, and interviewed the taxi drivers, the waiters, the whores, the kids (if you can get them to stop selling you random souvenir for a few minutes) in places like Angeles City or Chiang Mai; got to know their lives, the conditions in which they live, the prospects they have...it's a whole different world, which I hope, you will someday get to experience. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/19/2005 3:55:45 AM | I said it is bad when people don't recognize the self-serving portion of the "good intentions." You say there is not "obligatory charity," but I say there is...I see it everytime some self-promoting vanity centered individual cry the words, "BUT ITS FOR THE CHILDERN!" I see it implied in the ethics permeating this thread..."you are a bad person if you don't give!"
You obviously have very strong opinions and strong beliefs. I find it hard to believe that you actually think that you're "obligated" by a commercial or a POF thread. Obligatory charity is an oxymoron. I think what you're feeling might be compassion and a SENSE of obligation to help those children, but that isn't a bad thing. And it certainly doesn't make it obligatory. It just shows that you're human.
All I'm saying is that giving doesn't necessarily help people...it only blinds us by sating a brief and passing urge to do something. Ultimately, it's only about closure on our part and not that of the starving African child.
Sure, sometimes attempts to "help" are not as successful as we'd like them to be. But in no way is it necessarily "only" about closure. Perhaps for YOU it is, but that's about how far your authority on that matter goes.
But I also think "obligatory charity" exists....like the rich pay a lot more tax money into medicare/social security than most of the country, and still have to bare the burden of being called greedy money mongers?
First, I'm not quite sure that I've EVER heard anyone called a "greedy money monger." Second, if it happens, so what? I'm baffled that you would find that a "burden." Not to mention the fact that taxes aren't charity, but I'm sure you realize that. You MUST realize that it would make absolutely NO sense for every citizen to pay the same dollar amount of taxes...
If you all that you do is give a few dollars on the street...without attempting to change the conditions which made it such that you felt it necessary to give that money in the first place, all you are really doing is prolonging someone else's misery. I UNDERSTAND your point here. What I don't understand is what seems to be your hatred and loathing towards people with good intentions who might not have the same understanding as you. Not only is it unnecessary, it makes it seem like you're more interested in "being right" or in "putting people in their places" than in facilitating any social change. If you were really interested in the latter you would take care not to alienate people who are genuinely concerned. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/20/2005 8:47:27 AM | First, I'm not quite sure that I've EVER heard anyone called a "greedy money monger." Second, if it happens, so what? I'm baffled that you would find that a "burden." Not to mention the fact that taxes aren't charity, but I'm sure you realize that. You MUST realize that it would make absolutely NO sense for every citizen to pay the same dollar amount of taxes...
Regarding "greedy money monger," I direct you to the following:
from yynot
Also, doesn't it make you sick when rich stars that have it all seem to get everything for free. Case in point..Oprah's recent party honouring black women where she handed out very expensive parting gifts. Couldn't she have built a school in the name of each of her guests or something. Of course I know she donates alot of $$$....but it still does not excuse it for me.
from coati
care less about rich stars and more about the obscenely rich CEO's and billionaires. How much do you think they're contributing to the fight against poverty..
They could start by paying their fair share of taxes...
from sarita
The reason patients are taken out of hospitals and put into "group home" settings is to save money. I've seen group home settings for the elderly here in Florida. The food they serve I wouldn't feed to a dog, they have almost no help, they barely bathe the elderly, they barely run the A-C, the help they get is minimum wage (if that!). The people that own these "group homes" are without a doubt crooks.
Just a few examples...but you are right, no one said "greedy money monger" per say...and my ability to interpret what people mean has been greatly diminished of late for some reason...
regarding taxes aren't charity...income taxes ARE an enforced redistribution of wealth, and a form of obligatory charity. Who do you think reap the most benefits from research projects funded by DARPA, NIH, DoD, DoE...and other federal agencies spending tax dollars? Certainly not the billion/trillion dollar corporation or the boards which run the business, whom likely, can afford their own research institutes. And that's just on the healthcare side. Federal income tax also feeds into filling producer/consumer deficit in the commercial market...it allows the government to infuse needed funds to which ever side, producer or consumer, may be required to maintain an balanced economy.
Sure, sometimes attempts to "help" are not as successful as we'd like them to be. But in no way is it necessarily "only" about closure. Perhaps for YOU it is, but that's about how far your authority on that matter goes.
Absolutely! It's a private little opinion...no need to stress unless some part of you is agreeing with the grain of dark truth in it... And I especially appreciate your authority on how human I am.
Obligatory charity is an oxymoron. What's the definition of an oxymoron again? Oh yes, I agree...Obligatory charity is definately contradictory terms used together for effect.
What I don't understand is what seems to be your hatred and loathing towards people with good intentions who might not have the same understanding as you. Not only is it unnecessary, it makes it seem like you're more interested in "being right" or in "putting people in their places" than in facilitating any social change. If you were really interested in the latter you would take care not to alienate people who are genuinely concerned.
This I disagree with...perhaps to YOU, I'm only interested in being right...but to me, those who give the few handouts, and I see as masking their self-serving quick fix for closure in false good intentions, are causeing far more harm than they are benefiting whom ever they think they are helping...
As for my "hatred and loathing" towards people who might not have the same understanding as me...that's a whole different discussion requiring some extensive discourse on diverging world-views, extremism vs moderations, and role of the individual...etc...not appropriate for this thread...I think. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/20/2005 4:00:18 PM | Just a few examples...but you are right, no one said "greedy money monger" per say...and my ability to interpret what people mean has been greatly diminished of late for some reason...
Ok, so you've interpreted posts... I STILL don't understand how you find those posts to be "burdens" on the wealthy people they mention. Seriously. Burden?!
regarding taxes aren't charity...income taxes ARE an enforced redistribution of wealth, and a form of obligatory charity.
I guess the only thing that I can take from this is that you have a problem with taxes going to help anyone other than yourself or those who you choose to help. There really doesn't seem to be any other explanation. In that regard, I understand your point. It's discouraging and I don't agree, but I recognize the position that you're taking.
Obligatory charity is an oxymoron.
What's the definition of an oxymoron again? Oh yes, I agree...Obligatory charity is definately contradictory terms used together for effect.
I've said that I understand your point. So there is no need to play the semantics game to skirt one of mine. You're bright. You understand my point, I'm sure.
This I disagree with...perhaps to YOU, I'm only interested in being right...but to me, those who give the few handouts, and I see as masking their self-serving quick fix for closure in false good intentions, are causeing far more harm than they are benefiting whom ever they think they are helping...
There's no "perhaps" about it. I was very clear when I said that it "seemed like," i.e. the impression that you give. I wasn't making any assumptions. I'm not quite sure what you disagree with...
As for my "hatred and loathing" towards people who might not have the same understanding as me...that's a whole different discussion requiring some extensive discourse on diverging world-views, extremism vs moderations, and role of the individual...etc...not appropriate for this thread...I think.
All I've said is that I don't understand it, if that's what it is. Since that is the IMPRESSION that I take from your remarks, it is certainly relevant to the discussion. I certainly don't want to make you uncomfortable by pointing it out, but quite frankly it is DIRECTLY related to the discussion (read the name of the thread...)
On a final note, I think we're both clear on each other's positions, and this isn't getting anywhere; it certainly isn't enjoyable or beneficial. Definitely not a productive conversation. So feel free to "get the last word in," take your parting shots, whatever you like. Enjoy. And good luck to you. | |
|
| |
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/20/2005 9:35:12 PM | Mytho,
I see u have posted this recently: "I love spouting rhetorical nonsense on Pof forums to incite reactions"
well you've certainly done a good job here. | |
|
| |
| |
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 9:32:01 AM | Do we care? Sure we do! As individuals we care, but our governments and corporations certainly do not!!!
There is absolutely NO NEED for world hunger. One factory alone throws out enough food or beverages daily to feed a village...they would rather throw it in the garbage due to accidents in packaging, then give it to thier employees, nevermind the starving of the world! This indeed makes me sick to my stomach. It's all about $, $, $....
Another thing is...as individuals most will not donate to "telethons" and such, because very little of the money collected actually goes to feeding the world's hungry. They only get about 10 cents on the dollar collected, the rest goes to feeding the big bellys of our wealthy.
Also, if these countries absolutely refuse to use birth control, then they are essentially creating thier own demise. We "civilized" people know that if we cannot afford to feed our young, We don't have any! This is common sense, and it makes no sense why any decent human being, especially in the third world, cannot figure this out. It angers me to no end, why someone would have 12 children, fully knowing that 8 or 9 of them will most likely die of starvation! | |
|
| |
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 11:25:46 AM | What a shallow understanding of an enduring economic principle..."have you ever asked what is the root of money?" -- Atlas Shrugged
Let us not forget that Ayn Rand was former product of the Bolshevik revolution. Her family lost everything. While I agree with some of her principles, I do not agree with this one, because I think it is taken out of context. The old saying is "The LOVE of money, not money itself, is the root of evil." Money buys power. So while we are quoting philosophers how about James Rachel:
I'll sum it up...Suppose there were a starving child in the room where you are now suffering from severe malnutrition...and you had a sandwich at your elbow, wouldn't you give the sandwich to the kid, or at least take the kid to the hospital? By not doing so, how would you classify yourself, ethically? You have the POWER to save the child's life in a single instant, yet you choose not to. So, in effect, if you are letting the child die. He goes on to say that the location plays a role in our decision. Because children in Africa seem so distant, we tend not to care so much, but by not giving, for whatever reason, we are letting them die. What is the difference?
Another philo...Hobbes, said that "...by giving alms to a begger.." he "...ended his own discomfort at seeing the man's discomfort." This a plausible explanation, but it doesn't necessarily become a universal maxim dictated by reason alone. There may be spiritual reasons, like the belief that the physical realm is the materialization of God, and, we, as humans, by spreading compassion through acts, are striving as a collective unit to become a more perfect creation.
I for one, believe that if the USA spent its "military budget" on feeding the world, instead of the endless endeavors for expanding capitalism in the name of democracy we could create much more harmony in the world than we have allegedly done. I think the Native North Americans had some really good ideas concerning "ownership."
One more quote... parahrased ..."You seem to have this vision of America as this abstract construction of government out there somewhere... In reality, America is YOU and I, we are completely responsible for this country." ----Noam Chomsky | |
|
| |
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 2:55:54 PM |
We "civilized" people know that if we cannot afford to feed our young, We don't have any! This is common sense, and it makes no sense why any decent human being, especially in the third world, cannot figure this out. It angers me to no end, why someone would have 12 children, fully knowing that 8 or 9 of them will most likely die of starvation!
13thportal: Ummm... It's startling that you attribute this behavior to ... well, I'm not quite sure who you attribute it to. "Uncivilized" people, I guess. Who, exactly is that? Everyone who makes choices or are in situations that differ from yours? It's not always about being a "decent human being" or "not figuring it out." Yikes.
uhhhh....Nittanylion, yynot...and you guys thought I was being bad? 13th just put that last word in for me...
Mytho, I didn't think you were being "bad." Just knew you were wrong!  just kidding.
Seriously, though, we just disagree. nothing bad about that. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 4:41:42 PM | | For lack of a better word, yes, I do think that if a person continues to have children, knowing fully well they will die of starvation, then yes, that makes them un-civilized. Civilized people, (Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement) do not continue to have children that they cannot keep alive. A mistake once or twice is understandable, but people's of the third world who are starving the most, are the ones who are continuing to have the most children. Sorry, but it just does not make sense, and is inhumane. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 5:12:00 PM | | I guess what I didn't do a good job is making clear is that I get the impression that you think such a problem is unique to third world countries. Or perhaps it is only they who are uncivilized when they have more kids than they can support, I'm not sure. Either way, that particular point of view startles me, not because I'm surprised that it exists, but because I think it's unnecessary, unproductive, and disrespectful. But hey, that's just my opinion. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 5:33:26 PM | It's not that they are having more kids than they can support....of course that happens in North America as well, but we in North America do not have children with bloated bellies that are STARVING...Third world countries do. I see a big difference. I really don't think that I am alone in this opinion, but if I am, then I admit it..I see something very wrong in doing that.
Just because it angers me, does not mean that I don't have sympathy for the children themselves however...it is not thier fault that thier parents are so cruel to bring them into a world they know the survival rate is literally nil. What I am suggesting as cruel as it may sound is sterilization....it's the only way I see to stop them from mass producing kids that are gonna starve. | |
|
| World hunger/poverty...do we really care?
Posted: 6/21/2005 6:01:15 PM | 13thportal
I take it you aren't blaming the kids for being born. Also...as you already know catholicism...or atleast the Vatican's interpretation of it, bans birth control. This is one factor in the problem. I don't completely disagree with you in that too many children born to parents who can't afford them is a problem. But, do you think African parents have children knowing they will starve? Do they not love their children? Do we love our children more than they love theirs? I don't think so. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
Very observant.
