Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Poverty/Mandela
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPoverty/Mandela

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Syzygy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Poverty/Mandela
    Posted: February 07 2005 at 09:33

^^

Good point, and to take it a stage further: somebody who may discover the cure for cancer, or a clean, infinitely renewable source of energy, or a grand, unified theory of everything that will reconcile relativity with quantum physics, could die today for the lack of clean drinking water or a simple sachet of rehydrating powder. The potential of the human mind is limitless; to condemn the majority of humans to a wretched, poverty stricken existence on the grounds of some spurious form of economic determinism is to squander the most valuable resource available to us as a species. This has nothing to do with 'isms' and everything to do with choosing between our nobler and baser instincts. Relative poverty will always be with us, but it's within our power to eradicate absolute poverty, and it's also in our interest to do so - tackling poverty is the most potent means of waging war on terror.

'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'

Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom


Back to Top
Manunkind View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 2373
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 07 2005 at 05:32
Originally posted by Syzygy Syzygy wrote:

The bottom line is simply this: there are sufficient resources available to ensure that every human being on the planet can be fed, clothed, housed, and given a basic level of education and medical treatment. Until this becomes a reality, we have no justification for calling ourselves civilised.

How true.

And to look at this from another perspective:

How many people in the world are undernourished or just plain starving? Four billion or more?

Imagine what would happen if they didn't have to spend the entire day just trying to make sure they can survive it, if they had enough food and a decent place to rest their heads.

What percentage of these people would start making music? Even putting the humanitarian and/or religious aspect of the loss of human lives aside, just on how much good music and other good stuff are we missing out? Just how much richer an existence would these people and we enjoy?   

"In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
Back to Top
tuxon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 07 2005 at 00:30

I've read in the newspaper today that the G7 has promised full debt relief to the worlds poorest countries 

 

Their stil quarelling on how to finance this, and it only involves 37 of the poorest nations,
and it is only about the debts to the WMF, not the bilateral debts.

but it is a good start. Let's hope they keep their promise.

 

I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
Back to Top
Hangedman View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 03 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1261
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 23:08
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

).  And Jesus did consider it a moral obligation to help the poor.  (For more on this subject, I invite you to visit the website of a group called "Call to Renewal".)

Hmmm, agree to help the poor or be a bad christian by the standards of jesus himself... makes me find it odd that most right wingers are christian.

Back to Top
Sweetnighter View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 22:13
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Interesting reply Sweetnighter, you make some basic mistakes.

1.You talk of the "study of ethics" and it's interpretation, but this has no relevance to what I have written.How you can judge my personal opinion or someone else's for that matter by using a man-made code as a "rule of thumb", is beyond me?

2.Taxation is not "stealing" from any individual at all. That is a nonsensical statement. Taxation, in a democracy, is the means by which a fairly elected body raises funds to pay for services and the costs of running government (amongst a host of other things). Poverty is not a natural state of existence either. Logically, since a family unit provides for itself,sharing and nurturing must be the natural way of things-how else could the human race have developed?

You say:

Poverty, just as luxury is, is a state of existence

I say "shame on you" for even thinking that.We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS here.We are talking about children being born into poverty,helpless HUMAN BEINGS, who had no choice at birth, and you say "tough luck!" Confused


You do make a good point regarding the definition of what is "ethics". Despite this, from a philosophical standpoint, you can't simply define ethics any way you want. We have to determine exactly what the study of ethics really is... so, is it how you define it, or how i define it? Either way, it needs a commonly accepted definition.

Now regarding what you say about being born into poverty... and this goes along with that Syzygy said about being "civilized" as well. First thing is, yes, there are enough material goods on the planet for everybody to have their share, but how do you intend to redistribute them? To say that we're not civilized until poverty has been extinguished is far too idealistic and utopian. The truth of the matter is that we're animals... other than our superior intelligence, what makes us any different from other animals? Although its unfortunate to say, "tough luck" is really the only response to be given. The most humane thing to do is allow people the liberty to move up the socio-economic ladder. You can't force people to take care of themselves or to do the right thing... you can only give them the chance to do those things. And of course, compassionate individuals worldwide provide these possibilities to the less fortunate everyday... and their love of live is worthy of recognition... but having governments forcibly redistribute wealth is a lost cause... it was tried and it failed. I guess all I'm saying is that as intelligent human beings we have to be pragmatic.

I bleed coffee. When I don't drink coffee, my veins run dry, and I shrivel up and die.
"Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso? Is that like the bank of Italian soccer death or something?" -my girlfriend
Back to Top
arcer View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 01 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1239
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 16:55

bypass your government's inaction, don't wait for 'humanitarian' taxes to be levied upon you - take your conscience in your own hands and donate - doesn't have to be much, anything you can afford is fine. Direct debits can established for a host of NGOs. You won't even notice the money going but someone, somewhere will sure as hell feel its arrival.

www.msf.org

www.ifrc.org

 

 

Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 15:05

tuxon:

Actually, that is one of those "misnomers" that is not exactly true.  What she actually said was, "Let tham eat brioche."  And, no, I am not kidding.  In French, cake is "gateau," which is what was reserved for the aristocracy.  And since the peasants were complaining about a lack of bread, she "raised the bar" one step above bread, which would be brioche.  It was a sarcastic slap at the peasantry, suggesting that they would never get "cake," but if they wanted something more than bread, it would only be brioche.

syzygy:

Ditto!

velvetclown:

I'm curious: do you know what was meant by "the needle's eye?"

Peace.

Back to Top
Velvetclown View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 13:11
It will be difficult to get Maani into the needles eye 

Bilden “http://www.lavarious.com/cheesus.jpg” kan inte visas, då den innehåller fel.

What a cracker


Edited by Velvetclown
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 13:04
Originally posted by Syzygy Syzygy wrote:

The bottom line is simply this: there are sufficient resources available to ensure that every human being on the planet can be fed, clothed, housed, and given a basic level of education and medical treatment. Until this becomes a reality, we have no justification for calling ourselves civilised.

Clap




Back to Top
Syzygy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 07:55

The bottom line is simply this: there are sufficient resources available to ensure that every human being on the planet can be fed, clothed, housed, and given a basic level of education and medical treatment. Until this becomes a reality, we have no justification for calling ourselves civilised.

'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'

Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom


Back to Top
tuxon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 06 2005 at 02:48
Let them eat cake
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
Back to Top
K00l Prog Guruz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 26 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 19:04
I agree with weedlover
"The world is in your hands, now use it." Good'ol Phil
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 16:02
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Reed Lover:

Needless to say, given the recent past, it is ironic for you to be noting Jesus in this discussion.    However, you are correct.  Of all the social issues occurring at that time, Jesus had more to say about poverty and the poor than about any other subject (except the kingdom of God).  And Jesus did consider it a moral obligation to help the poor.  (For more on this subject, I invite you to visit the website of a group called "Call to Renewal".)

However, as Sweetnighter points out, there is a difference between the moral obligation of society as whole, and that of the "government."

That said, given that the "government" is ultimately made up of human beings who are members of the society they govern, there would seem to be a tacit obligation on their part as well - though whether that obligation should include the "formal apparatus" of "government" is another question.

Peace.

You soon forget Maani! I believe that Jesus existed and that he said some things that are worth following.However I do not believe in God, gods or supreme entities and like Jesus himself (probably) do not believe Jesus was God or divine.

As Maani quite rightly points out, governments are made up of human beings, so why they should have a different obligation to the Society they both serve and govern is beyond me. In democracies governments are elected to do the will of the people and a few would be well served to remember that!




Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 15:02

Reed Lover:

Needless to say, given the recent past, it is ironic for you to be noting Jesus in this discussion.    However, you are correct.  Of all the social issues occurring at that time, Jesus had more to say about poverty and the poor than about any other subject (except the kingdom of God).  And Jesus did consider it a moral obligation to help the poor.  (For more on this subject, I invite you to visit the website of a group called "Call to Renewal".)

However, as Sweetnighter points out, there is a difference between the moral obligation of society as whole, and that of the "government."

That said, given that the "government" is ultimately made up of human beings who are members of the society they govern, there would seem to be a tacit obligation on their part as well - though whether that obligation should include the "formal apparatus" of "government" is another question.

Peace.

Back to Top
gdub411 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3484
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 15:01
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Originally posted by tuxon tuxon wrote:

what's wrong with poverty. It helps maintaining a continuosly flow of cheap resources for the western world to advance with. I live in the western world.

Tux-you're The Netherlands' version of Gdub!Confused

Hey- there needs to be a pecking order of some sort. It's all part of the food chain. So, who ranks higher on the food chain....Reed or me?

Back to Top
tuxon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 14:54

s long as their is no financiel gain for the western world, The western world will do nothing to relief the problems the third world is suffering from.

A part of our Government Income (dutch, also true for other countries) is the repayment of loans and the interest we provided to the third world. those loans have been used to make the rich minority in those third world countries richer, and have not contributed to a better life's standart for the poor in those countries.

The third world is suffering from hugh debts that we are eager to see repayed. but those debths are not made by the poor, helpless people, they are made by the rich. Now the poor people have to pay up. This means that every dollar they make with hard work is used to pay of debths that where made by the rich. So progress is not being made.

The Western world needs to eleviate the burden those loans make.

The western world has deliberatly put these lands in this condition, to maintain control. It's time we took are responsibility and stop lending money to the third world, instead we should invest our money in good projects.

My english is insufficient to say what I really think about this.

I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 14:10

Interesting reply Sweetnighter, you make some basic mistakes.

1.You talk of the "study of ethics" and it's interpretation, but this has no relevance to what I have written.How you can judge my personal opinion or someone else's for that matter by using a man-made code as a "rule of thumb", is beyond me?

2.Taxation is not "stealing" from any individual at all. That is a nonsensical statement. Taxation, in a democracy, is the means by which a fairly elected body raises funds to pay for services and the costs of running government (amongst a host of other things). Poverty is not a natural state of existence either. Logically, since a family unit provides for itself,sharing and nurturing must be the natural way of things-how else could the human race have developed?

You say:

Poverty, just as luxury is, is a state of existence

I say "shame on you" for even thinking that.We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS here.We are talking about children being born into poverty,helpless HUMAN BEINGS, who had no choice at birth, and you say "tough luck!" Confused

 

 




Back to Top
Sweetnighter View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 13:24
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Originally posted by Sweetnighter Sweetnighter wrote:

Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Nelson Mandela's rallying cry for action against World Poverty contained some powerful and beautiful rhetoric. This section in particular:

"overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.

While poverty persists, there is no true freedom. "

Read the whole speech here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4232603.stm

Why do we so easily turn a blind eye to suffering that happens every single day, yet will send money when one-off disasters occur?

 




Although he does make a good point, I don't like what he says from a philosophical standpoint. Protection of a fundamental human right? What human right is that? Rights are agreements between societies and their governments that give the government the power to rule as long as the government honors certain agreements, i.e., not to take life, liberty, or property. If somebody is poor, they're rights aren't being violated... and although a democratic society should do its best to give those who aren't as fortunate opportunity and a means to a better life, they're rights are not really an issue. Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost.  Poverty and freedom are not mutually exclusive!

Aside from that, yes I entirely agree, taking care of the poor should not only happen when something catastrophic happens or during the holidays, thats very true.

He is talking about how one human being should treat another.It is society's moral obligation as human beings to not stand by as millions die through povery.

By your reckoning Sweetnighter Jesus must have been a marxist.

Why is it that it should be reasonable that one individual has billions in capital whilst another individual is dying through lack of it?
As human beings we should not be living by the mantra "survival of the fittest"

Just because Capitalism is the way of the world does not make it morally right.

Your statement:

Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost

is morally bankrupt in my opinion.Why shouldnt it be society's obligation? Are you saying that there are whole populations out there that would feel their liberties were infringed if their poverty-stricken way of life was changed?It is easy to be idealistic when you yourself do not have to face the consequences!

I know quite a few people, and no doubt there are some on this forum, who would be outraged if their government or an individual political party, were to announce that they planned to raise income tax by 1% to help fight world starvation.I have actually heard someone say  that such an idea would be disgraceful as "I already pay too much tax". It is wonderful to be in that position whilst people are literally dying through lack of care!



Well, to a certain point I agree with you. I think should, although it doesn't have to, but should help the poor. Now, you have to distinguish between society and government. I said society should help its poor. The government, on the other hand, should not. What is moral about stealing from one individual (taxation) and giving to another (social program)?  Is one's need for something equatable to one's right to have it? Poverty, just as luxury is, is a state of existence. One is not more morally justifiable than the other. So in short yes, people should help one another, I'm not saying they shouldn't, but coercing people to do it just because of the way they exist is wrong.

What do you mean we shouldn't be living by survival of the fittest? We have, we do, and we always will, just like every other animal on the face of the planet. Whether or not we'd like to admit it, society has progressed because of it.

The study of ethics is the study that asks the question: "how should humans act?" It doesn't ask "how should humans treat one another?" Many people make this mistake. Does the existence of humans beings on earth say anything about how ethical a person is? I would contend it doesnt. Do ethics apply to a human stranded on an island? I would say so.
I bleed coffee. When I don't drink coffee, my veins run dry, and I shrivel up and die.
"Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso? Is that like the bank of Italian soccer death or something?" -my girlfriend
Back to Top
Reed Lover View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2004
Location: Sao Tome and Pr
Status: Offline
Points: 5187
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 12:19
Originally posted by Sweetnighter Sweetnighter wrote:

Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Nelson Mandela's rallying cry for action against World Poverty contained some powerful and beautiful rhetoric. This section in particular:

"overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.

While poverty persists, there is no true freedom. "

Read the whole speech here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4232603.stm

Why do we so easily turn a blind eye to suffering that happens every single day, yet will send money when one-off disasters occur?

 




Although he does make a good point, I don't like what he says from a philosophical standpoint. Protection of a fundamental human right? What human right is that? Rights are agreements between societies and their governments that give the government the power to rule as long as the government honors certain agreements, i.e., not to take life, liberty, or property. If somebody is poor, they're rights aren't being violated... and although a democratic society should do its best to give those who aren't as fortunate opportunity and a means to a better life, they're rights are not really an issue. Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost.  Poverty and freedom are not mutually exclusive!

Aside from that, yes I entirely agree, taking care of the poor should not only happen when something catastrophic happens or during the holidays, thats very true.

He is talking about how one human being should treat another.It is society's moral obligation as human beings to not stand by as millions die through povery.

By your reckoning Sweetnighter Jesus must have been a marxist.

Why is it that it should be reasonable that one individual has billions in capital whilst another individual is dying through lack of it?
As human beings we should not be living by the mantra "survival of the fittest"

Just because Capitalism is the way of the world does not make it morally right.

Your statement:

Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost

is morally bankrupt in my opinion.Why shouldnt it be society's obligation? Are you saying that there are whole populations out there that would feel their liberties were infringed if their poverty-stricken way of life was changed?It is easy to be idealistic when you yourself do not have to face the consequences!

I know quite a few people, and no doubt there are some on this forum, who would be outraged if their government or an individual political party, were to announce that they planned to raise income tax by 1% to help fight world starvation.I have actually heard someone say  that such an idea would be disgraceful as "I already pay too much tax". It is wonderful to be in that position whilst people are literally dying through lack of care!



Edited by Reed Lover



Back to Top
Sweetnighter View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 24 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1298
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2005 at 11:33
Originally posted by Reed Lover Reed Lover wrote:

Nelson Mandela's rallying cry for action against World Poverty contained some powerful and beautiful rhetoric. This section in particular:

"overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.

While poverty persists, there is no true freedom. "

Read the whole speech here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4232603.stm

Why do we so easily turn a blind eye to suffering that happens every single day, yet will send money when one-off disasters occur?

 




Although he does make a good point, I don't like what he says from a philosophical standpoint. Protection of a fundamental human right? What human right is that? Rights are agreements between societies and their governments that give the government the power to rule as long as the government honors certain agreements, i.e., not to take life, liberty, or property. If somebody is poor, they're rights aren't being violated... and although a democratic society should do its best to give those who aren't as fortunate opportunity and a means to a better life, they're rights are not really an issue. Philosophically, whether he mean't it or not, Mandala's comment is verging on Marxist in the sense that it is society's moral obligation to feed the poor at any cost.  Poverty and freedom are not mutually exclusive!

Aside from that, yes I entirely agree, taking care of the poor should not only happen when something catastrophic happens or during the holidays, thats very true.
I bleed coffee. When I don't drink coffee, my veins run dry, and I shrivel up and die.
"Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso? Is that like the bank of Italian soccer death or something?" -my girlfriend
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.