The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
So a few million people enjoyed the concerts, but how many actually give a sh-t about the millions who die needlessly every year?
I don't want to form an opinion from one article, but it seems about right to me. Live 8 was all about raising awareness apparently, but I think on that score it failed miserably.
And why did the BBC cut to 'Wossy' when the video messages were playing? That was just OBSCENE. Forget the serious bits, lets have some jokes and music clips.
Any thoughts? (please read the article).[URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
So a few million people enjoyed the concerts, but how many actually give a sh-t about the millions who die needlessly every year?
I don't want to form an opinion from one article, but it seems about right to me. Live 8 was all about raising awareness apparently, but I think on that score it failed miserably.
And why did the BBC cut to 'Wossy' when the video messages were playing? That was just OBSCENE. Forget the serious bits, lets have some jokes and music clips.
Any thoughts? (please read the article).[URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> Your understanding of the situation, then, is incomplete. They can
> afford to pay it back, indeed most likely would have paid it back by
> now in its entirety, had they not been more interested in killing
> eachother, breeding like flies, and defying medical fact in a
> determined effort to encourage their own suffering.
I have read otherwise, but I'll take your word for it. Just to clarify - are you using the word 'they' to refer to the populations of countrys or thier governments? 'killing each other', by which I presume you mean wars, I would consider a governmental decision, whereas 'breeding like flies' I would consider as decisions made by the population of a country.
People continue
> to lay blame on corrupt leadership. Certainly, this has been a
> factor, but the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of
> those in need is largely upon their own heads.
Again we disagree. From what I understand about the current trade situation, 'the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of those in need' is not down to the people themselves but the current system of world trade. Though the situation obviously differs from country to country, as it stands generally what is happening is, as part of the conditions of loans made by the IMF and the World Bank, poor countrys are not allowed to put up import tarriffs and other trade barriers. This allows the markets of poor countrys to be completely open to cheaper imports, which ultimately means that a great proportion of the wealth generated within the economy leaves the country for abroad. So I do not think it is largely 'upon thier own heads' at all - it is something which is upon 'our' (that is to say, the wests) heads, since we can help to prevent poverty by reforming the current system of world trade.
have more children, they choose to proliferate disease, they choose to
> plead obedience to Christianity when people tell them to wear
> condoms, while ignoring the fact that their proliferation is in and
> of itself a complete defiance of the religion many of them claim to
> uphold.
You use the word 'choose' - I think that it is generally agreed by philosophers (and for that matter psycologists) that there is no such thing as free will. People act according to the environment in which they have existed. Sitting and apportioning blame is of no use whatsoever - it only helps to be talking about this issue if we can try to understand how we can change this environment so that people will be affected positively. Sitting on a computer and apportioning blame helps no-one.
The idea that people 'choose' to 'plead obedience to christianity' seems to me to show you cannot have much understanding of religious belief. If you believe something - for example, as most people believe in science - then it is not really a 'choice' to plead obediance to it, is it? You just believe it.
> And what has it achieved? Allowed people to survive where they would
> naturally have died. Thus leaving what little food was available to
> spread between so many more mouths, requiring ever more aid, causing
> ever more suffering, allowing disease to spread to ever more people.
> The more we support these people, and continue to suffer their
> self-destructive behaviours, the worse their situayion becomes, and
> the more they require from us.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong, and with a little more help, the problems would
> crack under the sheer weight of charitable investment. But I don't
> see any evidence of any improvement. Do you?
I'm 18. I have never been to Africa, so of course I havn't seen any evidence of improvement. I must confess my ignorance about African history. However - though this might be a little naieve - if I had no clean water, I would certainly feel that a charity like WaterAid providing me with a well (or some other source of water) would be achieving something. Whether this is bad in the long term is something which I'm not going to argue with you about, because I don't know.
>
> Your understanding of the situation, then, is incomplete. They can
> afford to pay it back, indeed most likely would have paid it back by
> now in its entirety, had they not been more interested in killing
> eachother, breeding like flies, and defying medical fact in a
> determined effort to encourage their own suffering.
I have read otherwise, but I'll take your word for it. Just to clarify - are you using the word 'they' to refer to the populations of countrys or thier governments? 'killing each other', by which I presume you mean wars, I would consider a governmental decision, whereas 'breeding like flies' I would consider as decisions made by the population of a country.
People continue
> to lay blame on corrupt leadership. Certainly, this has been a
> factor, but the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of
> those in need is largely upon their own heads.
Again we disagree. From what I understand about the current trade situation, 'the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of those in need' is not down to the people themselves but the current system of world trade. Though the situation obviously differs from country to country, as it stands generally what is happening is, as part of the conditions of loans made by the IMF and the World Bank, poor countrys are not allowed to put up import tarriffs and other trade barriers. This allows the markets of poor countrys to be completely open to cheaper imports, which ultimately means that a great proportion of the wealth generated within the economy leaves the country for abroad. So I do not think it is largely 'upon thier own heads' at all - it is something which is upon 'our' (that is to say, the wests) heads, since we can help to prevent poverty by reforming the current system of world trade.
have more children, they choose to proliferate disease, they choose to
> plead obedience to Christianity when people tell them to wear
> condoms, while ignoring the fact that their proliferation is in and
> of itself a complete defiance of the religion many of them claim to
> uphold.
You use the word 'choose' - I think that it is generally agreed by philosophers (and for that matter psycologists) that there is no such thing as free will. People act according to the environment in which they have existed. Sitting and apportioning blame is of no use whatsoever - it only helps to be talking about this issue if we can try to understand how we can change this environment so that people will be affected positively. Sitting on a computer and apportioning blame helps no-one.
The idea that people 'choose' to 'plead obedience to christianity' seems to me to show you cannot have much understanding of religious belief. If you believe something - for example, as most people believe in science - then it is not really a 'choice' to plead obediance to it, is it? You just believe it.
> And what has it achieved? Allowed people to survive where they would
> naturally have died. Thus leaving what little food was available to
> spread between so many more mouths, requiring ever more aid, causing
> ever more suffering, allowing disease to spread to ever more people.
> The more we support these people, and continue to suffer their
> self-destructive behaviours, the worse their situayion becomes, and
> the more they require from us.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong, and with a little more help, the problems would
> crack under the sheer weight of charitable investment. But I don't
> see any evidence of any improvement. Do you?
I'm 18. I have never been to Africa, so of course I havn't seen any evidence of improvement. I must confess my ignorance about African history. However - though this might be a little naieve - if I had no clean water, I would certainly feel that a charity like WaterAid providing me with a well (or some other source of water) would be achieving something. Whether this is bad in the long term is something which I'm not going to argue with you about, because I don't know.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Also (though again I may have misunderstood you) - "largely able
> to pay it back". My understanding of the situation is that many
> countrys are NOT able to pay it back, not even able to pay the
> INTEREST they are charged every year yet alone pay back the loan
> itself.
Your understanding of the situation, then, is incomplete. They can afford to pay it back, indeed most likely would have paid it back by now in its entirety, had they not been more interested in killing eachother, breeding like flies, and defying medical fact in a determined effort to encourage their own suffering. People continue to lay blame on corrupt leadership. Certainly, this has been a factor, but the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of those in need is largely upon their own heads. They choose to have more children, they choose to proliferate disease, they choose to plead obedience to Christianity when people tell them to wear condoms, while ignoring the fact that their proliferation is in and of itself a complete defiance of the religion many of them claim to uphold.
No one person can of him/herself bring suffering down upon so many millions. God does not walk this earth. Blame lies elsewhere, also.
> It has 'achieved nothing'. Right. Do you really mean that? Because if
> you do, that is a quite absurd claim. Feeding people, or providing
> them with clean water (as for example WaterAid do), is hardly
> 'achieving nothing' in my opinion.
And what has it achieved? Allowed people to survive where they would naturally have died. Thus leaving what little food was available to spread between so many more mouths, requiring ever more aid, causing ever more suffering, allowing disease to spread to ever more people. The more we support these people, and continue to suffer their self-destructive behaviours, the worse their situayion becomes, and the more they require from us.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and with a little more help, the problems would crack under the sheer weight of charitable investment. But I don't see any evidence of any improvement. Do you?
> Also (though again I may have misunderstood you) - "largely able
> to pay it back". My understanding of the situation is that many
> countrys are NOT able to pay it back, not even able to pay the
> INTEREST they are charged every year yet alone pay back the loan
> itself.
Your understanding of the situation, then, is incomplete. They can afford to pay it back, indeed most likely would have paid it back by now in its entirety, had they not been more interested in killing eachother, breeding like flies, and defying medical fact in a determined effort to encourage their own suffering. People continue to lay blame on corrupt leadership. Certainly, this has been a factor, but the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of those in need is largely upon their own heads. They choose to have more children, they choose to proliferate disease, they choose to plead obedience to Christianity when people tell them to wear condoms, while ignoring the fact that their proliferation is in and of itself a complete defiance of the religion many of them claim to uphold.
No one person can of him/herself bring suffering down upon so many millions. God does not walk this earth. Blame lies elsewhere, also.
> It has 'achieved nothing'. Right. Do you really mean that? Because if
> you do, that is a quite absurd claim. Feeding people, or providing
> them with clean water (as for example WaterAid do), is hardly
> 'achieving nothing' in my opinion.
And what has it achieved? Allowed people to survive where they would naturally have died. Thus leaving what little food was available to spread between so many more mouths, requiring ever more aid, causing ever more suffering, allowing disease to spread to ever more people. The more we support these people, and continue to suffer their self-destructive behaviours, the worse their situayion becomes, and the more they require from us.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and with a little more help, the problems would crack under the sheer weight of charitable investment. But I don't see any evidence of any improvement. Do you?
Also there's religious beliefs that play a factor.
Apparently some shamans/tribal leaders/etc are suggesting that a sure cure for a man's HIV is for him to go out and rape a virgin.
Hardly solves matters.
Apparently some shamans/tribal leaders/etc are suggesting that a sure cure for a man's HIV is for him to go out and rape a virgin.
Hardly solves matters.
Well, taking into consideration teh population of Ethiopia has doubled since the original Live Aid (from 35-70 million), it's something that should be dealt with at least.
If the population has stayed steady, or increased only slightly, then there would be twice as much food, in theory, seeing as there'd be half as many people.
Less famine = more food = better health = less disease = better quality of life etc
If the population has stayed steady, or increased only slightly, then there would be twice as much food, in theory, seeing as there'd be half as many people.
Less famine = more food = better health = less disease = better quality of life etc
It's certainly a point for discussion.
Obviously solving it would not be the complete solution and I'm not suggesting that doing so would be, but I do believe there is some degree of truth to the suggestion that it is a factor.
Obviously solving it would not be the complete solution and I'm not suggesting that doing so would be, but I do believe there is some degree of truth to the suggestion that it is a factor.
Hedfix wrote:
> Sometimes I just think "Stop humping so much".
>
> Sorry, sometimes I think it's humanity's inability to control some of
> the basic drives that gets places into these kind of situations.
>
> "Oh you've got 8 children? Nice..."
Yeah, that's what I say all teh time.
It's the pope's fault really.
If he hadn't gone "CONDOMS ARE BLASPHEMOUS! USE THEM AND GO TO HELL!!" then maybe they might have used some.
> Sometimes I just think "Stop humping so much".
>
> Sorry, sometimes I think it's humanity's inability to control some of
> the basic drives that gets places into these kind of situations.
>
> "Oh you've got 8 children? Nice..."
Yeah, that's what I say all teh time.
It's the pope's fault really.
If he hadn't gone "CONDOMS ARE BLASPHEMOUS! USE THEM AND GO TO HELL!!" then maybe they might have used some.
Gutted, I'm sure.
buggar off Hedfix
Raising a point for discussion is not the same as discussing it.
Heh, with your attitude no wonder hardly anyone's bothered with this thread.
Heh, with your attitude no wonder hardly anyone's bothered with this thread.
If you raised a point for discussion then start discussing it. I've made planty of points towards my argument, you've just said 'they should stop having babies.'
Page: