Rog Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Well that illuminates things, Gazza. It is life that the Iraq War happened; it is life that Jews (and others) were gassed in the 1940s; it's life that people go on strike; it is life that crime happens... Just life. In a word, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 For me its about enlightenned self interest. The idea that you can "abandon" Africa with no consequence to you is bull. The issue is how to balance aid verses the consequences of not giving aid. Too often these sorts of debates are broken down into all or nothing statements which just trivializes things. The UK gives out about 0.35% of its GDP as aid, it spends 2.5% on the military, 9% or so on Health. If aid went, then international problems would grow - more piracy, more kidnappings, more expensive raw materials. It is in our interest to contain these problems and work towards solving them. Shutting your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting Africa isn't my problem will just make it more likely you are inconvenienced by Africa's problems when things go wrong. Due to globalization, and the the legacy of colonization the UK trades with Africa alot - I could only find figures on the EU, but EU trade with Africa makes up 9% of its overal trade - thats a big proportion of GDP. To just go that trade doesn't matter is bull - it helps the UK, it helps Africa. Rog - what makes the world different now from 500 years ago is that it isn't a Dog-Eat-Dog world - its a trading world of mutual interests. And the West has a mutual interest in developing Africa and its markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Africa is a resource and we are a resource? Right ok, not quite sure exactly what you mean there. That’s life, it’s how it should be, and the do-gooders shouldn’t be allowed to do anything about it.But the problem is that you present massive inconsistencies in your judgement. If you said that it is really each to their own and the consequences are justified because it is 'dog eat dog', how can you then endorse a liberal democratic system that does not operate on each to their own value system. And you much do support liberal democracy. Also you talk about takers and givers, but then treat matters as a dog eat dog world. Well you might justify the police's and legal system's operation by recognising that they are powerful and the stronger dog. But then I would also assume you justify criminal behaviour because it is dog eat dog as well, and if they get away with the crime it is tough shit. However, even though there appear to be gross inconsistencies and some distortions in your terminology (natural selection), I actually think you I can see a form of elitism in your arguments. It seems from your comments that you place greater worth or value on those (and their interests) in the UK/Isle of Man and also on those who already have power (the bigger dogs). And I see this from your selective attitude to what is right and what is wrong about such things as immigration and crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Rog - what makes the world different now from 500 years ago is that it isn't a Dog-Eat-Dog world - its a trading world of mutual interests. And the West has a mutual interest in developing Africa and its markets.Though I think it is important to qualify that Globalisation in reference to African trade is one of satisfying western business interests through the use of control over African economies and their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I think what it boils down to is that it's your money and if you wish to give money to Africa then do so, if you don't want to give then don't, who gives a shit either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Though I think it is important to qualify that Globalisation in reference to African trade is one of satisfying western business interests through the use of control over African economies and their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 It would be nice to be able to find a cure for people who become infected as a consequence of immorality but on the other hand it also would result in the message that immorality is WRONG that AIDS sends being diluted or even forgotten. Rog, 3000 years ago you probably could reasonably argue that eating pork in a warm climate was an act which could justifably be called immoral - the consequences of it were socially destructive. You seem to think behaviours are immoral for fixed eternal reasons. I think they are immoral for their impact on society. Do you think that difference in views is worth discussing? IFF AIDS had no societal consequence - spreading it wouldn't be immoral. Please note I am not saying that promiscuous sex doesn't have a societal impact and hence is ok. But what was once immoral in one social, technological and environmental setting MAY not be immoral in another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 It would be nice to be able to find a cure for people who become infected as a consequence of immorality but on the other hand it also would result in the message that immorality is WRONG that AIDS sends being diluted or even forgotten. Rog, 3000 years ago you probably could reasonably argue that eating pork in a warm climate was an act which could justifably be called immoral - the consequences of it were socially destructive. You seem to think behaviours are immoral for fixed eternal reasons. I think they are immoral for their impact on society. Do you think that difference in views is worth discussing? IFF AIDS had no societal consequence - spreading it wouldn't be immoral. Please note I am not saying that promiscuous sex doesn't have a societal impact and hence is ok. But what was once immoral in one social, technological and environmental setting MAY not be immoral in another one. Unprotected promiscuous or casual sex is immoral. Infidelity is immoral Drug abuse. especially using shared dirty needles is immoral No if's, no but's --- absolutes. It’s got SFA to do with religion, and everything to do with decency, respect for others, and self respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 You've entirely missed my point. Ignore AIDS, promiscuous sex etc, think of something which is not socially distructive now, but which was in the past - my example is eating pork. Is it possible for technology etc to change something which was once immoral into something which isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Ignore AIDS, promiscuous sex etc, think of something which is not socially distructive now, but which was in the past - my example is eating pork. Consumption of pork wasn’t a thing that was proscribed because pork was inclined to “go off” quickly in a warm climate, eating pork was proscribed because pork is from an animal that is a filthy eater. It’s the same with dog and with other animals that eat their own feces or the feces of other animals. The “hot climate” explanation is so much BS. Pigs were kept in The Holy Land way back, remember the bible story of Jesus casting out the evil spirits into a herd of swine? Hardly being kept as pets. Is it possible for technology etc to change something which was once immoral into something which isn't? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Unprotected promiscuous or casual sex is immoral. NO IT ISN'T Infidelity is immoral NO IT ISN'T Drug abuse. especially using shared dirty needles is immoral Not immoral but stupid yes No if's, no but's --- absolutes. IS IT BOLLOCKS It’s got SFA to do with religion, and everything to do with decency, respect for others, and self respect. that counts me out then Amended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Unprotected promiscuous or casual sex is immoral. NO IT ISN'T Infidelity is immoral NO IT ISN'T Drug abuse. especially using shared dirty needles is immoral Not immoral but stupid yes No if's, no but's --- absolutes. IS IT BOLLOCKS It’s got SFA to do with religion, and everything to do with decency, respect for others, and self respect. that counts me out then Amended Amended, but in a way that, if true, presents you in a very bad light. I just hope that any girls or women who know who you are in real life read your opinion on morality, relationships, and how to behave. I rather doubt that they would want to associate with someone holding such values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 No if's, no but's --- absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. No wait, thats an absolute. So that makes me a Sith. Bugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Though I think it is important to qualify that Globalisation in reference to African trade is one of satisfying western business interests through the use of control over African economies and their people. Yeah, those in absolute poverty are better off because of their incidental situation that results from western companies wishing to maximise profits. But they are also being exploited. From being impoverished people they have become those who can sustain their life more easily but with the price of bondage. Overall, it is better situation for them to be in. But that doesn't mitigate the fact the such authority they come under is unjustifiable. In any case, I was trying to qualify what you were saying because you tend to talk about Globalisation as if it a process of largely unmitigated benefit to the world. I just hope that any girls or women who know who you are in real life read your opinion on morality, relationships, and how to behave.Why do you assume that girls and women have different morality and attitudes to those that Jimbms has stated. I think you are being a little sexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.