Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I chose B

This is because I truly believe that most people are either not selfless or non-apathetic enough to take action against issues which don't directly affect them.

For example, how many people here believe that African children starving to death in squalid refugee camps is a bad thing? Probably everyone here, and how many of you own toy soldiers? Again probably everyone here. I think we can all agree that toy soldiers are a luxury item which are used for leisure and would have no detrimental impact on our lives if we weren't to own them. So how many of you will go out today or tomorrow, sell your toy soldiers and donate the proceeds to a charity which helps starving African children living in squalid refugee camps? Probably no one.

This is because we simply don't care enough to do anything about it, sure we all probably chuck a few coins in a collection box every now and again to sooth our consciences, but when it comes down to it, it is human nature to value your own rights and possesions over those of another, especialy those of a stranger.

squilverine wrote:This is because we simply don't care enough to do anything about it, sure we all probably chuck a few coins in a collection box every now and again to sooth our consciences, but when it comes down to it, it is human nature to value your own rights and possesions over those of another, especialy those of a stranger.

I'm inclined to believe that people don't do that because that situation is completely alien to them. I mean how many people here (as in the 1st world) have actually lived day to day uncertain of being fed and the constant fear of getting hacked apart by machetes? The majority of people in the West haven't so they can't visual living like that. They have no means to empathize because they can't relate.

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) The whole argument of A is that there IS NO poverty. That you sacrifice your personal liberaties for the good of all.

No, you sacrifice the personal liberties of all for the wealth of all. It's an important distinction.

However, what I was addressing was the assumption that whoever answered the question would expect to avoid the poverty personally; I didn't think that when I answered B. I'm sure there are plenty of others who didn't either.

2) You have the right to do whatever the feth you want. Including fething up other peoples lives. That's basically what a 'ton' of personal liberties involves. An argument for a rapist would be 'but I have the RIGHT to screw who I choose'.

There's no reason at all to think that. A 'ton' is not 'an infinite amount' by any reasoning, and there's no indication of anarchy or lawlessness given.

avantgarde wrote:

squilverine wrote:This is because we simply don't care enough to do anything about it, sure we all probably chuck a few coins in a collection box every now and again to sooth our consciences, but when it comes down to it, it is human nature to value your own rights and possesions over those of another, especialy those of a stranger.

I'm inclined to believe that people don't do that because that situation is completely alien to them. I mean how many people here (as in the 1st world) have actually lived day to day uncertain of being fed and the constant fear of getting hacked apart by machetes? The majority of people in the West haven't so they can't visual living like that. They have no means to empathize because they can't relate.

That is a valid point, however just because you have not experienced something first hand does not affect ones ability to empathise.
It is certainly not an excuse to justify doing nothing.

If we were unable to empathise then fund raising events such as liveaid and comic relief simply wouldn't exist, however I do find it sad that we should need a yearly event to remind us all that there are several million starving human beings only a few hours away.

This though is human nature, and as bad as it makes me sound I am simply just not willing to give up my creature comforts to save a starving mans life. Anyone else willing to admit to that?

I will admit it in regards to starving people in other countries. We have enough homeless and starving in the US. feth the starving in other countries is what I say.

I donate on occasion to helping the homeless. I'll donate canned goods and whatnot to the food shelf, I will buy a toy for xmas for the Toys for Tots program (okay not starving kids but they deserve a xmas as much as the next kid).

Call me a nationalist because that is what I am. To hell with the foreign nations and their problems. I say we take care of our own right here first. Once we have unfethed our gak than we help the rest of the world (or maybe we don't).

Lean freedom is better than fat slavery.

"No poverty" isn't saying much, in terms of what you get for not being free. The choice would be more interesting phrased like this:

1) No freedom, but opulence

2) Freedom, but poverty

I'd still need someone to get specific, though..."No freedom" could mean I've literally got marionette strings tied to my arms and legs and someone walks me around...that might not suck if I was being walked around my own harem having wonderful things being done to me by an endless cavalcade of every variety of gorgeous, multi-orgasmic female the human genetic line could produce...but it would suck if I was being walked around inside a majestic palace, barefoot, over long lines of broken, stained glass of the finest quality...

Likewise, "poverty" could be "barely get enough to eat, barely stay dry, barely have any clothes, but get to eat just enough and aren't wet all the time and have some clothes to wear," or it could be the abject suck that I won't bother going into.

Meh, I have lots of liberty now (or at least as much as I can handle) and I'm relatively poor. Why ruin something that works so well?

How poor? Becuase believe me, it get's worse. (You have the Internet for cripes sake)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this is along the lines of 'How would you rule the world', No?

So you could either go A) DO WHATEVER THE FETH YOU WANT, or B) Organise people into working, viable, self-sustaining communities.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Pssst... it is a false dichotomy... ahem.

So is the question, as posed.

I think I pressed the wrong button or I'm very confused?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I forgot which one I voted for, but I'm voting for B now.

*shake fist*
TRAITOR!!!