posted
People are certainly dying of AIDS because of the pope and other high church officials actions.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's a prime example of why it will take so long to fix the world (if it can ever be done.)
There are too many people looking for reasons to NOT help the poor countries. Trying to find problems with the ideas. Trying to find holes in the attempts to make things better.
Yes we need to find the holes, but we can't just stop there and say "Well look how problematic it will be, let's just forget about it!" We then find SOLUTIONS.
I can't understand how there are people who will just look to find why it CAN'T be done. And then they just stop thinking about the issue, as if it's settled. It's mind-boggling to me.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good argument, Russell. That's what I've been trying to express but couldn't, not as clearly anyway.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes we need to find the holes, but we can't just stop there and say "Well look how problematic it will be, let's just forget about it!" We then find SOLUTIONS.
Of course, jebus, instead of bitching about people pointing out problems, you might propose a few solutions to those problems.
posted
Well, earlier, I posted a proposed solution to the problem, or at least what the US could do to help and help itself in the process.
It was greeted with the sound of silence.
But hey, you're very right, in this world, most people are much more interested in their view of a problem than actually rolling up their sleeves and working at a solution.
Because, hey, let's face it, those people in need, they are so tragic and needy, but they're also just so icky, but an argument -- hey let's sit down and have some coffee and cake while we hash this thing out.
[ October 28, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Lost Ashes ]
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have another screenname, or did you post it in another thread? Because what you posted on the previous pages was a set of principles, not a solution to a problem.
If it was in another thread, you're making the mistake of linking people's interest in discussing a topic on this board, with you, to their interest in solving the problem in general.
Face it, nothing that people do on this board is "actually rolling up their sleeves and working at a solution."
posted
if a major cause of the spread of AIDS in these countries is indeed unsafe sex, then what's the solution? That's what this thread is getting at, I think.
If that isn't a major cause, then what IS causing the spread of AIDS? What are all of the ways you can get AIDS, and which ways would be most likely to cause a mushrooming epidemic?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where your hostility is coming from Dag. But anyway, what exactly would be the point of me proposing solutions in this thread. Would it accomplish anything?
Either way I don't have many, but that's not from lack of trying to think them up.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not hostility, it's amazement that comes from your initial post. You're complaining that the people who are pointing out problems aren't interested in solving the problem and accusing them of stopping thinking about the issue and thinking it's settled.
I'm always at least a little amused when someone's mind is boggled by behavior in the midst of that person displaying the behavior.
You don't have solutions but not because you haven't tried to think of some. Did it occur to you that this is the case for at least some of the others in this thread?
quote:nothing that people do on this board is "actually rolling up their sleeves and working at a solution."
Imagine for a moment that you are standing on a dock with 100 other people and out in the water are 1000 people drowning who can't swim. You have 1000 life preservers and if everyone threw our 10, all the 1000 would be saved. Unfortunately, no one seems to care but you and there is no way you can distribute the life preservers fast enough to save more than a small fraction of the drowning people.. Will your time be better spent desperately throwing life preservers to as many as you can, or trying to the other 99 bystanders to help (or some combination of the above).
Clearly if all we do is talk about the problems of poverty, starvation and disease, we will never solve the problems. But if I work at it alone -- I will never solve the problems either. With such problems talk is not simply a waste of time. It is a necessary component.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And don't forget, that if a situation is talked about enough, maybe, just maybe someone will get inspired to stand up and go out to do something about it.
Hey, there's always a chance.
And to borrow from The Rabbit's life preserver statement, if only one person on that dock throws their 10 life preservers, it won't make a huge difference in the world. But it sure makes a world of difference for the 10 people who get saved.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Dag, I was talking about the people who aren't trying to think up further solutions.
Take one poster for example... um... let's pick skillery:
quote: We need to leave those poor countries alone and stop trying to export our values. Death is a reality that is accepted in most countries. Nobody lives forever, and most sane people don't want to.
posted
We could help with the diseases problem by giving the CDC back a good portion of the 40% of their budget the Bush Administration told them had to be used to research on bioterrorist stuff. Just a thought.
We could put that money back where it used to be with fun stuff like eradicating polio, and giving other vaccines over the world.
posted
This thread makes me sad in a lot of ways. I've been using the net a lot less, recently, for various reasons and so have gotten to read almost all the comments since I last posted in one, large lump and, boy, is there a lot of anger. I am a total hypocrite for pointing beams in others eyes with regards to anger, but let me just say that I hope we can all think a little before we post.
I'm typing on a laptop right now, and navigation between windows is a pain, so I'm going to throw some things out regarding what has been said on this thread without quoting things specifically, so if I miss the substance of what anyone was saying, that's why.
When Rabbit made her comment, the things that sprang to my mind were adequate and clean food and water and little things like the MMR vaccines and maybe judicious use of DDT towards the malaria problem. To help most of the world get these things doesn't, to my mind, really take a change in 'infrastructure'. Infrastructure is one of those words that can mean quite a lot, so I'm really confused as to what Irami meant when he said it. In any case, just to treat those things I mentioned doesn't really take much of a change in things like roads and bridges, as far as I can tell.
Regarding mph's statement that we can do both. I was hoping to avoid getting into this argument, because it will probably kill the thread, but since he's going to ignore my request and say that we can do both, anyway, let me point out that the original question of this thread basically boils down to spending money invading Iraq or spending money on various humanitarian projects within the framework of the war on terror. I think it's a reasonable to say that if people are willing to allow X amount of money to be spent on Iraq because they think they are recieving Y in benefits for security, it might be reasonable to assume that they would be comfortable in paying for something else rather than the war in Iraq which has benefits to security which equal or exceed those which we achieved by invading Iraq. As should be quite evident in this thread, people that are willing to pay for security of their country aren't so willing to pay for things just cuz it might be a nice thing to do. Note that my question doesn't revolve around it being a nice thing to do or to create an 'anarcho-socialist' world as someone else suggested.
My question, again, which I think only Rakeesh really replied to, if memory serves, is would the U.S. be more secure if we helped other countries with those things Rabbit mentioned, rather than invade Iraq. When I ask this, I'm assuming that things are where they were pre-invasion. That is, with Iraq contained and basically harmless.
posted
Suppose we all just find little things that we can do to ease pain and suffering within our own sphere of influence, and trust God to bring needy people into our sphere and to give us the wisdom to know where the practical boundaries of our influence lie.
Building bureaucracies and mounting vast, unwieldy programs to render compassionate service is just an open invitation for corrupt people to twist our efforts to their own evil purposes.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I hearing this right? The Pope and church officials have some blame for the spread of AIDS through unprotected sex?
There is really only one situation in which that statement could be even somewhat true. A married couple, one of which has AIDS, both of which know it, engage in unprotected sex because of the Pope's warnings about condoms.
Extramarital, ongoing sexual affairs with men, women, prostitutes, etc., the Pope has no blame for. Are you bloody high? The Pope talks, every now and then, about stuff like being faithful to one's spouse, yakkidy yakkidy, blah blah, that's nice and Oh my God, he's saying condoms are bad!!!!!!!!!Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, with Iraq contained and basically harmless.
While I do believe that America would be much more secure if somehow, we could spend that $270.00 / American to pay for and cure these things...questions of Iraqi containment and harmlessness are subjective, at best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trust God to bring needy people to us? That sounds like a rather convenient way of taking responsibility away from ourselves. We don't have to do anything except wait until we find someone bleeding on the sidewalk. Good plan.
posted
Storm, as citizens of the world, we would be safer if we did take those steps. What I mean by this is that the world would be just a smidgin safer for everyone, which benefits all of us.
U.S. citizens safer? Most likely, yes. But there is always the possibility that we would be offering a leg up to some folks who would later on be our enemies and more capable ones.
History show that in Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. In Japan we gave them their start to industrialization at the turn of the 20th century. In the other cases we gave them weaponry and money. All have come home to roost, so to say.
But what if by giving true humanitarian asistance we could foster humanitarian growth in these countries? Could that be the rose seed amidst the nettles?
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A married couple, one of which has AIDS, both of which know it, engage in unprotected sex because of the Pope's warnings about condoms.
You really need to read the links. They indicate that Catholic officals have done precisely that -- encouraged married couples, where one has HIV/AIDS to have unprotected sex rather than use condoms.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, you could argue that the war in Iraq was waged to make possible the upcoming democratic elections there. Spending all the money on the war with the ultimate goal of fostering an environment more suitable to humanitarian welfare.
Although war might not have been the best way to go about achieving that, and it's certainly been a shot in the foot in a lot of respects.
I do think the right environment has to be created before you can go about helping these children have brighter futures.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think the right environment has to be created before you can go about helping these children have brighter futures.
Brighter futures shouldn't be too hard to achieve for children who have no future at all. Although I understand that in the long term, political problems must be fixed to resolve issues of extreme poverty, I simply can't agree that they must be solved before we can go about helping children who are dying of starvation and disease.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Brighter futures shouldn't be too hard to achieve for children who have no future at all. Although I understand that in the long term, political problems must be fixed to resolve issues of extreme poverty, I simply can't agree that they must be solved before we can go about helping children who are dying of starvation and disease.
But to have a future at all, the children need adequate nourishment, good health, education, and a society that isn't crumbling around them or completely closed to opportunities to succeed.
I completely agree that we need to help starving and malnourished children wherever they are, regardless of their cultural and societal circumstances. But keeping them alive and helping them have any future at all are different degrees of humanitarian service. I have observed that when people associated with my company go into a region with food for the children, they will inevitably remark that much more needs to be done than just bringing in food. Life support keeps you breathing, but surgery and therapy lets you get by on your own again.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When our church goes to Honduras, we do a lot of medical clinics where we give medicine to kill the intestinal parasites that the children have. It's the major cause of malnutrition. We also hand out vitamins.
But two weeks after we're gone, the vitamins are gone, and soon after the medicine is out of their sytem they are re-infected with the parasites from the contaminated food and water they have.
Giving them food, medicine, and vitamins is all well and good, but it doesn't solve the long term problems.
Solving the long term problems has a lot to do with the government of Honduras - which is beyond the scope of a Christian medical mission trip. All the money in the world would enable us to bring more food, more medicine - but would it enable us to change the real underlying problems? Inaccessibility to education, poor agricultural practices, lack of infratructure like sewage systems and filtered water are just some of the many problems there. We can't change those things with just money and a good heart - the Hondurans need to do work to change those things.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's great work your church is doing Belle. And what you said underscores the importance of infrastructure, especially water and sewage, to public health in the 3rd world.
Rakeesh, as Rabbit said, you should read what I linked or even what I quoted. Or search yourself. When the church takes the position that condoms are worse than AIDS, as it seems to me it has, then yes the Pope and church hierachy are helping the spread of an epidemic. Period.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you imagine what a huge difference a simple Brita filter pitcher (only a bit cheaper for the filters) would make on the lives of many people in this world?
But for something as simple as that is to use, you'd have to educate people as to Why they need to use it, How to use it, and to Not use the receptacle as a chamber pot at night.
There really is a whole concept that some societies just still don't have about these things.
How many illnesses around the world could be prevented by simply getting people to boil water before using it? Water in a pot, pot on the fire, wait until it bubbles for a little bit, cool the water and drink it. Simple, right?
Not for some people.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lost Ashes - we run into that problem too. All meds are labeled in Spanish, but many of the villagers can't read.
We have to explain, very clearly, that they take one tablet per day. Not all of them at once. And, if they run out of one medication - it's still okay to keep taking the other one. Even when you put meds in separate containers, and try to explain that one gets taken twice a day, and the other only once - they almost always wind up taking all of them together either once or twice a day.
I guess my point is that it's easy to say $270 per American would solve the world's problems but throwing money away at a problem will not fix it. There are too many underlying factors.
I'd love to send $270 dollars and figure that's going to take care of things but it won't. It takes people going in there to make a difference - people giving of themselves to help educate and work with people that are so desperately poor they don't even recognize the poverty they're in.
Dr. Leon, our missionary, is the only doctor for hundreds of miles. It doesn't just take money - it takes people. Dr. Leon was trained in the US in internal medicine and did some work in tropical med and infectious diseases. He lives in a house with mud brick walls, no air conditioning, electricity that works only half the time. His wife is also an American educated physician. Imagine the wealth and comfort they could have. But they are willing to give it up to be where people need them.
To fix the world's problems we need a lot more people like Edwin & Tirza Leon, not just money.
Sorry - I'm veering off track. I just admire these people so much I can't resist a chance to praise them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
