Haitian Disaster Shows World Come Together... Late as Always?

[Zucas]

mrstickball said:

Zucas said:

mrstickball said:

Okay then,

If you say your at fault for the issue, why are you posting here? Why aren't you spending your time helping in a homeless shelter instead of posting a rant on a message board to people that probably don't even understand the situation?

If you want to understand the problem and solution, a good place to start is usually.....Working with people that are in the problem you discribe to understand how their situations can actually be alievated. That is why I find your rant so hypocritical, you are essentially saying 'Why does humanity not help people when I don't even understand their situation, either?'.

As for me, I've done all the things I asked of you. That is why I know the good and bad sides to charity and helping the less fortunate. There is a reason that Johnstons 'great society' hasn't helped the poverty any more than when the government spent no money on poverty. When you work with those that are less fortunate, you do understand why some people are in such dire situations. You also see the great value in making a personal effort to helping people, as well, so as I said it has its good and bad sides.

Well I will give you credit for your efforts donated to helping othes.  I've helped out in the past as well but namely in donations to certain charities, salvation army, and of course countless food drives. 

But I'm curious why someone who has done that, has only thought so basic and linearly about it as to not really expand their analysis on the situation.  Why the refusal to give deep critical thought to the issue I've proposed despite having experience?  If the current existence of charity ahs good and bad sides, why not think of a way to make it only have good sides.  I'm always talking in ways where you find the root of the problem and you fix it and all subsequen things cease to matter.  Why sit their and accept a flawed system and act as if you've exhausted all scenarios when you can actually debate over here with me one that works. 

That's what I've been asking the entire time.  We know we live in this flawed world, even in the state of charity, yet we sit back and accept it.  That's what I'm asking.  Hopefully you finally understand what I'm saying.

Because making charities have only good sides requires ruthlessness and things that aren't so shiny and kid-friendly. The problem is that charities are seen as dispensiaries of love, help, and aid - sometimes to their fault. If you only wanted a 'good' side to charity, you would only help people willing to make their life better. Unfortunately, few charities or government leaders have the quads to actually do that. Usually government-run welfare programs force users (or private charities getting government assistance) to aid regardless of question. The problem with that is that those that really need the help, and can use it, do not get enough, and those that do not need the help, get nothing at all.

That is what the problem is - there are quotas and rules to aid that cause it to not uplift the people that it needs to.

So my question to you is - Do you mind destroying the welfare and charity system as we know it and move it to a system that seeks to help those really willing to change their lives? If so, a majority of charity may be removed, and certain people will invariably die. The system would be better for it, but are you willing to allow them to die?

Well my answer to that is once again you are pretending you have exhausted all options when clearly you haven't.  It's a good thing I'm smart enough to know that, otherwise this world would be in an even worse situation.

My solution to this problem, like a solution to most problems, is you attack the source of a problem.  If you are trying to stop an ant infestation you don't simply hunt every single ant down, you find the source (or the queen) and its home nest.  You have to tackle this situation the same way.  Why is charity unaffective?  Or in the question I proposed, why in a world of good people (or for the religious why in a world of an all loving god) does suffering and evil exist?

Well you have to start considering what is the root cause of all this.  Are people simply born into poverty or do create their own poverty?  Are people naturally evil or is evil something they learn?  Or as you said earlier, do you give someone a fish or teach them how to fish?  These are difficult questions obviously which is what I'm trying to get people to discuss. 

In the world we live in, these things aren't so black and white.  For instance when we give out charity to other struggling nations, there is always the chance it actually wont' reach the people (Somalia for instance).  Point is we weren't actually trying to fix the root cause of the issues in Somalia. 

So no I don't accept your question there because you are telling me all options but those have been exhausted when clearly they haven't.  You find something that seeks to fix the actual problem rather than making a sacrifice towards something that won't have fixed it completely.  Now what the root cause is in all of this, well that's the point of this topic.  No one here has even attempted to try and figure out the answer to this question.  Keep beating around the bush of Nazi ideologies or unrealistic expectations, but why not actually take on the question.  What is the root cause? 

 

But of course, if I were to purely answer that last question without pre-existing knowledge of your false dichotomy, I'd say maybe Che Guevera was right.  World is a shithole and the only way to fix it is forceably.  Considering the opposition here just to the idea of a dream world, maybe he was right.