Open-Eyed Thinking (Exploring Uncomfortable Topics) — Page 2

Haha!

I don't have any kids to share and I don't want yours so no.

Why, is there something wrong with him?

Oh! lol

New topic:

Sending aid to other countries is a very bad idea.

It prevents them from solving their own problems. It stops innovation. It keeps them in a welfare loop.

Some countries should just be allowed to fail. Then the international community should respond by allowing the neighboring countries to divide it up and take it over rather than propping it up for ages.

This will help to decrease the number of failed states and will remove a lot of graft from the leaky pipe that we use to donate money to worthless governments.

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

Neglify said:

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

 I'm not an expert, but I did see a documentary that once laid it out pretty straight:

Americans saw a bunch of half-naked people in an african community and so got together and got everyone to donate clothing to the cause. They got some T-shirt vendors to kick in thousands of unsold shirts from previous games that were no longer relevant.

They got all this together and then set to giving them away in some area or other. They did this for a few years until someone pointed out that while what they were doing was swell, it was driving the local clothing merchants out of business. They interviewed the owner of a garment factory just a few miles away who said people were now just used to waiting for the new clothes to arrive from America rather than supporting his business.

Another chapter talked about how some well meaning types set about donating cattle to people so they could better sustain themselves (I think it was in Somalia). The end result was that the price of cattle in the area tanked. The local cattle herders ended up with half their herds starving to death because of a sudden lack of demand and a sudden scarcity of foraging areas. And a sudden drop in the value of cheese made from these beasts meant the idea that the families could support themselves with these sales dried up. Then came the fact that they could not afford to feed them during the dry season and the local vegetation couldn't support the increase in numbers. And families who missed out on the give away were left at a disadvantage to those who gained. Then there was the problem of easy-come easy-go where the local people who got these free animals were pressured by their friends and neighbors to throw feasts for the rest of the village (yes, eating the cattle that was supposed to sustain the family with milk and cheese) because they now had the means and could not refuse to return the hospitality of a neighbor.

There are lots of examples, but this is long enough. You get the idea.

TV's Frink said:

Something tells me he thinks we should let people in our own country fail as well.

 How do you really think the Nordic climats got populations that were able to think ahead so well? Was it by propping up everyone equally or was it by letting those who did not plan ahead starve off?

It is not popular to think about, but by making sure no one starves or dies due to lack of planning or stupidity we end up with a society that cares heaps about each other, but also one that is no longer selecting for intelligence, resilience, and versitility.

Trident said:

Neglify said:

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

 I'm not an expert <snip>

Ok I get what you're getting at, but your concept of "letting that country fail" is bullshit. I'm all for not "upsetting the local businesses" and culture, but what you were saying seemed to imply that every country should now take the viewpoint "Me me me me me I don't care about you go die peacefully" which is pretty childish and selfish. 

Neglify said:

Trident said:

Neglify said:

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

 I'm not an expert

Ok I get what you're getting at, but your concept of "letting that country fail" is bullshit. I'm all for not "upsetting the local businesses" and culture, but what you were saying seemed to imply that every country should now take the viewpoint "Me me me me me I don't care about you go die peacefully" which is pretty childish and selfish. 

 I can see where you get that from because I am not really that good at explaining things, but what I mean is that rather than propping up a country that clearly can't find its way forward it should be allowed to get eaten up by its neighbors. It means external warfare instead of internal and it means more survival of the fittest stuff, but in the end we get stronger countries rather than ones that keep tripping over their own feet.

I am thinking that the threat that such a thing could happen must serve to unite the country rather than divide it. I think that giving the people in that country a common cause will get them focussed on their own survival.

What I am not saying is ignore people who have just suffered a big disaster. That stuff we need to come out and help, but what we are doing with some countries right now is like us all watching a guy who has bought a house too big for him to pay for. We can either all keep contributing to help the guy pay for it or we can watch him slowly go bankrupt, watch the house get repossessed by the bank, and then see him later on living in a much smaller house that he can better take care of.

Its the difference between false economy and real economy.

Haha 2 points!

OK, 3rd question:

Should the mentally ill and/or homeless people be aloud to wander around major cities? Why don't we round all these types up and put them in a resort or something?

I don't think we need to be mean to them or lock them in prison, but a resort located in the middle of nowhere that would have all of their needs met, but not have access to alcohol or drugs. If they wandered away from it they would have to walk for days to get back to civilization, at which point they would be picked up and put back there.

Make the cities clean and help these guys at the same time.

Trident said:

Should the mentally ill ... be aloud to wander around major cities? Why don't we round all these types up and put them in a resort or something?

I'd like you to define "mentally ill". Do you include treatable conditions, like Aspergers or Bipolar disorder? Do individuals like those who are trying their best to live normals lives deserve to be arrested. Yes you would be putting them in a golden cage, but it would still be a cage nonetheless.

Also, why should you limit ourselves to taking just the mentally ill and the homeless out of society? [sarcasm]Why not the communists, and the jews, and any other undesirables you can think of? In fact, why is civil rights a thing? Our country should be filled with only sane white people. Everything else can live in comfort while not really doing anything[/sarcasm]

Note: I am not a bigot (at least, I am not trying to be). I have nothing against communists or jews or other races or anybody else. I am just trying to make a point of where Trident's line of thinking might lead to.

I apologize for the unintentional misconception. Then again, my mom is convinced of crazier stuff, including that my Aspergers came from vaccines I got when I was 3. Perhaps some of her craziness rubbed off me or something.

My point about Trident locking up what he considers undesirable stands however.

TV's Frink said:

Because money.  We don't have enough to provide food and shelter, and you want to build resorts in the wilderness.

Also because freedom.  Being poor shouldn't be a crime.

 Because alchoholism and addictions. Is it really that much more compassionate to leave these people to self-destruct on the streets in the cold than to put them in a resort where they can't easily get the things that are ruining them?

Take them away from all the things that tempt them into these habits and get them where professionals can keep an eye on them. Set the place up with rehab facilities and workshops that help them learn or relearn trades. Get them a chance to overcome their problems.

And yes, it will cost a lot of money, but so what?

Danfun128 said:

Trident said:

Should the mentally ill ... be aloud to wander around major cities? Why don't we round all these types up and put them in a resort or something?

I'd like you to define "mentally ill". Do you include treatable conditions, like Aspergers or Bipolar disorder? Do individuals like those who are trying their best to live normals lives deserve to be arrested. Yes you would be putting them in a golden cage, but it would still be a cage nonetheless.

Also, why should you limit ourselves to taking just the mentally ill and the homeless out of society? [sarcasm]Why not the communists, and the jews, and any other undesirables you can think of? In fact, why is civil rights a thing? Our country should be filled with only sane white people. Everything else can live in comfort while not really doing anything[/sarcasm]

Note: I am not a bigot (at least, I am not trying to be). I have nothing against communists or jews or other races or anybody else. I am just trying to make a point of where Trident's line of thinking might lead to.

 The idea is that right now we are not doing anything for people who live in cardboard boxes and eat out of the garbage through no fault of their own. We used to lock these people away in sanitariums and that was pretty awful so I say why not scoop them up and put them on a perpetual holiday from their troubles. I group the homeless in with mentally ill in the sense that many of the homeless people are really quite mentally ill. I'm not envisioning a door to door search for people who are already coping. I'm just thinking of those poor bastards who are living in alleys.

4th idea:

Once a certain gang has been shown to be violent, membership to that gang should be illegal. A gang is like a corporation. If a corporation was found to be repeatedly sponsoring terrorists I'm pretty sure that company would get shut down and all of its directors jailed.

The same thing should happen to the Hells Angels and any other visibly marked gang with gang members. All the members should equally be held liable for the worst crimes their gang has committed just like all directors would be held responsible for having their company break the law.

Gang members in prison should then be separated and socialized rather than locked up with other criminals because it is a lack of a familial structure that usually leads them to want to join a gang to begin with. The psycopaths should be separated from the others as best as possible, but the regular ones should be given a chance to resocialize.

Have them work raising animals or something. Maybe they could incorporate animal rescue shelters into their prisons or something to give them a chance to learn how to care for things. Or maybe that won't work. Any ideas?