Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by unanun, Dec 11, 2014.
Not really a case against the actual concept of human rights, but more of a case against using our perception of said rights as a justification for actions taken.
Have to disagree though. One wouldn't insist an investor should contribute to a company or donate to charity if they don't like or agree with the aims or ethos of that company or charity. If we're to give aid, it should be going towards things that we agree with - in other words, our Western ideals. Why should we feel obliged to contribute towards something we fundamentally disagree with or practices we actively find repulsive as a society?
Within the context of foreign aid: if those countries which need aid wish to run themselves according to a different set of ideals, so be it - they are free to. But they should not expect or demand aid - it is not their right to receive money from a richer nation, generated by the hard work of individuals within that country. It is, for lack of a better word, a privilege - and when privileges are given, it isn't wrong to attach conditions. For the privilege of higher education, we must work hard and attain good grades; for the privilege of much of the welfare given by government, we must actively be seeking work and must have contributed to the economy via our taxes; and so on and so forth.
As an aside, I suppose one could argue that within the context of a global community, it is the responsibility of the rich to contribute to the welfare of the less wealthy. That is fine, but if we are to take the context of a global community, surely we should be promoting the ideals our country supports. There is a reason we have those ideals: we believe them to be the path to a happier and stronger society. Our responsibility to attempt to improve the welfare of the unfortunate in other countries would be synonymous with the promotion of our ideals.
So again - although it could be argued that it is our responsibility to see to the needs of the less fortunate, surely we would and should be doing so according to the values we believe in, for it is those values we believe lead to a higher quality of life.
Additionally: were there to be a global government or overseeing body for this global community (one could even take the UN as a light example of this), the representatives from each country would be arguing for the ideals they, and the citizens of their country, hold. Nobody would think this is wrong; after all, it is our representatives' responsibility to represent us and our ideals, and our neighbours' to represent theirs. Western representatives would, of course, promote Western ideals when deciding on the governance or practices of this hypothetical global community.
To summate, the article states that we should give aid to foreign countries, but not to "force" them to adopt Western practices. In the context of aid, Western countries do not "force" the recipients of the aid to do anything - they attach a condition to the aid they are offering out of their own pockets. If the recipients do not wish to accept these conditions, then that is their choice - but I do not see why it is a wealthier country's responsibility to give aid to a less fortunate country if they disagree with the way in which that money is spent or that, because of differing ideals, the aid will not be improving the quality of life of those in need according to how we interpret quality of life.
It is technically not a responsibility of the Western world to give aid, but it falls within the liberal mindset. So in a sense, it is natural for them to give it. But giving it packaged under the guise of exporting Western values leads to conflict, and the author is arguing for a more subtle approach to the issue.
A logical approach. The current system of bandaids and conversions doesn't work. Iraq was handed a democracy it wasn't ready to fight for, now it's falling apart to ISIS. Africa is being ransacked by Chinese interests, and is fighting tooth and nail just to scrape even the most rudimentary of medicine and food...
One does not help a people by trying subvert their culture. Education and ideology are not the same.
Yet the drumbeat of history thrums ever so louder with each passing year that we fail to learn.
We improve humanity through measurable means, empirical means, scientific means... That's not too convenient for a narrative of brazen heroism, though.
So the drumbeat continues.
There's a documentary about the ramifications of 'developed' countries shoving a compulsory school system at developing nations. It's thought provoking and it makes one wonder where the line is between a beneficial education and merely indoctrinating an entire generation to a capitalist infrastructure that they have little chance in competing in. It makes one wonder then if these same systems in our own countries are actually relevant to our needs.
And I can't remember the fucking title! *tears up the internets*
Delicious white man's burden.
Does that go hand in hand with white guilt?
Cause all I ever feel guilty for is my ancestors not annihilating other cultures that can't make use of their own natural resources and are now a major source of poverty and disease in the world.
Inb4 you're a monster or a few smites and dislikes
You're a monster! A fiend! A most despicable, disgusting, disturbed, indecipherable madman! A mewling, infantile, egotistical beast! A frankly fiendish fellow frothing fecal farces! A vile, villainous, voracious vagrant! A perturbed, putrid, maleficent, mortified, twisted, xenophobic, genocidal, white power worshiping, incestuous, moronic, backwater, deranged, mentally destitute zealot of hatred and evil!
Good enough for you or should the show go on?
WARNING IF YOUR HUMOUR OR SARCASM DETECTOR IS BROKEN DO NOT READ; TO SAVE MYSELF EFFORT THE INTERNET GETS TO PROVIDE MY RESPONSE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content)
This was posted for funnies. If you take it seriously shame on you.
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.
You're a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?
If you aren't an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.
And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.
P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, Byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, abrasive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.[/spoiler]
This was posted for funnies. If you take it seriously shame on you.
You're not a monster.
Just very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very misinformed.
I consider myself fairly well voiced in things.
Talking about something and being informed about something are totally different things.
Now before I start clogging this thread with links to Wikipedia and historical findings, are you for real real? Or are you just doing the "TROLOLOLOLOL I don't actually think that way, but I am going to say this incredibly purposefully ignorant thing that will offend everyone and then make fun of them for being offended like Asmo does, even though that doesn't excuse the fact that I said something incredibly insensitive?"
Because if that's what this is, I'm just going to save us all some time and say "Just because Asmo does it, doesn't make you not an asshole."
Regardless of how offended you may and or may not be by his opinion I strongly suggest you take a chill pill and discuss it in a civilised manner instead of dipping straight into the insult the shit out of people whose opinion I don't like Jar. Because that doesn't make him an asshole, it makes you an asshole.
If you feel you can discuss the subject in a civilised manner please go right ahead, we'll all listen. But if you want to put the thread on a rollercoaster to closedville ... don't.
I'm sorry for offending you, let me rephrase.
"Just because Asmo does it, doesn't make you not an asshole for saying something so deliberately hateful (like condoning mass genocide) in public."
You're not offending me, I'm just suggesting you calm down and conduct a civilised conversation about it, instead of increasing the chances the thread gets closed before any meaningful discussion.
@Kadaeux - did you miss the part where Windsong insulted all Third World cultures?
I think you're jumping on the wrong person here (in more ways than one).
I am being calm. At no point have I harrassed or smited or pressed that No Just No button--Whatever that means. So I don't think the thread will be closed over that.
Now, it might get closed by people derailing the topic to joke about mass genocide.
But I'm not holding out much hope for that because, you know, dem innernets.
I'm not jumping on the wrong person at all. Windsong stated his or her opinion. As we're all entitled to do. (Except for paedophiles or rapists, line all them up and shoot em)
Tegan's initial response however was a personal attack against Windsong because she (or he, who am I to judge) didn't like his (or her) opinion.
Which is understandable, its a controversial opinion that's about as politically correct as dressing up on a KKK outfit and joining a Westboro Baptist Church protest. (At least you'd fit in that way..)