 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We don't know that they haven't given the food and supplies to anybody, just not to this one specific village. That doesn't mean they aren't giving it to anybody. |
Weakest argument, EVAR.
We're talking about what we know to be true. I have no reason to believe their behavior would be different elsewhere, either. And neither do you. This is no justification, nor is it an escape from criticism.
quote:
If you think it's wrong to be selective about who you give help to, then you should also be condemning groups such as the United Negro College Fund. |
I do, but I don't think this is NEARLY comparable. It's one thing to drive up to malnourished, starving people with a truckload of food and not give it to them unless you change your religion to theirs, than to give disadvantaged minorities a scholarship to school.
quote:
Nobody was coerced. They did not use force or affect harm on them in any way. They simply chose to help other people. |
Which people in the village did they help, exactly?
It was their intent to get them to convert to Christianity, not to help. Giving them aid was a tool in getting them to convert.
quote:
The difference here is actually inflicting harm. SS officers killed people. To restate, these people only chose to help other people. |
They did not choose to help people -- if they did, they'd have given aid without forcing them to change religion for it.
You don't have to inflict harm directly to hurt someone. I don't know about the States, but it's actually a crime to not assist someone who is injured/dying in Canada, for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
We don't know that they haven't given the food and supplies to anybody, just not to this one specific village. That doesn't mean they aren't giving it to anybody.
|
One's enough 
quote:
If you think it's wrong to be selective about who you give help to, then you should also be condemning groups such as the United Negro College Fund. Or to take it a step further, anyone who gives to a charity for any specific thing or group of people(for instane refugees in Palestine).
|
Yes but while that usually happens the differentiations are made for a good reason relating back to the need and the charitable intention, this situation does not exist. There is nothing to distinguish the need of Christians and Hindu's in this situation.
quote:
Nobody was coerced. They did not use force or affect harm on them in any way. They simply chose to help other people.
|
But they decided that on the basis of external prejudice, and not need. In any medical sense, that would disobey the Hippocratic oath and qualify as harm in any utilitarian sense, which leads on to the next point.
quote:
The difference here is actually inflicting harm. SS officers killed people. To restate, these people only chose to help other people.
|
Asides from what I said above, they are allowing people to die (and if they live it would be no thanks to them, who's religion and public perception was apparently more important than their immediate need, such that they would up and run somewhere else) for no reason other than their religion. That they might choose to help other people is incidental, and we do not know that they are or are not using this tact with others too, but going on their past conduct I should be inclined to say that it's more likely they are. Surely of course if they change because of the attention of the media, it would be tantamount to an admission of error.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
...some posters got their jollies by gleefully pointing out a map that compared the paths of the hurricaes going over counties that in 2000 voted for Bush, and then suggesting the hurricanes were divine retribution. |
In other news, we have posters telling us that Europeans do nothing but collect welfare checks and take drugs.
...so since we're talking about religion anyway, are you sure you'd like to cast the first stone?
Last edited by Monk on 18-01-2005 at 02:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
"
We're talking about what we know to be true. I have no reason to believe their behavior would be different elsewhere, either. And neither do you. This is no justification, nor is it an escape from criticism."
There is no reason to expect they are not helping anyone. They may well have found either Christians or people willing to convert.
"I do, but I don't think this is NEARLY comparable. It's one thing to drive up to malnourished, starving people with a truckload of food and not give it to them unless you change your religion to theirs, than to give disadvantaged minorities a scholarship to school."
Ah, right you point out a key difference between the United Negro College Fund and a group like this that goes on religion(Either these people, or Moslem groups that focus their aid towards helping other Moslems). You can change your religion, but not your race.
"
You don't have to inflict harm directly to hurt someone. I don't know about the States, but it's actually a crime to not assist someone who is injured/dying in Canada, for example."
So is Canada going to be arresting everyone who had the ability to donate money but chose not too? At the very least, if they never donate any of their food or supplies, they are on par with these people. But if they do find people who they will give food too, then they should be applauded for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water. |
Hey this is nothing. "Good Christians" used to make people convert so they could have their throats cut instead of being burned at the stake.
On the other hand, something smells about this article, but if it is true then these nuns be should be burned at the stake...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
|
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
Whaleboy:
So why is it so much better to distribute aid randomly rather then to specific groups? You said:
"
Yes but while that usually happens the differentiations are made for a good reason relating back to the need and the charitable intention, this situation does not exist. There is nothing to distinguish the need of Christians and Hindu's in this situation."
Fine, but aren't they underpriviliged Caucasians who need scholarships as well as African Americans? They are going by the basis of something other then need. In their view(and again as I said don't approve of how they are trying to convert), there is a rational basis for choosing who to give aid, in that they view by giving aid in this way they hope to save souls.
"Asides from what I said above, they are allowing people to die (and if they live it would be no thanks to them, who's religion and public perception was apparently more important than their immediate need, such that they would up and run somewhere else) for no reason other than their religion."
There is still a definitive difference between actually causing harm, which they are not doing, and not helping one specific group. It is by no means similar to the SS officer example you gave. And even still, what they did is also what alot of other people throughout the developed world did in choosing not to give aid.
"Shi still pedelling that moronic comparison to the United Negro College Fund? Damn..."
Ooh, you used name calling a second time, that's strong, I guess you win.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Fine, but aren't they underpriviliged Caucasians who need scholarships as well as African Americans? They are going by the basis of something other then need. In their view(and again as I said don't approve of how they are trying to convert), there is a rational basis for choosing who to give aid, in that they view by giving aid in this way they hope to save souls. |
Having already addresses the moronic comparison,
on the issue of "spending aid judiciously" and its rational basis:
Physical aid does not save souls- saving the body is not the same as saving the soul- you can svae the body and not the soul, AND VICE VERSA. Besides, how do you judge the authenticity of conversion by simply having people claim conversion, when the likely reason was simply to save the body? They would then fail in their supposed aim. And they have no way of judging why people would be saying "fine, I convert, whatever", if they trully wanted to save their souls, OR simply their bodies.
Even from what you assume their aims are, this is a stupid campaign.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Fine, but aren't they underpriviliged Caucasians who need scholarships as well as African Americans? They are going by the basis of something other then need. In their view(and again as I said don't approve of how they are trying to convert), there is a rational basis for choosing who to give aid, in that they view by giving aid in this way they hope to save souls.
|
As with any group, but where a specific impediment is caused by a specific factor (or the direct consequences of that, i.e. racism or race identity etc) charity can be distributed accordingly. I should think it obvious no? And if they knew what they were doing was right, why did they run? It seems they knew something you dont... that their actions are indefensible.
quote:
There is still a definitive difference between actually causing harm, which they are not doing, and not helping one specific group. It is by no means similar to the SS officer example you gave. And even still, what they did is also what alot of other people throughout the developed world did in choosing not to give aid.
|
The SS officers chose to kill or cause suffering by their actions that were religiously motivated... if you're attempting to delinate then you would say something on the order of "it was the bullet's responsibility" or "it was the gas's responsibility for murdering the Jews"  . Again note the description of "harm". Would you deny that their choice was intentional?
The rest of the developed world not choosing the give aid? You're statements go from the sublime to the ridiculous. That some did not give aid is choosing not to help the entire region, and they're not there so there may well be other factors out of their control influencing the decision, as opposed to evident selfishness. If one refuses to give aid to anyone but a charity that would only help a given group of victims... that is perhaps a little more analogous, but still not an acceptable comparison because they're not in the field.
quote:
The UNCF only chooses to give aid to a specific group, so do these missionaries, who would be distributing aid to other people who need just as bad. Maybe if you make your zero a little bigger though.
Yes, the scale is much different, but the principle is the same.
|
No the principle is completely different... the reason the UNCF chooses to give aid to a specific group is directly related to the need of that group, or did you miss me saying that twice before?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The UNCF only chooses to give aid to a specific group, so do these missionaries, who would be distributing aid to other people who need just as bad. Maybe if you make your zero a little bigger though.
Yes, the scale is much different, but the principle is the same. |
NO, the principle is NOT the same. 
Missionaries exist to spread a message- aid giving is only part of their aim, and ancilliary to their professed aim. They also have a mission to their own values, those of mercy and loving your fellow man which they are supposed to embody, otherwise how the hell are they good vehicles of the faith!?
Christian missionaries there to spread the message of Christ fail in their task if they are so faithless as to believe them must buy people into the faith. If the faith is so powerful, it should be self evident. Besides, do not their own personal values push them to helping those in need where they meet them?
These missionaries are either faithless hacks, or hypocrites. Either way, they are piss poor missionaries.
The Negro College Fund has one aim, its obvious from its title, and it exists because when it was created, Negros did NOT get aid from the hundreds of other scholarship groups a poor white had access to. And even today, poor whites have no shortage of getting financial aid to enter a college out of their financial means.
But of course, getting into collage and getting life saving aid from a natural disaster are two totally different things.
UNICEF is a branch of a much larger organization, and not a stand alone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2005 01:33
Oh, that's rich.
|