And we're living a life full of luxuries...

[Banned]

Warning: Don't watch if you can't face disturbing realities.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How many of us actually care about the people who suffer in this world? While drinking ale in luxurious apartments, have we ever thought of those who don't get even a drop of clean water to drink? After all, what do we think they did to deserve this? Why should the world offer war to such innocent people who haven't even wholly experienced life?

And this is where we stand, selfish men on the carpet crafted by a selfish weaver. Darn it! We need an awakening within ourselves. And I have a dream that we can change things. But are donations and charity organizations enough for this? Obviously not.

Awareness among ourselves is all that's required to stop such atrocities against those who have been ignored by the most of us. We really need to feel their pain. It's too unacceptable that their lives are so ill-starred. And it's totally obnoxious in accordance with nature, that we live with superfluities. How disgusting!

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Its quite depressing when you realise, after a while, you don't care that much anymore. I guess its from ignorance and lack of actually experiencing such drastic poverty.

[Banned]

Well, that's with the majority. Let's not forget that there are some "that" kind of people, too.

[basics]

It is startling to watch on TV just some of the things going on in this world and what is most hurting is that one is left sickened that not much can be done to stop or alter these goings on.

One doesn't have to go far to see poverty and not much further to see death. What never fails to amaze me is that no sooner have we got rid of one greedy bastard than another takes his or her place to block out any hope that the poor may have.

We have tried religion. It doesn't work and if honest only exacerbates the problem. We have tried socialism and it doesn't work. We have tried charities seeing that for some not very good reason most never reaches those that need it most.

So what is the answer?

[Banned]

So what is the answer?

There's nobody to answer in case of total indifference, which is observable right here.

[Sleeper]

So what is the answer?

Begin to look at the world from a perspective not founded on naivety and the pursuit of unobtainable, untenable ideas. There will always be more and less.

[Justice and Mercy]

Begin to look at the world from a perspective not founded on naivety and the pursuit of unobtainable, untenable ideas.

Why should one not look at the world from a perspective founded on unobtainable ideas, if the unobtainable idea is correct?

There will always be more and less.

Fascinating.

[Sleeper]

Why should one not look at the world from a perspective founded on unobtainable ideas, if the unobtainable idea is correct?

Because then one is not looking at the world, but at the self, which, I will not argue, is the only world the majority of us ever open their eyes enough to see, if even that.

[Justice and Mercy]

Warning: Don't watch if you can't face disturbing realities.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How many of us actually care about the people who suffer in this world? While drinking ale in luxurious apartments, have we ever thought of those who don't get even a drop of clean water to drink? After all, what do we think they did to deserve this? Why should the world offer war to such innocent people who haven't even wholly experienced life?

And this is where we stand, selfish men on the carpet crafted by a selfish weaver. Darn it! We need an awakening within ourselves. And I have a dream that we can change things. But are donations and charity organizations enough for this? Obviously not.

Awareness among ourselves is all that's required to stop such atrocities against those who have been ignored by the most of us. We really need to feel their pain. It's too unacceptable that their lives are so ill-starred. And it's totally obnoxious in accordance with nature, that we live with superfluities. How disgusting!

You're right, I rarely care and even more rarely act.

At least I'm honest about it. At least I don't have a holier-than-thou attitude.

[Medicus]

You're right, I rarely care and even more rarely act.

At least I'm honest about it. At least I don't have a holier-than-thou attitude.

Tbh, I can't wait for the libertarian utopia; where those who are worth more than $1 million live in the lap of luxury, while the rest of humanity slaves away to scrape a living from their corporate masters. J & M, your ideas are repugnant to me.

I think we just get desensitized to it. How other have you seen ads for the 40 hour famine, or the Sponsor a Child Foundation? It's like violent television, you just get used to it.

Oh sure, from time to time we feel sorry for them, but as soon as we find something more interesting, they're left to starve.

Why doesn't the UN get its act together? Remove Mugabe, restore order in the Sudan, bring Democracy to Myanmar... the list goes on. Instead, we're obsessed with the price of oil, and so-and-so's new haircut.

There's so much we can do. So much, and yet we don't.

[Denny Crane!]

Actually no not at all. It is simply playing semantics to suggest that you can extend neccessities beyond a certain point.

Quite simply put a man in America might consider a car a neccessity, I suspect an African with no drinking water, if he had any sense of humour left while starving to death, would laugh at.

Neccessities are things like food and water, not starving to death. Something that is easily achievable logically but not it seems in reality.

[Justice and Mercy]

Actually no not at all. It is simply playing semantics to suggest that you can extend neccessities beyond a certain point.

Quite simply put a man in America might consider a car a neccessity, I suspect an African with no drinking water, if he had any sense of humour left while starving to death, would laugh at.

Neccessities are things like food and water, not starving to death. Something that is easily achievable logically but not it seems in reality.

Again, necessary for what?

Survival?

If so, it expounds much further than that. Want to live longer than 40 years? You need a well-stocked hospital, good doctors, and the money to pay for it all. (EDIT: On second thought, I think you could live for 40 years with less than that, but my point stands.)

Want to live longer but have a terminal disease, and no one knows what's causing it? You should probably have a well-respected diagnostician at your disposal. (EDIT: Even then it's not likely it would work.)

"Necessity" is entirely subjective, and can be expounded pretty far.

[Maverick]

It is simply playing semantics to suggest that you can extend neccessities beyond a certain point.

"Necessity" is entirely subjective, and can be expounded pretty far.

I was having a conversation with a girl the other day who said something like "ohmygosh I can't live without my cell"... and $5 coffees at Starbucks and $250 Juicy jeans etc. In fact she idolizes celebrities like Paris Hilton for their "glamorous" ostentatious consumption. What constitutes a necessity may be completely subjective but it seems to reason that if she was educated like Montaigne, despite her privilige her outlook would probably be less superficial. When I want something, I ask myself do I need this? I wonder if most people question their impulse to satisfy themselves. Maybe it can be taught.

[Justice and Mercy]

I was having a conversation with a girl the other day who said something like "ohmygosh I can't live without my cell"... and $5 coffees at Starbucks and $250 Juicy jeans etc. In fact she idolizes celebrities like Paris Hilton for their "glamorous" ostentatious consumption. What constitutes a necessity may be completely subjective but it seems to reason that if she was educated like Montaigne, despite her privilige her outlook would probably be less superficial. When I want something, I ask myself do I need this? I wonder if most people question their impulse to satisfy themselves. Maybe it can be taught.

You never asked the big quesiton: "Necessary for what?"

Is the cell phone necessary for survival? Hell no. Well, maybe sometimes it could be (cell phones are often helpful in a time of emergency), but generally, no.

Does that mean it's not a necessity? Nope. It is a necessity for certain purposes.

[Sleeper]

Neccessities are things like food and water, not starving to death. Something that is easily achievable logically but not it seems in reality.

I do not think it is fair to say that necessities beyond the biological are semantics. While I understand what you are saying about biological necessities being the first a starving man would ask one to redress, once that man is fed other necessities spring to mind. If, as the initial poster believed, the topic at hand is the need to bring more to those with less, would not intellectual freedom be high on everyone's list. Or the right to raise one's own children, or practice one's religion in relative peace. These are the most glaring from this approach, and there are as many approaches as there are perspectives.

What about the right to life saving medicine, or to breath clean air, or dance or play music? While we, in our vaulted and comfortable towers of western civilization like to think of science as the determiner of thought, that does our culture a great disservice.

Biological necessities are all that are needed to exist, but there are far more necessities, when it comes to living.

[Denny Crane!]

Again, necessary for what?

Survival?

If so, it expounds much further than that. Want to live longer than 40 years? You need a well-stocked hospital, good doctors, and the money to pay for it all. (EDIT: On second thought, I think you could live for 40 years with less than that, but my point stands.)

Want to live longer but have a terminal disease, and no one knows what's causing it? You should probably have a well-respected diagnostician at your disposal. (EDIT: Even then it's not likely it would work.)

"Necessity" is entirely subjective, and can be expounded pretty far.

We will start expounding that then when people aren't dying of thirst and hunger?

That pretty much solves that one I think.

I do not think it is fair to say that necessities beyond the biological are semantics. While I understand what you are saying about biological necessities being the first a starving man would ask one to redress, once that man is fed other necessities spring to mind. If, as the initial poster believed, the topic at hand is the need to bring more to those with less, would not intellectual freedom be high on everyone's list. Or the right to raise one's own children, or practice one's religion in relative peace. These are the most glaring from this approach, and there are as many approaches as there are perspectives.

What about the right to life saving medicine, or to breath clean air, or dance or play music? While we, in our vaulted and comfortable towers of western civilization like to think of science as the determiner of thought, that does our culture a great disservice.

Biological necessities are all that are needed to exist, but there are far more necessities, when it comes to living.

Indeed all very salient points that we can address once people aren't starving to death.

[Justice and Mercy]

We will start expounding that then when people aren't dying of thirst and hunger?

That pretty much solves that one I think.




Indeed all very salient points that we can address once people aren't starving to death.

So the idea from the one who said trying to reach an unobtainable goal is foolish is to try and reach an unobtainable goal, supplying all necessities to those without them.

[Sleeper]

Indeed all very salient points that we can address once people aren't starving to death.

But then the question becomes a matter of pragmatics. For arguments sake, lets say it was exceptionally easier to bring the non biological "necessities" of the west to the entire Asian continent than to feed the entirety of Africa, and furthermore, that feeding Africa was, for whatever reasons, not feasible for centuries. Would it not make sense to start with that which can be achieved, giving as many people as much "necessity" as possible, rather than wasting resources on an near impossibility.

All in the abstract, of course.

[Maverick]

Awareness among ourselves is all that's required to stop such atrocities against those who have been ignored by the most of us.

I think most people are too self-involved to even register the hardships of people they are intimate with, let alone strangers.

We really need to feel their pain.

That will only have an affect on people with compassion, who can see themselves in other people. Look at the NFL and NBA for example, most of the players came from impoverished backgrounds but few donate their time or even their money to help young people in the same situation as they were.

It's too unacceptable that their lives are so ill-starred. And it's totally obnoxious in accordance with nature, that we live with superfluities. How disgusting!

I think if anything nature tells us the opposite, most people try to take all they possibly can, only exceptional people honestly give back in good conscience (charity for your own self-aggrandizement is still charity but it shouldn't be confused with altruism which is much less common in nature).

I don't mean to disuade anyone with a good heart from being charitable but inequality is natural. Look at supermodels, many of the most popular ones today come from poor backgrounds in South America but on the basis of winning a genetic lottery they are riding their good looks to the tune of millions of dollars per year while people at home starve because they are not sexy. Besides the fact of existence I don't personally believe that anything happens for a reason per se. I give to charity but at the same time I don't believe I have any right to criticize people who don't until I am prepared to abandon all of my own comforts and live like Diogenes which will probably never happen.

[Justice and Mercy]

When you have experienced losing your business and home, relying on gifts of food being handed in as I have, having no government aid for some six weeks and a one year old to feed and house then come back again with your accusation.

I didn't know we had a clairovayant on these forums. How surprising.

You're argument is hardly an argument. In fact, I'm not going to call it an argument, I'm going to call it "a piece of unimportant and uninteresting garbage, serving no real purpose, except perphaps to gain sympathy".

It's long but much more accurate.