From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest)
To: ammf-digest@smoe.org
Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #328
Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com
Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, December 7 2001 Volume 05 : Number 328



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: his point              [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)]
  Re: his point                             [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Dec 2001 01:45:00 -0800
From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)
Subject: Re: his point

sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) wrote in message news:<20011204220604.10516.00000697@mb-cf.aol.com>...

> I see *a* link, though I don't know if it's the one he meant...

Let me explain.

Molly said calling people not human is morally offensive (statement A)

Eric said Molly believes that killing the Taleban and civilians is
morally equivalent (statement B)

Eric then said that if you believe statement B then you must believe
sex and rape to be equivalent (statement C).

Statement B clearly implies statement C, no-one denies that. Statement
B however clearly has nothing to do with statement A. And seeing as
Eric later went on to accuse Molly of setting up straw man arguments,
one might be tempted to charge Eric with mild hypocrisy. Unless of
course Eric wants to explain the logical step from statement A to B,
but I'd much rather he spend his time deciding whether to say yes or
no to the inequity question.


> <<like giving arms to Saddam Hussein which he used to inflict genocide on the 
> Kurds.>>
> 
> Bad idea. That we must stop.

And the implication of that is that we must stop supporting the
Northern Alliance and we must stop supporting the military
dictatorship in Pakistan.

> <<So you get the rather unfortunate position that third world citizens (who 
> can't afford it) have to pay individually for things like water and health 
> care, which we in the first world deal with on a state level.>>
> 
> So are you suggesting we cut other countries up into states, and then tell 
> each state they have to deal with water, etc?

No, by `state' I mean countries. So the American water supply system
is supported by your taxes, so (hopefully) every citizen in the US has
access to clean fresh water, no matter how poor they are. In the third
world, thanks to the US backed IMF, governments are not allowed to
raise taxes to pay for water supply (or health care, or any of the
other things we take for granted) and so individuals must pay
individually for water, which many of them can't. Hence disease, hence
the (not remotely unique) case of a woman put in prison for not being
able to pay the hospital fees after having had a baby.

> I seem to recall that it's very unprofitable to be a farmer (or a rancher) 
> and that the profession is and has been rapidly decreasing in the past 
> several years, reducing farms to parking lots. I know one of my best friend's 
> mothers is trying to support 4 kids on $16,000 a year..

I don't think you can really compare `unprofitability' (which is
unfortunate) to subsistence farming (which is desperate).

"[In sub-saharan Africa] ...an estimated 250 million people, or 40% of
the total population, live on less than $1 per day."

For that, and other depressing facts, go to:
<http://www.thp.org/prize/99/hunger_persists.htm>



> What equitable policies would you propose?

Well, after Eric has told us whether or not he believes the Ghanian
example to be equitable or not, I intend to move on to the
`alternatives' section in which we'll talk, amongst other things,
about the Tobin tax.

<http://www.waronwant.org/tobin/briefing1.pdf>

And what would you be willing to 
> give up in order to achieve it?

"By giving #5 a month you could send a child to school. After just
five months of regular giving, your gift could pay for a poor child's
tuition fees, schoolbooks, and contributions to the school
maintenance. Which means one more child will have the chance to go to
school and escape poverty."
<http://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/index.html>

I give more than that. How about you?

And could you further explain the respect and 
> dignity part?

Certainly.

EPZ (export processing zones) are areas set up in third world
countries by rich first world companies to take advantage of the cheap
workers and lax labour laws. Most of our consumer products are made
there. Here's an example of what its like being a worker in one (this
is mild, by the way):

"Many of the workers live in shanty towns on the outskirts of town and
in neighbouring villages. Others, particularly the youngest workers,
live in the dormitories, a hodgepodge of concrete bunkers seperated
from the [EPZ] enclave only by a thick wall. The structure is actually
a converted farm and some rooms, the workers tell me, are really
pigpens with roofs slapped on them."

"Dormitoty rooms are so overcrowded that they have white lines painted
on them to mark where each worker sleeps -- they "look like car
parks", as one journalist observed."

Does that suggest that you and I, western consumers, have any respect
for the people who make our clothes, cars, electronics, etc? Does that
sound like a dignified life to you? Would you like to think about
that, next time you buy some Nike trainers?


> It's hard to be objective with a very personal situation. I think I'd be more 
> inclined to look at it more closely if it was written by a neutral party, 
> neither American or Ghanian. 

How about if it were written by me, a Briton?


> It seems though that you're as unwilling to admit good things as you are 
> willing to condemn bad. 

Certainly not. I said that "America can point to its internal politics
with justifiable pride." America funds many third world aid projects.
Eric asked for examples of inequitable policies, which I'm delivering.

Here's a challenge: why don't you find some examples of equitable
foreign policy and tell us about them? I know there are examples out
there. It only takes a search on the net.


> Just because you have a "reason" doesn't mean it's anymore fair than what we 
> do. A large part of the Taliban's "reason" is the dislike of our freedoms. 

The Taleban couldn't care less about your or my freedoms. The Taleban
are stupid, arrogant men, drunk on their own power, believing they're
invulnerable, because they already humilated one superpower. The truth
of the Taleban is miserable and squalid, as is always the way. They
are one or two eloquent charismatic leaders who can hold a rabble of
bullies and butchers behind them, by using apocolyptic rhetoric about
America as the great satan. The leaders don't believe it, because they
make their money selling opium to us, their followers will believe
whatever the person in charge says, which is why lots of them
immediately changed sides when the Northern Alliance began to make
gains. The 'they hate our freedoms' argument is just a convenient
western explanation of why the Taleban hate us.


> To quote from the Man in the Iron Mask: 
> "We know now that some problems can't be solved with a sword."
> "And some can't be settled without one."

To quote Martin Luther King...

"If we assume that mankind has a right to survive, then we must find
an alternative to war and destruction. In our days of space vehicles
and guided ballistic missiles, the choice is either nonviolence or
nonexistence..."



Richard

------------------------------

Date: 06 Dec 2001 22:51:50 GMT
From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)
Subject: Re: his point

Richard said:

<<Molly said calling people not human is morally offensive (statement A)
Eric said Molly believes that killing the Taleban and civilians is
morally equivalent (statement B)
Eric then said that if you believe statement B then you must believe
sex and rape to be equivalent (statement C).
Statement B clearly implies statement C, no-one denies that. Statement
B however clearly has nothing to do with statement A.>>

I would say that statement A has nothing to do with Eric's points. In fact, I
would scrap that statement A because I also agree with it. But, I would replace
it. My statement A from Molly would be that she opposes the war because it is
the killing of innocent civilians, making it sound like killing innocent
civilians and killing the Taliban are the same thing and that the United States
is trying to kill innocent civilians, which then do make Eric's points make
sense.

<<And seeing as Eric later went on to accuse Molly of setting up straw man
arguments, one might be tempted to charge Eric with mild hypocrisy.>>

Sure. I accuse everyone of hypocrisy, including myself. Eric, you're a
hypocrite!!! :)

<<Unless of course Eric wants to explain the logical step from statement A to
B>>

Well, I just explained what I perceived as his statement A and therefore it's
step to B.

<<governments are not allowed to raise taxes to pay for water supply (or health
care, or any of the other things we take for granted) and so individuals must
pay
individually for water, which many of them can't.>>

Lose-lose situation. Either way, if there were higher taxes, they'd still be
paying more than they have.
 
<<I don't think you can really compare `unprofitability' (which is
unfortunate) to subsistence farming (which is desperate).>>

My point is because of said unprofitability, there will potentially be no
farmers left to subsidize. And then how does it help if we have that policy?
It's like saying that there is a provision where those who can fly, knowing
that there are no fly-ers.

<<"By giving #5 a month you could send a child to school. After just
five months of regular giving, your gift could pay for a poor child's
tuition fees, schoolbooks, and contributions to the school
maintenance. Which means one more child will have the chance to go to
school and escape poverty."
<http://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/index.html>

I give more than that. How about you?>>

I am a high school kid. No. But, I do work many hours on things relavent to
that - organizing and participating in CROP walks, clothing and food drives,
pennies for cancer, blood drives, getting school organizations to sponsor
children - many of those organizations that I'm involved in, working on
fundraisers so that we can make money to sponsor children, among other
donations to charitable organizations, etc. 

<<Does that suggest that you and I, western consumers, have any respect
for the people who make our clothes, cars, electronics, etc? Does that
sound like a dignified life to you?>>

Of course not.

<<Would you like to think about that, next time you buy some Nike trainers?>>

Is there any way you could possibly please stop assuming that we here all spend
insane amounts of money buying name-brand items? It's just a personal pet
peeve, I understand it's just an example. And I understand that just because it
isn't Nike doesn't necessarily change how it's made, but I, for one, am not
usually all about superfluous spending. (I am also not a wearer of Abercrombie
and Fitch, Aeropostale, Old Navy, the Gap, or Hot Topic clothing.) 

<<How about if it were written by me, a Briton?>>

Sure. But it wasn't.

<<Here's a challenge: why don't you find some examples of equitable foreign
policy and tell us about them? I know there are examples out there. It only
takes a search on the net.>>

Possibly. And this isn't an equitable policy, but there is the fact that we do
anything at all. 

<<The Taleban couldn't care less about your or my freedoms. The Taleban
are stupid, arrogant men, drunk on their own power, believing they're
invulnerable, because they already humilated one superpower.>>

And why did they humiliate one power? In part, because they dislike that
power's freedoms.

<<The leaders don't believe it, because they
make their money selling opium to us>>

Are you sure the leaders don't believe it? Because that would sorta be the
opposite of everything you said about the minds of people as far as the US is
concerned. You can believe something and still go against your values if it's
profitable for you. You've pointed out numerous times that this is what the US
does.

<<their followers will believe whatever the person in charge says, which is why
lots of them immediately changed sides when the Northern Alliance began to make
gains.>>

This kind of argument doesn't make them seem any more human. "They will believe
whatever the person in charge says" makes them seem even more like a mass group
incapable of their own thought, and even though that thought may be prohibited
sometimes, it does group them. And when you group people together as all
believing one thing, it's kinda detrimental to whatever point you may try to
prove about these people being human. Do we here believe everything that
President Bush says because he's "in charge"? Of course not. The difference is,
here we can express that. There, they can't. 

<<The 'they hate our freedoms' argument is just a convenient western
explanation of why the Taleban hate us.>>

I never said that was the full end-all reason, but I do firmly believe it's a
part of it.

<< To quote Martin Luther King:
"If we assume that mankind has a right to survive, then we must find
an alternative to war and destruction. In our days of space vehicles
and guided ballistic missiles, the choice is either nonviolence or
nonexistence...">>

To quote a band:

"If it's not worth fighting for it's worth nothing at all." 

Ln

------------------------------

End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #328
********************************************