Posted by alexandra_k on November 5, 2005, at 22:58:17
In reply to Re: ??, posted by AuntieMel on November 4, 2005, at 12:08:25
> A lot to answer, from several posts. Let's see if I can kludge together something coherent.
lol. you did a good job. there is rather a lot there...
> Big difference - we were originally talking about man made things.oh okay. waikato is a new zealand beer because it originated from new zealand. american news is news that comes from america. new zealand news is news that comes from new zealand. new zealand creationist literature would be creationist literature that came from new zealand. american creationist literature is what the schools in new zealand were inundated with. in the sense that the literature was sent from america. that is all i was trying to say with that comment. i didn't mean to imply that the majority of americans endorse it or anything like that because i believe... that it would actually be fairer to say that the majority (or at least 40% surely) do not.
> Sorry, I'm not too sure what 'appeasement' means. Doesn't work to do what?> It doesn't work to stop the cycle.
Sorry, what doesn't?
(I don't know what 'appeasement' means)
I've never heard the word before.
> > because I am horrified by a leader who will use chemical gas on his own people, and by many other things that this particular leader did. The rape, the murder, the torture....
sorry... what particular leader? is that what the war is supposed to be about?> Well, I'm hard pressed to know what could be worse, but I personally thought we waited too long to help out Bosnia and I personally think that we maybe *should* get more involved in those situations.
even without being invited? i mean... if someone asks for assistance then that is one thing... but to give it and get upset when people aren't grateful is quite another...
> But I'm a liberal.hmm. i thought i was a liberal. i thought pacifism was rather liberal... i don't know what these terms mean really...
> Maybe - but, human nature being what it is, people tend to appreciate things less if they are free. Or maybe that's a bad way to put it.
yes. i'm thinking needs here, not luxuries. needs. i think people appreciate their needs being met a great deal and are really very frustrated when those needs are not met. that our appreciation / frustration is similar in virtue of us being human beings with certain needs (for a state of health, for shelter, for food etc)
> People tend to get comfortable when they have a lot.
i'm not talking 'a lot' i'm not talking luxury items i'm talking about basic needs like food and healthcare and education and shelter...
>Necessity is the mother of invention?
>No progress without pain? Any more trite cliches?do you really believe this?
> Marxism was a wonderful ideal, as is Lennon's "Imagine" but as long as humans are involved it just aint gonna happen. Sad. I wish it weren't true.marxism... not sure what thats about... i don't know much about politics. i just think... all people have basic needs. and i think that people should do what they can to ensure that people have those basic needs met. if that means taking from the rich to give to the poor than so be it.
why would anyone choose to not have their basic needs met?
wouldn't that in itself indicate a state of sickness?i think we might disagree on this point...
but...i don't think people prefer handouts
over being provided some way of obtaining what they need for themselves.
or if they do...
then that in itself indicates a state of sickness...help and compassion...
> "I'm talking about countries as abstract entities
> Where their laws and policies define what the nature of that country is when we consider that country as an abstract entity."
> I think that is backwards. It's the nature of the country that defines the laws and policies.yeah okay. i don't really mind :-)
> Our history is one of second sons, religeous outcasts, refugees - those with adversity that want to work their tails off to make a better life for themselves. People didn't come here because their life back home was a bed of roses.yeah. same here. well... fairly much. the maori came first. they came in canoes and navigated by the sun and moon and stars. there were lots of maori tribes and they were at war with each other. they thrived pretty well over here. then... people came from england and france. the english tried to get the treaty up off the ground because they didn't want to lose the country to the french.
then what happened... the english sold land to people in england. they were sold 1/4 acre sections, or fertile farming land or whatever. the people who came tended to be the poorer people who dreamed of getting out of the slums in london to their 1/4 acre section or farm or whatever.
only problem was... they weren't told they would have to clear the land first. and new zealand bush (forest) is very dense and very hard work to clear. and so those people (or pioneers) slogged their guts out to make a living off their land.
only other problem was... the land they were sold was maori land. so not only did they have to work to clear the land... they had to fight the maori to keep the land as well. maori would come in raids to fight to get the immigrants off their land. and there were the new zealand wars... thats what those are about. and land claims are still going on today.
> Those who came over here (willingly) had their fill of government interference and frankly didn't want any more.yeah. australia is a little like that... more so than us i suppose. because convicts were sent there. convicts from england. the thought was that criminality was inherited and so they would ship the criminals off to prisons over the other side of the earth. so they did that... any wonder australians are proud to be free and a little sceptical of good old 'mother england'? of course they found more criminals would arise soon as they could ship them off. because of the society. because if you have to steal to eat... well... you have to steal.
> And with governemt help comes government strings.
what sort of government strings?
ours comes with... a three tiered tax system. where the top bracket is something like 33% (of every dollar earned over... $50,000 or something like that).not sure that people worry about what strings come with assistance with respect to their basic needs... i mean... i'd beg or steal food if i needed it. if i feel a 'sense of endebtedness' to the government or whatever for giving me enough money to purchase basic food items... well... small price to pay i would have thought.
> Now, I don't mean that folks should be made to go hungry or have good oppertunities. But the majority of the people here just don't think it's the government's job to make able bodied healthy people *comfortable* - that they should feel enough discomfort that they *do* become self sufficient.ouch. so the thought is that everybody who *chooses* can support their basic needs.
(think about the children of the adults here too...)
and thus if someone is unable to do this...
or if they resort to crime...
that is of their own making.
and rather than thinking that something must be not right for them to have that attitude (if it is indeed true that they do)
the thought is just leave them be
but what about their children?
and is it really hard to see why some people don't have much of a chance
when they go to school hungry
when their parents tell them there is no point trying because there is no hopei just think people need...
a little help.
> Is healthcare equal? No - but it's available. Is it equal elsewhere? Not that I've seen. In the UK for instance, there is national health, but those with money or good insurance get better care.(about to be logged off)....
poster:alexandra_k
thread:574039
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/575838.html