VeggieBoards banner

41 - 60 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
Now that I've gotten all that out there, I certainly do agree w/you, Rushabh, that the scenarios you name are horrible. Your scenarios would have a horrible effect every time. Not every child who gets left in a car alone will die, that is an extreme, but unfortunately real possibility that has occurred in some cases of children being left in a car. (also, please dont think I'm attacking you personally in any way, its just something I feel very strongly about!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
Part of the reason we don't have the situations you named (Rushabh) in NOrth America is because of a blanket policy towards the rights of the child which is fairly culturally ingrained.<br><br><br><br>
To ignore situations such as the one we're discussing here would begin a trend back towards conditions more like you described. We cannot say: "Well- a few kids died or experienced pain and suffering, but at least they weren't sold into prostitution..." To do so would negate the basic ideals held here, which say that every child has a right to life and freedom from abuse.<br><br><br><br>
You cannot outlaw one abuse yet condone another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Rushabh</i><br><br><b>Moral outrage and activism should be directed at the real problems like above.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
This is the sort of asinine comment that even annoys me about AR-related issues.<br><br><br><br>
Cruelty is cruelty is cruelty. There is no spectrum of cruelty--it's either cruel or not. One social problem isn't "worse" or "more real" than any other social problem.<br><br><br><br>
If you can't instill the BASIC fundamental value that children should be supervised, accomodated, and looked out for, how in the world can you even begin to address the social problems you've presented, Rushabh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
I don't think that it was an asinine comment...I think Rushabh just meant that everything is relative. And I do think that some social problems are worse than others...driving drunk is worse than being a couch potato, for instance.<br><br><br><br>
I also think that our society comes up with some arbitrary rules that are not based in logic. When I used to take my little girl to preschool, I would leave my newborn son in our van, while I crossed the icy parking lot with her. I was never more than 50 ft from my van, but I do remember thinking that someone may negatively comment on what I was doing. Because leaving a child alone in a car is a big no no in our society, no matter the circumstances, but it's not black and white.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
I am thinking more in terms of quantity as well as quality. Like mushroom said, everything is relative but quantity is not relative. Let me ask you the following question:<br><br><br><br>
How many children have died while being left alone in the car? How many children total were left alone in the car?<br><br><br><br>
Now, compare the above numbers with the following numbers:<br><br><br><br>
1) How many instances of infanticide through intentional murder or neglect by parents occur in the world annually? Yes, intentional murder of babies by their mothers and fathers are common in the world, mostly for gender reasons.<br><br><br><br>
2) How many children were sold into prostitution, bonded labor, slavery, etc throughout the world annually?<br><br><br><br>
3) How many children were forced into become child soldiers throughout the world annually?<br><br><br><br>
4) How many child soldiers were killed annually?<br><br><br><br>
Obviously, the number of children that were left in car are nothing compared to the numbers from the questions above. The number of children that have died while being left in the car is infinitesimal.<br><br><br><br>
I assume that you value the life of an American child as much as the life of a Sudanese child. If this assumption is incorrect then my posting has been irrelevant and do not read further.<br><br><br><br>
If we had unlimited resources, we would try to make sure that all children are saved. But we do not live in a world of unlimited resources. In that case, we should try to direct our moral outrage and subsequent action towards saving the maximum number of children.<br><br><br><br>
Within an economic context, it is probably cheaper to save 20 Sudanese child soldiers than a single American child left in the car parking lot. I'm sure you'll agree that 20 childrens are much better than one child given the limited resources that we have.<br><br><br><br>
I'm sorry if I sound cold-hearted or asinine but that's how the real world is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
"I'm sorry if I sound cold-hearted or asinine but that's how the real world is."<br><br><br><br>
You sound realistic to me...<br><br><br><br>
And people SAY every child has equal value, but their actions make liars out of 'em.<br><br><br><br>
Marie Osmond said that her grandmother had two or three sons when her husband died. To support herself and her boys, she put the baby in a "box" and tied one son to a tree...so that she could work.<br><br><br><br>
Ah, those were the good old days...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
You're correct: I value both lives. I'm definitely not saying that the concerns you presented are not valid--they are indeed abhorrent and tragic and warrant moral outrage and activism. I don't disagree with you there.<br><br><br><br>
I simply am not comfortable with the implication (and possibly you didn't intend the implication) that any social problem is more important or more worthy of resolution than any other social problem.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
My, my, my. Where to start.<br><br><br><br>
First, Rushabh - why does the existence of one problem negate the resolution of another? If I can't save childern in another country from child prostitution, then I shouldn't try to prevent more mild neglect in the US? WTF? That seems a little silly.<br><br><br><br>
All people can be valued the same philosophically. However, putting it into practice is much more difficult, and sometimes impossible.<br><br><br><br>
Mushroom - free nursery school? Will the teachers/aides be volunteers? The buildings donated? The supplies will magically appear? No? Then you mean it will be funded by taxes? Overseen by bureaucracy? Values and beliefs I disagree with may be force fed to children on my dime? Thanks, but no thanks.<br><br><br><br>
As far as your parenting classes...who will decide what makes a good parent? The basics are simple - feed 'em, clean 'em, etc. Sounds to me like you support a lot of other things that I would disagree with (no spankings). Let me guess, you want others to pay for that too?<br><br><br><br>
Finally, I don't like the blanket example of a child being left in a car as automatic neglect. It does depend on the circumstances and the age of the child. My mom would have been in jail numerous times for leaving my hellion self in a car when she had to make a quick stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Tame</i><br><br><b>My, my, my. Where to start.<br><br><br><br>
First, Rushabh - why does the existence of one problem negate the resolution of another? If I can't save childern in another country from child prostitution, then I shouldn't try to prevent more mild neglect in the US? WTF? That seems a little silly.<br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
The existence of one problem can and will negate the resolution of another if resources are not unlimited. If you can't solve both problems, then solve the one that is bigger. Furthermore, do you know how much time, money, and effort it takes to prevent mild neglect based on cultural assumptions/criteria? It is the law of diminishing returns. If the same time, money, and effort is used to prevent far more insidious neglect in another country, then the moral returns are maximized and more children are saved.<br><br><br><br>
If more Americans directed their personal and moral outrage at the problems facing children outside of the U.S. borders instead of letting the State Department do the dirty work, then they can make a difference, especially when combined with their economic muscle. No one is stopping you from saving children in another country. Only you can stop yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by FemmeDemonica</i><br><br><b>I simply am not comfortable with the implication (and possibly you didn't intend the implication) that any social problem is more important or more worthy of resolution than any other social problem.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I was talking within an economic context. We do not live in a world with unlimited resources, time, and money.<br><br><br><br>
Let me give you a simplistic equation that nicely describes what I am trying to state:<br><br><br><br>
I = (Q*O)/R<br><br><br><br>
Where<br><br>
I = importance of social problem<br><br>
Q = Quantity of children affected by the social problem<br><br>
O = Level of moral outrage against the social problem<br><br>
R = The amount of time, effort, and money required to alleviate the social problem FOR EACH CHILD affected by the social problem.<br><br><br><br>
There are plenty of social problems out there and you can use the above equation to determine which social problem requires the most attention. Ideally, the higher the value of I, the more attention the social problem should get. We need to establish sensible priorities based on the above equation. Such sensible priorities will lead to maximum returns on the moral outrage and the maximum number of children saved from pretty insidious social problems. In other words: why save 100 children from mild neglect when you can save 10,000 children from more insidious neglect for just a bit more time, money, and effort?<br><br><br><br>
Before you object, please remember the following cardinal rule:<br><br><br><br>
We do not live in a world of unlimited resources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
There was a recent case in the local news about a little kid, maybe 3 or 4, who'd been left in the family car with the family dog. They were both in the back seat and something must have happened beause the dog ended up biting the child in the face. Of course, since there were no adults there, the child had to wait for the parent to come back after he'd been bitten in the face.<br><br><br><br>
I think they killed the dog. Quite honestly, I think that they should spay / neuter the parents.<br><br><br><br>
I only read the first 10 or so posts in this thread, so at this point this may seem off-topic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Rushabh</i><br><br><b>The existence of one problem can and will negate the resolution of another if resources are not unlimited. If you can't solve both problems, then solve the one that is bigger. Furthermore, do you know how much time, money, and effort it takes to prevent mild neglect based on cultural assumptions/criteria? It is the law of diminishing returns. If the same time, money, and effort is used to prevent far more insidious neglect in another country, then the moral returns are maximized and more children are saved.<br><br><br><br>
If more Americans directed their personal and moral outrage at the problems facing children outside of the U.S. borders instead of letting the State Department do the dirty work, then they can make a difference, especially when combined with their economic muscle. No one is stopping you from saving children in another country. Only you can stop yourself.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Shenanigans!<br><br>
If I am 3,000+ miles away, the law of diminishing returns applies the other way also. I can only donate money. I don't know how it is spent, who it is given to, and the results are outside my line of sight.<br><br>
I can see the results of preventing abuse, neglect, and other problems in my community. I can also devote time as well as money to the cause. Results are more closely monitored. If politicians in my community do not follow through with laws and programs I approve of, then I can vote to remove them.<br><br>
I have no such control in other countries.<br><br><br><br>
It seems as if you are implying that US citizens do little to help those children in other countries? Nonsense. Private citizens in the US are very generous, and a large amount of $ is sent overseas to help out.<br><br>
However, saving the world while someone down the street suffers seems a little odd.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Rushabh</i><br><br><b><br><br>
I = (Q*O)/R<br><br><br><br>
Where<br><br>
I = importance of social problem<br><br>
Q = Quantity of children affected by the social problem<br><br>
O = Level of moral outrage against the social problem<br><br>
R = The amount of time, effort, and money required to alleviate the social problem FOR EACH CHILD affected by the social problem.<br><br><br><br>
There are plenty of social problems out there and you can use the above equation to determine which social problem requires the most attention. Ideally, the higher the value of I, the more attention the social problem should get. We need to establish sensible priorities based on the above equation. Such sensible priorities will lead to maximum returns on the moral outrage and the maximum number of children saved from pretty insidious social problems. In other words: why save 100 children from mild neglect when you can save 10,000 children from more insidious neglect for just a bit more time, money, and effort?<br><br><br><br>
Before you object, please remember the following cardinal rule:<br><br><br><br>
We do not live in a world of unlimited resources.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
You have some problems in your equation.<br><br>
First, I and O cannot be quantified. It differs for every person.<br><br>
Seond, you are assuming that more children can be saved by attacking certain problems, with only a small increase in resources used. You do not know that is true, and neither do I. Once the money leaves my community, they way it is used and the effectiveness of its use may diminish, and it is outside my sphere of control.<br><br><br><br>
Under your logic, a long as a worse problem exists <b>somewhere else in the world</b> I should not spend much effort on what I see in front of me. Sorry, that is nonsense.<br><br><br><br>
"Sorry little Jimmy, I know your parents neglect you and sometimes cause you to go hunry. I realize your clothing and shelter are inadequate, and your parents chain you to a bed at night. However, there are currently child prostitutes in Thailand, so I cannot help you. Yes, yes, I know I can see your suffering, but I have to help the others first."<br><br><br><br>
Triage works well when trying to save lives on a battlefield, where everyone is in the same place with similar circumstances. Your scenario consists of too many variables to claim that it is the right way to attack problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Tame</i><br><br><b>You have some problems in your equation.<br><br>
First, I and O cannot be quantified. It differs for every person.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
If 'O' can be quantified then it follows that 'I' will be quantified since 'I' is on the left side of the equation. O can be quantified if we come up with a generally accepted outrage principle (GAOP) that is similar to the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) used worldwide. By generally accepted, I mean that it is generally accepted that child slavery generates much more moral outrage than leaving a child in the car alone. So O CAN be quantified if we approach it carefully.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><b><br><br>
Seond, you are assuming that more children can be saved by attacking certain problems, with only a small increase in resources used. You do not know that is true, and neither do I. Once the money leaves my community, they way it is used and the effectiveness of its use may diminish, and it is outside my sphere of control.<br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Actually, I know it is true. There are many NGO (non-government organizations) worldwide that allows you to sponsor and monitor any type of projects in saving children from any type of social problem of your choice. They will even send you reports via email on how your money is being used, what it is being used for, and how many children it is affecting. Furthermore, most NGOs have very transparent cost structure and you can see how much money goes towards administrative costs, miscellaneous costs, and the costs of solving the actual social problems. The only thing you need to do on your part is to become ACTIVELY involved in solving the social problem. That is what you want, right?<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><b><br><br>
Under your logic, a long as a worse problem exists somewhere else in the world I should not spend much effort on what I see in front of me. Sorry, that is nonsense.<br><br><br><br>
"Sorry little Jimmy, I know your parents neglect you and sometimes cause you to go hunry. I realize your clothing and shelter are inadequate, and your parents chain you to a bed at night. However, there are currently child prostitutes in Thailand, so I cannot help you. Yes, yes, I know I can see your suffering, but I have to help the others first."<br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br><br><br>
Tell me sir, do you have unlimited effort? Let's say that you have maybe 5 hours a week to solve social problems. These are your very valuable 5 hours. What are you going to use it for? Work with a NGO in Thailand in solving the problem of child prostitution that could save maybe 100 girl children? Or go to Jimmy's parents' house and argue with them about why they're not feeding him enough during the day? Hey, remember, you have only 5 hours and each scenarios require all of your 5 hours. In the age of internet and cheap telecommunication, there is no reason why you cannot make your presence felt in a place as far away as Thailand when you control the purse strings. The NGOs will even help you write up a plan in solving a social problem with the funding that you can provide and will implement the plan under the stewardship of the NGO.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><b>Triage works well when trying to save lives on a battlefield, where everyone is in the same place with similar circumstances. Your scenario consists of too many variables to claim that it is the right way to attack problems.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
With cheap internet and telecommunications you can eliminate many of the variables since you can monitor and/or supervise the efforts of solving social problems anywhere in the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
At the risk of really opening a can of worms, I have a question. Why is it the US's responsibility (or any other successful/wealthy country) to always be solicited for money?<br><br><br><br>
We sponsor a child, and have for several years. But I certainly don't think I have a responsibility to work hard and earn money so I can give it away to some other country. I do it because I want to, not because I have to.<br><br><br><br>
I would prefer we feed our own hungry and shelter our own homeless (the non-lazy ones only) before giving our money to some other country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
Yes, why is it that you assume those who care about social problems at home are doing so at the expense of social problems abroad, anyway?<br><br><br><br>
There are 1 million Canadians supporting children abroad through NGO programs- does that mean they should automatically neglect 1 million at home to keep things even?<br><br><br><br>
I am responsible for the support of 2 foster children (1 in Paraguay, one in Nepal) and I volunteer at the local Deaf school 3 hours/week, and I am actively concerned with issues of child welfare elsewhere in my community.<br><br><br><br>
By your rationale I should stop everything I'm doing, but the overseas support... Why does it have to be one or the other????<br><br><br><br>
You know- if communities all took a major initiative to look after their own, we wouldn't have half the social problems we do- at home or abroad. And, in fact, I believe the people best equipped to deal with most social problems are those closest to them. There are many drawbacks to many 'development' initiatives in the world today, as they often reflect socio-cultural biases, and are thus of minimal impact when all is said and done. (Think: Condoms being used as flashlight covers...)<br><br><br><br>
So- once again I ask: what is wrong with us wanting to help our own communities??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
I don't think there is anything wrong in wanting to help "our own communities"...but many will volunteer locally, feel good about themselves and stop there.<br><br><br><br>
I also don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to help the largest number of children who suffer the worst problems, no matter where they live on the globe, instead - and they will most likely not be children living in the US.<br><br><br><br>
Tame, yes I believe that taxes should pay for pre-school for every child. I think most parents could accept values like honesty and kindness being taught...and if not, you wouldn't be forced to send your child.<br><br><br><br>
I don't believe the only person responsible for a child is the parent. I believe society should help, as needed. Otherwise, dont complain when the mother leaves her child unattended.<br><br>
After all, it's HER child.<br><br><br><br>
Haves are lucky people...if they weren't born wealthy, they were most likely born smart or attractive. Hard work alone gets you janitorial work. I read that US citizens making $30 - 40, 000 give a little more than 2% of their income to charity. Those earning $75 - 100,000 give about 1.6%. Excuse my French, but that is f***ed up! (and stingy)<br><br><br><br>
As a child, I was a have not, I now consider myself a have. I don't mind sharing, because I know how it feels on the other side.<br><br>
Rotten.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Rushabh</i><br><br><b>If 'O' can be quantified then it follows that 'I' will be quantified since 'I' is on the left side of the equation. O can be quantified if we come up with a generally accepted outrage principle (GAOP) that is similar to the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) used worldwide. By generally accepted, I mean that it is generally accepted that child slavery generates much more moral outrage than leaving a child in the car alone. So O CAN be quantified if we approach it carefully.<br><br><br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I don't believe it can be quantified. You are also assuming efforts can be evenly distributed, and that all factors are equal. That is simply a false assumptioon.<br><br>
Accounting principles deal with clearer issues.<br><br>
Outrage varies, and cannot be quantified.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Rushabh</i><br><br>
[/B]<br><br><br><br>
Tell me sir, do you have unlimited effort? Let's say that you have maybe 5 hours a week to solve social problems. These are your very valuable 5 hours. What are you going to use it for? Work with a NGO in Thailand in solving the problem of child prostitution that could save maybe 100 girl children? Or go to Jimmy's parents' house and argue with them about why they're not feeding him enough during the day? Hey, remember, you have only 5 hours and each scenarios require all of your 5 hours. In the age of internet and cheap telecommunication, there is no reason why you cannot make your presence felt in a place as far away as Thailand when you control the purse strings. The NGOs will even help you write up a plan in solving a social problem with the funding that you can provide and will implement the plan under the stewardship of the NGO.<br><br><br><br>
With cheap internet and telecommunications you can eliminate many of the variables since you can monitor and/or supervise the efforts of solving social problems anywhere in the world. [/B]</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Way to restrict my choices. Let's see, 5 hours per week...well I have no need to argue with Jimmy's parents. Laws determine what is or is not acceptable. I can report them if I see a problem. That leaves me 4 hours and 45 minutes or so.<br><br>
I can use the remaining time in a variety of ways. Perhaps volunteering at an after school program for kids from disadvantaged neighborhoods. I can act as a mentor for boys from fatherless homes. I can coach a sports team that gives inner city kids an opportunity to experience success and the rewards of hard work, while giving them an outlet free of gang and drug influences.<br><br>
It doesn't sound like much, but I do all of those things, and more. I can see the real effects of my actions, and yes, it does save lives.<br><br>
Would 5 hours of my time a week save 100 girls in Thailand? Probably not as long as the macroeconomic conditions exist that create an environment that allows/encourages child prostitution.<br><br><br><br>
You want to end child prostitution? Get governments to crack down on it. Of course, I could also work to end it here, as it does still go on...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by mushroom</i><br><br><b>Tame, yes I believe that taxes should pay for pre-school for every child. I think most parents could accept values like honesty and kindness being taught...and if not, you wouldn't be forced to send your child.<br><br><br><br>
I don't believe the only person responsible for a child is the parent. I believe society should help, as needed. Otherwise, dont complain when the mother leaves her child unattended.<br><br>
After all, it's HER child.<br><br><br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Honesty and kindness? That's fine. Some of the other crap taught in schools = not so fine. At least you admitted it is not "free"...that is a start...<br><br>
Somehow state funded day care sounds like a rip to me...let's say someone has, oh, 5 kids and someone else has 2...guess the person with 5 is sucking the other one dry...maybe they should have made different choices so that they don't rely on others to pay for their kids...<br><br>
I have less of a problem with need based programs that assist low income families, but it should not be a free pass for anyone with kids.<br><br><br><br>
It's not just her child...it is her *responsibility*.
 
41 - 60 of 70 Posts
Top