a flower in hell on 1/3/2008 at 16:22
Quote Posted by Koki
Altruism is stupid.
Holy shit I agree with Koki.
This is not good.
Altruism is more dangerous than the ill-defined, nebulous "evil" that altruists claim to fight against. Besides, a perfect and orderly society of mindless sheep would be boring as all hell.
Raven on 1/3/2008 at 19:21
uuh rug burn junky, please explain yourself.
What is your beef with Mother teresa?
and also WTF - how the HELL do you folks justify standing up against altruism... it is a fucking classification of behaviour!
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism)
I think we need that definition of a cynic inserted here - the one about price of everything and the value of nothing.
Rug Burn Junky on 1/3/2008 at 20:31
Quote Posted by Raven
uuh rug burn junky, please explain yourself.
What is your beef with Mother teresa?
I've said it plenty of times before, and the link really explains everything.
She wasn't altruistic in the slightest, everything she did was through a warped sense of proselytization of some of the most backwards, conservative, and frankly, downright fucking evil, views of christianity and catholicism.
The media coverage seen of her is shallow, biased, and critically unexamined. She did not alleviate the suffering of most that she came into contact with, in spite of the overwhelming ability to do so due to the outlandish sums of moneys donated to her.
Millions of dollars. Probably well into 9 figures. She could have developed a hospital system beyond fucking belief in Calcutta... what did she actually do? provide hospices where the sick could come to die without any sophisticated medical help, and be converted to catholicism.
She campaigned against lifting the divorce ban in Ireland, and supported dictators such as the Duvaliers in Haiti.
In spite of what you may think, she was actually a reprehensible human being. and the mere fact that she feigned living in poverty for public relations purposes doesn't make her actually altruistic.
Stitch on 1/3/2008 at 20:56
Quote Posted by a flower in hell
Altruism is more dangerous than the ill-defined, nebulous "evil" that altruists claim to fight against. Besides, a perfect and orderly society of mindless sheep would be boring as all hell.
hahahah you aren't even trying to make sense
PigLick on 2/3/2008 at 00:30
I dont think that was ever an item on the agenda.
a flower in hell on 2/3/2008 at 01:47
Quote Posted by Stitch
hahahah you aren't even trying to make sense
Stitch, man... let's just agree to disagree, because there's no way your stupid insults and mocking attitude are going to win me over to your way of thinking.
Maybe if you were a little less of an asshole about it, I might be more receptive.
And for the record, idealists scare the crap out of me. They're quite literally capable of anything.
Tocky on 2/3/2008 at 04:26
Idealists? Bono is kind of creepy at that.
You know damn well you can be a realist with idealistic tendencies. I even agree with a lot of what Raven said. Though most people tend to make life a bit more bearable for those closest to them, trying to make it better for those farther away aint a bad activity either. Mostly.
Sometimes aid is commandeered by warlords or used to prop up dictators. Sometimes you send in the marines to rectify that and they get slaughtered and the people cheer. Sometimes you take out a dictator you foolishly supported and the factions can then kill each other without the iron hand stopping them. Shit happens. You still have to find the balance of what you can realisticly accomplish.
Feed all the people and they reproduce at the same rate they did when infant mortality was high and soon they are starving again. People think you are some sort of sadist for even mentioning that. It's just a fact. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying or adjusting strategies.
Just bear in mind no good deed goes unpunished. And if you are a successful nation then you just accept that some people will always envy and hate you. Even your own angsty teens.
Stitch on 2/3/2008 at 07:12
Quote Posted by a flower in hell
Stitch, man... let's just agree to disagree, because there's no way your stupid insults and mocking attitude are going to win me over to your way of thinking.
I'd settle for you actually making anything resembling a coherent point.
I mean: "Altruism is more dangerous than the ill-defined, nebulous "evil" that altruists claim to fight against."
That sentence is awesomely retarded on so many levels. I'll get specific and pick your words to shreds if that's what you really want, but I can't imagine public humiliation ranks high on your To Do list.
Raven on 2/3/2008 at 13:37
Quote:
In spite of what you may think, she was actually a reprehensible human being. and the mere fact that she feigned living in poverty for public relations purposes doesn't make her actually altruistic.
I wonder if it was the thought that it will be God that is judging her and not men that kept her going and doing such damaging work in the world.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)
(interesting bit about the excorsim)
(
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/04/mother.theresa.exorcism/)
But yeah you are obviously right, what. a. bitch.
posted in response to your view on Mother Teresa, views I do not agree with... hence the sarcasm. What i may conceed is that, technically, if she at times felt she was only doing a duty for God then true, that is not altrustic... Ofcourse at this point the discussion goes back to being about does aulturism actually exist. That topic is a constant diversion from people recognising good in the world, taking inspriation from it and then going on to do good themselves.
Perhaps the devil's greatest trick was not pretending evil does not to exist - but pretending that GOODness does not actually exist
Rug Burn Junky on 2/3/2008 at 17:14
"Only god can judge her"? Are you for fucking real? That's some weak shit right there.
Quote:
But yeah you are obviously right, what. a. bitch.
Actually, in spite of your rather failed attempt at sarcasm, I am quite correct.
I usually am. ;)
You are entirely missing the point, I don't give a shit whether she thought she was doing it for "god" or not. I don't give a shit whether the motives were altruistic, cynical or sadistic. Her fucking ACTIONS were wrong, if you fail that test, your motives don't even come into play.
The fact is, she wasn't actually doing nearly as much "good" as people give her credit for. You don't agree with my opinion because, and there's no other way to put this, you are quite plainly ignorant and basing your opinion only on the ludicrous reputation she has acquired instead of the facts about what she's done.
If you feel like remaining unaware, I can't help you, but even the wiki page you rely on hits the salient facts:
Quote:
Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself. She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an anti-materialist approach that precluded the use of systematic diagnosis.
What she's done actually is quite damaging. She superficially dealt with poverty in such a way that did not actually help, and funds that could have been used to really alleviate suffering, or even better, prevent it, were instead used in furtherance of spreading her own personal dogmatic beliefs. Most people that gave her money would very likely be horrified to learn how those moneys were actually used. The only difference between her and a sham televangelist is that she hid behind a 1 rupee sari, instead of on a private jet.
