Generally speaking, when people speak of a region they're speaking of the region that gets presented by Hollywood.
You see this a lot in arguments against the OLPC. A thread will quickly descend into people arguing that schoolchildren in Brazil and Vietnam don't need laptops because they are too busy eating balls of dirt and waiting to die of cholera.
t wishda: access actually isn't as easy as you'd think in many areas, and a compounding problem is the really really regressive gender roles which religious charities just frankly love to death. Women in developed countries often aren't in a sufficiently powerful position within their relationships to be able to control their own sexual activity or reproductive rate; things are a million times worse for them in rural Nigeria.
But that assumes condoms have to be a "female" thing. If churches were passing them out and telling men that they were an effective anti-HIV shield, it would have a positive effect.
Generally speaking, when people speak of a region they're speaking of the region that gets presented by Hollywood.
You see this a lot in arguments against the OLPC. A thread will quickly descend into people arguing that schoolchildren in Brazil and Vietnam don't need laptops because they are too busy eating balls of dirt and waiting to die of cholera.
God a thousand times this (in regards to how stupid it is). But also because there isn't necessarily an obvious progression of "they need farms!" in a lot of these places. Globally we have a lot of food to go around, the problem in these places is they can't afford it and don't produce anything they can sell too afford it. So the answer isn't subsistence farming forever, it's a whole bunch of things whereupon we end up with some local administration and stability that allows them to participate sensibly in the global marketplace - especially because, thanks to the population of a lot areas, subsistence farming just isn't ever going to be practical. They need the whole modern infrastructure thing right the hell now so we can skip them ahead to being able to participate in the types of industry which are in demand or which are conducive to the participation of small players.
Hence why I like OLPC - because the internet is definitely something where Africa could participate in the modern world immediately (and in a more meaningful way then Nigerian gangsters scamming people).
How many foreign aid groups actually offer condoms though? I doubt the majority of the christian groups are doing so. Even if people were worried about condoms/STDs/etc, how many would actually have access?
Millions of people have cell phones in Africa. South Africa is a prosperous nation with a nearly First World economy. Things are bad in Africa, but not so bad that people couldn't have access to little pieces of rubber, if they wanted them.
But not every South African lives in or near a town or city. While the population has been shifting greatly towards urban centers, many people still live in little more than huts. The linked article states what while phone use is on the rise, it does not cover how many people actually have access to phones. Also considering that people are trading plots of land for cell phones, that does not mean they have access to little bits of rubber, if they want them.
Also considering the church is blocking some organizations from distributing condoms, availability may be more random then we think. When the Archbishop said that the availability of condoms was spreading AIDS, it does not mean that condoms were actually readily available.
Override, why would the spread of christianity be beneficial? I think most people would benefit from easy access to clean water and plentiful food. Bibles really aren't all that helpful.
Hence why I like OLPC - because the internet is definitely something where Africa could participate in the modern world immediately (and in a more meaningful way then Nigerian gangsters scamming people).
Even going beyond the long-term benefits, an OLPC with Internet access is a copy of the world's biggest library in their laps. No more need for those "Books for Africa" drives. No more sad stories of children using science textbooks from 1946. A bright, motivated kid learning physics, chemistry or biology with an OLPC is on an even footing with a kid anywhere in the world.
This is doubly true thanks to exploding literacy rates worldwide.
Hence why I like OLPC - because the internet is definitely something where Africa could participate in the modern world immediately (and in a more meaningful way then Nigerian gangsters scamming people).
Even going beyond the long-term benefits, an OLPC with Internet access is a copy of the world's biggest library in their laps. No more need for those "Books for Africa" drives. No more sad stories of children using science textbooks from 1946. A bright, motivated kid learning physics, chemistry or biology with an OLPC is on an even footing with a kid anywhere in the world.
This is doubly true thanks to exploding literacy rates worldwide.
It also has the same benefits for the rest of us: putting new textbooks and resources online is helping Africa, but it's also helping everywhere else too.
EDIT: Basically to me the OLPC is the first step towards a fully operational Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.
Override, why would the spread of christianity be beneficial? I think most people would benefit from easy access to clean water and plentiful food. Bibles really aren't all that helpful.
I don't know, the brand of Christianity where they give people clean water and food along with the bibles. Maybe I live in some kind of bizzarro world but that's the brand around here, fundamentalists excluded. Christianity is easily communicated and generally bans things such as rape and violence, which are prevalent in certain parts of Africa. It's not easy to get someone without access to education to be an atheist, because it generally just doesn't happen, so why not pick a religion that historically spreads like wildfire in poor regions? The condom thing doesn't really have anything to do with christianity.
But I just remembered that on this forum pointing out any potential positives from religion in any region under any circumstance is tantamount to painting a target on your face.
If nothing else, any random literate kid with an OLPC and a connection can look HIV up to fact check whether or not "Horrible Acts" is under the list of known treatments.
But not every South African lives in or near a town or city. While the population has been shifting greatly towards urban centers, many people still live in little more than huts. The linked article states what while phone use is on the rise, it does not cover how many people actually have access to phones. Also considering that people are trading plots of land for cell phones, that does not mean they have access to little bits of rubber, if they want them.
Also considering the church is blocking some organizations from distributing condoms, availability may be more random then we think. When the Archbishop said that the availability of condoms was spreading AIDS, it does not mean that condoms were actually readily available.
I'm not sure your point. Sure, there are some people in Africa who are really rural and wouldn't get immediate help. There are also similar people in Appalachia.
You start a government health drive and get the churches on board and you'd be shocked how much of the continent would be effected. It's how the UN eliminated smallpox, after all.
Of course, that will never happen with AIDS. It's too wrapped up in sex and the surrounding religious manias.
Override, why would the spread of christianity be beneficial? I think most people would benefit from easy access to clean water and plentiful food. Bibles really aren't all that helpful.
I don't know, the brand of Christianity where they give people clean water and food along with the bibles. Maybe I live in some kind of bizzarro world but that's the brand around here, fundamentalists excluded.
But why christianity? And why does there need to be a religious connection at all? There are many organizations that provide water and food without requiring someone to listen to their sermons.
What I am getting at is that when religions is attached to the food and water, there seems to be a lot of unhealthy messages promoted with it, intentionally or not.
Edit:
Wishda, food and water aside, AIDS is the main problem. In which case getting the churches on board is wishful thinking. This problem most likely won't be fixed by the church, which apparently has enough influence to get enough of their "health information" over to scare people away from condoms. How is any one organization supposed to provide basic needs, or condoms, or education, with the catholic church hanging around fearmongering?
t wishda: access actually isn't as easy as you'd think in many areas, and a compounding problem is the really really regressive gender roles which religious charities just frankly love to death. Women in developed countries often aren't in a sufficiently powerful position within their relationships to be able to control their own sexual activity or reproductive rate; things are a million times worse for them in rural Nigeria.
But that assumes condoms have to be a "female" thing. If churches were passing them out and telling men that they were an effective anti-HIV shield, it would have a positive effect.
No, it doesn't, it just makes the point that they aren't popular with men in a lot of places (not just africa) and that religions play a huge part in maintaining that - and also, that their influence is disproportionate in places like africa for reasons of culture, education, and a lack of truly alternative voices of authority.
Does hollywood even DO african cities? I don't remember any.
Deserts yes cities no.
It's been a while, but I seem to recall lord of war taking part in african cities for a good chunk of the time.
This is more a problem with Hollywood in general, if they show a foreign country, that country exists only for the purposes of expressing what the writer/film wants to in an American context coded mainly for American audiences. Lord of War was no exception. Africa=poverty/fucked up violence and corruption. And nothing else.
In a country with the world's highest incidence of rape, even baby rape victims are not allowed life saving anti-AIDS drugs.
What exactly is the reason for this? (It's from the baby-rape article.) Religious reasons, political reasons, government is secretly run by Emperor Palpatine . . . ?
In a country with the world's highest incidence of rape, even baby rape victims are not allowed life saving anti-AIDS drugs.
What exactly is the reason for this? (It's from the baby-rape article.) Religious reasons, political reasons, government is secretly run by Emperor Palpatine . . . ?
The answer's in another article I posted. Basically, the president of South Africa got taken in by an American quack - with ties to Ann Coulter's publishing house, no less - who believes that AIDS isn't caused by a virus, but by a host of poisonous environmental factors.
wishda on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
In a country with the world's highest incidence of rape, even baby rape victims are not allowed life saving anti-AIDS drugs.
What exactly is the reason for this? (It's from the baby-rape article.) Religious reasons, political reasons, government is secretly run by Emperor Palpatine . . . ?
The answer's in another article I posted. Basically, the president of South Africa got taken in by an American quack - with ties to Ann Coulter's publishing house, no less - who believes that AIDS isn't caused by a virus, but by a host of poisonous environmental factors.
What.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Wishda, food and water aside, AIDS is the main problem. In which case getting the churches on board is wishful thinking. This problem most likely won't be fixed by the church, which apparently has enough influence to get enough of their "health information" over to scare people away from condoms. How is any one organization supposed to provide basic needs, or condoms, or education, with the catholic church hanging around fearmongering?
I have a vague hope that the Catholic Church could turn around. It's going through a reactionary period right now, led by Pope Sideous, but the Church has a history of lurching to the non-totally evil side of history eventually. It usually takes a few million dead and international shame to do so, but they do get there.
That's one thing the Catholics have over the American fundamentalists.
Follow some of the links up in the thread. It's all there, all from sources like the BBC and Wikipedia.
No no. I believe you.
I mean why the fuck hasn't that guy been assassinated by human rights groups yet.
For that matter, how come only people with stupid, irrational or insane belief systems assassinate and kill useful people but useful people don't assassinate and kill downright dangerous and insane people?
Thanks, with that information I was able to dig up more articles. Edumacation, learn me an ignorant administration!
Former health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang questioned the effectiveness of ARVs, and famously urged people to eat lots of beetroot and garlic to fight off HIV.
The former health minister also voiced support for the Dr Rath Health Foundation, an organisation that promotes vitamin supplements as a substitute for ARVs. The foundation has published adverts in South Africa claiming that ARVs are toxic and cause AIDS. In August 2005, The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that such statements were a threat to public health, and that the organisation would not be allowed to make such claims in future adverts. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang later stated in newspapers that:
“No reason exists to criticise Rath, his treatments and his foundation.”
Although you may be talking about the president of South Africa, who is under Duesberg's sway.
Sorry, I didn't mean the professor that had the president's ear, but the president himself. I don't know that it was SA though. Gah, I wish I could recall more. About the only thing I clearly remember is my blood pressure rising as I read about him saying how important it was to inspire hope.
Follow some of the links up in the thread. It's all there, all from sources like the BBC and Wikipedia.
No no. I believe you.
I mean why the fuck hasn't that guy been assassinated by human rights groups yet.
For that matter, how come only people with stupid, irrational or insane belief systems assassinate and kill useful people but useful people don't assassinate and kill downright dangerous and insane people?
Because "the public" wont allow us. Go on TV and say the death penalty should be applied in cases of convicted baby rape, hell rape in general. People will be coming out of the wood works to defend that persons right to life.
Sorry there are some crimes, ideologies, and just bat shit crazy people that if someone would put a bullet in their brain the world would be a better place.
As for religion, it is an outdated concept that needs to go away. Regardless if it is missionaries, or witch doctors, nobodies hands are clean. Religion makes people believe in things that cannot be proven, at the core it is belief. Not fact. Unchangeable belief.
Science gets something wrong, it changes. Religion gets something wrong people get burned at the stake.
Whether it is the witch doctors advocating baby rape, who should be shot. The Church teaching abstinence only education that make the problem worse. The thing is at the end of the day they have an agenda based on lies. Wipe it all out, bring in the needed retroviral drugs, and start building infrastructure that will allow these countries to compete in the global market.
It seems like a sincere observation of his that Christian ideology displaces traditional tribal ideology.
Does the atheist "side" really depend on the worldviews of organized religion being even more anti-social than redneck peasant superstitions and dislocated tribal norms?
I tend to agree. I tend to think that there needs to be something to replace the tribal ideology and the modern organized religion ideology.
My "side" is pretty firmly in favor of the promotion of a strong moral ideology. A faithless religion would be ideal, I think.
I don't know whether religion is still needed in developed, free societies like the ones we have in the West today. But I do not believe that something which has been so consistently pervasive in the very structures of human societies since the beginning of recorded history could be so without having a purpose.
You might write it off and just say that religion's purpose is merely to serve as a crutch, explaining things we don't understand. I believe that is part of its purpose, but I don't think it is as important as the stabilizing, moralizing effects it has on society. If the purpose of religion was merely to serve as a mental crutch, I do not believe it would have developed such strong doctrines on human behavior so consistently in history.
Why might we not need it in developed, wealthy societies like the ones almost everyone in this board lives in? Because we are rich enough to have the luxury of morals without needing external guiding forces. Necessity has a way of diminishing morality. Religion helps to keep society running smoothly by encouraging constructive behavior in the face of such necessity.
And yes, terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Some are still being done today. I would suggest two things in response to this: My feeling is that the good has outweighed the bad, overall. Not a provable assertion, but neither is the thought that religion has caused more ill than good. I believe this, once again, because of religion's consistent presence in all forms of human society. I could believe some cultures holding onto it, even though it was bad for them. But all of them?
The second thing I want to suggest is simply that people suck. They're going to suck with or without religion. I think it's naive to assume that just because a terrible thing was done in the name of religion, it was done because of religion. And let's not forget that some of our favorite examples of terrible, oppressive and/or genocidal states, especially in the twentieth century, have scorned religion.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I don't know whether religion is still needed in developed, free societies like the ones we have in the West today. But I do not believe that something which has been so consistently pervasive in the very structures of human societies since the beginning of recorded history could be so without having a purpose.
You might write it off and just say that religion's purpose is merely to serve as a crutch, explaining things we don't understand. I believe that is part of its purpose, but I don't think it is as important as the stabilizing, moralizing effects it has on society. If the purpose of religion was merely a mental crutch, I do not believe it would have developed such strong doctrines on human behavior so consistently in history.
Why might we not need it in developed, wealthy societies like the ones almost everyone in this board lives in? Because we are rich enough to have the luxury of morals without needing external guiding forces. Necessity has a way of diminishing morality. Religion helps to keep society running smoothly by encouraging constructive behavior in the face of such necessity.
And yes, terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Some are still being done today. I would suggest two things in response to this: My feeling is that the good has outweighed the bad, overall. Not a provable assertion, but neither is the thought that religion has caused more ill than good. I believe this, once again, because of religion's consistent presence in all forms of human society. I could believe some cultures holding onto it, even though it was bad for them. But all of them?
The second thing I want to suggest is simply that people suck. They're going to suck with or without religion. I think it's naive to assume that just because a terrible thing was done in the name of religion, it was done because of religion. And let's not forget that some of our favorite examples of terrible, oppressive and/or genocidal states, especially in the twentieth century, have scorned religion.
Your history speculation can't be tested. You can't go back in time and rerun it another way. Another person can come along and twist it to back up their own words. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you didn't rely on it at all.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I know it can't be tested scientifically. But then, I don't know if we can scientifically test the pros/cons of religion as a force in society. It is, by nature, pretty subjective.
But we can argue and hypothesize. Not everything has to be scientific.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
Heh. My Differential Psychology lecturer specialises in the psychological study of religious faith. (Btw he once told us in a lecturer he tells his friends not to stand too close to him they might catch a bullet. He's half joking. Lots of people dislike his research. :P )
And there is such a thing as the psychological study of moral reasoning.
Much of this gets combined with social psychology research.
The thing is much of this just doesn't leave academia. Which is a real shame.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
You see this a lot in arguments against the OLPC. A thread will quickly descend into people arguing that schoolchildren in Brazil and Vietnam don't need laptops because they are too busy eating balls of dirt and waiting to die of cholera.
But that assumes condoms have to be a "female" thing. If churches were passing them out and telling men that they were an effective anti-HIV shield, it would have a positive effect.
It's been a while, but I seem to recall lord of war taking part in african cities for a good chunk of the time.
On the black screen
It's not just the Catholic Church. American fundamentalists have made huge influxes into Africa.
All the bad of the Church, with an added dash of crazy.
I stopped going to movies regularly a few years ago. If things have changed since, that's great, and I am very happy about it.
Hence why I like OLPC - because the internet is definitely something where Africa could participate in the modern world immediately (and in a more meaningful way then Nigerian gangsters scamming people).
But not every South African lives in or near a town or city. While the population has been shifting greatly towards urban centers, many people still live in little more than huts. The linked article states what while phone use is on the rise, it does not cover how many people actually have access to phones. Also considering that people are trading plots of land for cell phones, that does not mean they have access to little bits of rubber, if they want them.
Also considering the church is blocking some organizations from distributing condoms, availability may be more random then we think. When the Archbishop said that the availability of condoms was spreading AIDS, it does not mean that condoms were actually readily available.
And... which branch of Christianity do you think would be a good one...?
And beneficial compared to what? Animism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Scientology...?
Even going beyond the long-term benefits, an OLPC with Internet access is a copy of the world's biggest library in their laps. No more need for those "Books for Africa" drives. No more sad stories of children using science textbooks from 1946. A bright, motivated kid learning physics, chemistry or biology with an OLPC is on an even footing with a kid anywhere in the world.
This is doubly true thanks to exploding literacy rates worldwide.
EDIT: Basically to me the OLPC is the first step towards a fully operational Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.
I don't know, the brand of Christianity where they give people clean water and food along with the bibles. Maybe I live in some kind of bizzarro world but that's the brand around here, fundamentalists excluded. Christianity is easily communicated and generally bans things such as rape and violence, which are prevalent in certain parts of Africa. It's not easy to get someone without access to education to be an atheist, because it generally just doesn't happen, so why not pick a religion that historically spreads like wildfire in poor regions? The condom thing doesn't really have anything to do with christianity.
But I just remembered that on this forum pointing out any potential positives from religion in any region under any circumstance is tantamount to painting a target on your face.
I'm not sure your point. Sure, there are some people in Africa who are really rural and wouldn't get immediate help. There are also similar people in Appalachia.
You start a government health drive and get the churches on board and you'd be shocked how much of the continent would be effected. It's how the UN eliminated smallpox, after all.
Of course, that will never happen with AIDS. It's too wrapped up in sex and the surrounding religious manias.
But why christianity? And why does there need to be a religious connection at all? There are many organizations that provide water and food without requiring someone to listen to their sermons.
What I am getting at is that when religions is attached to the food and water, there seems to be a lot of unhealthy messages promoted with it, intentionally or not.
Edit:
Wishda, food and water aside, AIDS is the main problem. In which case getting the churches on board is wishful thinking. This problem most likely won't be fixed by the church, which apparently has enough influence to get enough of their "health information" over to scare people away from condoms. How is any one organization supposed to provide basic needs, or condoms, or education, with the catholic church hanging around fearmongering?
This is more a problem with Hollywood in general, if they show a foreign country, that country exists only for the purposes of expressing what the writer/film wants to in an American context coded mainly for American audiences. Lord of War was no exception. Africa=poverty/fucked up violence and corruption. And nothing else.
What exactly is the reason for this? (It's from the baby-rape article.) Religious reasons, political reasons, government is secretly run by Emperor Palpatine . . . ?
The answer's in another article I posted. Basically, the president of South Africa got taken in by an American quack - with ties to Ann Coulter's publishing house, no less - who believes that AIDS isn't caused by a virus, but by a host of poisonous environmental factors.
What.
I have a vague hope that the Catholic Church could turn around. It's going through a reactionary period right now, led by Pope Sideous, but the Church has a history of lurching to the non-totally evil side of history eventually. It usually takes a few million dead and international shame to do so, but they do get there.
That's one thing the Catholics have over the American fundamentalists.
Follow some of the links up in the thread. It's all there, all from sources like the BBC and Wikipedia.
No no. I believe you.
I mean why the fuck hasn't that guy been assassinated by human rights groups yet.
It boggles my head that this guy still has tenure at UC-Berkeley. Surely, there's a "crimes against humanity" clause in there, somewhere.
He was some African leader IIRC.
On the black screen
Nope. This guy.
Although you may be talking about the president of South Africa, who is under Duesberg's sway.
Sorry, I didn't mean the professor that had the president's ear, but the president himself. I don't know that it was SA though. Gah, I wish I could recall more. About the only thing I clearly remember is my blood pressure rising as I read about him saying how important it was to inspire hope.
On the black screen
Jesus. South Africa's like a catch-basket for these quacks.
For an extra bout of weirdness, quack Matthias Rath has a M.D. from Hamburg University and once studied under Linus Pauling.
Because "the public" wont allow us. Go on TV and say the death penalty should be applied in cases of convicted baby rape, hell rape in general. People will be coming out of the wood works to defend that persons right to life.
Sorry there are some crimes, ideologies, and just bat shit crazy people that if someone would put a bullet in their brain the world would be a better place.
As for religion, it is an outdated concept that needs to go away. Regardless if it is missionaries, or witch doctors, nobodies hands are clean. Religion makes people believe in things that cannot be proven, at the core it is belief. Not fact. Unchangeable belief.
Science gets something wrong, it changes. Religion gets something wrong people get burned at the stake.
Whether it is the witch doctors advocating baby rape, who should be shot. The Church teaching abstinence only education that make the problem worse. The thing is at the end of the day they have an agenda based on lies. Wipe it all out, bring in the needed retroviral drugs, and start building infrastructure that will allow these countries to compete in the global market.
I tend to agree. I tend to think that there needs to be something to replace the tribal ideology and the modern organized religion ideology.
My "side" is pretty firmly in favor of the promotion of a strong moral ideology. A faithless religion would be ideal, I think.
EDITED out a contradiction.
You might write it off and just say that religion's purpose is merely to serve as a crutch, explaining things we don't understand. I believe that is part of its purpose, but I don't think it is as important as the stabilizing, moralizing effects it has on society. If the purpose of religion was merely to serve as a mental crutch, I do not believe it would have developed such strong doctrines on human behavior so consistently in history.
Why might we not need it in developed, wealthy societies like the ones almost everyone in this board lives in? Because we are rich enough to have the luxury of morals without needing external guiding forces. Necessity has a way of diminishing morality. Religion helps to keep society running smoothly by encouraging constructive behavior in the face of such necessity.
And yes, terrible things have been done in the name of religion. Some are still being done today. I would suggest two things in response to this: My feeling is that the good has outweighed the bad, overall. Not a provable assertion, but neither is the thought that religion has caused more ill than good. I believe this, once again, because of religion's consistent presence in all forms of human society. I could believe some cultures holding onto it, even though it was bad for them. But all of them?
The second thing I want to suggest is simply that people suck. They're going to suck with or without religion. I think it's naive to assume that just because a terrible thing was done in the name of religion, it was done because of religion. And let's not forget that some of our favorite examples of terrible, oppressive and/or genocidal states, especially in the twentieth century, have scorned religion.
Your history speculation can't be tested. You can't go back in time and rerun it another way. Another person can come along and twist it to back up their own words. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you didn't rely on it at all.
But we can argue and hypothesize. Not everything has to be scientific.
And there is such a thing as the psychological study of moral reasoning.
Much of this gets combined with social psychology research.
The thing is much of this just doesn't leave academia. Which is a real shame.
Okay, that guy's pretty damn stupid.