Yes I did.

If I feed every starving person in the world a meal, have I cured the problem of world hunger? Clearly not, all I've done is feed some hungry people, the problem of lack of food has not gone away. Similarly, if I feed and house every homeless person, I haven't solved the problems that cause people to become homeless, like drug addiction, pure bad luck, financial depressions, mental health issues, etc etc. Pretty soon, there will be more homeless people needing help. (This is why I'm not proposing Ethical consumerism as a solution, or even as part of a solution, to Homelessness, it's obviously not applicable in this context)

All things I've already said ITT Neeel. Please can you read my posts more carefully, I wouldn't expect you to keep repeating yourself in this way, I'd take the time to try to make sure I wasn't asking a question that has already been answered.

Hey now, you missed the part where I said probably. Probably is a magical word that makes your criticism void and this accusation of yours trollish and rude.

I mean, you could be very honest about this. I'm just saying, you know, that you probably aren't.

I mean, those two statements probably aren't similar at all.

It's funny how you continue to accuse everyone of misreading your posts while simultaneously misreading their posts. Did I say funny? I meant sad. Or maybe hilarious. I can't decide.

Yeah. It has nothing to do with our dependence on oil and the $6 trillion dollars that the US spent defending our oil interests. Our dependence on oil doesn't actually cause huge problems on a global scale, and it's not our fault because we choose to buy oil from the oil companies (and all the oil derivative products). How absurd it is to believe that consumer behaviors affect homelessness. The only way anyone can come to that conclusion is if they misread your posts.

On the issue of charities and oil... Has there been many charities that wanted to resolve the problem of unethical fiscal policies in the oil industry?

And how many charities are there that collect money and help to give people soup once?

And if the issue is that some charities are bad, is all ethical consumer advice good?

I'm trying to make sense of whatever it is MB tries to convey, but I'm not seeing it.

It must be because you're a troll and not paying any attention to what he's saying. Now quit stressing him out.

You missed what I am saying.

IF there are no homeless, THEN theres no problem of homelessness

Are you denying this?

He thinks that whilst charities are generally doing good, valuable work and are necessary, he prefers to focus on reforming his purchasing habits and those of people he meets. By doing so, he hopes to reduce the factors which are causing the suffering that charities are currently trying to alleviate.

And where do the charities that are trying to alleviate those factors factor in...?

I think he's underestimating that element of charity work. I'm sure he'd be a fan though.

Yep.

I don't have a problem with this, sounds fair. Where it gets problematic IMO is when we say this way is really effective and other peoples way (charity or what have you) is less effective. In addition charities are part of raising awareness and changing purchasing habits as well. I don't perceive charity work as independent or separate from "the ethical purchasing movement".

Most (all?) serious social issues (ie. homelessness, drug abuse, slavery) are never going to be completely solved. IME most homelessness in N.A. is caused by drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness. The drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness can often be fallout from previous problems (family issues/sexual and physical abuse etc.). Therefore when you say, "while the charities work on the ground, until they're simply not needed any more" it seems very unrealistic. To prevent or decrease homelessness one needs to address all the underlying root issues. This is a complex problem that touches many aspects of life. I don't see homelessness as really being about "standard of living". Homeless people are broken emotionally and physically (addictions). To fix homelessness you need to mend the whole person.

It is fine to be idealistic in pursuit of a social cause. In fact I think it helps to be idealistic to embark on tackling social issues. However, I don't think anyone is every going to just solve homelessness so charity is not needed anymore. There is always going to be homelessness because of broken families, addictions, and mental illness.

This would be a complex process.

From your comments itt: I think you seriously overestimate the power of consumers to cause change... so here we are. Pretty well summarizes our different views.

If you really believe in ethical purchasing as a solution for social issues then go for it. I am not going to criticize that effort. Thats what I was saying before regarding the "meh" argument. People are going to pursue what they are passionate about. If you have passion for this cause then pursue it. Some people have passion for the soup kitchen, it would be wrong for me to criticize them.

I scanned it. Intel made a good decision to try and make their supply chain more ethical. I am always a bit wary of large organizations who use their social efforts as part of marketing but whatever. Who am I to judge their motivations... looks like a good trend to set.

RGT is a pretty litigious place so people are always going to jump on what others say, it is just the nature of the beast. If your position is, "ethical purchasing can affect great positive change in the world" then you likely won't get much push-back. It is your criticism of others good work that is drawing you heat.

No I didn't miss what you're saying. Just because you have housed all the people who are currently homeless doesn't mean that you have solved the problem of homelessness because there will be new homeless people before very long. You haven't solved the problems that cause homelessness, you've just dealt with the current symptoms, so you haven't solved the problem of homelessness.

Is this a game to see how many times you can get me to say the same thing?

Yes, except that it's not really a question of what I 'prefer'. I'm speaking of Ethical Consumerism because I think there's too much focus on what charities do and not enough on what we can do to prevent some of those problems even occurring in the first place.

Throughout the thread there's been reference to my personal preferences or my opinion (that actually isn't my opinion at all) that Ethical consumerism is 'superior' to charity work and I've never actualy stated either. I think it can be more effective in providing solutions to some problems,as opposed to relieving the effects off those problems.

Direct charity work actually appeals too me to and I do volunteer for a charity that deals with immigrants seeking asylum in the UK. Since these immigrants are mostly seeking asylum from countries where they are persecuted for religious or political reasons, there isn't much I can do to solve the problem, that's something that I wonder if we'll find a solution to and for now all we can do is deal with the consequences.

Quite possibly.

No, its interesting to see how you still miss the point though.

Anyone who is homeless, is given a home. Where is the problem of homelessness?

( to spell it out a little more, as you dont seem to be getting it, it doesnt matter what caused the homelessness, since everyone who is homeless, is given a home)

The problem of homelessness is people without homes, right? that is what the "problem" is. Therefore, if there are no people without homes, then there is no problem of homelessness. Its simple, and I dont see how you are not getting it.

Ok, I'm bored.

Charities don't have to focus on merely what you call symptoms. There. The end. Etc.

Can we stop now?

I donated at least a few stacks to some even worse fish than me. Does that count?

This is all because of my comment about people who do charity work because they feel guilty?

Good grief Charlie Brown.



This is what I was talking about when I said 'use the system'. We don't have to seek some impossible Utopia, we can just behave slightly differently, still encourage competition and profit, but do it ethically so it doesn't cause suffering. I think Capitalism is a great system, but it's being abused by the unethical, and they are supported in their behavior by the unthinking and uncaring.

My next PC, or any gadget that needs a processor, will have an Intel processor in it because I'm going to 'vote' for Intel, and support their behaviour with my money, and I consider that vote, and every vote I cast with my money, to be more powerful than any I'll ever cast in an election in the UK. Now, how many people will do the same, and how many will buy elsewhere because of 'brand loyalty' or some cheaper deal?


In the specific context of solving (some) problems, rather than just dealing with the consequences of problems, Ethical purchasing IS more effective. That's just a fact, not a value judgement. No demand for ivory means no poaching, how could anyone deny that this is a more effective solution than trying to catch poachers, for example?


Neither do I.

I think this is unduly pessimistic. Why can't we 'mend the whole person', what's stopping that from happening? And I'm not being idealistic, I'm being practical. Homelessness may be a much more complex problem to solve than conflict minerals, child slave labour, or ivory poaching but that doesn't mean that it's not solvable. What I don't see, is the effort being mad, that could be made. Instead, as I've said, I see the US spending $6 Trillion on wars to support the oil industry while children starve back at home and nearly 50 million people are living below the poverty line. Don't you think that our priorities are a little screwy?

Sure, but impossible? I don't think so. There simply isn't the political and public will to do it and the people most motivated to, the people that suffer the problems itself and the effects, are the people who are the least able to change anything because they're trapped in the cycle.

And yet you agreed earlier with my comment that nothing brings down industries faster than a lack of demand. This seems contradictory. Do you think Apple would survive no one buying their products? They're a huge company but they would still go rapidly out of business if they stopped selling.

Every single company or organisation that causes suffering for profit can be brought down by the people who buy their products/services. Don't underestimate how much power the consumer has, we put them there with our money, and we can take them down too.

Oh, you mean this is your ongoing solution to the problem? Every time someone becomes homeless, we give them a home?

Can you confirm that before I explain why I think that's a terrible solution, just in case I've misunderstood you.

Nononono, if we follow your reasoning in your discussion with me, we dont want to deal with the demand for ivory, we want to deal with the causes of demand for ivory......

First, can you confirm that, if there are no homeless people, then there is no problem of homelessness?

Ah yes, all those silly people who got provoked by that. What were they thinking.

I mean. You're merely suggesting that during Christmas most people don't do charity or contribute to charity because they want to, because they believe it helps, because they know it helps, because they are nice, because they have ideals, because they have virtues, because they care...

... instead they just do it because they feel guily about their own excess.

It's not like anyone should ever be offended by that. Cue picture-memes of facepalms.

I can't because I don't think it's that simple. Would you agree that the problem of Homelessness consists of (at least) two separate problems; 1) That there are homeless people requiring care of some kind, 2) That causes of homelessness are social and economic in nature?

Your solution only solves the first part of the problem, even if implemented on an ongoing basis. And frankly, I think that would simply create even more problems.

(I'm not including in the scope of this discussion, any consequences of homelessness, such as criminal activities, since any solution would also remove those. So, while we could expand the number of problems that form the homelessness problem, or even break them down into subsets, I don't think we need to.)

If it isn't that simple, then why is it so simple to deduce this?

If you know the directions and scope of the various factors and their interaction, then surely the problem is not very difficult.

It's like similar to claiming that giving a man food won't cure his situation, but it actually can. Experiencing that someone cares, getting nutrition and improving your physical condition can be better for many than all the clever plans sociologists, lawyers, policemen, politicians and internet debaters can muster.

Of course, this we ignore. The issue is that it doesn't help them all. And if you can't help them all, then you might as well help noone.

jeez......

No, I dont agree( or at least only partially)

The problem of homelessness is simply one thing, that there are homeless people.

If there are no homeless people, then there is no problem.

Lets say there is a problem of people being killed by lightning strikes. We invent a device that channels the strike away from a person wearing the device, so they dont die any more. Therefore, there are no more deaths from lighting strike, therefore, its not a problem. The lightning strikes, and the causes of the lightning strikes, still remain, but the actual problem was the people dying.

Alternatively you could try and remove the lightning strikes themselves, and the causes, but that may turn out to be impossible, or way more expensive.

So, you are rejecting that removing all symptoms of the problem is "solving" the problem. Whereas I am accepting that both removing all symptoms, and removing all causes, is "solving" the problem.

So I will ask again. You are concerned with the problem of homelessness

1) the problem of homelessness is that there are people without homes . Yes or no?
2) if there is no one without a home, then there is no problem of homelessness. Yes or no?

I'm sure that's part of it. Note that you didnt just say it happened you said it was the most common motivation (you also said you consider charities "part of the problem" because they allow people to feel better donating without having the real issue addressed).

Whilst you haven't repeated those first few positions, you haven't retracted them either. I dare say you might get more people looking at what you want them to look at if you just acknowledge that it was a silly thing to say and that you're in no position to know what motivates most charity workers.

Yes, the practicality of your solution is crystal clear. Let's promote an idea for hwich there isn't the political and public will to do it and the people who are the most motivated are the lead able to change anything. Clearly, this is an effective plan.

So... How many people did you feed when you bought your new phone? You said that there were "a lot" of them fed, but I want an approximate number.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=162