Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by izzys)
    How much do you know about the one child policy? Birth control in china is nothing like you said. No aborthion can be forced and no babies are left to die. As to the sterilisations, people do that simply because it is the easiest way to control birth.
    I didn't mean that there is nothing wrong about birth control. But if anyone got any good idea about how to make a country with 1.3 billion people develop constantly without letting people suffering from hunger and unnecessary illness and death, he would be honored and respected, not only by chinese people, but also by people from all developing countries, or say, all over the world.
    I know a significant amount about it, having studied it in great detail as an A Level case study.

    Yes there were forced abortions- they were covered up by the government but happened often. A family would get a knock on the door in the night and the woman would be forcibley taken and given an abortion. Neighbours were encouraged to snitch on eachother if someone became pregnant with a second child.

    Yes babies were left to die- in a country where having a son is a status symbol and very important to the culture, baby girls were often smothered at birth or left in mountains/woods to die.

    Yes there were forced sterilisations- also covered up by the government, but used as a punishment for women who consistently got pregnant after having one child.

    See these articles:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/941511.stm
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9766870
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    China have built a country which will become the most powerful in the world from it, so yeah its basically a perfect example.
    To be honest, when China take over as the world's greatest superpower (which is inevitable) we should all be very, very worried. I doubt you'd like to live in a communist world with no concern for human rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Because the Chinese people would be in a similar situation had it not been for population culling and a bit of hard work.

    You can't even think of 1 decent argument and result to name calling, how pathetic, what a immature child.
    Argument for what? We're nowhere near the topic I cam here to discuss because you're incapable of staying on it. Read what you just posted! 'population culling'! What the **** is wrong with you? I feel Godwin's law being upheld soon, are you the son of Lucifer?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by becomingbindy)
    To be honest, when China take over as the world's greatest superpower (which is inevitable) we should all be very, very worried. I doubt you'd like to live in a communist world with no concern for human rights.
    I would rather have a job and earn a bit of money to support my family than rely on aid for my 8 kids who I can't support.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by KiiNGofLONDON)
    Argument for what? We're nowhere near the topic I cam here to discuss because you're incapable of staying on it. Read what you just posted! 'population culling'! What the **** is wrong with you? I feel Godwin's law being upheld soon, are you the son of Lucifer?
    Nah I prefer the long term stability of countries rather than the short term propping up.

    And whenever you get beat you change the topic, how interesting.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    I would rather have a job and earn a bit of money to support my family than rely on aid for my 8 kids who I can't support.
    Well yes, but that's irrelevant. In my original post I said that I didn't agree with people having big families they couldn't support, however the one child policy could obviously not be implemented in any country that has a regard for human rights and moral values and so it's hardly a sensible suggestion of a solution.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Its called empethy. Its called having a soul.

    Come back when you get one maby?
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by becomingbindy)
    Well yes, but that's irrelevant. In my original post I said that I didn't agree with people having big families they couldn't support, however the one child policy could obviously not be implemented in any country that has a regard for human rights and moral values and so it's hardly a sensible suggestion of a solution.
    But its moral for a government to sit there and watch its people die and live off aid?

    Thats why morals are so pointless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Nah I prefer the long term stability of countries rather than the short term propping up.
    It's basically the Ant and the Grasshopper fable. Unfortunately, the population of Grasshoppers increases 3 times faster than the Ants, so it won't be sustainable in the long term.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Chi019)
    It's basically the Ant and the Grasshopper fable. Unfortunately, the population of Grasshoppers increases 3 times faster than the Ants, so it won't be sustainable in the long term.
    We as humans should surely then see that the population has to be stopped from growing in theses areas where they do not have the resources to support there current population?

    It is natural after a massive event for any animal population to shrink to a level it can manage, it then regrows at a sustainable level.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow ..honestly
    this is actually disappointing ...
    OP have you forgotten how to empathise? just because
    you can construct a point and use "logic" as an answer for everything?
    At this time who gives a crap about logic and you call yourself a human but obviously you have no feelings whatsoever....
    People like you make me sick to my stomach and sadden me so much :sad:
    The people of haiti and everyone else in the world suffering did not deserve it but we should try to help atleast ....We are not looking to wipe out all the suffering in the world because that would be impossible but we should be humane to each other and help.
    WOW HAVE SOME COMPASSION !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course we should give a damn, because it also affects our own security and emigration flows.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Humans have evolved to love, care have feelings for other humans thats why we want to help I guess. To see other humans suffer, people with feelings just like you and I is hard to just sit back and watch.

    However the hatians taking advantage of the situation by roaming around looting and fighting carrying huge machetes sicken me. However that happens during most disasters though ie new orleans and that was a more developed country
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    HELEN KELLER:

    "Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings."
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Thread closed. This needs a clean-up, but will (probably) be re-opened soon.

    Edit: re-opened. Please keep the discussion sensible or the thread is likely to be closed permanently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The difference between the problem faced in Haiti and the problems we have here is that we are at least capable of dealing with our problems. The damage caused by this earthquake in Haiti will decimate the country, the death toll will continue to climb higher than it already is. If you are compassionate in the slightest about human beings (from your country or not) you should feel an obligation to lend a hand. They are helpless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayostunner)
    Wow ..honestly
    this is actually disappointing ...
    OP have you forgotten how to empathise? just because
    you can construct a point and use "logic" as an answer for everything?
    At this time who gives a crap about logic and you call yourself a human but obviously you have no feelings whatsoever....
    People like you make me sick to my stomach and sadden me so much :sad:
    The people of haiti and everyone else in the world suffering did not deserve it but we should try to help atleast ....We are not looking to wipe out all the suffering in the world because that would be impossible but we should be humane to each other and help.
    WOW HAVE SOME COMPASSION !
    The OP said it was a troll thread 9 pages back. I'm getting pretty annoyed at having to say this over and over again. I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T help, I'm just saying there's no reason that we ought to help.

    To elaborate further. There's no universal you can apply where helping out in Haiti is a duty we have. Compassion isn't a reason for why it's our duty as compassion is subjective.

    What I'm asking, what this thread is actually asking, is what is the reason, that can be universally applied, that means we OUGHT/SHOULD help out.

    (Another example, if you want to be good at chess, the universal you could apply to anyone who wanted to be good at chess would be to practice chess. You ought to practice chess if you want to be good at it.)


    (Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :))
    Its called empethy. Its called having a soul.

    Come back when you get one maby?
    Empathy isn't an OUGHT it's a WANT. Empathy doesn't mean you OUGHT to do it, it might mean that you WANT to do it.

    Also the soul doesn't exist.

    (Original post by becomingbindy)
    To be honest, when China take over as the world's greatest superpower (which is inevitable) we should all be very, very worried. I doubt you'd like to live in a communist world with no concern for human rights.
    We shouldn't be worried at all. We won't become communists just because China is the biggest super power. If Saudi Arabia became the biggest, would we all adopt sharia law? No, you idiot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    No, most people are actually ignorant. Not very many people are educated on this. They do not know what the conditions are actually like and the suffering that is produced.

    Your point is irrelevant to the matter though. The man who inadvertently causes suffering is not comparable to the man who consciously refuses to help alleviate severe suffering of the masses.
    I would be willing to bet over 70% (maybe even 80) of the population of the UK are aware to some extent as to what goes on and the conditions these people work in. I have no proof, but neither of us do.

    My point is not irrelevant anyway, because the OP has repeatedly pointed out that he wasn't proposing that nobody give money, only that there's no reason we should give money. If it is our duty (which the would "should" suggests) as humans to give charity to people who are in trouble, then by default if everyone was fully aware of the conditions in China and elsewhere, those of them who contribute to the suffering by buying produce from there should give money continuously, for example having a % of their wage go to these people.

    Anyway even if you are right and most people don't know about the conditions in these places, do you really think that if they did, everyone who has given money to the Haiti appeal would donate money on a regular basis to offset the damage they are inadvertently doing to others? I think not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ok, so we shouldn't care. But the "rationale" for empathy is so:

    - we evolved as such
    - it exists in numerous other species
    - it's part of our nature

    Trying to rationalise and say "but why?" doesn't make sense. I thought this was a student forum, not one for Asperger's syndrome or something (well the posts given here are borderline symptoms of it at the least).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wtid)
    I would be willing to bet over 70% (maybe even 80) of the population of the UK are aware to some extent as to what goes on and the conditions these people work in. I have no proof, but neither of us do.

    My point is not irrelevant anyway, because the OP has repeatedly pointed out that he wasn't proposing that nobody give money, only that there's no reason we should give money. If it is our duty (which the would "should" suggests) as humans to give charity to people who are in trouble, then by default if everyone was fully aware of the conditions in China and elsewhere, those of them who contribute to the suffering by buying produce from there should give money continuously, for example having a % of their wage go to these people.

    Anyway even if you are right and most people don't know about the conditions in these places, do you really think that if they did, everyone who has given money to the Haiti appeal would donate money on a regular basis to offset the damage they are inadvertently doing to others? I think not.
    It doesn't matter though. Just because they are not continually giving to charity does not mean that they are somehow not justified in donating towards the Haiti disaster, or indeed that they are just as bad as those who choose not to donate. They are just not comparable. Your perceived fault of society in this way is not applicable here.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.