(January 7, 2015 at 10:23 am)Blackout Wrote: Subject (A) - This problem exists because of reasons x and y and needs to be solved
Subject (B) - There are children starving in Africa, why care about that? / Compared to problems in third world countries, REAL problems, that's just an insignificant FIRST WORLD PROBLEM, it's not even an issue

6 - People have the right to fight and solve any issue they want, with the priority they want, and you have no right to tell people how to feel about it since it's a personal choice - Since it's worse in Africa and you're worried, go fix it yourself, just don't use it as an excuse to not fix our problems

Seems to me that, by initiating the discussion and telling B that the problem needs to be solved, A is himself violating point 6, and B is just responding in kind.

I think you should provide some context-- what specific argument did someone pull out the "Africa argument" for?

If we were debating the question about how we could make the world a better place, and you started whining because the nearest Starbucks was almost 4 blocks away from your trendy loft apartment, I would in fact tell you to go fuck yourself, and that you should think about starving kids in Africa. In the context of discussing a global ethic, kids should probably be in the equation somewhere.

If, on the other hand, you were complaining that people on AF don't define their terms until page 40 of any given thread, and so you can never get a decent debate off the ground, then I would not say, "Yeah, well my Hemorrhoids are flaring up. Come back when you have real problems." No good, because my hemorrhoids don't really belong in the context of AF debates. . . or DO they?

Charity is a complex issue.
Apparently by giving clothing to Africa we have inadvertently destroyed their textile industry.

http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/en...e-industry

(January 7, 2015 at 1:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think you should provide some context-- what specific argument did someone pull out the "Africa argument" for?

If we were debating the question about how we could make the world a better place, and you started whining because the nearest Starbucks was almost 4 blocks away from your trendy loft apartment, I would in fact tell you to go fuck yourself, and that you should think about starving kids in Africa. In the context of discussing a global ethic, kids should probably be in the equation somewhere.

If, on the other hand, you were complaining that people on AF don't define their terms until page 40 of any given thread, and so you can never get a decent debate off the ground, then I would not say, "Yeah, well my Hemorrhoids are flaring up. Come back when you have real problems." No good, because my hemorrhoids don't really belong in the context of AF debates. . . or DO they?

I am talking about a situation when I bring up an issue/problem and justify it - For example, I say that being gay is something people still discriminate against in the west - And you hypothetically say "It doesn't matter we should focus on third world countries where being gay is a crime and could even get you executed" - Understand now?

(January 7, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Blackout Wrote: I am talking about a situation when I bring up an issue/problem and justify it - For example, I say that being gay is something people still discriminate against in the west - And you hypothetically say "It doesn't matter we should focus on third world countries where being gay is a crime and could even get you executed" - Understand now?

Interestingly, I actually had the reverse of this conversation. I knew a guy who was volunteering in Africa, and I asked him why he had to go all the way to Africa to find poor people to help. Frankly, if I were to be the volunteer type, I'd go more for being Big Brother to troubled teens, handing out sandwiches in poor areas, or something.

The problem with helping the most troubled is that they are usually parts of fucked-up cultures: anti-women, child abusing, and muslim. Yeah, I said it. I'm not sure that it's in my best interest to support Muhammad in teaching his 20 little Muhammads, most of whom will survive thanks to my monthly payments toward their food and medicine, how to read and write, and how to make enough money to buy plane tickets. *hmmm-- why do I feel kind of dirty and guilty for saying that?*

Anyway, unless your line of reasoning is aimed at establishing global truths, then anything you say about a local truth shouldn't be "trumped" by a general truth. It should not be said that someone else's terminal cancer makes researching better cold medicines unimportant, for example.

(January 7, 2015 at 1:07 pm)alpha male Wrote: Seems to me that, by initiating the discussion and telling B that the problem needs to be solved, A is himself violating point 6, and B is just responding in kind.

This would be a valid statement if B offered a justification beyond the existence of bigger problems, such a reason why these problems must be solve first, or how it would be possible to solve them at all.

(January 7, 2015 at 9:15 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 7, 2015 at 1:07 pm)alpha male Wrote: Seems to me that, by initiating the discussion and telling B that the problem needs to be solved, A is himself violating point 6, and B is just responding in kind.

This would be a valid statement if B offered a justification beyond the existence of bigger problems, such a reason why these problems must be solve first, or how it would be possible to solve them at all.

The difference is that A is merely saying that something needs to be fixed and that is the topic at hand, he/she is not forcing B to solve it or deviating from the conversation. B, on the other hand, is purposefully - ignoring the problem by bringing another that has no relation whatsoever and could be addressed in a different conversation

(January 7, 2015 at 9:15 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: This would be a valid statement if B offered a justification beyond the existence of bigger problems, such a reason why these problems must be solve first, or how it would be possible to solve them at all.

As A didn't bother to do any of those things, neither does B need to do so at this point.

I like using the first world problems thing, although I use it as mockery not as a serious argument like you've outlined. Mostly when I use it it's to say that your problem isn't really a problem. So when someone is like 'oh my iphone is broken' that is a first world problem. If someone makes an argument about gun control or health care, I take that argument seriously and wouldn't use the first world problems line. Actually those aren't first world problems at all, they are universal human problems that people in the third world certainly think about.

People in the first world basically live lives that are free of major problems. I think human nature is one where we need conflict and that is why you have first world problems. Where as we don't deal with starvation or the threat of massacre we invent problems for ourselves because solving lifes problems is intricate to the human experience. Also what some people obsess over as their problems is totally silly.