Ask Unkie Trunkie Again!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 64,605
Likes: 1,226
Originally Posted by 8D_In_Trunk,Nov 3 2009, 09:18 PM
Perhaps. However, your assumption is based on a priori institutionalization. It's equally possible that the oppression is voluntary, and thusly, sexually passive aggressive, which may be even more satisfactory for the party(-ies) involved.
If one is to assume absolute equality sans common gender roles, than the respect given will probably be the respect earned. To which, it could very well not be a question of whether or not they are hoes, but rather, what kind of person they may be (along a spectrum twixt slaves, hoes, ubermench, to demigods, etc.).
Federal Foreign Aid should be qualified within two stripes:
Stripe-the-first (Liberal, for lack of a better term): This would be a moral response to what would be a moral dereliction transpiring elsewhere in the world. Our primary motivation would be to make a situation as, "correct (morally) as possible."
Stripe-the-second (Neo-Liberal): is a response to some deficit wherein solving/reducing/mitigating the deficit shows a benefit to the donor country. Included in this though, is the quantification of "intangibles," such as good will, branding, etc. However, even with those intangible qualities, the volition is the same.
In the case of U.S. Federal Foreign aid, I think it is now nigh-on impossible to find something so profoundly and morally reprehensible where the entire U.S. population will in fact, be moved to openly and unhesitatingly respond. While half of the U.S. would be outraged, some strong plurality are assuredly to take a xenophobic stance.
Given that, the best we can do is respond using the Neo-Liberal model. The only flaw in the Neo-Liberal model is that you still have to sell the exchange as a good thing, but with very little perceived down-side. In other words, you have to prove that taxes won't be raised or misappropriated. . . even if the exchange could be directly tax-beneficial (support of developing markets, etc.). You have to prove that cheap bananas for the population is in fact worth us sending $50M to said banana republic. . . but people are stupid, and don't want to read charts. God help them if they even try to comprehend secondary or tertiary effects.
Stripe-the-first (Liberal, for lack of a better term): This would be a moral response to what would be a moral dereliction transpiring elsewhere in the world. Our primary motivation would be to make a situation as, "correct (morally) as possible."
Stripe-the-second (Neo-Liberal): is a response to some deficit wherein solving/reducing/mitigating the deficit shows a benefit to the donor country. Included in this though, is the quantification of "intangibles," such as good will, branding, etc. However, even with those intangible qualities, the volition is the same.
In the case of U.S. Federal Foreign aid, I think it is now nigh-on impossible to find something so profoundly and morally reprehensible where the entire U.S. population will in fact, be moved to openly and unhesitatingly respond. While half of the U.S. would be outraged, some strong plurality are assuredly to take a xenophobic stance.
Given that, the best we can do is respond using the Neo-Liberal model. The only flaw in the Neo-Liberal model is that you still have to sell the exchange as a good thing, but with very little perceived down-side. In other words, you have to prove that taxes won't be raised or misappropriated. . . even if the exchange could be directly tax-beneficial (support of developing markets, etc.). You have to prove that cheap bananas for the population is in fact worth us sending $50M to said banana republic. . . but people are stupid, and don't want to read charts. God help them if they even try to comprehend secondary or tertiary effects.
The moral aspect of it is what troubles me. Where to start...If we're 'giving back' that seems to imply we took something away to begin with. This is maybe less so since we haven't colonized other countries, but still...The arrogance that we know what's best for other countries, particularly when we offer tied aid (and/or force countries to play along with policies of the IMF, World Bank, etc.) and then proceed to encourage long term dependence on aid...The tertiary effects are a whole other ball of wax. I'm very interested to know how many North American businesses have thrived thanks to overseas contracts that may have displaced entire villages, destroyed potential routes for self-sufficiency, etc.
In terms of the marketization of philanthropy, are we discussing the actual quantification of said intangibles associated with philanthropy, or the marketing of the philanthropy?
...
If it's the latter (marketing of philanthropy), then things get funny. Obviously, say, in the case of corporate philanthropy, it's exercising good will to some benefit. To which end, comes the ever-present question of, "Why are they doing this?" Is there a profound moral compunction within the company? Have the executives judged the intangible good will involved in the exchange as something beneficial to the company as a whole? Is the exchange alleviation/mitigation for a perceived moral defecit?
It begs questions. However, if markets are indeed free, then philanthropy is the intangible exchange within that market system. To attach anything else on such a social/macro-economic level may be bad science.
...
If it's the latter (marketing of philanthropy), then things get funny. Obviously, say, in the case of corporate philanthropy, it's exercising good will to some benefit. To which end, comes the ever-present question of, "Why are they doing this?" Is there a profound moral compunction within the company? Have the executives judged the intangible good will involved in the exchange as something beneficial to the company as a whole? Is the exchange alleviation/mitigation for a perceived moral defecit?
It begs questions. However, if markets are indeed free, then philanthropy is the intangible exchange within that market system. To attach anything else on such a social/macro-economic level may be bad science.
Crap I should've done this earlier in the evening.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by EVAN&MONICA,Nov 3 2009, 07:30 PM
Hi Unkie!! How are you today? 
Monica
Monica
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by shareall,Nov 3 2009, 08:33 PM
Although there are people who work in the sex trade assert they are there by choice, do you also wonder about internalized oppression? I don't think, by its nature, oppression is voluntary. And I guess we're also making assumptions about what it means to 'choose' to be in a particular profession.
Was kinda thinking there was some connection between who holds power in society and value judgments about why people are in the situations they are in...There's more to that, but this is gonna be a novel as it is. Oh and screw Chomsky - I'm busy ODing on Mullaly.
As per marketization and philanthropy: There are now a fairly robust set of studies going on regarding the economics of intangibles. Those might be better suited in guiding your answers. . . at least in terms of a strict economic study.
. . . The idea that people can feel as though they did their good deed for the day/lifetime when they buy a something and a portion of that goes to some cause (without really knowing about the details of it). There is a certain amount of goodwill to it, but the explosion in this kind of thing over the last years suggests to me that it's just good business practice in terms of boosting sales. Perhaps I'm jaded, but it seems like celebrities are becoming brands themselves and that's concerning as well for various reasons...
However, I have to believe that a charitable act done with full knowledge may carry more economic heft than an act done without knowledge. . . once again though, my theory is probably waiting to be tested at a University some point later.
Crap I should've done this earlier in the evening.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by problem_child,Nov 3 2009, 10:35 PM
how dumb is Umar?
Originally Posted by Unkie Trunkie's First Rule and Axiom
Stupidity, by it's very definition, knows no boundaries. Therefore, the dumbest question anyone can ask is, "How stupid is this going to get?"
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showt...post&p=17452271
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by bahula03,Nov 3 2009, 10:46 PM
Do things like chicken noodle soup and pho have any medical value if a person is sick with a common cold, with or without a sore throat?
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 28,136
Likes: 8
From: Seattle, Washington
for moderate amusement, check out the second to last post in this thread- https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showt...&#entry17485434
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by bahula03,Nov 3 2009, 10:58 PM
for moderate amusement, check out the second to last post in this thread- https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showt...&#entry17485434