3 ms·

If you look at my other reply in this thread you'll realize that I actually lived being this poor person in poor country. You might have your high morals and

If you look at my other reply in this thread you'll realize that I actually lived being this poor person in poor country. You might have your high morals and and what is morally rightest or who was at fault for me being born poor etc. But knowing how it is at the bottom you have to realize that X offering me a better job does me a favor and anyone calling X to don't do that due to some moral concern over my well being is caring more about his ideals than about my actual wellbeing. You can let them give me this job while trying to improve my position in other ways. It's not a dichotomy.

ninjagoo 4y ago
You were poor once, but you are not poor now. I also don't see you stepping up to be that someone that you asked me to be. And it's a bit rich, accusing me of "high morals" (clearly a pejorative in this context) while at the same time accusing me of forcing starving people to eat rats and accusing me of wanting poor people to die, and at the same time refusing to accept higher taxes on yourself to help those starving people avoid having to eat rats. Your arguments, Sir, are opportunistic, hypocritical and dishonest. Why do I think so? Because here's what's really going on - there are two injustices here- the lack of equal-pay-for-equal-work, and starving poor people in poor countries. Paying a higher pittance to the poor people resolves the second injustice, which is beneficial to people like yourself while they are poor, and benefits people like yourself when you are rich. The solution to both injustices which involves equal-pay, and reparations/grants through taxes, benefits people like yourself when you are poor, but 'hurts' people like yourself now when you are rich - that solution you don't like because then you actually have to contribute something from your "earnings". Paraphrasing, you only care about fixing the injustice where the fix benefits you in all scenarios, and not at all about any other injustice, because that doesn't affect you. Based on that, I wonder if you actually care about fixing an injustice at all, or whether you only care about yourself, and all these arguments about fixing the poverty are a smokescreen to continue a current benefit (lower costs and taxes) for yourself. I am having a real challenge discerning the true motives here. You really want to resolve injustice(s)? You can support both equal-pay and reparations/grants. You only want to resolve one injustice (donor fatigue is a real thing)? Fine, support reparations/grants to help the starving poor people in poor countries. These funds can pay for public works or factories that will create jobs with beneficial ripple effects throughout their economies. Just like the Marshall Plan for western Europe after WW2. Which option do you choose? And why?
- kuboble 4y ago
  You're building a strawman here. I don't try to fix the world. I'm trying hard to not be poor again myself, yes. In this topic I'm just stating very narrow argument that 2$/hr is better than nothing. And a company who offers it here does more good than companies who don't offer those jobs and even more good than people trying to prevent it from doing so. Most of your very long argument is judging me for things I haven't said, done or thought.
  - ninjagoo 4y ago
    Just so we're clear - I'm not arguing that the Kenyans should not be offered the jobs, I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - that's what equal-pay-for-equal-work means. That they were paid only $2/hr is the exploitation. Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judging started with your accusing me of hypocrisy, and of taking away rats from starving people, and of wanting poor people to die, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. You, Sir, even used "high morals" as a pejorative dog whistle against me. And now you want to go back to the very narrow argument? Don't dish it out if you can't handle the blowback.
    - kuboble 4y ago
      Oh, don't get me wrong. Your statement in this case is hypocritical. And I stand by my argument and rat analogy. It's just that I'm pointing out that I'm trying to discuss this particular event of offering 2$ jobs. Even if I use a rat as an analogy we are discussing this topic. You're attacking my whole person and belief system strawmanning it by talking about e.g. my opinion on taxes or other stuff. > I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - I'm arguing that 1) you are acting against Kenyan interests if you prefer status quo over this 2$ opportunity. 2) And you think you do morally right thing by doing so. Which of those two statements are incorrect? And please focus your answer without using angry aggressive language or I will not humor you with more replies. Here is a timeline: - there are poor people with no opportunities - you don't even know our think about it - someone offered them 2$ - you say, No! They should be paid 15$ - hypothetical: the company decides to comply with your argument and stops offering 2$ jobs In this htpothetical case: - have you done favor to the Kenyans?

ninjagoo 4y ago

You were poor once, but you are not poor now. I also don't see you stepping up to be that someone that you asked me to be. And it's a bit rich, accusing me of "high morals" (clearly a pejorative in this context) while at the same time accusing me of forcing starving people to eat rats and accusing me of wanting poor people to die, and at the same time refusing to accept higher taxes on yourself to help those starving people avoid having to eat rats. Your arguments, Sir, are opportunistic, hypocritical and dishonest. Why do I think so? Because here's what's really going on - there are two injustices here- the lack of equal-pay-for-equal-work, and starving poor people in poor countries. Paying a higher pittance to the poor people resolves the second injustice, which is beneficial to people like yourself while they are poor, and benefits people like yourself when you are rich. The solution to both injustices which involves equal-pay, and reparations/grants through taxes, benefits people like yourself when you are poor, but 'hurts' people like yourself now when you are rich - that solution you don't like because then you actually have to contribute something from your "earnings". Paraphrasing, you only care about fixing the injustice where the fix benefits you in all scenarios, and not at all about any other injustice, because that doesn't affect you. Based on that, I wonder if you actually care about fixing an injustice at all, or whether you only care about yourself, and all these arguments about fixing the poverty are a smokescreen to continue a current benefit (lower costs and taxes) for yourself. I am having a real challenge discerning the true motives here. You really want to resolve injustice(s)? You can support both equal-pay and reparations/grants. You only want to resolve one injustice (donor fatigue is a real thing)? Fine, support reparations/grants to help the starving poor people in poor countries. These funds can pay for public works or factories that will create jobs with beneficial ripple effects throughout their economies. Just like the Marshall Plan for western Europe after WW2. Which option do you choose? And why?

kuboble 4y ago
You're building a strawman here. I don't try to fix the world. I'm trying hard to not be poor again myself, yes. In this topic I'm just stating very narrow argument that 2$/hr is better than nothing. And a company who offers it here does more good than companies who don't offer those jobs and even more good than people trying to prevent it from doing so. Most of your very long argument is judging me for things I haven't said, done or thought.
- ninjagoo 4y ago
  Just so we're clear - I'm not arguing that the Kenyans should not be offered the jobs, I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - that's what equal-pay-for-equal-work means. That they were paid only $2/hr is the exploitation. Yes, my arguments are very direct and uncomfortable to hear, but if I may remind you, the judging started with your accusing me of hypocrisy, and of taking away rats from starving people, and of wanting poor people to die, when I neither said nor implied any such thing. You, Sir, even used "high morals" as a pejorative dog whistle against me. And now you want to go back to the very narrow argument? Don't dish it out if you can't handle the blowback.
  - kuboble 4y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong. Your statement in this case is hypocritical. And I stand by my argument and rat analogy. It's just that I'm pointing out that I'm trying to discuss this particular event of offering 2$ jobs. Even if I use a rat as an analogy we are discussing this topic. You're attacking my whole person and belief system strawmanning it by talking about e.g. my opinion on taxes or other stuff. > I'm arguing that they should have been paid at least $15/hr - I'm arguing that 1) you are acting against Kenyan interests if you prefer status quo over this 2$ opportunity. 2) And you think you do morally right thing by doing so. Which of those two statements are incorrect? And please focus your answer without using angry aggressive language or I will not humor you with more replies. Here is a timeline: - there are poor people with no opportunities - you don't even know our think about it - someone offered them 2$ - you say, No! They should be paid 15$ - hypothetical: the company decides to comply with your argument and stops offering 2$ jobs In this htpothetical case: - have you done favor to the Kenyans?