3 ms·
I agreed with most of your post except for this point: Doesn't mean it's alright for people to live in a shelter of NEWSPAPER. Why isn't it alright? Honestly
by PakG1 14y ago
I agreed with most of your post except for this point:
Doesn't mean it's alright for people to live in a shelter of NEWSPAPER.
Why isn't it alright? Honestly, if it's adequate shelter, why isn't it alright? I'm trying to think of some reasons, and I figure it has to do with inability to withstand rain and wind, effects of rot and mold, lack of security, or who knows what. But then I keep going back to the word "adequate". What does this mean? Does adequate mean these problems actually don't exist, and therefore it's adequate? Or is there a different level of what is considered adequate in the gp, compared to what I think is adequate?
You can't just come out and say that it's not alright for people to live in a shelter of newspaper just because it's newspaper. You need to have reasons for it. And if it is indeed adequate, I can't think of any reasons why I would dislike living in a shelter of newspapers. In the same manner, I cannot think of any reasons why I would dislike caves in western China, huts in the Amazon, or igloos in the Yukon. If it's a matter of getting proper Internet, well, let's just assume that if I'm living there, I must have chosen to forgo some luxuries. For example, many missionaries throughout history easily decided to go native and live like the people they were trying to reach.
I need to understand the details behind your point.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- pdeuchler 14y agoMaybe "alright" wasn't the correct phrasing. I meant something more like: "Just because people can live in a shelter of newspaper, doesn't mean it's okay for that to be their only resort against the elements."
- ttrt 14y agoYou're assuming too much. It's not adequate shelter. You'd get sick living in a shack in an indian slum or in a hut in the amazon without modern medicine plus expensive and time consuming precautions--precautions a slum dweller can't take. Read up on public health in slums, particularly slums in the tropics. "many missionaries throughout history easily decided to go native" Err, no. Missionaries (as well as soldiers and merchants) used to have crazy high mortality in the tropics.
- PakG1 14y agoI'm not assuming anything. I'm questioning what is the definition of adequate here, because whatever is the definition will determine whether or not I agree with the original statement. Whether or not those housing conditions lend themselves to proper sanitation or not, missionaries decided to go native in spite of the high mortality, also knowing the mortality rate of their peers (until modern medicine came about to make things like malaria a much smaller concern). I don't see your point. Missionaries had a crazy high mortality in the tropics? So what? It didn't stop their decisions to go native. And they certainly didn't have a crazy high mortality rate after the arrival of modern medicine. What are you saying no to?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]