Compare & Contrast:Katrina vs. Nargis

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
There are always oodles of people who come out of the woodwork to demonize the USA, and tell of how everything in our country is a "conspiracy of evil." What is worse is that quite often a great many of the people who demonize the USA are Americans who seem to hate America. We saw all the moaning, crying, gnashing of teeth about how the US Fed. Gov "failed to act fast enough" or failed to do enough when it came to Hurricane Katrina. The criticism by people in the mainstream media, alternative media, and just anyone who wanted to rail about the US government was everywhere...and lasted for years (and still is going on with some people who refuse to move on!).

But now, as the title of this thread says... let us compare and contrast what happened then with what is going on now in Myanmar:

1) The death toll is orders of magnitude greater than the death toll or suffering from Katrina.
2) The Myanmar military junta did little, if anything, to warn or prepare their citizens of the approaching cyclone.
3) The junta-in-power is not only doing little to help their people, they are actively restricting outside countries and agencies from taking broad and rapid actions to help the people of Myanmar who survived and are suffering.
4) Beyond this, the junta siezed the first shipments of aid rather than allow the aid agencies to do the job they do best...distributing and assisting after a disaster!

For all the national and worldwide "outrage" that complained, scolded, and criticized the US government after Katrina (a much smaller tragedy than Nargis)... where is the global outrage that is speaking out, condeming, and acting against the military junta in Myanmar?

Moreover, for all the sorry saps who promulgate their weak conspiracy theories about how "George Bush wants to become a dictator" of the USA, where are they in speaking out against the WELL KNOWN military junta ruling Myanmar???? Where is the outrage against overt fascism such as is going on in Myanmar?

It makes me sick the hypocrisy of those who claim to "speak for the suffering people and freedom for all." Their relative silence in condeming the Myanmar junta shows that, clearly, they are not about speaking out for people... but rather, their only purpose is to demonize the USA. To all you people who constantly criticize the US government (and many of you being US citizens), take note that there are many people like me who are noticing the absence of your voice speaking out against regiemes other than the USA.

RMT
 
This can be explained with simple psychology.

Consider the population of the US to be a child, and the government/president to be the parent of the population. The thing almost all children have in common (and this includes teenagers) is to complain about their parents. However, it is rare that they complain about other kid's parents, no matter how much worse the other parents are than theirs.

This analogy is affective because those who constantly gripe and complain are essentially children, for that is how they act, and they are blaming their parents.

I guess when you have a gripe the first person you go to is the person you believe is in most control of your life. Children and teenagers are governed by their parents, so they think their problems are caused by those that govern them. The childish citizens of the US believe that the government is responsible for everything bad they see in the world, and they don't consider how much they owe to their parents, they are selfish and only see what they want to see. And the children of the United States will never blame another parent as much as they will blame theirs.
 
I have another "simple psychology" for you to ponder over.


The parents are just sick and tired of their children. Since they have too 'many' children, they decided to do something about it. The parents are also griping of what their children are doing. A constant struggle and do not dare think the parents are 'perfect' in every form. They are not.

The parents of the United States will continously blame their own problems on their children. The parents do not blurt out their problems on their children, but do take action in different forms towards them.

some family huh?...
 
Nothing is perfect. So of course the government can't be perfect.

Here is what I'm saying. The people of the US look to their government as a parent and blame it for things that are wrong. But I am a firm believer in the idea that the people need to take care of the government, the government does not need to take care of the people. Unfortunately the United States has reached a point where they are almost socialist with all the taxes, welfare, social security, etc. But this is not the governments fault it is the people's fault for electing leader's who in turn create laws that make us more socialist.

Example: FDR. Now I'm not going to bash on FDR too much, because some of his ideas were needed during the great depression. But he started hundreds of programs that were run by the government that gave people jobs, and upped taxes to pay for these jobs. In socialist/communist society the job market is controlled by the government. So with the election of FDR we took a huge leap toward socialism. And did you know FDR didn't even end the great depression? His programs and jobs made ground, but they never pulled us out. At the time the entire world was in a great depression, and one man pulled the entire world out. Adolf Hitler. By starting world war 2 he re-opened the job market of every country that was involved. The government started buying weapons from manufacturers, women went to work in factories where men had left off. Bammo, depression over.

In conclusion: The people of the United States are responsible for taking care of their government, but they have forgotten about that. They are supposed to be the parents, and the government the child, but the american people wasn the roles switched. They want a higher authority to blame it on. So they made the government their parent.

If I was the government I would be getting sick of the people too.
 
Very good, and appropriate, analogy Easdraagl. I completely agree.

Nothing is perfect. So of course the government can't be perfect.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. And this is a fact that any honest democracy and/or republic will always admit to, even if politicians will not. The idea of self-governance admits this, but appeals to the principle of relative measures in that one ideal that self-governance strives for is to always make tomorrow's government better than ones of the past. Indeed this was the principle that called the USA's Founding Fathers to decide to throw-off their existing form of government by decree of a remote king. They knew it was a substandard form of government for what they knew the USA to be capable of achieving. In short, they had a better idea.

And in my post, I am calling for the world to cease knee-jerk reactions to simply "blame the biggest kid on the block" and instead aply the principle of relative measures to determine which form of government is (relatively) "better": The Republic of the USA or the military junta of Myanmar. Which form of government deserves to "live on" in the hope it can be further improved? And which one does not deserve to "live on" because it represents ancient ideas of trying to control each and every person under the governing domain?

In conclusion: The people of the United States are responsible for taking care of their government, but they have forgotten about that. They are supposed to be the parents, and the government the child, but the american people wasn the roles switched. They want a higher authority to blame it on. So they made the government their parent.
Click to expand...

Once again, I think this is well-stated and I agree. The way I would explain it is to say that it is all about accepting responsibility for oneself. This is the most effective way for each individual to live their life, and achieve their goals. So why should this model not also be applied at the level of one's government? This, in my mind, is what forms the core of most conservative values: Take care of yourself, and look to blame yourself for lack of action before you ask someone "above" you to take care of you, or to accept the blame for your lack of action.

To make the world (and our form of government) better, we must be a land of doers, not complainers. We must become people who ACT to SHAPE our government into what we wish it to become... not people who sit around, and WAIT for the government to "do for them" what they (government?) thinks is best for its people.

These are the principles that the USA were founded upon, and I agree with your analysis Easdraagl that many people in the USA have forgetten this and relaxed into the comfort of the "what can government do for me?" mentality.

Thanks for your thoughts,
RMT
 
"Nothing is perfect. So of course the government can't be perfect."

i disagree. are there not people who have scored perfect 10's in the olympics? are there people who have beaten machines? some video games require perfection to beat. some people say perfection is unattainable, and others say it is a wonderous thing to perfect something.

people can be perfect, and so can the government. wether they are determined and motivated enough is the question.
 
i disagree. are there not people who have scored perfect 10's in the olympics? are there people who have beaten machines? some video games require perfection to beat. some people say perfection is unattainable, and others say it is a wonderous thing to perfect something.
Click to expand...

A perfect 10 in the olympics only means they did exceedingly well, thats decided by a panel of imperfect humans, thus the scoring system itself is imperfect.

What videogames require perfection, and who has played them entirely perfectly, I cant believe this without examples.

Before the first sub- 4minute mile was run scientists claimed that research had proven running a 4 minute mile was beyond human grasp, that a perfect human body could not run faster than 4 minutes in a mile without dying on the spot. The fact that humans have continually defeated record after record in the mile proves that perfection cannot be obtained in the human body.

No government has ever functioned perfectly. According to you it is because humans have never tried hard enough. Even with complete governing control centralized to a few people the Soviet Union could not control their entire government perfectly to how they wanted it. There were glitches in the system.

Have you ever heard of Chaos theory? It a scientific field that states nothing in the universe is perfect. This is it in a nutshell. Imagine a perfect plan as a round cue ball on a billiards table. You cant take the plan and do anything with it because it appears perfect, round white, unmarred. Theoretically a Billiardsman could shoot the ball and make an infinite amount of perfectly planned angles until the ball ran out of energy. But this is not so, for the surface of every cueball has tiny, microscopic impurities, and the longer it rolls the more and more the imperfections will affect the course of the cue ball, so matter how perfectly planned the shot is, it will never be perfect.

In absolutely everything there are factors that you either didnt account for because you didnt notice them, or there are factors that you cannot control.

Perfection is absolutely impossible because it is impossible to account for absolutely every problem you may encounter.

Perfect governments have certainly been thought up and written down on paper. But a perfect government can never exist in the real world. It is impossible.

Call me a pessimist with no hope for anything, but I speak the truth.
 
to quote myself, "some people say perfection is unattainable, and others say it is a wonderous thing to perfect something."

your on the other side of the ball bub, good for you. hope you like it over there. ;)

"A perfect 10 in the olympics only means they did exceedingly well, thats decided by a panel of imperfect humans, thus the scoring system itself is imperfect."

no, a perfect 10 is just that, a perfect score. you may think otherwise, thats your right. ;)

"What videogames require perfection, and who has played them entirely perfectly, I cant believe this without examples."

super r type on hard mode is the first one that came to mind when that hilarious question was asked. but i could seriously fill this whole server full of names of games that require perfection to beat. one single mistake and its game over.

"Have you ever heard of Chaos theory? It a scientific field that states nothing in the universe is perfect."

oh, i thought it was perfect, silly me. but i guess the chaos theory is perfect and thats why you believe it right? ;)

my name holds quite some truth dont ya think? :D
 
ok so for your first two answers the essential arguement is, "we think diferently, and while you think people can be perfect, I think they cannot. So these arguements can be thrown out the window since it would appear to be a matter of opinion.

somethng that didnt come to mind earlier about the video games is the same idea for the perfect 10 in the olympics, since video games are made by man, man can obviously mach man's standards. Howver I would argue that man is not perfect and thus while they can be judged perfect by other man, they can never truly be perfect. And I know your answer wil again be we on different sides of the ball so dont bother answering the video game arguement since it can go nowhere anymore.

Three arguements, none won by either of us, or lost by either of us, since they were all a matter of opinion.

the areguements were:
Whether or not we believe humans are perfect
olympic perfect 10
video games

Since neither of us can win any of these arguements i will focus the bulk of my post on your final three lines.

"Have you ever heard of Chaos theory? It a scientific field that states nothing in the universe is perfect."

oh, i thought it was perfect, silly me. but i guess the chaos theory is perfect and thats why you believe it right? ;)

my name holds quite some truth dont ya think? :D
Click to expand...

First off, you said that i think chaos theory is right because it is perfect. Absolutely not. That is why I refer to it as a theory. Just as evolution is a theory. Nothing in science is absolute, just as in everything else we dont fully understand the flaws we have made along the path of "discovery." Chaos theory is in no way perfect, but the basic structure is correct enough that we can come to the conclusion that perfection is unattainable by humans.

Second of all, you have deviated completely from the entire issue of governments. so I will simply paste them from my last post.

No government has ever functioned perfectly. According to you it is because humans have never tried hard enough. Even with complete governing control centralized to a few people the Soviet Union could not control their entire government perfectly to how they wanted it. There were glitches in the system.

In absolutely everything there are factors that you either didnt account for because you didnt notice them, or there are factors that you cannot control.

Perfection is absolutely impossible because it is impossible to account for absolutely every problem you may encounter.

Perfect governments have certainly been thought up and written down on paper. But a perfect government can never exist in the real world. It is impossible.
Click to expand...

This was the original issue, and a fairly large portion of my post, you have managed to completely ignore it.

You have previously stated that a government can achieve perfection if the people work hard enough at making it perfect. I defy you to name a single perfect government, where the people were completely dedicated to the perfect system, where corruption was absolutely aloof, where economic prosperity was manifest, where there was no crime or war, where everyone was content, where none went hungry, where everyone shared everything so currency was not needed, where pollution was not made, where no one argued over social issues, where prejudice was slain. This is the original issue we started arguing over. Now answer.

And you can't sight something out of Karl Marx's fairytale story book "The Communist Manifesto," or Plato's fantasy "The Republic"

Ruthless you need not wear such large britches, I might pull them down again ;)
 
"Nothing in science is absolute, just as in everything else we dont fully understand the flaws we have made along the path of "discovery." Chaos theory is in no way perfect, but the basic structure is correct enough that we can come to the conclusion that perfection is unattainable by humans."

but you talked about the chaos theory o-so-differently last time. well, if you think that way, fine by me. just out of curiosity, what is imperfect about this theory?


"Second of all, you have deviated completely from the entire issue of governments."

i apologize for that. i tend to try to solve problems, and put in my 2 cents alot. so i was just trying to converse about it, you never know, a perfect form of government just might come out of it. ;)

"Perfection is absolutely impossible because it is impossible to account for absolutely every problem you may encounter."

your definition of perfect has to be totally different than mine. i personally think that you have to be flawed before you can even understand and comprehend what the word perfection means. silly aint i?
 
"but you talked about the chaos theory o-so-differently last time. well, if you think that way, fine by me. just out of curiosity, what is imperfect about this theory?"

Im not a scientist in the field of chaos theory, so just as i can describe to you the basic principles of physics and chemistry, I can describe the basic principles of chaos theory. But since I do not specialize in any of three I cannot tell what parts of it need to be worked on.

But I can tell you that by the basic principles of chaos theory it describes itself as flawed. Since (according to chaos theory) nothing is perfect, obviously chaos theory can't be perfect. But I am no t intimate with this subject so I cannot detail the problems it has.

"your definition of perfect has to be totally different than mine. i personally think that you have to be flawed before you can even understand and comprehend what the word perfection means. silly aint i?"

From Dictionary.com:

per·fect (pûr'fĭkt) adj.

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect.
3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes.
4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.
6. thorough; complete; utter: perfect strangers.
7. pure or unmixed: perfect yellow.
8. unqualified; absolute: He has perfect control over his followers.
9. expert; accomplished; proficient.
10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree: He made a perfect fool of himself.


It would appear the English Language is on my side
 
"The word, "perfection" derives from the Latin "perfectio", and "perfect" — from "perfectus." These expressions in turn come from "perficio" — "to finish", "to bring to an end." "Perfectio(n)" thus literally means "a finishing", and "perfect(us)" — "finished", much as in grammatical parlance."

The oldest definition of "perfection", fairly precise and distinguishing the shades of the concept, goes back to Aristotle. In Book Delta of the Metaphysics, he distinguishes three meanings of the term, or rather three shades of one meaning, but in any case three different concepts. That is perfect:

1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;

2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;

3. which has attained its purpose.


"The variants on the concept of perfection would have been quite of a piece for two thousand years, had they not been confused with other, kindred concepts. The chief of these was the concept of that which is the best: in Latin, "excellentia" ("excellence"). In antiquity, "excellentia" and "perfectio" made a pair; thus, for example, dignitaries were called "perfectissime", just as they are now called "excellency." Nevertheless, these two expression of high regard differ fundamentally: "excellentia" is a distinction among many, and implies comparison; while "perfectio" involves no comparison, and if something is deemed perfect, then it is deemed so in itself, without comparison to other things."


"The parallel existence of two concepts of perfection, one strict ("perfection", as such) and the other loose ("excellence"), has given rise — perhaps since antiquity but certainly since the Renaissance — to a singular paradox: that the greatest perfection is imperfection. This was formulated by Lucilio Vanini (ca. 1585 – 1619), who had a precursor in the 16th-century writer Joseph Juste Scaliger, and they in turn referred to the ancient philosopher Empedocles. Their argument, as given by the first two, was that if the world were perfect, it could not improve and so would lack "true perfection", which depends on progress. To Aristotle, "perfect" meant "complete" ("nothing to add or subtract"). To Empedocles, according to Vanini, perfection depends on incompleteness ("perfectio propter imperfectionem"), since the latter possesses a potential for development and for complementing with new characteristics ("perfectio complementii"). This view relates to the baroque esthetic of Vanini and Marin Mersenne: the perfection of an art work consists in its forcing the recipient to be active — to complement the art work by an effort of mind and imagination.

The paradox of perfection — that imperfection is perfect — applies not only to human affairs, but to technology. Thus, irregularity in semiconductor crystals (an imperfection, in the form of contaminants) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of regularity, and that of utility. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful."

glad the english language is on your side. thousands of years of philosophy is on mine. ;)
 
You provide philosophers on both side of the arguement.

"To Aristotle, "perfect" meant "complete" ("nothing to add or subtract")."

That excerpt from one of your paragraphs supports my case.

And the paradoxical philosophy of imperfection being perfection makes no sense when you think about it logically. If our imperfections made us perfect why would we spend our lives trying to perfect things? Why would we constantly be improving upon technology, knowledge, the way we act etc. If imperfection made technology perfect then how can it possibly become better with each year? If it we were already perfect because our imperfections wouldnt those of us who are the most imperfect in their ways, say Hitler, Hussein, or Stalin be the most perfect example humans? The implications of this philosophy are horrendous.

Just because some men thought something up a thousand years ago doesnt make their thoughts perfect. ;)
 
"Nothing is perfect. So of course the government can't be perfect."

i disagree. are there not people who have scored perfect 10's in the olympics? are there people who have beaten machines? some video games require perfection to beat. some people say perfection is unattainable, and others say it is a wonderous thing to perfect something.

people can be perfect, and so can the government. wether they are determined and motivated enough is the question.
Click to expand...

There is eminently substantive, and scientific, proof that perfection cannot become reality. Thermodynamic entropy, which is a fundamental fact of all systems in our universe, is all the proof one needs to realize that "perfection" is an idealistic concept, which can never become a "real" concept... at least not in the universe we live in, where time moves in the forward direction. Entropy clearly shows us that things progress from MORE ORDERED to LESS ORDERED at all levels of our universe.

So oddly enough (given that this is the time travel institute), what the facts of thermodynamic entropy tells us is that, in order to reach higher levels of perfection, we MUST go BACKWARDS IN TIME to achieve it. We can never achieve a "universal perfection" moving forward...at least in this pocket universe, with the laws of physics that are demonstrably true.

Perfection is like infinity. It is not a number you can quantify. It is merely an ideal you can strive for, but never reach. Sorry ruthless, science is not on your side at all in this argument.

RMT
 
actually, science is and i love it. :)

science says that perfection can be achieved through randomness. if that is so, perfection can also be achieved by will.

i would go as to say that infinity IS perfection, not like it.
 
"You have previously stated that a government can achieve perfection if the people work hard enough at making it perfect. I defy you to name a single perfect government, where the people were completely dedicated to the perfect system, where corruption was absolutely aloof, where economic prosperity was manifest, where there was no crime or war, where everyone was content, where none went hungry, where everyone shared everything so currency was not needed, where pollution was not made, where no one argued over social issues, where prejudice was slain. This is the original issue we started arguing over. Now answer."

sounds like a place ive heard of before, its called heaven. too bad people cant see how its done there.

the only way the world will ever be that way is if the entire world decides to work together, pay no attention to their differenes, and all have a common cause. if one person does not go with it, the chain will fall. this will never happen of course, but that is the correct solution.

i would like to ask you and ray something. why do yall believe that the universe is not perfect? why do yall believe the universe is not absolute?

if you believe in bushido, you believe that life and death is perfect.

the biggest point in my argument that proves it exists: it is a word we understand, is it not? how could a human comprehend something that is unattainable? how could he even utter the word?
 
are you saying i am incorrect?
Click to expand...

Not at all (yet). I am merely asking for your evidence that science says perfection is achievable.


RMT
 
my evidence is my statement, along with everything i have learned about the subject since i have been here. im no scientist, but without perfection from randomness, 2+2 just doesent add up.

if this is not true, i could say everything math and science has mapped is a lie. its not perfect, so its useless to me. if you throw something up in the air, it always comes down right? is that not a perfect law? not a theory? you could say this is not true, airplanes and birds fly right? but other laws come into play with those right? not theories.

i dont see how anyone can look into the sky and say that it is not perfect. the "system" of the universe has no flaw in my opinion. although things can be looked at as flawed, until you understand its purpose.

mathematitions say that everything can be made into an equasion. the equasion can only perfect when it is... equal.

if you deny that perfection from randomness exsits, then everything you have taught me is simply a matter of opinion, correct?

in the words of the illustious stan lee, 'nuff said.
 
Back
Top