|
Post by Lohen on Oct 16, 2003 6:28:57 GMT -5
Hello everybody,
If this is an unwelcome method by which to start a discussion, I apologise and promise that I mean no harm by it. I was hoping to find out what the region's stance on the current resolution was.
The resolution in question is as follows:
------------------------------
Description: NOTING with horror the enormous increase in the past decade in HIV infection rates throughout the world,
FURTHER NOTING that the cost of AIDS medications is enormous,
FURTHER NOTING that most countries with significant populations of AIDS sufferers are not economically able to afford these necessary drugs due to their high costs,
REQUIRES the following:
1) The United Nations begin a global effort to educate and enlighten the populations of seriously affected countries as to the nature of AIDS as well as how to take preventitive measures,
2) The HIV testing of national and international blood banks and pools be made mandatory in all member nations in order to cut down on the rate of transmission of this disease through transfusions,
3) The establishement of a fund, contributed to by all member nations, which shall be used to purchase necessary drugs and distrubute them at low cost to the populations of seriously afflicted countries,
4) Economic incentives such as tax write-offs be offered to multinational pharmaceutical companies to allow AIDS medications to be bought in bulk and at lower than market prices,
--------------------------
My own stance is that I support all four clauses.
I support them because it's a good ethical principle to save lives; allowing people to die when it's within your power to save them is all too close to murder. And although I know the drugs don't cure the disease, they can give patients many more years of life with a healthy immune system. And both education and better hygiene regulations can help prevent infections, and are thus highly desirable.
I further support the resolution because, in the real world, it could be a step towards dealing with a catastrophe. The HIV epidemic is growing, fast, and around the world. It has been shown that the rise can be very much reduced even in third world nations like Uganda and Brazil, as a result of upgrading the health infrastructure, cheap drugs and heightened public awareness. But in much of the world, far from enough is being done, and in addition to its catastrophic effect on Africa, the disease is also rising fast in parts of Latin America, much of the former Soviet Union, and apparently beginning to also rise fast in India and China.
Therefore I strongly support this resolution. But any additional thoughts are welcome, whether in support or opposition of the case I've rather crudely made here.
|
|
|
Post by Zhdanov on Oct 16, 2003 15:29:09 GMT -5
How about teaching those "less fortunate fools" that they need to stop living in the past, make prostitution illegal, and teach their women to be homewives instead of prostitutes. Seeing as they consider women second rate citizens it is only natural they would be better off being homewives.
Instead of giving them things like free condoms, how about free cable TV and TVs. They will be more likely to watch Friends on Fox every night than go out on the town to drown themselves in cheap liquor and cheap, unprotected sex.
|
|
|
Post by Lohen on Oct 17, 2003 5:29:38 GMT -5
Responses! Yay! Of course, they're not quite as good as I was hoping for - two for and two against, not counting my own. But never mind
Now, to address some issues:
My dear Zhdanov,
In the opinion of the magnificent empire of Lohentopia, if you make prostitution illegal, all you get are illegal prostitutes. Which places them outside of the protection of the law, into the hands of pimps and vice lords, and gives them a lot less of an imperative to pursue their profession responsibly. And this disease does not only spread through or to prostitutes.
Also, increased TV watching rates are linked to increased crime rates. What we need is full employment, or something close to it - people need to work to cultivate a sense of responsibility, not sit around on their backsides and get ground down by the idiot box.
Regards, Lohen 1st, Emporer of Lohentopia
|
|
|
Post by Zhdanov on Oct 17, 2003 8:55:49 GMT -5
My dear Lohentopia, how do you propose to give jobs to countries whose economies crashed over 50 years ago and never rebounded?
You speak not of TV itself, but how America has "Americized" TV and used it as a tool of propaganda.
The problem is that the way many third world countries are made and controlled by their governments the only way to make a positive change is to replace those governments, to rebuild them, and to educate their peoples to think for themselves and rather than pity their poor miserable lives make somethnig about of themselves.
TV does more than increase crime rates in the U.S.
“The U.S. Government spends more than $400,000,000 per year to employ more than 8000 workers to create propaganda favourable to the United States. The result: 90 films per year, twelve magazines in 22 languages, and 800 hours of Voice of America programming in 37 languages with an estimated audience of 75 million listeners — all describing the ‘virtues’ of the American way.” (Pratkanis and Aronson, Age of Propaganda: the everyday use and abuse of persuasion, 1992)
“One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change.” (David Barsamian, journalist and publisher)
It depends on how TV is used whether or not it would decrease crime. In America for example, watchers are bombarded with commercials telling them to eat at much as possible whenever they want, so now two-thirds of America is obese.
Americans are bombarded with propaganda from the media about politics and international relations. They not only believe that filth, but they can't get enough of it.
He speaks more truth than he realizes and his principles are still being used today. “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” (Herman Goering, Nazi Air Force Luftwaffe commander at the Nuremberg Trials)
Thus you speak of television being used in a negative way. If instead of anyone being able to buy a 30 minute slot of time if they have enough money to put whatever kind of filth they want on television, only certain things should be allowed on television. Things like Local News, National News, International News (with translations), or debates on philosphy and politics; in other words, things that intellectually simulate the mind. The reason television "increases crime rates" is because the television most people are given does nothing to make peolpe think for themselves, it teaches people what and how to think.
“The corporate mass-media serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc." (Noam Chomsky, M.I.T. professor of linguistics)
Maybe I'll write a proposal if I get enough free time. Back to this one itself though, we shouldn't waste giving anymore economic aid to any countries. Most economic aid is pocketed by government officials anyway so it would be a waste of time and money to pass this proposal, which is why I oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by Lohen on Oct 17, 2003 9:29:06 GMT -5
Ah, Senator Zhdanov,
Some aid does more harm than good. Aid tied to specific trade bargains, or specific military alliegance, for instance, which often amounts to bribes to the officials of third world countries to let such and such a corporation 'employ' some of their people in sweatshops.
And I do not believe that the model you present of third world economies crashing 50 years ago is strictly accurate; it's been more like a slightly uneven but fairly constant roll downhill. Some countries have succeeded in turning around, in whole or in part. China, for instance, for all its flaws, is rising economically faster than anybody else. And they've been about as messed up as anybody, from civil wars to famine topped off with autocracy.
The rationale behind ever dwindling aid payments is that they cannot help. I would disagree with this - I would say that they cannot help alone, and unguided.
Too much "aid" has amounted to bribes, too little has been directed where most needed. This particular case is of the latter kind - for AIDS is a problem very much on the increase, and the fund is specifically for education and for drugs, two crucial links in fighting the disease.
And aid will not be enough, alone, to fix the third world. We also need to ensure they get a fair deal. Right now, we enforce the absence of tariffs and subsidies in poor countries while heavily subsidising our own industry and agriculture. This is not fair, and unhealthy besides. I say we should make major reductions to subsidies in the developed world - and in some cases, like tobacco, cut them entirely - and at the same time slacken up some of our grip on what we will allow the third world to do, until we reach a fair and balanced point. Many third world countries had their industries destroyed by the complete abolition of subsidies, while countries that resisted this push, like China, stayed in business. But that's all for another discussion.
Lohen
|
|
|
Post by zanzue on Oct 17, 2003 11:11:09 GMT -5
I personally oppose it because of clause three. I do not agree with mandating all member nations to pay. It is like welfare. Why should I have to pay like every one else if I made sure that my nation did not have this problem?
If I have educated my populace and they have responded by a drop in AIDS rate, why then must I pay because someone elses citizens are to stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Zhdanov on Oct 17, 2003 13:45:40 GMT -5
Think of it better as this.
Why should I give welfare to a bunch of whores who don't have anything better to do than offer their body for some quick, cheap cash and make babies? Why should we use our paychecks to give those whores a monthly bonus for their immoral practices?
The citizens of my nation I know would not support any kind of measure like this.
|
|
|
Post by zanzue on Oct 17, 2003 14:36:15 GMT -5
I am not even so much in it about the whores. I am including all the dumb bastards that do not understand you need to wrap it!
|
|
Francos Spain
Our Blessed and Chosen Leader of the Pacific
Posts: 496
|
Post by Francos Spain on Oct 18, 2003 2:35:41 GMT -5
I'm delighted to see that nations are taking interest and engaging in debates about the UN resolutions. I try to remain neutral in the discussions and just observe though. I have cast my vote AGAINST this current resolution based on popular opinion of the region.
Hope to see a new thread for the next one!
(Note: When tabulating regional votes, I will not go by the poll results of the thread [though I do like seeing the poll and think it's valuable and interesting to have] since not all members of our forum are from the region, but can still vote on the poll. I am going by nations who explicitly stated their opinions on the subject here and via telegram to me)
|
|
|
Post by Lohen on Oct 18, 2003 4:41:41 GMT -5
Mon cher Senator Zhdanov,
It ain't just whores, or people who deal with them. It's also rape victims (especially in conflict regions), people with cheating spouses, free love advocates, the unlucky ones who fall in love with or are taken advantage of by the wrong person, and the patients of doctors with poor hygiene standards. Many of those who pass it on have no idea that they have it; it takes time for this disease to show its distinctive traits. And some that have it don't care about the consequences of their actions, because they're living under a short-term death sentence. We need to stop this disease, not moralise about it. But thank you for your maintenance of cordial debate, despite our differences.
Dear Zanzue,
That is why the education part of the resolution is so important - many nations refuse or have in the past refused to talk about the disease and how to avoid it, and in some opposition to condoms on religious principles is very strong.
Dear Emporer Francos Spain,
Fair dinkum. I'm glad you like the poll, although I think perhaps the next one could be improved by differentiating between strong and weak opinions on a subject, giving a total of six options (strong support, weak support, neutrality, weak opposition, strong opposition and corny joke).
|
|
|
Post by Zhdanov on Oct 18, 2003 11:11:23 GMT -5
So how are we going to stop AIDs by prolonging the lives of people that have AIDs with drugs.
Also take into account if they live longer they will continue to have sex, be it safe sex. Condoms aren't 100% effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDs, so AIDs will continue to spread.
So now they are going to say oh we were wrong, educate us. You also presume their relgious beliefs are going to change overnight. (for those with religious beliefs)
You have to change the mindsets of entire nations of people. It is not simply a matter of throwing money and free condoms at them.
|
|
|
Post by Lohen on Oct 19, 2003 12:21:29 GMT -5
Ah, well - I mean no offense by not replying to Zhdanov's questions, but I reckon we should end this discussion and it would be too cheeky for me to snatch at the last word and then say that. The resolution's been passed now, and besides, if these debates get too long they just end up being circular. I look forward to debating the next resolution with you people - you never know, it might even stem from my first, and recent, proposal to "Cut Subsidies and Tariffs" (chance would be a fine thing).
|
|