Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
UNICEF estimates that a Nestle-fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea than a breastfed child.
When Nestle use unqualified salespeople dressed as nurses in developing countries to convince impoverished mothers that it is better to use Nestle products than breastfeeding - Nestle create victims (dead children and grieving families)
When Nestle distribute free formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards knowing that this will interfere with natural lactation of the mother so the family must continue to buy the formula when they leave hospital - Nestle create victims.
First of all, I don't think it's fair to bring stuff from other threads here, because not everyone reads every thread and it causes confusion if they haven't read it and don't know what you are talking about (for example, anyone who has read the thread on obesity should know no one is saying people are a victim of potato chips yet your post implies that that is what is happening).
I, at least, am not suggesting we simply label people as victims and have pity for them. I'm saying that in any situation, there is far more to it that cannot, and should not, be overlooked if we are looking to solve the problem. Simply throwing up our hands and saying "the people in prison deserve to be there because they made bad choices." does nothing to solve the problem of helping people make better choices before they get to prison, does nothing to help them improve while they are there, and does nothing to prepare them for rejoining our society. This is something we should all be invested in since we all have to live with previously incarcerated people, but most people are happy to lock them up and keep them out of sight, out of mind. Until that person is released and commits another offense,then we have lots of interest in them and why we can't just lock them up for life. Rather that do that, it would be better for them, and for all of us, for them to be worthwhile contributors to society.
Yet as is so often the case, no one wants to invest in anything until it's too late. No one wants to spend $4000 on a tornado shelter until they lost their home or family member to a tornado. No one wants flood insurance until their home floods. No one wants to pay for healthy food but then they complain how much it costs to get medical care. It all comes down to us, as usual, being only reactionary and failing miserably at being proactive. We bandaid problems, we don't prevent them. We never learn after all the times the bandaid gets ripped off and takes our skin and hair with it that it is best to prevent needing the bandaid at all.
Okay, so this seems like a very deal to you.
So tell us, what specifically have you done to "solve the problem of helping people make better choices before they get to prison...help them improve while they are there, and...prepare them for rejoining our society"?
Again, I don't owe you my resume. Just because I discuss a problem doesn't mean I have to tell you what I have done, or do currently to work on all the problems in the world that we happen to discuss here. I don't happen to have a prison here to work with, though I have worked in them in the past. I do what I can with the youth in our area, which is limited because of where we live.
Just because you don't agree with me on various things, doesn't mean you get to demand that I solve every problem our world faces. I was responding to the OP who IS doing something and I think that's great, despite the fact that some people are wanting to tell them that there's no point. There IS a point. Helping people always has a point.
I realize that you are probably trying to get people (seemingly always me, LOL) to think about what they can do about problems that are important to them. But again, you are assuming that just because people don't list their resume to you, that they are doing nothing. When something is important to someone, it's usually safe to assume they do what they are able to, in whatever way, to work on that issue. Not to assume they do nothing. It gets annoying. You did it to me twice in a period of like 10 minutes in 2 threads, and multiple times in the past and I don't understand why you assume that people do nothing. Few people can inflict change on a huge level. We can only do what we can with the lives we live, the time we have, the money we have, and the place where we live. Just because an issue concerns us, doesn't mean we have all the answers. It also doesn't mean we do nothing.
Saw this today, highlights one of the major problems with our for-profit prison system. obviously not something that happens everywhere, all the time, but highly likely it's happening elsewhere, too.
Also focus on the personal efforts of the writer of a post is an ad hominem. The reason it is ad hominem is that it even if they are doing nothing for their cause their reasoning in the discussion may be compelling. The discussion is about the topic and not the people.
Also focus on the personal efforts of the writer of a post is an ad hominem. The reason it is ad hominem is that it even if they are doing nothing for their cause their reasoning in the discussion may be compelling. The discussion is about the topic and not the people.
Sometimes to understand the reason a person is taking a certain position it is helpful to understand where they are coming from While the discussion is about the topic, viewpoints and positions actually are about the people. Otherwise, we would just state data.
Naturally, on a site such as this, no one is obligated to be an open book. Some of us are quite open...including you, others prefer not to be. And either is okay.
I am open but if someone said my view of Buddhism were wrong because I have schizophrenia that would be ad hominem. If you take a personal reason to refute an argument it is ad hominem. If you are going on a tangent exploring someones own personal relationship to a topic that is fine, but you can't refute argumentation on that basis. My (hypothetical) argument about increasing staffing in nursing homes is not invalidated by not donating money/time to the issue.
Also you don't want to call people hypocrits. That's a personal attack which I might even flag.
I am open but if someone said my view of Buddhism were wrong because I have schizophrenia that would be ad hominem. If you take a personal reason to refute an argument it is ad hominem. If you are going on a tangent exploring someones own personal relationship to a topic that is fine, but you can't refute argumentation on that basis. My (hypothetical) argument about increasing staffing in nursing homes is not invalidated by not donating money/time to the issue.
Also you don't want to call people hypocrits. That's a personal attack which I might even flag.
If someone called another person in this thread a hypocrite, I totally missed it.
In terms of your hypothetical argument about increasing staffing in nursing homes, it might be helpful in such a discussion to know whether you are basing your opinion on an article you read, the experience of someone you knew, or something you personally experienced in some ways. Such information could tend to validate the reliability of a particular position. For example, I don't comment specifically about Tibetan Buddhism because I have little knowledge about it and no experience with it. I do comment about general Buddhism, and about Theravadan Buddhism because it's where I'm coming from, and I experienced a lot about it while visiting and then living in Thailand.
But, again, no one has to be very open about themselves on this forum. It's certainly no requirement, although I do wish each profile had a space for a 1 paragraph bio of each poster...if they wanted to post such information.
I object not when someone asks me about my sources. I object when they ask me what I have done to remedy the situation which I feel implies the person is all talk and no action. That's another way to say hypocrit.
For example it would be appropriate to ask me what support I have for reasoning staffing should be higher in nursing homes.
I think a litmus test is to analyze what would be appropriate in a high school debate. If the topic of the debate is 'resolved the US govt should substantially regulate nursing staff'... then during the debate the debaters would provide index cards with citations to make their points. Is it a personal account, an anecdote, a magazine article, etc.. If you asked if the debater personally worked with nursing homes that would be fine, but one should not make the personal attack that the persons views are inconsistent with their non-volunteering/donating etc.. So asking for personal experience is just a dispassionate assessment of sources and has nothing to do with whether there is the hypocrisy of not 'putting your money where your mouth is'. Another way of 'gettting personal' is questioning motives. In a high school debate it would be inappropriate to question another debaters motives, "cause she has a relative in nursing home".
Okay, Jeffrey. We have different viewpoints on the topic, and I think we've pretty much exhausted the discussion. I'll remember that your personal rules follow high school debating rules and be sure not to engage you personally in the future. This sidebar has gotten way off topic, so, for me, time to disengage.
All that said, @vinylyn, from your accounts of your personal experience as a principal I have found fascinating and it sounds like you are very insightful and have had an effective career. I am not against vinylyn, I am against saying others are hypocritical.
Part of the issue comes in such a broad-reaching board. I mean, not a problem with the board, but a problem in interacting with a group of people. When I repeat myself too often in too many threads, I often assume that gets boring and that most people have read what I have said many, many times, so I don't want to bore them to death reading the same things over and over again.
My interest in the topic comes because I have a degree in criminology. Because I studied gangs and juvenile justice and the topic is interesting to me because it's been a life long interest. When I was young and in college, I sought to work in the juvenile system, in an intervention type of place. However, I found as I got closer to the career, did my internship and such, that I could not work the job and come home to my family feeling ok. At this point in my life, I probably could. But when I was 24, I could not. So I decided even though I finished my degree, not to pursue a career in the field because the stress was too much for me while raising my own family. The information has helped me help others in similar situations, or at least be able to direct them to resources.
@vinlyn, I honestly don't know what your motive or intention is when you consistently ask people what they are doing to fix something. But I can tell you that a few random different words would make a huge different in how your such statements come across. "what are you doing about the problem?" has different implications than "Here are some suggestions for ways people can help, if they are able and would like to." or " Are there ways you can help on a smaller scale in your area?" Perhaps I am oversensitive on the issue, but when you say (and twice in one days, and multiple times over the course of months) the same thing, it has a tone and implication that says (to me) "why don't you stop talking about it and do something instead." If I am reading that wrong, my apologies, I would be happy to hear what your intention is upon mentioning it.
Yeah, you know, it's interesting. You have to first know that anything is possible. Then everything is possible. When intention aligns with nature, life is garden.
@karasti do you feel like your experiences in the environment were eye-opening and beneficial?
In 1999, the Norwegian Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, questioned whether US jails met the humanitarian standard required for extradition under Norwegian law, thereby sending the request for extradition case back to a district court. Accordingly, the Norwegian district court refused to extradite a suspected drug smuggler to the US, saying he might suffer inhumane conditions in an American jail.
@sova eye opening for sure. Beneficial in ways, yes. Prior to working where I did I whole heartedly approved of Minnesota's sex offender treatment program. Like many others, I thought the best place for someone who is so likely to reoffend and such a high risk to society needed to be somewhere they couldn't hurt someone else again, even if they had already served their sentence. But then I worked there, and found they are indeed really just serving further prison time. Most of them are not in cells, but in 8-man dormitory type housing. But it's still very much prison, medium security. I don't know the right answer to deal with such high-risk offenders (high risk for reoffending I mean) but I don't think our program is the right way. A lot of people in prison, are devoid of life in their eyes, but the sex offender program took that to a new level, and once I left, I stopped being a vocal supporter. I think we can do better if we are going to put them into "treatment" than keeping them in such a prison like environment. Only one person has ever left in more than 20 years. All men who have served their prison sentences but deemed highly likely to reoffend so they are kept here instead of being released.
Anyhow, I never had any problems with any of the inmates. The staff was more problematic (for me, because of their negative attitudes) than the prisoners were. I found the majority of them to be responsive to kindness and willing to engage in a positive manner. Some of them just did not talk to anyone. I got the sense they worried that interacting with a young female (I was in my mid 20s at the time) would be bad for the evaluations or something. I doubt that most people who go into the prison careers are such hard people going in, but they sure are after a few years. There are some who enter that career path because of the control and power over what they view as lesser humans. But I think working in that environment for so long hardens people. Seeing what it can do to a normal person I can't imagine what it's like for an inmate. It is why I decided not to go into that career path even though I had my degree. Once my youngest goes back to school, I will seek a job in the US Forest Service.
Comments
Nestle create 'victims' believe me:
UNICEF estimates that a Nestle-fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea than a breastfed child.
When Nestle use unqualified salespeople dressed as nurses in developing countries to convince impoverished mothers that it is better to use Nestle products than breastfeeding - Nestle create victims (dead children and grieving families)
When Nestle distribute free formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards knowing that this will interfere with natural lactation of the mother so the family must continue to buy the formula when they leave hospital - Nestle create victims.
You think such victims need to 'man-up' - really?
So tell us, what specifically have you done to "solve the problem of helping people make better choices before they get to prison...help them improve while they are there, and...prepare them for rejoining our society"?
Just because you don't agree with me on various things, doesn't mean you get to demand that I solve every problem our world faces. I was responding to the OP who IS doing something and I think that's great, despite the fact that some people are wanting to tell them that there's no point. There IS a point. Helping people always has a point.
http://blog.blacknews.com/2013/05/judge-mark-ciavarella-sentenced-selling-kids-prison-system101.html#.UZ6CVsoo0mE
Naturally, on a site such as this, no one is obligated to be an open book. Some of us are quite open...including you, others prefer not to be. And either is okay.
Also you don't want to call people hypocrits. That's a personal attack which I might even flag.
In terms of your hypothetical argument about increasing staffing in nursing homes, it might be helpful in such a discussion to know whether you are basing your opinion on an article you read, the experience of someone you knew, or something you personally experienced in some ways. Such information could tend to validate the reliability of a particular position. For example, I don't comment specifically about Tibetan Buddhism because I have little knowledge about it and no experience with it. I do comment about general Buddhism, and about Theravadan Buddhism because it's where I'm coming from, and I experienced a lot about it while visiting and then living in Thailand.
But, again, no one has to be very open about themselves on this forum. It's certainly no requirement, although I do wish each profile had a space for a 1 paragraph bio of each poster...if they wanted to post such information.
For example it would be appropriate to ask me what support I have for reasoning staffing should be higher in nursing homes.
I think a litmus test is to analyze what would be appropriate in a high school debate. If the topic of the debate is 'resolved the US govt should substantially regulate nursing staff'...
then during the debate the debaters would provide index cards with citations to make their points. Is it a personal account, an anecdote, a magazine article, etc.. If you asked if the debater personally worked with nursing homes that would be fine, but one should not make the personal attack that the persons views are inconsistent with their non-volunteering/donating etc.. So asking for personal experience is just a dispassionate assessment of sources and has nothing to do with whether there is the hypocrisy of not 'putting your money where your mouth is'. Another way of 'gettting personal' is questioning motives. In a high school debate it would be inappropriate to question another debaters motives, "cause she has a relative in nursing home".
My interest in the topic comes because I have a degree in criminology. Because I studied gangs and juvenile justice and the topic is interesting to me because it's been a life long interest. When I was young and in college, I sought to work in the juvenile system, in an intervention type of place. However, I found as I got closer to the career, did my internship and such, that I could not work the job and come home to my family feeling ok. At this point in my life, I probably could. But when I was 24, I could not. So I decided even though I finished my degree, not to pursue a career in the field because the stress was too much for me while raising my own family. The information has helped me help others in similar situations, or at least be able to direct them to resources.
@vinlyn, I honestly don't know what your motive or intention is when you consistently ask people what they are doing to fix something. But I can tell you that a few random different words would make a huge different in how your such statements come across. "what are you doing about the problem?" has different implications than "Here are some suggestions for ways people can help, if they are able and would like to." or " Are there ways you can help on a smaller scale in your area?" Perhaps I am oversensitive on the issue, but when you say (and twice in one days, and multiple times over the course of months) the same thing, it has a tone and implication that says (to me) "why don't you stop talking about it and do something instead." If I am reading that wrong, my apologies, I would be happy to hear what your intention is upon mentioning it.
@karasti do you feel like your experiences in the environment were eye-opening and beneficial?
In 1999, the Norwegian Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, questioned whether US jails met the humanitarian standard required for extradition under Norwegian law, thereby sending the request for extradition case back to a district court. Accordingly, the Norwegian district court refused to extradite a suspected drug smuggler to the US, saying he might suffer inhumane conditions in an American jail.
except for the assange case.
Anyhow, I never had any problems with any of the inmates. The staff was more problematic (for me, because of their negative attitudes) than the prisoners were. I found the majority of them to be responsive to kindness and willing to engage in a positive manner. Some of them just did not talk to anyone. I got the sense they worried that interacting with a young female (I was in my mid 20s at the time) would be bad for the evaluations or something. I doubt that most people who go into the prison careers are such hard people going in, but they sure are after a few years. There are some who enter that career path because of the control and power over what they view as lesser humans. But I think working in that environment for so long hardens people. Seeing what it can do to a normal person I can't imagine what it's like for an inmate. It is why I decided not to go into that career path even though I had my degree. Once my youngest goes back to school, I will seek a job in the US Forest Service.
This is where I worked, at the Moose Lake facility:
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAMIC_CONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=dhs16_149915