World Bank app competition
appsfordevelopment.challengepost.com
In case anyone needs a project for the next month... There is a lot of very cool data there.
appsfordevelopment.challengepost.com
The fact that the US has a lot of control over the World Bank seems reasonable given that they put up the lion's share of the capital. As far as dictating terms and conditions, regardless of their merit, there aren't many banks that will give million dollar loans to bad credit risks w/o strings attached. What's the alternative scenario? No bank? They just give out money?
debt, assumed by despotic and self serving governments, 20% of which goes to fund their militarily held regimes without providing growth, which enslave generations, all well documented, all neo-colonialism: suckers & selfishticos sign-up here, your dream awaits. join the world bank in its phony do-gooder endeavors.
god what the hell is wrong with people, is propaganda really this good? i mean, seriously. this is on the front page. people voting this up are very evil or very very very stupid, which these do you up-voters prefer to be?
I wouldn't want to be seen as stupid! I'd better agree with you!
Your comment reads like a rant: how about some links to educate us?
this site does not allow me to vote down, this means an unequal burden in defense of a down vote versus an up vote, despite an up-vote being an positive advocation. (this is not a brainstorming session, this is life)
and please note that i'm being called upon to carefully document a response to propaganda on top of defending an idea against anonymous up-votes. hmmm. can you smell the bullshit? can you taste it? all i smell and taste are kangaroo court judges in a carefully constructed technolalaland.
and since the dumbsters really won't get it: if your head is appointed by the president of the united states, not to mention if only americans can be head, then this marketing effort is dictionary definition of propaganda, that's not an opinion statement. (it's amazing how often one needs to pull out the dictionary in this joint)
Leave the dictionary: just give us some links to backup what you claim.
Look at it this way: you're complaining that people don't do X. You want them to do Y, and are annoyed that they don't. It would therefore benefit you to educate people about why X is bad and Y is good. If you don't at least try, I'm not sure you get to complain any more.
Let's avoid the name calling and rhetoric, recommend us some good reading.
Back up YOUR up-votes. why is the world bank a good thing to support? i mean, it's been around 50 years or so, you know, european post-war reconstruction all that. so...tell me, all the poverty...getting worse, yeah, so, how's that whole world bank working out for you, tell me?
i mean, i don't have to get into the neo-colonialism angle. as an atheist i can say to the christians in the bunch by their fruits ye shall know them.
so, you're backing up something, you think it's a good idea to read about, support, take action for. or no, it's just interesting in some faux-amoral sense. but you still think that it's valid to accept that on face value, and you're doubtful about the concept of deceptive & self-serving propaganda as something to guard carefully against.
well, tell me, what do you know about this program? what independent analysis have you seen? why are you advocating? why are you so sure the dissent has the burden of proof when the dissent is not actually taking any actions except to dissent in response?
there is a rhetorical paradox presented here. also known as hypocrisy (since we're speaking of dictionaries)
p.s. as you can see, i think the weaknesses in our frameworks for debate are a far bigger problem than advocating the world bank. we propagate bullshit for generations. our frameworks are broken. our well annotated frameworks are broken. we're deceiving ourselves with some pseudo-victorian genteel ideal.
speak your fucking mind. why are we letting taboos rule our time? micro-managers rule our time.
we are screwed if we don't break free from this hypersensitivity and inability to consider and face our problems with our attempts to improve quality of life for more than just a few technostartopoliptocrats.
what good is free speech if we fear the inconvenient as much as this?
but seriously, does anyone expect that to last when it's so much easier to advocate using anonymous votes than it is to detract where you're called upon to carefully annotate any dissent.
is it really that great a system?
sure it works to keep out the trolls -- oh those horrible trolls, god protect our thin hides and sensitive complexions from those horrible trolls -- but at the expense of accepting a wealth of propaganda and spam in fancy dress?
Posts don't get upvoted because of their moral validty but because of their relevance to the kind of things that get's discussed here.
You are an atheist I see (me too) and yet you seem to use the word evil as if it's some objective standard?
Now what's up with that!
and on [good and] evil:
a. our social condition reasonably constructs a concept of evil worthy of consideration, it also helps our society work, hopefully to benefit the individual
b. on the macro-scale our biological imperative most likely assists in that construction, but that does not imply the construction is always successful in the macro or micro scale (think dinosaurs). besides, what do i care about macro, micro has plenty to consider for me, i'll leave the very long-term to the gene pool to worry about
c. and we create our own truth, you have yours and i have mine. i like mine, but it's constantly adjusting as i attempt to learn
so tell me again where the problem is?
(and no, in response to your comment below, it's you who said that about politics, i just responded with the basic problem in what you're saying)
p.s. i can't respond to posts anymore, i guess i'm a troll, awesome system this. block ur ears from the bad man everyone!
p.p.s. score for the reddit suggestion! psuedo-victorian genteel ideal that it is (the suggestion that is)
and regarding point #3, i'm responding to your questions Thom, responding, you asked how the word evil can be used, i explained why i think it is a valid term for an atheist to use in context. #1 is the answer to the question about why it applies to this discussion.
these are not ideas i came up with, they are the basic problems of philosophy. obviously you don't have agree and neither can i expect that i control the market on truth. that's what intellectual honesty is. i gave you a rough outline of the framework i'm basing opinions and these includes points you can use to refute me...because i can use those point to refute me too.
i am choosing to focus on the social benefits for our time, and i make no claim that this is not a self-serving act, anyone who does is probably lying, though it would be wonderful to be proven wrong. i'm just looking for better society than what we live in now. better for others means better for you and me. it doesn't matter how many cars i have if i sm living in fear of the next attack from our enemies. or the next financial upset. or the rise of china and what it means for my children and grandchildren (well, i've only got the children right now)
on the social scale we are propagating something usefully described as evil in the context of our time in our society and affecting us. and i believe it is an extended condition largely because of our faulty debate mechanisms, susceptibility to propaganda, hypersensitivity to inconvenience...blah blah blah
Open-source movement is political and some would argue has some negative economic and thus political consequences to society.
With regards to good vs. evil.
Please show how your 3 points validates that World Bank is evil.
The very problem even if we could set up metrics (we can't) is exactly in the interpretation of those 3 points in relation to something like the World Bank.
The world bank insists on policies that we would never agree to like water privatization. That has lead to a lot of problems in poorer countries. It just seems like a scheme to transfer what wealth exists in poor countries and transfer it to the banks of the west.
If we really wanted to do good in the world we wouldn't give loans we'd give aid for these projects instead.