Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Positive reinforcement?
I--hahahah--am sorry--hahah-I still can't stop laughing...HAHAHAH... 0%
YOU PANSY SCUM! Go live in happy happy land with the other gay bunny rabbits! 28%
That's what I've been saying. FUCK YOU MAN! You stole it! I hope you burn in boiling orange juice for all eternity! 28%
Hmm...okay... 14%
Huh, what? Oh yeah WORDS; I read them right? 0%
I prefer not to think about solutions. I like wallowing in a confused stupor, and you can't stop me. 14%

Votes: 7

 Positive reinforcement, the secret weapon!

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 21, 2001
You know how Osama Bin Laden attracts people to his terrorist schools? He goes to the slums and tells starving kids that if he goes to his school, he'll feed them. Positive reinforcement! Bin Laden's secret weapon! Here's food, keep doing what I say.

More diaries by Kintara
Live in a Nice Place; Virgin; Fat; College Student; Left-Liberal; Never Done Diary; Is Wondering Abo
I just saw Dancer in the Dark.
So, let's feed all his potential recruits, and everyone else. What you say? Impossible? No NO! I say! It is not impossible. Did you know that if we ate 10% less meat in America, we could feed the entire world with the excess grain? I'm not saying that that's the way to feed everyone neccessarily, but it was an example on how it's MUCH more than feasible to do. Now, of course, you'll be thinking of population problems. Well, America is the fattest country in the world and we aren't popping babies out left and right (in comparison). If starvation isn't a concern anymore then countries can focus on other concerns, like an economy. Plus, we could use food as a positive reinforcement for NOT having kids. Anyway, I'm not even in the realm of laughable realism as far as us actually doing this. But I am looking at us going to war with Afghanistan and I think that it's just not going to do any good. Well, it'll make us feel better if we disembowel Bin Laden. Other than that, I doubt our "war on terrorism" will be very much different from our "war on drugs". I think both could be solved with positive steps, rather than negative ones. Can you think of any other positive ways to go about this "war"?


The problem is deeper than food. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jin wicked on Sat Sep 22nd, 2001 at 11:19:18 PM PST
As long as a system like capitalism exists, which literally breeds insecurity (you can lose your job and everything at the drop of a hat) and creates a visible struggle between the owning class and the working class, stuff like this will continue to happen.

Charity has existed for as long as mankind, and it's failed to solve the issue of poverty. Poor countries around the world export food at times of famine because the growers can get more money for it in other markets. Food regularly spoils or is destroyed to maintain prices. Farmers are actually paid to not grow food. The truth of the matter is that we currently possess the technology and means to keep the entire world reasonably fed, but we choose not to do so because of economics. Much like the war on drugs (where we pour more and more money into treating symptoms -- drug abuse -- and not the cause -- why people use drugs) this kind of struggle between the poor countries and richer countries will always exist, until we address the root causes.

Unfortunately, better socioeconomic ideas exist, but as long as organized religion and fundamentalism exist they'll never be feasible. Of course, you may or may not have noticed that in general, poorer countries and peoples tend to be much more religious and supersticious than prosperous ones. It's more of a survival mechanism than anything else, I believe. When you never know where your next meal will come from, it helps to be able to convince yourself there's some higher power at work. It's a hard reality to accept.

You are on the right track, I would say, in that we need to elminate the reasons that these people turn to such desperate acts and fundamentalism, but the roots go much, much deeper than just packing up some crates of bread and shipping them over. These people need to have a reasonable measure of security of their futures and personal safety. If all we do is hand them money, the insecurity has just changed from the fear of one government to the fear of another -- fear of when the handouts will stop.

I would not be against charity in the meantime, of course, as an immediate form of aid, as long as the underlying issues are simultaneuosly [sp?] addressed.

"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

True (none / 0) (#2)
by Kintara on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 01:38:09 PM PST
I do think that just feeding the people of the world won't solve our problems. I do think it should be done, and done in a way that is universal. I am an atheist so your views on religion hit a chord with me. I'm not sure if there's really anything to be done that would solve completely problems so large as that.

I am also someone who leans towards socialism. I need to look more into it to say that I fully endorse it, however. Until then, I'll stick to what I know which is strongly left-liberal.

I missed something (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 05:14:36 PM PST
Where was the connection between the failure of socialism and religion? Additionally, why is socialism not a feasible solution at all?


For socialism to really work, (none / 0) (#5)
by jin wicked on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 08:54:58 PM PST
it requires a materialist world view. Think of it in terms of the current an anarchosocialist society, do you really think all the current religious groups would be able to get along in a productive manner? Without a government? Religion makes people do some very odd things and behave in irrational ways at times, and while I don't think an individual believing in a god is going to really matter in the grand scheme of things, an organization like the church would just be too tempted to try to seize some kind of power. For socialism to work, it is a necessity that people accept a materialist world view of history... the idea that it is humans that make their own situations and environments; not the divine act of God or the boogy man.

I have been awake way too long, but they discuss this more on and I have debated it in other forums... forgive me but I'm just not up to the challenge at the moment. :)

"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

No forgiveness needed! (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 01:41:09 PM PST
I see your point. If it weren't for republicans, we'd have decent separation of church and state, and I could be as religious as I liked and government could play the roll of societal referee, and if I was falwellian (which I'm not), I could be then suitably restrained from imposing my beliefs upon other citizens.

So given this, how would you rally the citizens to productivity in a socialist economy if the religious were suitably restrained? (You don't need to answer tho, I know you're busy with qpt ;-)

I should give that socialist site a visit, see if I can learn something.


The same reason people work now -- (none / 0) (#9)
by jin wicked on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 06:13:40 PM PST
if you don't work, you starve. (And yes, there would be surplus such that the families of disabled people or those unable to work would still be able to care and provide for them.)

"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

work and religion (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 25th, 2001 at 01:59:16 AM PST
There is the listless fufillment of 9 to 5 obligations, and there is the honing of competitive skills made sharp by the zero sum game of capitalism. I'm not totally anti-socialism however, as I believe in a safety net for society (as looks like you do too), and clearly the current system of health care leaves much to be desired.

So we're probably not too different in economic theory at least. As for religion, I favor religion mostly because i've burned through a bit more lifespan than you and have less to go. Mortality tends to get you thinking. But I can understand if your religious experience was more akin to BDSM than mine is. Religion done properly does not cause war. Don't get me wrong tho, atheism has its advantages, for instance, in my experience atheists throw better parties.


Hmmm, no (none / 0) (#3)
by John Milton on Sun Sep 23rd, 2001 at 03:49:54 PM PST
I believe that quite a few of Osama Bin Ladens followers are independently wealthy. That's where he gets his money since his bank accounts have been frozen.

-John Milton

The Afghanis are hungry for more than food (none / 0) (#6)
by Adam Rightmann on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 06:35:19 AM PST
They're also spiritually hungry, witness the way they flock to a bastardized version of Islam.

I would like to see Jesuits coming into Afghanistan, right behind the 82nd Airborne. They can get to work starting schools and distributing food, and teaching all the Afghanis how to read and write, so that they can read the bible for themselves.

A. Rightmann

who's flocking (none / 0) (#7)
by alprazolam on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 10:50:46 AM PST
the Taleban are mostly Pakis. The Afghans are just too tired to fight back. Your plan for the Jesuits is pretty much exactly what happened. So then we'd have a country run by crazy Christian fundamentalists. Now the only bad thing about it is that when they start killing Americans, we can't bomb them, because we can't kill Christians. So that's why we need the Muslims, so that we can have enemies. If communism were still around, we wouldn't have to worry about it at all.

Socialism is a travesty. (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 07:01:11 PM PST
It's an extreme variation on the 'let free riders run everything' theme, and as such stymies growth and innovation. It's fine if one doesn't want to progress and would prefer a stagnant (but modestly fed and clothed) population. A system that would chop innovators off at the knees is just not a particularly cool system to those who go for such things as advancements in technology and improved living standards *and* increased wealth. Socialism results in swift stagnation of all three items.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to