Actually you've failed to show that they don't have a choice, and the implication that the majority of the pregnancies are against their will is on par with your propaganda about imprisonment in a Nazi concentration camp not being a desperate situation.

hmmm..I never said anything about Nazi concentrations not being a desperate situation. What a strange way you have have reading my posts. From what i remember of the camps they would eat or drink anything to survive. Including food and water they knew would make them sick. I ignored your earlier comment about so called Nazi propaganda because it made absolutely no sense in the context and I had no idea what you were on about.

It's quite simple, the comment was made that sawdust was eaten by those imprisoned in concentration camps. I asked why they didn't mix it with contaminated water, you said they would have IF the situation was desperate enough, as if to imply that imprisonment in a concentration camp was not ALWAYS a desperate situation.

And not having access to contraception pretty much puts choice about childbirth out of reach don't you think? And if a woman started to refuse her husband sex she would soon find herself divorced, which is an even worse predicament than having lots of children. In some cases it might be rape..in others it's probably pragmatism.

The implication that divorce is WORSE than watching your children die because you don't have the means to support them is again, ludicrous and unworthy of further comment.

Once again, it's clear that you have left the realm of rational thought concerning this issue.

---

It's quite simple, the comment was made that sawdust was eaten by those imprisoned in concentration camps. I asked why they didn't mix it with contaminated water, you said they would have IF the situation was desperate enough, as if to imply that imprisonment in a concentration camp was not ALWAYS a desperate situation.

Brainsmashr..have you thought that there is another reason why I said 'if'? I said 'if' because i wasn't sure whether the victims of Nazi concentration camps were give clean water or not. So your assumption of what I meant was wrong. Simple as that.

The implication that divorce is WORSE than watching your children die because you don't have the means to support them is again, ludicrous and unworthy of further comment.

Is it? I guess it's the choice of having some children die or all of them die because there is no one to support them at all and help provide for them. I don't think you quite understand just how on the edge these people live.

Once again, it's clear that you have left the realm of rational thought concerning this issue.

I think your comment once again demonstrates how ignorant you are of how people live in other parts of the world and the choices they have to make.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It's quite simple, the comment was made that sawdust was eaten by those imprisoned in concentration camps. I asked why they didn't mix it with contaminated water, you said they would have IF the situation was desperate enough, as if to imply that imprisonment in a concentration camp was not ALWAYS a desperate situation.

Brainsmashr..have you thought that there is another reason why I said 'if'? I said 'if' because i wasn't sure whether the victims of Nazi concentration camps were give clean water or not. So your assumption of what I meant was wrong. Simple as that.

I guess it never rains and collects in puddles in Germany either...

The implication that divorce is WORSE than watching your children die because you don't have the means to support them is again, ludicrous and unworthy of further comment.

Is it? I guess it's the choice of having some children die or all of them die because there is no one to support them at all and help provide for them. I don't think you quite understand just how on the edge these people live.

I don't think you understand that these people have carved their niche in that environment and have lived that way for thousands of years.

Once again, it's clear that you have left the realm of rational thought concerning this issue.

I think your comment once again demonstrates how ignorant you are of how people live in other parts of the world and the choices they have to make.

Conjugal rights versus dead children...not much of a choice if you ask me...

---

I guess it never rains and collects in puddles in Germany either...

Not sure your point here...are you saying that drinking out of puddles is equivalent to having clean water?

I don't think you understand that these people have carved their niche in that environment and have lived that way for thousands of years.

I wouldn't say that they carved a niche of having their land plundered of resources..their tribes destroyed by the slave trade..and in a lot of places perpetual war fuelled by conflict over diamonds, oil, rare minerals and so on and so on.

Add onto that the years of drought bought on by industrialised nations screwing with the climate, I still am not altogether sure which niche you are talking about.

Conjugal rights versus dead children...not much of a choice if you ask me...

No. It's not. But then having babies isn't actually what's killing them. It's extreme poverty.

Are you proposing some sort of eugenics programmed where only the wealthy are allowed to have sex and reproduce?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Did you forget that Louisiana is considered a 3rd world country by some standards :)

This comment gives you away. It demonstrates that you have absolutely no concept of the third world. This is amply evidenced by your inane, ill-informed and ideologically bankrupt arguments throughout this thread.

This is the third world.



That's not Louisiana, by any standards.

---

Did you forget that Louisiana is considered a 3rd world country by some standards :)

This comment gives you away. It demonstrates that you have absolutely no concept of the third world. This is amply evidenced by your inane, ill-informed and ideologically bankrupt arguments throughout this thread.

This is the third world.



That's not Louisiana, by any standards.

And this is even a picture of a "better" area for third world standards...

---

Account frozen...

This is the third world.

Nicest people I ever met...

If I were given a choice to live in a third world country or to be homeless in america, my bags would already be packed...

They may not have much, but they do have spirit... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Did you forget that Louisiana is considered a 3rd world country by some standards :)

This comment gives you away. It demonstrates that you have absolutely no concept of the third world. This is amply evidenced by your inane, ill-informed and ideologically bankrupt arguments throughout this thread.

This is the third world.

(removed pic)

That's not Louisiana, by any standards.

Well I actually was being sarcastic, hence the smilie face, but if you'd like to see photographic evidence that actually supports my claims, take a peek at New Orleans, Louisiana.





I actually still have friends in the New Orleans area. If you like, I can get you some current pictures if you somehow feel the city has fully recovered and neighborhoods don't still look exactly like that.

---

I guess it never rains and collects in puddles in Germany either...

Not sure your point here...are you saying that drinking out of puddles is equivalent to having clean water?

The point is that they WERE thirsty and they DID drink something and I doubt it was clean water provided by the Nazi's when they weren't even providing food, hence the eating of sawdust.

I don't think you understand that these people have carved their niche in that environment and have lived that way for thousands of years.

I wouldn't say that they carved a niche of having their land plundered of resources..their tribes destroyed by the slave trade..and in a lot of places perpetual war fuelled by conflict over diamonds, oil, rare minerals and so on and so on.

And yet they still manage to survive and increase their population. Must not be nearly as toxic as you'd like for us to believe, huh?

Add onto that the years of drought bought on by industrialised nations screwing with the climate, I still am not altogether sure which niche you are talking about.

Of course not, the only thing you're "sure" about is that the plights faced by these people are someone else's fault and their stupidity makes them exempt from helping themselves.

Conjugal rights versus dead children...not much of a choice if you ask me...

No. It's not. But then having babies isn't actually what's killing them. It's extreme poverty.

It's poverty now? They don't have enough money to buy baby formula? Gee, what about all that dirty water nonsense?

Are you proposing some sort of eugenics programmed where only the wealthy are allowed to have sex and reproduce?

I whole heartedly believe that ability to care for a child should be a prerequisite to child birth...

---

The point is that they WERE thirsty and they DID drink something and I doubt it was clean water provided by the Nazi's when they weren't even providing food, hence the eating of sawdust.

Ahh ok. You were agreeing with me. Now i get you.

And yet they still manage to survive and increase their population. Must not be nearly as toxic as you'd like for us to believe, huh?

Actually..the population is still growing because they have lots of children to replace the ones that die.

Of course not, the only thing you're "sure" about is that the plights faced by these people are someone else's fault and their stupidity makes them exempt from helping themselves.

I do think most of their problems are not their fault. Yes...and i think you are confusing ignorance with stupidity.

It's poverty now? They don't have enough money to buy baby formula? Gee, what about all that dirty water nonsense?

That's right. They don't have enough money to buy the formula (remember how i pointed out how they were given free samples much the same way a drug dealer gives out free samples to get people addicted)?

So they are now stuck with having to buy formula they can't afford. So they often water it down to make it go further..which means the baby is not getting the nutrients it needs. I think you are finally starting to get it! :)

I whole heartedly believe that ability to care for a child should be a prerequisite to child birth...

Well I guess you are now going to help promote sex education and give free contraception out to the 3rd world? Which is what should be done (although considering that the US is working on taking this vital information out of it's own education programmes at home, i think you'll be having your own similar problems there soon).

Maybe one of the corporations will do what needs to be done..oh wait. Corporations aren't there for the public good..they are there for their own good. They help no one but themselves. Let's just give thanks to all those dogood handwringers who actually go out to these places and dig wells, and provide education, and proper health care to people who have no other way of getting it. 'Cos sure as hell the corporations aren't going to help them.

---

Reality Internet Personality

The point is that they WERE thirsty and they DID drink something and I doubt it was clean water provided by the Nazi's when they weren't even providing food, hence the eating of sawdust.

Ahh ok. You were agreeing with me. Now i get you.

No, we are not in agreement. The point is that if fresh rain water will collect in a puddle, then it will collect in a different container as well be it made of banana leaves, bamboo shoots, whatever is handy.

And yet they still manage to survive and increase their population. Must not be nearly as toxic as you'd like for us to believe, huh?

Actually..the population is still growing because they have lots of children to replace the ones that die.

In your mind, does that somehow negate the fact that the population is indeed growing?

Of course not, the only thing you're "sure" about is that the plights faced by these people are someone else's fault and their stupidity makes them exempt from helping themselves.

I do think most of their problems are not their fault. Yes...and i think you are confusing ignorance with stupidity.

Considering the number of deaths, I think it IS stupid to not have learned from previous mistakes.

It's poverty now? They don't have enough money to buy baby formula? Gee, what about all that dirty water nonsense?

That's right. They don't have enough money to buy the formula (remember how i pointed out how they were given free samples much the same way a drug dealer gives out free samples to get people addicted)?

So they are now stuck with having to buy formula they can't afford. So they often water it down to make it go further..which means the baby is not getting the nutrients it needs. I think you are finally starting to get it! :)

I've gotten all along that it was the parents fault. You're the one trying to blame Nestle, remember?

I also know it takes several days for a mother to stop lactating, not the handful of feedings derived from free samples you would like everyone to believe.

I whole heartedly believe that ability to care for a child should be a prerequisite to child birth...

Well I guess you are now going to help promote sex education and give free contraception out to the 3rd world?

If fool proof methods of sterilization were offered to them, yes, I'd promote that idea. One operation is cheaper than a lifetime of food and medicine and therefore would be a better utilization of my tax dollar...in my opinion of course.

Which is what should be done (although considering that the US is working on taking this vital information out of it's own education programmes at home, i think you'll be having your own similar problems there soon).

Most Americans considered sex education to be a subject better discussed between parent and child at home rather than between teacher and pupil at school. You're foreign concept of morals simply doesn't apply over here.

Maybe one of the corporations will do what needs to be done..oh wait. Corporations aren't there for the public good..they are there for their own good. They help no one but themselves. Let's just give thanks to all those dogood handwringers who actually go out to these places and dig wells, and provide education, and proper health care to people who have no other way of getting it. 'Cos sure as hell the corporations aren't going to help them.

LAF...

Sorry you think everybody in the world should be responsible for everybody else in the world, but that's just not the way it works...

---

No, we are not in agreement. The point is that if fresh rain water will collect in a puddle, then it will collect in a different container as well be it made of banana leaves, bamboo shoots, whatever is handy.

The word 'drought' went right over your head didn't it?

In your mind, does that somehow negate the fact that the population is indeed growing?

huh? I thought we were talking about stopping them having babies..where as I just pointed out why it is in their interest to have more than one or two.

Considering the number of deaths, I think it IS stupid to not have learned from previous mistakes.

That does imply some sort of abilty to access information about these mistakes.

I've gotten all along that it was the parents fault. You're the one trying to blame Nestle, remember?

I also know it takes several days for a mother to stop lactating, not the handful of feedings derived from free samples you would like everyone to believe.

You 'know' this from your extensive experience with breastfeeding do you?

The fact is Brainsmashr is you are simply wrong. It's not so clear cut as that.

If fool proof methods of sterilization were offered to them, yes, I'd promote that idea. One operation is cheaper than a lifetime of food and medicine and therefore would be a better utilization of my tax dollar...in my opinion of course.

Sterilasation??!! and you dare accuse me of being a Nazi supporter!

Most Americans considered sex education to be a subject better discussed between parent and child at home rather than between teacher and pupil at school. You're foreign concept of morals simply doesn't apply over here.

Yet you are so keen to enforce your concept of 'morals' on those that aren't in a position to deal with them..and in a situation where your morals are actually causing them harm. (although in my opinion your concept of morals is causing harm to your own people to if you aren't going to allow equal access to health information to everyone..that isn't very moral at all)

LAF...

Sorry you think everybody in the world should be responsible for everybody else in the world, but that's just not the way it works...

I'm not sorry at all that I think that. I'm proud to think that. I feel sorry for you that you don't.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I whole heartedly believe that ability to care for a child should be a prerequisite to child birth...

It would seem that the ability to care for a child is a prerequisite to death as well, which would explain the 'up in your face' nannies... ;)

(Hey corporate america! Giving someone a job isn't charity, and we ain't your children, regardless of what you might think.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No, we are not in agreement. The point is that if fresh rain water will collect in a puddle, then it will collect in a different container as well be it made of banana leaves, bamboo shoots, whatever is handy.

The word 'drought' went right over your head didn't it?

Nope, I'm just intelligent enough to understand that drought and contaminated water supply are not the same thing...and once again, the climate isn't Nestle's fault either.

In your mind, does that somehow negate the fact that the population is indeed growing?

huh? I thought we were talking about stopping them having babies..where as I just pointed out why it is in their interest to have more than one or two.

No, YOU brought that up. I merely stated, and I quote, "yet they still manage to survive and increase their population. Must not be nearly as toxic as you'd like for us to believe, huh?".

Considering the number of deaths, I think it IS stupid to not have learned from previous mistakes.

That does imply some sort of abilty to access information about these mistakes.

hmmm, river water equals sick adults and dead babies....it's not rocket science, it's simple observation.

I've gotten all along that it was the parents fault. You're the one trying to blame Nestle, remember?

I also know it takes several days for a mother to stop lactating, not the handful of feedings derived from free samples you would like everyone to believe.

You 'know' this from your extensive experience with breastfeeding do you?

I don't have to have gay sex to know I won't enjoy it, darling.

There's plenty of information out there about breast feeding for anyone who's willing to educate themselves, and thanks to you and this topic, I'm willing.

Of course the downside for you is that I have learned more from alternative sources than you were willing to share...and I've provided links to most of those observations as well.

The fact is Brainsmashr is you are simply wrong. It's not so clear cut as that.

Of course it varies from person to person, but NO healthy woman completely stops lactating after 1 day of utilizing baby formula.

[quote]
If fool proof methods of sterilization were offered to them, yes, I'd promote that idea. One operation is cheaper than a lifetime of food and medicine and therefore would be a better utilization of my tax dollar...in my opinion of course.

Sterilasation??!! and you dare accuse me of being a Nazi supporter!

I neither called you a Nazi supporter or condoned forced sterilization. It should be an option just like it is in civilized regions of the world.

Most Americans considered sex education to be a subject better discussed between parent and child at home rather than between teacher and pupil at school. You're foreign concept of morals simply doesn't apply over here.

Yet you are so keen to enforce your concept of 'morals' on those that aren't in a position to deal with them..and in a situation where your morals are actually causing them harm.

Excuse me, but I'm not trying to "force" anything on anyone. My stance is that Nestle is doing nothing wrong by offering a product to consumers.

(although in my opinion your concept of morals is causing harm to your own people to if you aren't going to allow equal access to health information to everyone..that isn't very moral at all)

Excuse me, but there's a difference between allowing them access and providing access for them which is really what you are suggesting. It's not Nestle's fault they live in some remote tropical jungle.

LAF...

Sorry you think everybody in the world should be responsible for everybody else in the world, but that's just not the way it works...

I'm not sorry at all that I think that. I'm proud to think that. I feel sorry for you that you don't.

Well don't be surprised in real life when you get taken advantage of for caring about someone who doesn't care about you...

---

Well don't be surprised in real life when you get taken advantage of

Not only am I not surprised, but I expect it... The only real surprise is how long I've been able to put up with it... ;)

(Ironically, in all my life, I've never ever been taken advantage of by a poor person.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I have no doubt whatsoever that you will be getting a very robust reply to the above. But in the meantime, is it too much to ask that you keep a civil tongue in your head?

Sorry, I don't have the liberal tendency of treating people as my equal when they clearly are not. If you give your baby river water and blame Nestle for his death, then I'm going to call you stupid...THEN if it happens to 1/3 of your newborn population year after year after year....

Stupid:
1 a: slow of mind : obtuse b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c: lacking intelligence or reason : brutish

---

I'm going to call you stupid...

Ever hear the phrase: Actions speak louder than words? Feel free to 'call' me stupid anytime... ;)

(One day you'll be looking up the word 'remorse' in that there dictionary of yours.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No, YOU brought that up. I merely stated, and I quote, "yet they still manage to survive and increase their population. Must not be nearly as toxic as you'd like for us to believe, huh?".

Your science is in error. Just because the population is going up..it does not need follow that the water is not going to make young babies sick.

hmmm, river water equals sick adults and dead babies....it's not rocket science, it's simple observation.

Hmmm..yet you have misunderstood and got it so wrong.

Babies are more vunerable to poor water than adults..that is why doctors recommend that you do not give then the safe water that you drink from the tap at home. It's simple biology.

I don't have to have gay sex to know I won't enjoy it, darling.

If you say so.

There's plenty of information out there about breast feeding for anyone who's willing to educate themselves, and thanks to you and this topic, I'm willing.

Then this conversation has not been a total waste of time.

Of course the downside for you is that I have learned more from alternative sources than you were willing to share...and I've provided links to most of those observations as well.

Yes..I looked at your alternative sources and it simply looked to me like you misunderstood what the source was saying. There was nothing there that contradicted anything I have said.

Of course it varies from person to person, but NO healthy woman completely stops lactating after 1 day of utilizing baby formula.

No. But they were given enough formula for more than one day and it becomes much harder to get the baby to take the breast once it has been given a bottle. She may not be able to establish breastfeeding after one day even if the milk is there. Like I said..it's much more complicated that you are suggesting.

I neither called you a Nazi supporter or condoned forced sterilization. It should be an option just like it is in civilized regions of the world.

An option sure. But why would you not support the better option of education and condoms which can also stop the spread of the HIV virus?

Excuse me, but I'm not trying to "force" anything on anyone. My stance is that Nestle is doing nothing wrong by offering a product to consumers.

Offering is one thing..but I have shown you that Nestle is not merely 'offering' their product. They are misleading people into buying it when it is not suitable for them.

Excuse me, but there's a difference between allowing them access and providing access for them which is really what you are suggesting. It's not Nestle's fault they live in some remote tropical jungle.

You really are terribly ignorant about places outside the US aren't you?

Well don't be surprised in real life when you get taken advantage of for caring about someone who doesn't care about you...

It can happen..or it can't. It must be terrible for you to live so afraid of being taken advantage of, that you won't reach out and try to help people who so desperately need it and have so much less than you that you clearly can't even concieve of how poor they are.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Your science is in error. Just because the population is going up..it does not need follow that the water is not going to make young babies sick.

I never said river water wouldn't make babies sick.

It IS nice to see you finally admit that dirty water is the culprit, but that still doesn't explain you trying to blame Nestle for it.

Hmmm..yet you have misunderstood and got it so wrong.

That's interesting, because I don't have any dead babies and you don't seem to think it's right for a woman to say NO.

Babies are more vunerable to poor water than adults..that is why doctors recommend that you do not give then the safe water that you drink from the tap at home. It's simple biology.

Has absolutely nothing to do with their inability to LEARN that dirty water is killing their children

Yes..I looked at your alternative sources and it simply looked to me like you misunderstood what the source was saying. There was nothing there that contradicted anything I have said.

Except the whole part about women ceasing to lactate because they were given samples of baby formula at the health clinic.

No. But they were given enough formula for more than one day and it becomes much harder to get the baby to take the breast once it has been given a bottle. She may not be able to establish breastfeeding after one day even if the milk is there. Like I said..it's much more complicated that you are suggesting.

Hey, it's hard for me to get up and go to work everyday, but it's not impossible, is it?

An option sure. But why would you not support the better option of education and condoms which can also stop the spread of the HIV virus?
[quote]

Because only 1 of us thinks they don't know how babies are made, and with a 10-15% failure rate in civilized parts of the world, I don't see the condom as the "better option".

Offering is one thing..but I have shown you that Nestle is not merely 'offering' their product. They are misleading people into buying it when it is not suitable for them.

These people have not be misled at all. When used PROPERLY, baby formula is an accepted and healthy alternative to breast milk.

You really are terribly ignorant about places outside the US aren't you?

No, I HAVE access to information. You just don't like that it contradicts much of what you've said.

It can happen..or it can't. It must be terrible for you to live so afraid of being taken advantage of, that you won't reach out and try to help people who so desperately need it and have so much less than you that you clearly can't even concieve of how poor they are.

Not that I would call it fear, but the flip side of that coin is that I haven't poisoned any babies.

You know, once upon a time we had slaves in this country, who when fed up with their living conditions, risked their OWN lives, literally walking/running to the northern states were living conditions were better for blacks.

Now if a person born into slavery or captured in the jungles of some foreign land, without any formal education, has enough sense to get up and leave a bad situation, why can't your 3rd world buddies? Are they STUPID?

---

After reading that I don't think you and are are actually speaking the same language. You've clamied I've said things I haven't. You've claimed other people have said things they haven't..and best of all..you have totally, thoroughly...wholeheartedly missed the point in a spectacular (and probably deliberate) way.

---

Reality Internet Personality