hey, you work up one HELL of an appetite looking down on the poor and oppressed huddled masses.

I hope they have a good opening band.

Weaver95: hey, you work up one HELL of an appetite looking down on the poor and oppressed huddled masses.

I know I did.

/I'll have the steak, medium rare and marinated in poor people's tears.

Lady Baglady approves.

/obscure? unlikely

No, you have to pretend like the poor don't exist to enjoy your vast monies.

These people eat meals like that every day- I figure ANYTHING that gets them to see what the real world is like is a good thing.

It sounds like generating outrage was their entire point, which flew over the medias' heads.

The Aristocrats

Who the hell goes to Thailand to eat anything other than Thai food? Morans, that's who.

Who cares that the rich are having a nice meal?

The meal might be free but they're all going to give money to charity. These poor will be better off as a result of the event. What's the problem here?

...isn't the highlighting disparity the point?

and didn't this raise almost $200,000 in direct aid to thai villages?

Riotcow: ...isn't the highlighting disparity the point?

and didn't this raise almost $200,000 in direct aid to thai villages?

No, shut up and be outraged.

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! RABBLE!

You stay classy, Bangkok.

Reptiles have no sense of empathy.

Sir Vanderhoot: Lady Baglady approves.

/obscure? unlikely

I'd go to one of her parties, although I'd also like to stay alive.

oren0: Who cares that the rich are having a nice meal?

The meal might be free but they're all going to give money to charity. These poor will be better off as a result of the event. What's the problem here?

-Well if they tossed cash into an arena and watched the destitute fight over it for entertainment that's giving to the poor as well. Why not have that too?

Cue the perennial class war losers defending the victors.
Class warfare begins when the greedy class create a needy class.

Big Feast?

Riotcow: ...isn't the highlighting disparity the point?

and didn't this raise almost $200,000 in direct aid to thai villages?

It has yet to be seen whether that donated money will help those villages. According to the article, the hotel has created the foundation that all of this money has been pledged to. I don't know that Thailand has the same kind of charitable foundation laws that we have here. I'll remain skeptical of the whole event until I hear that they actually helped these villages.

/which probably means I'll forever remain skeptical

maldinero: Cue the perennial class war losers defending the victors.
Class warfare begins when the greedy class create a needy class.

I wonder what the Latin term for "rhyme fallacy" is.

Amigajoe: -Well if they tossed cash into an arena and watched the destitute fight over it for entertainment that's giving to the poor as well. Why not have that too?

I would totally watch that....could we divide it up into catagories tho? drug addicts, crazy people, down on their luck, ect ect?

This would never happen in California.

They're super cool to the homeless.

I say old chap, this vessel is not travelling fast enough. Throw some more poor people in the furnaces.

Amigajoe: oren0: Who cares that the rich are having a nice meal?

The meal might be free but they're all going to give money to charity. These poor will be better off as a result of the event. What's the problem here?

-Well if they tossed cash into an arena and watched the destitute fight over it for entertainment that's giving to the poor as well. Why not have that too?

If you don't have the subjective ability and discretion to see the difference between those two situations, it's a wonder you manage not to accidentally kill yourself during any given day.

I don't see a problem with this. It would be one thing if this was billed as a trip to the zoo or something, but the stated goal is to evoke sympathy from the wealthy and cause them to donate money to help the poor. After they see the village they eat a big meal, like they probably often do at home. So what? At least the poor are in the front of their minds, which probably never happens at home.

This 'outrage' that has arisen in Europe makes no sense to me. "These rich folks shouldn't eat a big, overpriced meal after seeing the poverty in this village. They should stay home and stuff their faces, completely ignoring poverty in rural Thailand."

What an utterly retarded idea, typical of capitalists.

These people don't need donations, they need _work_ and _infrastructure_. I guess the money will help a bit, but they'll be back where they started when it runs out. If the rich actually did give a shiat about the poor, they'd work to construct factories and other businesses they can employ people with living wages in, instead of ever-seeking to need less workers, and creating and maintaining sweatshops to get what labor they do need as cheaply as possible.

Amigajoe: Well if they tossed cash into an arena and watched the destitute fight over it for entertainment that's giving to the poor as well. Why not have that too?

Assuming you're not a troll you'll have to explain to me how going and looking at a poor village equates to watching the poor fight for money. Nobody is degrading or exploiting the poor in this case. Visiting the village highlights their poor condition, guilting the attendees into giving them money. I don't think the villager who now gets food on his table is going to complain about what the rich are eating. He'll be too busy not starving to death.

It's unreasonable to hate the rich just for being rich. These people are trying to help, and any contribution is more than they're forced to do.

maldinero: Cue the perennial class war losers defending the victors.
Class warfare begins when the greedy class create a needy class.

Thanks, Karl Marx. The poor are poor because of the rich, it has nothing to do with themselves. There has never been a case in a capitalist country where members of the "needy class" become successful through ingenuity and/or hard work.

oren0

While those who are born to wealth require neither to maintain their privileged status.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of poor don't have the ingenuity or work ethic to escape. Nor would the vast majority of rich, if put in such a condition.

There are far too many people who work 60 hours a day and remain poor.

rich and poor are relative terms

birdboy2000: oren0

While those who are born to wealth require neither to maintain their privileged status.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of poor don't have the ingenuity or work ethic to escape. Nor would the vast majority of rich, if put in such a condition.

There are far too many people who work 60 hours a day and remain poor.


We should be donating watches to the people. Or atleast tell them that a day isn't 3 moons long.

Naman: What an utterly retarded idea, typical of capitalists.

Naman: If the rich actually did give a shiat about the poor, they'd work to construct factories and other businesses they can employ people with living wages in

So that people can complain about outsourcing? A living wage in Thailand is much less than a living wage in the US. Then the company gets creamed in the media for paying workers $.20/hour. The company looks bad either way.

instead of ever-seeking to need less workers, and creating and maintaining sweatshops to get what labor they do need as cheaply as possible.

Seeking to need less workers is a bad thing now? It's called technological advancement, and if you don't do it the factory next door will. It ensures that goods and services are more affordable for everyone. If you want to pay more for hand-made goods, that's an option. But most people don't.

As for sweatshops, would you prefer the people be unemployed and starving or employed at a low wage? Nobody likes the idea of employing children for pennies but those people are still better off than they'd be if the factory didn't exist. If they had something to do that could feed them more effectively, don't you think they'd be doing it?

A wafer thin mint sir?

Umm, this is pretty much the modus operandi for any large charity event. You give an assload of money & they give you a killer meal or a show put on by a major entertainer or both. You don't actually expect rich people to just throw their money at something w/o some sort of return, do you? That's how you go poor in the first place.

I'd just like to point out that this sort of tourism is hardly new. Visitors in the nineteenth century used to pay to have guided trips through the seedy underbellies of large cities. For example, visitors could see how the poor lived in Five Points, New York or Chinatown in San Fransico. Tourism in my own city of Charleston focused on the poverty and crime ridden slums yet yielded the "Charleston Renaissance" as the wealthy Northern elites pumped money into our local economy.

I'm all for bringing the wealthy into the lives of the poor, and this situation seems like it will increase awareness of the poor.

I believe it was the origin of the concept of slumming.

//How many people rushed to see New Orleans after Katrina?

birdboy2000: While those who are born to wealth require neither to maintain their privileged status.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of poor don't have the ingenuity or work ethic to escape. Nor would the vast majority of rich, if put in such a condition.

There are far too many people who work 60 hours a day and remain poor.

Almost anybody who tries can graduate high school (or get a GED) in this country. I'd say the majority of people could get a degree as well. I'd guess that a high school grad can get a job making at least $8 an hour almost anywhere in the US. At 60 hours a week (even if we assume no overtime pay), that's $24k a year. Both parents in a family work and that family is far from poor. But people don't graduate high school, don't manage their finances well, and spend too much money on payday loans, lottery tickets, and other wastes. Then they wonder why they never save any money.

The percentage of the "rich" (let's define that as the top 10%) that are born with silver spoons in their mouths and never work a day in their lives is quite small. Most rich people are highly successful professionals and executives who earn what they make.

I hate to break it to you limousine liberals but few people are "born" into wealth. Most people work hard to aquire the earnings. Those who by chance are born into a wealthy family must continue their hard work or they lose their wealth.
America has the wealthiest poor in the world. With the exception of the mentally ill, drug addicted and a few unfortunate families, most of America's "poor" own color televisions, microwave ovens, cars, cable TV and have access to computer services, food and decent furniture. An amazing number of the "poor" have credit cards and cellphones. As the poor are judged only by their income, a family can have over a million dollars in property and still be considered "poor" if their declared income is below a certain level.
If you want to see true poverty, go to India or the favelas of Brazil.
If the "wealthy" have studied and worked hard to earn their money, let them spend it as they wish. Some are arseholes who are public parasites (ie: Paris Hilton) but most are decent people who are a true asset to society.

oren0:
As for sweatshops, would you prefer the people be unemployed and starving or employed at a low wage? Nobody likes the idea of employing children for pennies but those people are still better off than they'd be if the factory didn't exist. If they had something to do that could feed them more effectively, don't you think they'd be doing it?

Please be kidding.

Having dealt with charities, NGOs and humanitarian projects.

1. Money isn't free
2. People want something in return. Blank checks don't give good feelings nor do they show the money was invested carefully.
3. Exposure is a GOOD thing. Feelings = action
4. If you evened out ALL the money in the world, give it six months we'd back to about where we are now.
5. People spend their money the same way whether they are rich or poor.

/was poor
/became rich
/now poor again
/learning finances now

Bicycle safety tip Quote 2008-04-06 05:24:33 PM
oren0:
As for sweatshops, would you prefer the people be unemployed and starving or employed at a low wage? Nobody likes the idea of employing children for pennies but those people are still better off than they'd be if the factory didn't exist. If they had something to do that could feed them more effectively, don't you think they'd be doing it?

Please be kidding.


Starving children rather work than starve.

/saw it up close in Africa

Malbar: //made something of myself and now have a net worth of $13m

yet no TF?

Malbar: I thought this was pretty awesome until they mentioned it was a publicity stunt for charity

So, I can't take the tour then?

I did take the "Katrina Tour" of New Orleans a few months ago. Does that make me a bad person.

vaconex: Starving children rather work than starve.

QFT. If the companies running the sweat shops left the countries they're in, does anyone honestly think that those laid off workers would be better off? That they'd have more food on their tables?

She came from Greece she had a thirst for knowledge...

approves

This isn't anything new. Upper-class New Yorkers used to go on poverty tours of the Five Points back in the 1800's. They didn't do it for charity, just curiosity.

Riotcow: didn't this raise almost $200,000 in direct aid to thai villages?

I love Fark for the (usually deliberately) misleading headlines and the (often inadvertent) spins that get thrown into many threads. It's good experience for dealing with news stories in the wider world - makes you a bit suspicious of anything you read/see, as you should be.

Amigajoe: if they tossed cash into an arena and watched the destitute fight over it for entertainment that's giving to the poor as well. Why not have that too?

Your newsletter, I would like to subscribe.

Five Minute Standup: Who the hell goes to Thailand to eat anything other than Thai food women? Morans, that's who.

Sir Vanderhoot: Lady Baglady approves.

Nothing is obscure on fark.