1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rant Daily Mail

Discussion in 'General' started by Daniel114, 7 May 2008.

  1. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    No, you're wrong. That woman was evil. She was given millions of dollars, millions upon millions - her resources were about as limited as her god's power. Yet people lay on palates, dying without medical care, or aid, or painkillers. Pain is the road to God - was her philosophy. Aparently dying horribly after months of suffering is good for the soul or something.

    She did **** all with the money she had besides building god-houses for people to die in and rerouting money intended to ease suffering over to money for bibles and other indoctination tools, and if you talk to people from the subcontinent, the woman is widely considered to be the prostletizing missionary nasty little woman that she was.

    Mother Teresa was as saintly as a guano-stain.
     
  2. naokaji

    naokaji whatever

    Joined:
    8 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    10
    and then the media will add the scapegoat for it and ride the sensationalist wave until it doesnt sell anymore and then suddenly switch attention to a complelty different topic:D
     
  3. Akava

    Akava Lurking...

    Joined:
    28 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    26
    QFT
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,532
    Likes Received:
    1,900
    It is true that Mother Teresa's motivations basically revolved around three (dysfunctional) beliefs: 1: suffering is good. 2: abortion is always wrong. 3: despite the overpopulation of the world, birth control must never be used. Hey, what can I say? She was a Catholic.

    She set out to form an order than would bring some humanity and the theology of the Catholic Church to the poor of the world. She and her little band of sisters aimed to bring "spiritual comfort" (such as it is) to the suffering, something that apparently escapes her critics who feel that she should have been providing medical care or addressing social issues such as poverty and illiteracy. She never pretended to be a doctor who could wipe out or even soften the pain of death. She never pretended to implement social change. She had a clear agenda, and many people chose to buy into it.

    She certainly was well out of her depth business-wise, when her organisation grew to the size it is now. Like most fervently (almost fundamentalist, really) religious people, she was frightfully naive at best and severely misguided at worst. She was a co-dependent need-to-be-needed personality who ended up buying into the hype built up around her (as they are wont to do --it's what co-dependence is all about) and allowed her image to be exploited by criminals and tyrants who wanted to look good by association. Towards the end, she was misleading about where all the charitable donations went, but as I said: she had always been very clear about her agenda.

    My real gripe with the critics is the same as with, say, anti-abortionists: nobody provided a viable alternative. Those poor sick people and orphans were there to be neglected (or arguably, abused) by her organisation because nobody else would have them, except, interestingly, other religious institutions like the (Protestant) Assembly of God, who did a lot more good work with a lot less hype. The way I understand it, people who could afford to be helped by modern medicine didn’t go to the Sisters of Mercy; people who had family that could and would care for them didn’t go there. People who had any sort of hope at all didn't go there. Overwhelmingly sad Chatterjee may have felt, but the fact is that her hospices and orphanages are filled with the lowest of the low, poorest of the poor (we have the critics' documentary footage to prove it), and few of his fellow noble Calcuttan doctors, nurses or charity workers appeared able to offer an alternative, better plight for these people.

    Mother Theresa was good propaganda for the Catholic Church, but also an indictment of the sanctimonity of others. People gave her money because they were Catholic, bought into her agenda, and wanted to feel good about themselves. She delivered the Catholic hype that they intended to buy with their donations. She had plenty of needy, destitute people to meet her co-dependence because they had nowhere else to go and nobody else to care for them.
     
  5. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    41
    So you've gone back from 'completely wrong' to 'yes she did it but not for evil reasons'?
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,532
    Likes Received:
    1,900
    No, when you say:
    I'm saying you're wrong. There is no evidence that she accepted money from arms dealers and gangs (although having looked into the critics' arguments more, she did accept money from someone later accused of fraud), and she did not set up hospices so she could see people suffer.
     
  7. Squadexodus

    Squadexodus I got my cookie. What about you?

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great, a rant about stupid mothers turned into a rant about mother teresa. Dont make me start being random. You wont like me when im random.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,532
    Likes Received:
    1,900
    Uh-oh! :worried: Activate sequitor field!
     
  9. Furymouse

    Furymouse Like connect 4 in dagger terms

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    621
    Likes Received:
    22
    Does anyone want to talk about my mother? :)
    To Freudian?
     
  10. OnyxLilninja

    OnyxLilninja What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone headbutted me once when I called them a daily mail reader... all in all I think that was a fair response to that particular insult :)
     
  11. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Yes, although it goes some way to showing that you were probably correct.
     
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,532
    Likes Received:
    1,900
    Best example of self-fulfilling prophecy I've seen for a while. :D
     
  13. Kipman725

    Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?!

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    times is just the same with slightly more coherant wording. Infact I would go as far to say there is no paper worth reading at the moment. IF you look at archive coppies even the mail used to actualy cary news... nowerdays no paper carries more than a few snippits.
     
  14. modgodtanvir

    modgodtanvir Prepare - for Mortal Bumbat!

    Joined:
    28 May 2007
    Posts:
    1,960
    Likes Received:
    2
    Google News Cheesecake!
     
Tags:

Share This Page