hillperson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 7:45 pm
Read the book and then talk. It’s well written. A lot attention was given to being accurate. And yes, the book talks about a lot of aspects surrounding the story.
But read the book and then talk….
No point in reading a book that is forcing a narrative on everyone. Do the math in your head.
What math?
Ernie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:50 am
I'm quite sure that "commissioned" is correct.
No point in reading a book that is forcing a narrative on everyone. Do the math in your head.
What math?
Ernie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:50 am
I'm quite sure that "commissioned" is correct.
There you go, pal. Paid narrative.
If I'm following the trajectory of what you're saying, I think it would force me to conclude that you think I ought not eat the Mike buys from you because you're getting paid to sell it - therefore it must be unhealthy??? If it were healthy you'd surely give it away for free, right?
I dunno, to me that makes about as much sense as concluding that because someone gets paid to write a book it's not worth reading....
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:44 pm
What math?
Ernie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:50 am
I'm quite sure that "commissioned" is correct.
There you go, pal. Paid narrative.
If I'm following the trajectory of what you're saying, I think it would force me to conclude that you think I ought not eat the Mike buys from you because you're getting paid to sell it - therefore it must be unhealthy??? If it were healthy you'd surely give it away for free, right?
I dunno, to me that makes about as much sense as concluding that because someone gets paid to write a book it's not worth reading....
Getting paid is fine. It’s who is paying her that causes some people to be concerned.
If I'm following the trajectory of what you're saying, I think it would force me to conclude that you think I ought not eat the Mike buys from you because you're getting paid to sell it - therefore it must be unhealthy??? If it were healthy you'd surely give it away for free, right?
I dunno, to me that makes about as much sense as concluding that because someone gets paid to write a book it's not worth reading....
Getting paid is fine. It’s who is paying her that causes some people to be concerned.
What’s wrong with who’s paying her?
Did CAM engage in any misconduct with the kidnappings in Haiti?
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:41 pm
If I'm following the trajectory of what you're saying, I think it would force me to conclude that you think I ought not eat the Mike buys from you because you're getting paid to sell it - therefore it must be unhealthy??? If it were healthy you'd surely give it away for free, right?
I dunno, to me that makes about as much sense as concluding that because someone gets paid to write a book it's not worth reading....
Getting paid is fine. It’s who is paying her that causes some people to be concerned.
What’s wrong with who’s paying her?
Did CAM engage in any misconduct with the kidnappings in Haiti?
CAM knowlingly let women and children go into unsafe areas, even after being warned by workers on the field. Some would call this misconduct. CAMs management needed to protect it's workers first. And now CAM is trying to profit off of this without telling the whole story.
It's like if I beat my wife. Then I paid someone to write a book about her suffering but I would get the profits. Can you see the problem now? Are people that blind?
The volunteers and employees of CAM in Haiti have repeatedly said that they went to Haiti knowing that this was not a safe place to be. They didn't go because it was safe. They went because they wanted to help people in unsafe places. Christian missions have been doing this for centuries.
Now if somebody went to Haiti and was duped or had the wool pulled over their eyes, that would be wrong. But I have not heard of anything like this so far.
Regarding the book, it really comes down to whether or not people trust CAM, and many people on MN have indicated that they don't. Had the book been published by an organization they trusted, we would not be having this discussion.
Ernie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:03 am
The volunteers and employees of CAM in Haiti have repeatedly said that they went to Haiti knowing that this was not a safe place to be. They didn't go because it was safe. They went because they wanted to help people in unsafe places. Christian missions have been doing this for centuries.
Now if somebody went to Haiti and was duped or had the wool pulled over their eyes, that would be wrong. But I have not heard of anything like this so far.
Regarding the book, it really comes down to whether or not people trust CAM, and many people on MN have indicated that they don't. Had the book been published by an organization they trusted, we would not be having this discussion.
Ernie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:03 am
The volunteers and employees of CAM in Haiti have repeatedly said that they went to Haiti knowing that this was not a safe place to be. They didn't go because it was safe. They went because they wanted to help people in unsafe places. Christian missions have been doing this for centuries.
Now if somebody went to Haiti and was duped or had the wool pulled over their eyes, that would be wrong. But I have not heard of anything like this so far.
Regarding the book, it really comes down to whether or not people trust CAM, and many people on MN have indicated that they don't. Had the book been published by an organization they trusted, we would not be having this discussion.
I'm not buying that explanation. CAM still has a responsibility to stand up and develop policies and procedures to protect their staff. I know people who work in some very dangerous hoods in America, I know what risk mitigation looks like. CAM should the adult in the room and say no to women and children.
You are right, this book isn't financed bya trusted source.
I Timothy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 9:52 amCAM knowlingly let women and children go into unsafe areas, even after being warned by workers on the field. Some would call this misconduct. CAMs management needed to protect it's workers first. And now CAM is trying to profit off of this without telling the whole story.
Are you saying that CAM should have ceased all relief work in Haiti? The entire country of Haiti is an "unsafe area".
It's like if I beat my wife. Then I paid someone to write a book about her suffering but I would get the profits. Can you see the problem now? Are people that blind?
I don't think sending relief workers to Haiti is the same thing as beating your spouse.