PDA

View Full Version : Lifelong cocoa farmers taste chocolate for the first time



resolve
30th July 14, 02:56 PM
zEN4hcZutO0

This video works on so many levels. From showing the disparity of economic levels to just giving someone sheer joy for a few seconds; and the fact that the first thing he wants to do after experiencing it is sharing it with everyone.

What an amazingly kind and awesome thing to do. Such a little thing. So little, but so powerful. Letting someone actually taste the fruit of their labours.

nihilist
30th July 14, 06:48 PM
You probably get your jollies by giving homeless people their first hit of crack as well.

NoBowie
30th July 14, 06:49 PM
http://i.imgur.com/UitpKcl.jpg

Harpy
30th July 14, 06:55 PM
So now third world laborers can also have diabetes. Excellent!

resolve
30th July 14, 11:36 PM
You're right, third world laborers should just stick to their rice and dirt patties and get back to work so YOU can have chocolate!

nihilist
31st July 14, 01:00 AM
You're right, third world laborers should just stick to their rice and dirt patties and get back to work so YOU can have chocolate!
I don't eat chocolate unless it's made from third world laborers.

Feryk
31st July 14, 02:12 PM
Hard to believe that kind of ignorance is still common in parts of the world.

God help them if they ever find out what the Internet is.

NoBowie
31st July 14, 02:13 PM
I learned about reverse racism. That is my take from the video.

Spade: The Real Snake
31st July 14, 03:05 PM
ANOTHER WHITE LIMOUSINE LIBERAL WITH A QUAINT PAROCHIAL INSTITUTIONAL RACISM TO THE POOR MAN OF COLOR

NoBowie
31st July 14, 03:20 PM
Ai7BJew_jbw

resolve
7th August 14, 02:48 PM
It turns out that much of the reason they've never eaten chocolate is how freaking expensive it is.

The reasons?

* Asian economies are still booming, and thus they are consuming more and more chocolate.
* This has caused prices to go up everywhere as the Asian demand is enormous.
* Even Hershey's here in the USA has finally raised its price in who knows how long. I walked down to the store to get an $0.88 Hershey's bar recently and noticed it was now $1.25. All other chocolates I noticed were higher priced as well.
* Turns out the manufacturers since 1980 have been taking more and more of the profits, up to 70% now. This leaves the farmers who actually provide the resources to make the chocolate piss poor. The rest of the profits are taken by the end retailers (like ~21%).
* The top producers of cocoa are Sierra Leone and Ghana with Sierra Leone exporting more.
* Turns out there's some trade regulations where the government is skimming the already tiny profits of the farmers in Ghana. This has led to many Ghanaian farmers to smuggle their beans over to Sierra Leone to get a fair price for them.
* Most farmers are simply starting to abandon cocoa beans as the profit is too low and are turning to more lucrative crops. This drives the price of chocolate up even higher.

Adouglasmhor
8th August 14, 06:05 AM
It turns out that much of the reason they've never eaten chocolate is how freaking expensive it is.

The reasons?

* Asian economies are still booming, and thus they are consuming more and more chocolate.
* This has caused prices to go up everywhere as the Asian demand is enormous.
* Even Hershey's here in the USA has finally raised its price in who knows how long. I walked down to the store to get an $0.88 Hershey's bar recently and noticed it was now $1.25. All other chocolates I noticed were higher priced as well.
* Turns out the manufacturers since 1980 have been taking more and more of the profits, up to 70% now. This leaves the farmers who actually provide the resources to make the chocolate piss poor. The rest of the profits are taken by the end retailers (like ~21%).
* The top producers of cocoa are Sierra Leone and Ghana with Sierra Leone exporting more.
* Turns out there's some trade regulations where the government is skimming the already tiny profits of the farmers in Ghana. This has led to many Ghanaian farmers to smuggle their beans over to Sierra Leone to get a fair price for them.
* Most farmers are simply starting to abandon cocoa beans as the profit is too low and are turning to more lucrative crops. This drives the price of chocolate up even higher.

Also http://scienceline.org/2012/02/the-chocolate-wars/

resolve
8th August 14, 07:24 AM
Yeah that's the main reason Africa is the biggest exporter of it even though it originated from South America.

Robot Jesus
8th August 14, 11:31 AM
http://i.imgur.com/UitpKcl.jpg

the timing of the second world war was perfect. the war instigated the rapid technological development necessary to build the bomb and ensured that it's first use would end a war instead of starting one.


Also Nazi Germany acts as a great example of the problems with racism, nationalism, and militarism.

I won't go far as to say the Nazis did good, but I can image how the world might be worse off without them existing.

nihilist
8th August 14, 04:23 PM
Nazi Germany acted as a great example of the problems of Catholicism

resolve
8th August 14, 05:43 PM
Nazi Germany acted as a great example of the problems of Catholicism

^

The RC Church has been experiencing a steady set of scandals every 50 years for a few centuries now. Is what happens when you mix political power and the church. The church is not meant for that. It is meant to turn the world's systems on their head, to be God's hands and feet on the earth (the body of God), not graft itself into the world's systems of oppression.

However, there were RC's who did help the Jews during the Holocaust, quite a few actually. The RC Church proper was just sidling itself up to powerful rulers again as it has always tried to do. I can't remember when exactly it was when the RC Church declared the Archbishop of Rome the "Pope" and joined hands with the Emperor (Theodosius IIRC not sure), but the time before that was when the original New Testament "catholic" church was still in effect. Pretty much everywhere had the same organization with Archbishops holding over sees, none more important than the other, and Bishops acting kind of like what a standard Priest or Pastor would be doing today and the religion itself being very much like what was described in the New Testament, very communal.

nihilist
8th August 14, 05:49 PM
Why on Earth would you believe that the power-hungry creeps who created Christianity were acting on the authority of any 'god'?

nihilist
8th August 14, 05:50 PM
Oh, that's right, because you were taught to.

resolve
8th August 14, 05:56 PM
Why on Earth would you believe that the power-hungry creeps who created Christianity were acting on the authority of any 'god'?

Well first God created christianity. Second, every one of those people who created christianity you describe as "power hungry creeps", a lot of them knowing Christ in their lifetime personally when He walked the earth, that made those claims were tortured and killed for it and they did not renounce it even in the face of that.

I believe the Roman Emperors saw an amazing opportunity to appropriate the religion that was turning the empire on its head and spreading beyond its borders all over the globe into the Empire proper and thus gain a way of controlling it. Thus the unholy alliance of church and state was born.

nihilist
8th August 14, 06:28 PM
Do you know what circular reasoning is?
Really sounds like you don't.

resolve
8th August 14, 06:32 PM
Irony.

nihilist
8th August 14, 06:45 PM
Explain how you would tell the difference between a Christianity that was created by man and a Christianity that was created by a divine being.

nihilist
8th August 14, 06:46 PM
I don't expect a logical answer out of you by the way.

resolve
8th August 14, 06:52 PM
The people making the extraordinary claim of the resurrection would probably not have elected to be tortured in the various and sundry ways they were if they did not renounce Christ.

It makes no sense to make something up to "gain power and control over people" and then instantly get tortured and then martyred for it, and continue to get martyred and tortured for it for 100's of years on end. Kind of seems counter productive no?

nihilist
8th August 14, 06:57 PM
I know people who pay women to kick them in the balls. There are people who lay on beds of nails. There are people who slice their skin with razor blades. There are people who put guns to their heads and blow their brains out.
Kind of seems counterproductive, no?

resolve
8th August 14, 06:57 PM
One of these things is not like the other.

nihilist
8th August 14, 07:00 PM
Are you saying that people that get kicked in the balls aren't mentally ill?

resolve
8th August 14, 07:03 PM
There's a pretty big difference between individuals harming themselves or seeking harm to themselves because of 'reasons' and a large group of disciples all witnessing Jesus' resurrection and walking around on the Earth after His death before the ascension and then, as you propose, lying about it to create a system of power and control then all getting offed and tortured for it.

nihilist
8th August 14, 07:36 PM
The alleged large group was the assertion of one author. This talk of an ascension is pure unproven fantasy.
Plenty of people have martyred themselves for one cause or another. Correlation is not causation no matter how hard your fevered little brain wants it to be.

Adouglasmhor
9th August 14, 04:18 AM
The people making the extraordinary claim of the resurrection would probably not have elected to be tortured in the various and sundry ways they were if they did not renounce Christ.

It makes no sense to make something up to "gain power and control over people" and then instantly get tortured and then martyred for it, and continue to get martyred and tortured for it for 100's of years on end. Kind of seems counter productive no?
I know of people who did not recant communism under torture, Islam under torture and people who did not confess crimes under torture. What is your point.

Adouglasmhor
9th August 14, 04:19 AM
Are you saying that people that get kicked in the balls aren't mentally ill?

Do either of you think I am mentally ill and that my masochism has anything to do with it?

resolve
9th August 14, 08:41 AM
I know of people who did not recant communism under torture, Islam under torture and people who did not confess crimes under torture. What is your point.

People who commit crimes have a reason not to confess (ie less punishment if they do or a clean name for inheritance et cetera).
People who have not recanted a view in recent times is different as a lot of it has to do with identity and the knowledge they have available.

The people who started christianity were there to witness the events. These were Jews and some Gentiles who had every reason to say "ok no I'm not dying or suffering for this shit we made up" if they just made it up for "power and control" as goes the meme.

Their identities were already other than what they were trying to profess. These were adults who grew up as Jews and Pagans and had only recently converted due to what they had seen Jesus do. They had the knowledge available to them directly of whether it was made up or not.

nihilist
9th August 14, 10:05 AM
Christianity started as an oral history and was concocted from thousands of stories. There is no way to tell what is bullshit and what is truth. I can only tell you as someone looking at it from the outside is that most of it seems ridiculous, manipulative, and contradictory. It's the same feeling I get when I watch someone trying to smash the wrong jigsaw puzzle piece into place.

nihilist
9th August 14, 10:08 AM
Do either of you think I am mentally ill and that my masochism has anything to do with it?

I will say that you seem to possess a pain threshold high enough to be a prospective Christian.

resolve
9th August 14, 10:55 AM
Christianity started as an oral history and was concocted from thousands of stories.

You have no proof of that and the proof you have posited forward from books was largely from authors who used supposition as their main arguments.

The New Testament scriptures themselves were written down as accounts of those who walked and talked with Yeshua during their lifetimes. Jesus died and resurrected in ~33ad and the earliest scripture is purported to have been written down in ~35 ad (sayings of Christ during His ministry) and the gospels as a whole in 70 ad onward in witness testimonial style. The disciples and apostles who were mentioned in the gospels had their life accounts and those of their converts written down by Paul in Acts and many of their letters were directly saved and written down. Most of the disciples of Jesus were believed to have been younger than Him, so it is not absurd that someone would have their witness testimonial of Christ written down at age 50.

It's interesting to note how secular scholars say Matthew was supposedly written in AD 70 (the year of the massacre of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple by Titus) and that there is the prophecy of the destruction of the temple and the invasion of the Romans and for people to flee. The christians survived by fleeing while the Jews got massacred. So how did they know to flee if the prophecy wasn't already being spread around


Epiphanes also attested to the Christian escape, according to Bible scholar Adam Clarke. The latter wrote: “It is very remarkable that not a single Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, though there were many there when Cestius Gallus invested the city; and, had he persevered in the siege, he would soon have rendered himself master of it; but, when he unexpectedly and unaccountably raised the siege, the Christians took that opportunity to escape. …

“[As] Vespasian was approaching with his army, all who believed in Christ left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, and other places beyond the river Jordan; and so they all marvellously escaped the general shipwreck of their country: not one of them perished.” 4

Pella must not have been the only destination of fleeing Christians, but it was the most prominent at the time. The flight to Pella took place in A.D. 66 during the attack by Gallus.

Four years later came the fall of Jerusalem. Titus laid siege to the capital, and his battering rams broke down the great walls. The Jews, who were already suffering from plunder, murder, pestilence, and famine among themselves, were easy prey for the fire and swords of the Tenth Roman Legion.

The Master’s chilling words concerning the fate of the temple in Jerusalem were completely fulfilled: “Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Mark 13:2.) The building the Lord called “my house” (Matt. 21:13) had stood on “immense foundations of solid blocks of white marble covered with gold.” 5 Some of the blocks were 67 1/2 feet long by 9 feet thick. The temple towered 100 feet into the air, fronted by two immense columns. The imposing structure was laid waste, with no part of the building left intact. Only a part of the original wall that had surrounded the temple mount remained.

Jesus had given adequate warning, and those who heeded the prophecies survived, while most others perished. Pella continued as an important Christian center for more than seventy years, during the time that Jerusalem remained desolate. Extensive ruins of Pella lie near the modern village Tabaqat Fahl in the northern foothills of the Jordan Valley—perhaps the “mountains” Jesus referred to—fifty-three miles north of Amman and two and a half miles east of the Jordan River.


None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls; and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after A.D. 70. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events, then anything to bolster the Messianic claims--such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said--would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before A.D. 70.


Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke and by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A.D. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. We add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of [the apostle] James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke's patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.
"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book - Festus's appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
"It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before A.D.50, and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed, then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

nihilist
9th August 14, 03:24 PM
Jesus was a lower-class preacher from Galilee, who, in good apocalyptic fashion, proclaimed that the end of history as he knew it was going to come to a crashing end, within his own generation. God was soon to intervene in the course of worldly affairs to overthrow the forces of evil and set up a utopian kingdom on earth. And he would be the king.

It didn't happen. Instead of being involved with the destruction of God's enemies, Jesus was unceremoniously crushed by them: arrested, tried, humiliated, tortured, and publicly executed. And yet, remarkably, soon afterwards his followers began to say that -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- Jesus really was the messiah sent from God. More than that, he was actually a divine being, not a mere human. And not just any divine being. He was the Creator of the universe. After long debates among themselves they decided that he was not secondary to the one God of Israel, the Lord God Almighty himself. On the contrary, he was fully equal with God; he had always existed for eternity with God; he was of the same essence as God; he was a member of the Trinity.

nihilist
9th August 14, 03:29 PM
How did that happen? How did we get from a Jewish apocalyptic preacher -- who ended up on the wrong side of the law and was crucified for his efforts -- to the Creator of all things and All-powerful Lord? How did Jesus become God?

That's the question I address in my book, and I think it's an inordinately important one, not just for Christians who personally believe that Jesus really is God, but for all of us, whether believers or non-believers, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists: all of us who are interested (as well we ought to be) in the history of Western Civilization. It is not hard to make the argument that if Jesus had never been declared God, our form of civilization would have been unalterably and indescribably different.

Here is why. If Jesus had never been pronounced a divine being, his followers would have remained a sect within Judaism, a small group of Jews who thought that Jesus had delivered the correct interpretation of the Jewish law. Gentiles would not have converted to follow Jesus any more than they converted to any other form of Judaism. If the religion had not become predominantly Gentile it would not have seen such a steady and remarkable growth, almost entirely with Gentile converts, over the next three hundred years, when it came to encompass something like five per cent of the Empire. If Christianity were not a large and viable religion by the beginning of the fourth century, the emperor Constantine would almost certainly not have converted to it. If Constantine had not converted, masses of former pagans would not have accepted the faith in his wake. The empire would not have become predominantly Christian. The Christian religion would not have been made the official religion of the state. The Christian church would never have become the dominant religious, cultural, social, political, and economic force of the West. We never would have had the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, or Modernity as we know it. And most of us would still be pagans.

All these developments hinged on the declaration that Jesus was God. So what happened that transformed the crucified peasant, Jesus, into the Lord who created heaven and earth? The answers are not obvious or straightforward, and my book will contain surprises for believers and non-believers alike.

Many believers - at least very conservative evangelical Christians and others who have not had much contact with biblical scholarship - will be surprised to learn that Jesus did not spend his preaching ministry in Galilee proclaiming that he was the second member of the Trinity. In fact, as I argue in the book, the followers of Jesus had no inkling that he was divine until after his death. What changed their views was the belief, which blind-sided them at first, that Jesus had been raised from the dead. And why did they come to believe that? Here another surprise is in store. It had nothing to do with the discovery of an empty tomb three days after his death. The disciples probably didn't discover an empty tomb. There probably wasn't a tomb.

The followers of Jesus came to think he had been raised because some of them (probably not all of them) had visions of him afterwards. Both Christian and non-Christian historians can agree that it was visions of Jesus that made some of Jesus' followers convinced that he was no longer dead. Christians would say that the disciples had these visions because Jesus really appeared to them. Non-Christians would say that (several of ) the disciples had hallucinations. Hallucinations happen all the time. Especially of deceased loved ones (your grandmother who turns up in your bedroom) and of significant religious figures (the Blessed Virgin Mary, who appears regularly in extraordinarily well-documented events). Jesus was both a lost loved one and an important religious leader. As bereaved, heartbroken, and guilt-ridden followers, the disciples were prime candidates for such visionary experiences.

Once the disciples claimed Jesus was alive again but was (obviously) no longer here with them, they came to think that he had been taken up to heaven (where else could he be?). In ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish thinking, a person exalted to the heavenly realm was divinized - himself made divine. That's what the earliest Christians thought about Jesus. After that a set of evolutionary forces took over, in which the followers of Jesus began saying more and more exalted things about him - that he had been made the son of God at his resurrection; no, it was at his baptism; no, it was at his birth; no, it was before he came into the world; no - he had never been made the son of God, he had always been the Son of God; in fact, he had always been God; more than that, he had created the world; and yet more, he was an eternal being equal with God Almighty.

It's a fascinating set of developments. It is highly important. And it matters not just for those who believe that the followers of Jesus got it right, but for anyone who cares about the factors that shaped the world we live in today.