![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We get letters (updated)
Ryan, the founder of Concientious Traveller, discovered the first piece I wrote.
He takes exceptions, and saw fit to send them to me. (you really ought to go and see the responses he's sent me)
He's offended that I said this was a scam, and asks what my problem is with his enterprise.
Ok, here are my specific problems: it's an insane idea which can never work; a mad enterprise which will, if actually undertaken, be lucky to end no more badly than a bunch of people in prison in someplace unpleasant.
That's the short version.
The long version.
What he is proposing is illegal. It's kidnapping people. To make it worse it's then taking them to some other place and making them prisoners of a different sort. They won't be refugees. They won't legally be allowed to go anyplace (except, pehaps, the place from whence they were stolen away). They will be at the mercy of those who stole them. It may be with the best of intentions, but that's what he proposes.
He claims to want to turn these girls into some sort of political players, people who will go home and reform the places from whence they came.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
When asked about getting passports for them (so they may attend university) the it goes like this:
Q: "But just because they are accepted to a university in Europe or the US doesn't mean that they'll be allowed to take up permanent residence. (How do you even propose to establish these children's identities, get birth certificates, passports etc., that will allow them to travel?)"
A: I never said they would. Now your asking very detailed information and it's not going to be answered, one as I don't deal with this part and secondly as this is not for public forums.
Not inspiring.
If he manages to kidnap some girls, they will be, at best (if all the madcap schemes work), like Ahmad Chalabi, seen as puppets for someone else's interest. At worst, they will go home, preach his brand of world reformation, and be locked up/killed, for being a threat to the gov't/society.
I'd love to see places like Burma become better places. Does anyone think I know enough about the situation to collect a bunch of "sex slaves" from Burma, take them to an island, where I've brought some others from Thailand, Laos, the Dominican Republic, etc, train them all; in, I assume, the same philosophical underpinnings of how the word ought to be (that's why I chose Plato's "Philosopher King" analogy, and they will be able to go home, to a society they were never fully a part of, and take over? All the while running a nature preserve and breeding up endangered animals to repopulate in the wild (I really like that touch, it gets the warm-fuzzie sorts of the "save the planet" sorts to buy into this).
No.
His responses elsewhere (this has become so my father tells me, a huge discussion at CouchSurfing because he's trying to recruit people to help him market Concientious Traveller, by selling them on the "altruistic" works of the subsidaries which will change the world by kidnapping children in the sex trade and brainwashing them into political missionaries for his utopic vision of a future world) don't make me feel any better about this.
Which was the other stuff, packed in there, which disturbing me.
What about the white girls in the same boat. There are women in, Japan Israel, Korea, and, I am sure, a few more places, who were lured with offers of jobs, and then forced into being prostitutes. I don't see mention of this.
I think it's because they are adults. Because they aren't likely to be pliable enough to be brainwashed into thinking they are going to be the salvation of the world.
I don't think it's concious version of the "White Man's Burden" and going out to help the poor, backwards Orientals join the civilised world, but that does seem to be part of the driving mindset.
I don't like the sex trade. I think the commodification of people is horrid. Going off on a vigilante raid to kidnap them, and then, "rehabilitate" them, much less training them to be advocates of his agenda, well... No.
That's at least as bad.
He takes exceptions, and saw fit to send them to me. (you really ought to go and see the responses he's sent me)
He's offended that I said this was a scam, and asks what my problem is with his enterprise.
Ok, here are my specific problems: it's an insane idea which can never work; a mad enterprise which will, if actually undertaken, be lucky to end no more badly than a bunch of people in prison in someplace unpleasant.
That's the short version.
The long version.
What he is proposing is illegal. It's kidnapping people. To make it worse it's then taking them to some other place and making them prisoners of a different sort. They won't be refugees. They won't legally be allowed to go anyplace (except, pehaps, the place from whence they were stolen away). They will be at the mercy of those who stole them. It may be with the best of intentions, but that's what he proposes.
He claims to want to turn these girls into some sort of political players, people who will go home and reform the places from whence they came.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
When asked about getting passports for them (so they may attend university) the it goes like this:
Q: "But just because they are accepted to a university in Europe or the US doesn't mean that they'll be allowed to take up permanent residence. (How do you even propose to establish these children's identities, get birth certificates, passports etc., that will allow them to travel?)"
A: I never said they would. Now your asking very detailed information and it's not going to be answered, one as I don't deal with this part and secondly as this is not for public forums.
Not inspiring.
If he manages to kidnap some girls, they will be, at best (if all the madcap schemes work), like Ahmad Chalabi, seen as puppets for someone else's interest. At worst, they will go home, preach his brand of world reformation, and be locked up/killed, for being a threat to the gov't/society.
I'd love to see places like Burma become better places. Does anyone think I know enough about the situation to collect a bunch of "sex slaves" from Burma, take them to an island, where I've brought some others from Thailand, Laos, the Dominican Republic, etc, train them all; in, I assume, the same philosophical underpinnings of how the word ought to be (that's why I chose Plato's "Philosopher King" analogy, and they will be able to go home, to a society they were never fully a part of, and take over? All the while running a nature preserve and breeding up endangered animals to repopulate in the wild (I really like that touch, it gets the warm-fuzzie sorts of the "save the planet" sorts to buy into this).
No.
His responses elsewhere (this has become so my father tells me, a huge discussion at CouchSurfing because he's trying to recruit people to help him market Concientious Traveller, by selling them on the "altruistic" works of the subsidaries which will change the world by kidnapping children in the sex trade and brainwashing them into political missionaries for his utopic vision of a future world) don't make me feel any better about this.
Which was the other stuff, packed in there, which disturbing me.
What about the white girls in the same boat. There are women in, Japan Israel, Korea, and, I am sure, a few more places, who were lured with offers of jobs, and then forced into being prostitutes. I don't see mention of this.
I think it's because they are adults. Because they aren't likely to be pliable enough to be brainwashed into thinking they are going to be the salvation of the world.
I don't think it's concious version of the "White Man's Burden" and going out to help the poor, backwards Orientals join the civilised world, but that does seem to be part of the driving mindset.
I don't like the sex trade. I think the commodification of people is horrid. Going off on a vigilante raid to kidnap them, and then, "rehabilitate" them, much less training them to be advocates of his agenda, well... No.
That's at least as bad.
Re: Founder Response
Part of why it is is that you don't listen to yourself. You say you understand that I appreciate how difficult it is. In the next sentence you sweep that under the rug.
Intelligence is cheap; the question isn't how smart they are, but how much they understand. Lots of intelligent people bought into Enron. A lot of intelligent people bought into Maggie Thatcher privatising things.
Both of those worked out a peach, didn't they?
I don't care about "looking" ridiculous; I care about the foolhardiness of this, and that you are probably going to convince some number of people to waste time, effort and money.
If I agreed with you, then you'd have some point. Since I don't (and have said so quite a bit) trying to shame me into silence, with the "invisble others" who are thinking less of me? So what. I don't know them, they don't know me.
Which would have been something you might have taken into consideration before you tried to persuade me. Because everyone (all, 700, or so) who reads this, now has more than my interpretation of your ideas; they have your defenses.
I don't think you've been persuasive.
TK
Re: Founder Response
(Anonymous) 2007-07-06 07:44 am (UTC)(link)you insult me at every juncture, yet I simply try to answer your concerns.
Is this the best things for the girls, or for you to be argueing like this. Not debating which could actually achieve somethign more if lookedat in a better way.
I don't shame anyone, it svery obvious what i am doing, it's written ad spoken about in he site. I have also offered for you to have the info on the SEA Island and minister, yet you have not sent me an email. Why?
No one contacted e about you. I'm happy 700 people have seen this post, as from your side, you are taking away those who would not be involved and demeaning those that would.
So either way, you either strenghten my position by weakening yours, or you have people who are sheep to your opinion, based on your estimation of people making thier own decisions.
I'm asking you to think more about this, suggest a better way for me to help these girls.
You critisize Maggies government, and Enron, both huge things.... yet you compare me to both? You also speka of lobbying government after critisizing it.
I do understand your point, but really, suggest some alternatives more than lobbying overnment.
As you are in the Army, you have served in Iraq as I understand by your writings. Some of them I enjoyed to read, do you agree with the actions of the British and american governments being there? If not, why are you? If you do agree, why? I would personaly simply like to know, it is a seperate question to all of my things.
Ryan