Don't Let That Earthquake Spoil Your Caribbean Vacation!

[AvalonXQ]

My wife and I took a Caribbean cruise for our honeymoon last year. If something like this had happened at one of our planned stops I think we would have wanted to continue our trip unmolested -- although if the ship had provided some opportunity to contribute materially or financially to the relief effort, we almost certainly would have.
I'm not sure what exactly the benefit of cancelling the stop would be.

 

[Walter Ego]

Where do you vacation, just out of curiousity?

DR

My job doesn't allow me long vacations but when I have a few extra days off I take day trips to the Georgia and South Carolina coast or to the mountains in North Georgia. I've been to Chicago and Washington, D.C. other places and I had enough of trips to Florida as a child to want to go there again.

Give the time and the leisure (and the money) I'd probably stick to the U.S. or Europe.

I wouldn't waste my money on a cruise if that's what you're asking. Pigging out on hourly buffets is not my idea of a good time. But why is this important?

 

[Walter Ego]

Ah, so you are turning your personal discomfort into outrage at those whom you feel are not showing the proper respect for suffering. Because, proximity to suffering is all that's important. If you're far enough away then it doesn't matter.

I have no personal discomfort because I'm not vacationing in Haiti. But don't you think it's a little bizarre to vacation in a disaster zone where thousands of people may be dead or homeless? I'm sure the armed guards will keep the "discomfort" away for those who didn't cancel, though. What would keep you away from your "no refund" deposit-paid vacation? Armed insurrection?
The plague?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I have no personal discomfort because I'm not vacationing in Haiti.

Right, and that's the fallacy -- why should someone vacationing close to the disaster feel more discomfort than someone who's vacationing somewhere else?

 

[Walter Ego]

Can I ask just what in the world is the reference to Limbaugh for here at all? You are citing a story about him from years ago, while talking about this current situation. Maybe I am missing something here?

I threw Rush in because he's the sort of pig who would vacation in a disaster zone (and being rich he wouldn't have the excuse he couldn't get his deposit back from the travel agent) and he was busted coming back from Santa Domingo which is on the same island as Haiti.

Yeah, it was a cheap shot. I guess we could start a new about the degenerate if you'd like.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I threw Rush in because he's the sort of pig who would vacation in a disaster zone

... and yet you still can't answer the question: What's wrong with vacationing near a disaster?

 

[Walter Ego]

Right, and that's the fallacy -- why should someone vacationing close to the disaster feel more discomfort than someone who's vacationing somewhere else?

I see no fallacy here. Haiti is not "close" to the the disaster zone it is the disaster zone, though (once again), the port of call is a gated resort patrolled by armed guards which would keep the "discomfort" at bay, I'm sure.

I guess it would depend on how close to the death, destruction and suffering you are on your vacation... or how callus you are.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Haiti is not "close" to the the disaster zone it is the disaster zone,

No. Parts of Haiti are the disaster zone. Parts of Haiti (including the location of the cruise ship) are reportedly undamaged.
Again, I don't see how your proximity to disaster changes the morality of taking a vacation. Especially considering how easy it is for you to contribute to the Haitian relief effort from right here in the States.

 

[Walter Ego]

No. Parts of Haiti are the disaster zone. Parts of Haiti (including the location of the cruise ship) are reportedly undamaged.
Again, I don't see how your proximity to disaster changes the morality of taking a vacation. Especially considering how easy it is for you to contribute to the Haitian relief effort from right here in the States.

I don't think we're going to agree on anything here (and today is my day off and I have other things to do) but you seem to be saying if your vacation "proximity" to death and suffering is not too close to spoil your fun, it's "okay" and no moral issues are involved.

And I don't know what point you're making about contributing to Haitian relief from the safety of the U.S.

Or are you taking the same tact as Royal Caribbean International CEO by saying getting your hair braided or buying straw baskets from the Haitians who survived and who came to work is contributing to the disaster relief?

Answer if you wish but don't expect an immediate reply.

 

[Dragonrock]

Walter, you are yet to explain why vacationing near a disaster area is somehow amoral. And what is the minimum distance to allow for a guilt free vacation?

 

[fuelair]

I hear (didn't see it) that a local working in the tourist industry was interviewed by Dutch TV. He was asked about his indignation about all those tourists still coming of those cruise ships. The guy got seriously pissed off. He's one of the few people making a decent living there and now the overly moral Europeans are making his clientèle feel guilty about ordering cocktails from him.

He told the journalists to sod off and stop ruining his business.

As for Mr. Limbaugh:

Unlike Mr Limbaugh, I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to use drugs for fun.

Actually, the old arse entire agrees with you - as long as you are wealthy and get them by paying off doctors and buy them through pharmacies that don't check the prescriptions for the wealthy all that thoroughly!!!

 

[kerikiwi]

I see no fallacy here. Haiti is not "close" to the the disaster zone it is the disaster zone, though (once again), the port of call is a gated resort patrolled by armed guards which would keep the "discomfort" at bay, I'm sure.

I guess it would depend on how close to the death, destruction and suffering you are on your vacation... or how callus you are.

How close is too close? Seriously. Would it be acceptable to call in if the port of call were not gated?
Preventing people from making a living will in no way ease the plight of those more directly affected by the earthquake. In fact it will only exacerbate the disaster.
What do you expect those who survived unharmed to do?
Stop making a living and turn to relief to maintain them and their families?

 

[Checkmite]

Or are you taking the same tact as Royal Caribbean International CEO by saying getting your hair braided or buying straw baskets from the Haitians who survived and who came to work is contributing to the disaster relief?

I believe I will take the same "tact". If I already paid for the trip, I don't see why vacationing in Haiti now, after the earthquake, is suddenly "immoral". If anything, it makes buying straw baskets and getting your hair braided a bit more meaningful. It IS contributing to the disaster relief - in a much more personal way, I think. It's putting money directly in a victim's hand, as opposed to buying a box of rice that (to tell from all the reports) will get no closer to ANY victim than the airport tarmac. I think even the mere suggestion that somebody who managed by chance to survive and is able to attempt some semblance of a normal existence is somehow less worthy than someone else of any kind of assistance to be positively monstrous. Those vendors come to work every day because they're counting on help from the cruise line and the tourists.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But why is this important?

Context for your remarks. Thanks.

DR

 

[Neally]

I don't think we're going to agree on anything here (and today is my day off and I have other things to do) but you seem to be saying if your vacation "proximity" to death and suffering is not too close to spoil your fun, it's "okay" and no moral issues are involved.

YOU are saying that if your vacation is too close to death it is morally bad. Yet you refuse to expand and explain the rational of this position and exactly how far away one has to be for it to be morally acceptable. Further you keep repeating about guards and fences keeping out looters as if it is something evil--that enjoying a vacation that helps the local economy to a degree is evil.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Because the closer you are, the easier it is to help. The easier it is to help, the more you look like a selfish git when you, instead of helping, sit on your butt and relax while people who are dying can see you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Because the closer you are, the easier it is to help. The easier it is to help, the more you look like a selfish git when you, instead of helping, sit on your butt and relax while people who are dying can see you.

So in other words, the problem is that it looks bad.
Personally, I think the Royal Caribbean customers are behaving properly.

 

[Denver]

Letter sent out from Royal Carribean:

...The first objectives were relatively straightforward. We could and did provide immediate tangible assistance by transporting supplies of water, food and medical supplies on our ships. So far, we have already delivered over 120 pallets of material to the stricken country and more is on its way in the holds of our ships. The situation is so dire that even our lounge chairs have proven useful - in Haiti, they make a real contribution as hospital beds.

...Bringing our guests to Haiti could be characterized by some as insensitive to the suffering of the Haiti people in the rest of the country, and we wrestled with this sentiment ourselves. After the government of Haiti asked us to continue to call on Labadee, there really was no choice; bypassing Haiti would do more harm to an already ravaged people by taking away essential income from our employees and their families. The Haitians told us they were desperate for our return and we couldn't refuse. This plea came from all levels: from government officials to taxi drivers. It even came from UN representatives.

Full text

While I expect there is some spin in that article, I think it's true RCCL is still able to do more good than not by continuing their cruise stop there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you a fat rich white guy with Viagra in your pocket? There's no need to let that earthquake in Haiti spoil your Caribbean vacation!

As a Royal Caribbean cruise passenger you can visit sunny, beautiful Labadee Beach, a walled resort only 60 miles from the epicenter of the quake. You can enjoy pristine beaches, breathtaking scenery and native charm while armed guards patrol the perimeter, even under "normal" conditions!

Don't let that non-refundable deposit with your travel agent go to waste!

http://www.sphere.com/world/article...-ships-dock-in-post-earthquake-haiti/19321187

http://www.sphere.com/world/article...-ships-dock-in-post-earthquake-haiti/19321187

You know that the 50 million dollar resort is the largest foreign invenstment in the nation right? And that the cruise ships are dropping off all the excess supplies and bringing extra supplies into the country right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I see no fallacy here. Haiti is not "close" to the the disaster zone it is the disaster zone, though (once again), the port of call is a gated resort patrolled by armed guards which would keep the "discomfort" at bay, I'm sure.

I guess it would depend on how close to the death, destruction and suffering you are on your vacation... or how callus you are.

Why does proximity make someone more callous? Why is a carribean cruise that is dropping supplies off on the island more callous than a trip to say australia that will in no way benefit the people of haiti?