Let them die. They're hungry for a reason. If you can't afford to have children (third-worlders) then don't!
4% of the bailout can end world hunger
- Thread starter Civickiller80
- Start date
:rofl2: Thats so ridiculous, you actually have to laugh at it because there is no way of taking it seriously.
I need to borrow $30, or else I won't be able to pay my electric bill, causing all of the food in my refrigerator to go bad, leaving me with nothing to eat. Give me $30, because it's your responsibility to help everyone who needs it and right now, I need it. Gimme, gimme, gimme!
Yes, the BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars that we have given other countries is nothing more than a myth.
We come first, or at least we should. If your child was hungry, but your neighbor's child was even hungrier, who would you feed first?
Just because you don't sacrifice everything little thing that you have in order to help somebody doesn't mean that you don't have a heart. I have a son. I would do absolutely anything for my son, no matter what I would have to sacrifice. Do I feel terrible that there are other children out there that have little food to eat, little shelter to keep them warm and little love to support them? Abso-fucking-lutely. But, do I feel as if it is my responsibility to take care of every single child that walks the face of the earth? Fuck no.
My responsibility is my son. Not my neighbor's son, or somebody's son in Ethiopa...MY son.
No, it would still be MY responsibility to feed him. Since it is my responsibility to feed him, I am making sure that, just in case I do end up in a situation where I "can't" feed him (loss of job, etc), I will have enough money saved up in order to take care of him.
I know that other countries have a smaller food supply than the United States and that there are people that are starving, but how is that our responsibility? Those countries have been like that for eons, but nothing is changing. So, no matter how much help we give them, they are still going to ask us for more. Where does it end?
Large families are a source of security and wealth in many third world countries, NOT the poverty and starvation which seems to be suggested in this thread.
In the developed world, if you sire a lot of children, you have a greater burden on you, since you have many more mouths to feed. Until children reach the age of 16-18, they're typically financially dependent on you. In developing countries, the opposite is true - a large family means more productive members of the household, and that means the family has a better chance of a stable, prosperous future.
The 'global population crisis' is something of a myth anyway, at least in the way the arguments are usually framed. The vast, vast majority of countries are capable of being self sufficient at their current population levels.
The world hunger problem is down to WAR and CORRUPTION. If the developed world stopped arming all these little tyrants, and if more people in these developing countries could learned to respect the rule of law, then famine might genuinely become a thing of the past.
In the developed world, if you sire a lot of children, you have a greater burden on you, since you have many more mouths to feed. Until children reach the age of 16-18, they're typically financially dependent on you. In developing countries, the opposite is true - a large family means more productive members of the household, and that means the family has a better chance of a stable, prosperous future.
The 'global population crisis' is something of a myth anyway, at least in the way the arguments are usually framed. The vast, vast majority of countries are capable of being self sufficient at their current population levels.
The world hunger problem is down to WAR and CORRUPTION. If the developed world stopped arming all these little tyrants, and if more people in these developing countries could learned to respect the rule of law, then famine might genuinely become a thing of the past.
Namreg
Banned
i don't think they ask you or even expect that it is your responisbility, the problem is rather that people in countries like ethiopia are simply not in a position to have jobs or obtain food in any way.
i think wanting to help others is natural, something that is taught by every religion (and buddhism); though of course we must make sure that we ourselves are OK first.
i would pull someone out of a river if i had to, you would just let them drown because it's not your responsibilty and you expensive clothes might get wet. just hope you never fall into a river, and someone like yourself is the only person in a position to help you...
i think wanting to help others is natural, something that is taught by every religion (and buddhism); though of course we must make sure that we ourselves are OK first.
i would pull someone out of a river if i had to, you would just let them drown because it's not your responsibilty and you expensive clothes might get wet. just hope you never fall into a river, and someone like yourself is the only person in a position to help you...
What is your definition of "ok?" Is it healthy, alive, sheltered and well-fed? Everybody has a different defintion of "ok".
Personally, I don't think that just because I or my son is healthy, alive, sheltered and well-fed, that it makes us "ok" at all. What about tomorrow? What about the day after that? What about the day after that and the day after that and the...ah, you get it.
You're comparing my clothes to my child's life? Obviously you don't have children.
I would totally agree with the first half of your post on why developed countries have lower birth rates in general than the whats called undeveloped ones do.
But would have to really disagree with the 2nd half about their not being a population crisis.I will post a link that lays out just how the world is at about 3 times right now a sustainable level of population,but its not just a question of raw numbers eithier but what impact populations are having.In other words lets compare a country like the US to china which has roughly 4 times the population but yet the US consumes much more resources especially energy and has much more enviormental impact.This is really the underlying force and problem that is driving things like climate change etc.Its not only how many people there are but how they live, consuming so much and having so much impact.The rest of the world is now rapidly catching up on the developed world on consumption of resources and having an impact level closer to ours, and that will just make any hope of not only reducing things like Co2 levels but even not seeing massive growth in levels increased almost out of the question.Some will dismiss my site as left wing propaganda etc but really I think the facts put there are pretty clear and hard to argue with, and would say if you do a goggle search on global population you will find several links that say the same thing (that we are in a crisis and headed for a cataclysmic problem with it) but not one that says we are ok and have nothing to worry about as far as population goes.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/index.php
my guess is you haven't read anything by professional philosophers who argue for donating large portions of your income to charity or taking on a sense of care for others in need through various ways.
i didn't say the u.s. doesn't give any money in aid to other countries, i simply said it is a myth that the u.s. seriously attempts to deal with problems around the world. part of the reason this is a myth is because the u.s. has helped repress third world peasants and workers movements. land reform would go a long way toward ending hunger but regimes or movements that propose land reform are usually dismissed by the u.s. who is more interested in third world countries exporting cash crops. you really should check some of this stuff out instead of typing BILLIONS and GIMME and RESPONSIBILITY.
With the way globalization is structured and with the current technological capacity of economic production, there is no need to make some triage decision about "who comes first." THERE IS ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE.
whoever ever said it is your responsibility to take care of every single child? it's not and that is not the issue. the issue has already been clearly stated by me and others. if you really have a heart you wouldn't spout out this jingoist rhetoric which shows no ability to evolve past the anachronism of nationalism. chew on that one for a while.
it's only your responsibility because you choose it to be your responsibility. you could easily decide you are also responsible for helping others who are in need because they have to deal with such shitty circumstances whereas you are relatively privileged largely through being given the chance opportunity of being born in a wealthy country.
Those countries have been like that for eons? That's a really ignorant statement. You really sound like a typical american asshole who doesn't know shit but is foolishly fervent in their convictions. It's really sad when you think about it, but i guess you are not the thinking type.
I will only address this portion of your post(s)...
My girlfriend died while she gave birth to my son. Care to rephrase that statement now?
It's my son. Whether I like it or not, my son is my responsibility. Lucky for me and lucky for my son, I love having him as a responsibility. I consider it an honor to be a parent and I will never expect anybody else to help me raise my son. He is my son and I will take care of him.
My girlfriend died while she gave birth to my son. Care to rephrase that statement now?
It's my son. Whether I like it or not, my son is my responsibility. Lucky for me and lucky for my son, I love having him as a responsibility. I consider it an honor to be a parent and I will never expect anybody else to help me raise my son. He is my son and I will take care of him.
actually no i won't rephrase because you didn't grasp the essence of my original point which was that you have to make a choice whether you take on responsibilities. to be specific, you could just give your kid up for adoption or kill your kid or some other means which would end your responsibility. or you could just keep your kid but not take very good care of them and hence it wouldn't be such a responsibility for you.
by all means, take care of your son. i'm not telling you that you shouldn't. i am only saying that if you truly have a heart you wouldn't sound like a flag waving hick who doesn't know shit about fuck.
You are a fucking moron.
You claim that my child isn't my responsibility, but then you say that I could do things to END my responsibility, which can only mean that I HAD a responsibility in the first place.
I'm done with you.
no, YOU'RE the fucking moron. you only have a responsibility because you choose to have one, which must be the third time now i said that. you could choose to not have the responsibility just like you could choose to take on a sense of caring/responsibility for others if you were so inclined. it's not that hard to understand unless you are dense.
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
Please read the rules about personal attacks.
Rather breath and count to 10 first before posting.
It isn't really US or any gov responsibility to end world hunger. Not any more. For decades now the Scandinavian countries, the UK, the USA, even China lately have poured trillions of dollars of aid into developing countries.
It is better to teach someone how to plough than to give him fiscal handouts.
Now that Zim has a new PM, maybe some of the horror effected there will be reversed.
Just for a laugh I posted this. Even the f*ckers face makes me laugh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7891761.stm
Shout Viva Viva, starve and oh now where's the US and UK to help us?
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
The U.S. has been the biggest contributor for years upon years. Hell, we dropped care packages in Afghanistan right alongside bombs. Wasted money, if you ask me. Give them some farm tools and rice and a few months later they could be self-sustaining. That's as much help as I could hope to volunteer.
Similar threads
