4% of the bailout can end world hunger
- Thread starter Civickiller80
- Start date
do you realize how fascist it is to have rules about what someone can say? i guess that concept goes over your head.
whatever aid is given is a fraction of what could be given. instead enormous amounts are wasted by wealthy countries on frivolous things. you really have to look at each specific country where there are people facing problems of hunger and ask what the cause is. some countries have food surpluses but there is not enough money for people to access it because capitalism functions on cash and not need.
other countries have huge debt burdens that were accumulated by dictators the u.s. and other powers supported. now the people in those countries have to pay back debt with interest that they are unjustifiably burdened with. this is because of the types of policies the World Bank and IMF manipulate third world countries into accepting. now if the u.s. and other major powers are responsible for supporting dictators who rape their country and do nothing about land reform, like in south africa for example, the u.s. can then be seen as responsible for what goes on to the extent they make serious efforts to prop up regimes that are exploitative, like saudi arabia as another example.
the problem is people don't think these things through. they tend to just throw around rhetoric about responsibility and bullshit about how people have been starving for eons. i mean come on. use your brain a little. i tried to explain the problem with this responsibility crap. you choose what responsibilities you want to take on. you say it's not the governments responsibility to end world hunger. well if not them, then who? capitalism will feed you if you can pay for it, which many can't. charities are limited. governments are corrupt but if people are not going to organize among themselves to help others, then no one is going to be helped. if the third world people rise up in their own country, like in vietnam for example, they are bombed into oblivion by outside powers like france and u.s.
people need to not be bombed, not taught how to plough. people need access to land and educational opportunities, not taught how to plough. people need the generosity of foreign citizens who instead blow their cash on things like porn and milkshakes with 2,000 calories in them. it's a sick world i tell ya.
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
And on that cheerful note....
A recent poll by the Program for International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland showed that most Americans still imagine that 20 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. In reality, less than 1 percent of the budget is for foreign aid, and only about one-third of that is development assistance.
U.S. development aid has declined steadily over the past 15 years. The U.S. now ranks last among the 22 industrialized countries in percentage of national income given away in development aid: less than 0.1 percent. Tiny Denmark contributes ten times as much of its national income as American taxpayers do. Japan has been the largest provider of official development assistance for ten consecutive years.
What's TC mean? When I saw it I though you were referring to me or something like that but I hadn't posted in this thread so just wondering.
Money from developed countries could do so much for poor people eg ending hunger and building shelter or actual homes for them to live in etc but the governments spend too much time wasting money on stupid useless things such as hosting sport events whatever.
One of the major problems is that the largest concentrations of hunger exist under despotic regimes in 3rd world countries, where governments oppress their citizens in order to retain power and they do not operate under the rule of law. We've been sending money and food (as a nation) for years and it never gets to the people who need it most. Mark my words, don't be surprised if you see the same thing start to happen in Venezuela.
If you have a child you are responsible for it.Period.You can, if you are a big enough shit, refuse to act on this responsibility but it doesn't take it away.
you are only responsible for it if you decide you want to be responsible for it. once you give it up for adoption, it's not your responsibility anymore. many people who give kids up for adoption are considered to have made a wise choice. responsibility is not something you should accept because it is imposed by the law or some fictitious god, but because it emanates from within yourself. if you don't want to be responsible for a kid then that takes the responsiblity away. the responsibility doesn't continue to exist in a legitimate way because god, the law or marquis2 says so.
That simply isn't the way it works.You commit any act and you are responsible for the consequences.This isn't God or the law, it's simply what the word means.
The U.S always had the means to end worl hunger it is just not good for the market. I hope you know that the U.S. goverment and perharps almost every goverment in the world pays off farmers money for whatever extra produce they might have over done so that it can be destroyed. Our markte system, money system, goverment is all been fabricated.
ding ding ding. we have a winner johnny.
if you are a biological father or mother of a child the only thing you are responsible for is the birth of the child because it was your semen or egg that produced the offspring. you can't say it was someone else's semen or egg so only in that sense are you responsible for something. but that doesn't imply some kind of moral obligation. beyond that minimal sense responsibilities are either taken on or they are not. you don't seem to get that there is a choice involved at some fundamental level. say i'm a woman and the baby comes out of my body. and then someone says you are responsible for it and have to totally change your life to take care of this living thing. well the woman has a certain choice to make. she can say, fuck that, i don't care if this living thing has needs. so what if it came out of my body. let it fend for itself or let someone else take care of it. just because you tell me i am responsible doesn't make it so if i don't feel i have any responsibility towards it.
also let me quote something from a post of mine you seem to have ignored. "once you give it up for adoption, it's not your responsibility anymore." it becomes the responsibility of the person who adopted the child because they took on that responsibility. get it dunce?
Milton is kinda being harsh, but he does have a point. You also are the one that made the choice to create a new life into this world (or at least the choice to copulate), thereby diverting resources that could have gone towards an already existing person (say in the impoverished third world) that needs them.
I commend you for trying to do right by your kid and be a good parent, because god knows there are too many that don't, but that is a different issue then what we are talking about with effective resource management and "responsibility".
I commend you for trying to do right by your kid and be a good parent, because god knows there are too many that don't, but that is a different issue then what we are talking about with effective resource management and "responsibility".
So, if a man and woman decide to have a child and bring that child into this world, who is to be held responsible for that child? If it's not the mother and/or father, then who is it?
If it's not the parent's responsibility to take care of their own child, then why are people even allowed to have babies? "It's not my responsibility to take care of my child, so here...you take it". That's not right and you know it.
If you make the decision to buy a pet dog, it is your responsibility to take care of that dog. If that dog is neglected, unfed and dies of starvation, you will suffer the consequences, because it is your responsibility to take care of that pet. You can be charged with animal cruelty, because it is your responsibility to take care of that dog.
So, if you make the decision to bring a child into the world, how is it not your responsibility to take care of that child?
I agree that there is somewhat of a difference between resource management and responsibility, but it's not my responsibility to feed somebody else's child.
To put that on a bigger scale, it is not the United States' responsibility to feed starving children in Africa. Yes, it is nice to help, but it is not our responsibility to nurture those children. Sure, you can play the game of "we are the world", but that's not reality. If it was, then we would never have wars. Countries, like it or not, are not obligated to take care of eachother.
If I order a large pizza and me and my son eat 4 of the 8 slices, is it wrong for me to keep those leftover slices for the following day? Or, am I supposed to give my "extra" food to somebody who can use it more than I and my son can? Where does it end, seriously?
when a child is born it is no one's responsibility unless someone chooses to take on that responsibility. no one is to be held responsible unless they take on the responsibility. responsibility doesn't just magically get imposed on the biological parents or anyone else simply because a little infant pops out of a pussy.
by you saying "That's not right and you know it" you seem to be implying there is something wrong with adoption. there really isn't though. if there is somebody else who could more adequately care for the kid and wants that responsibility, then fine. many would say it is better than leaving the kid with an incompetent jackoff.
people are allowed to have babies because it's good for zombielike consumerism and pie in the sky religion. it's also a natural byproduct of fucking with the opposite sex. most people take some sense of responsibility for their kids. maybe it's because they're brainwashed. but if you thought deeply about it you'd realize you can make a free decision to take on responsibility or not. if someone doesn't want to take on the responsibility, their are adoption agencies. there is also a trashcan.
your pet dog example doesn't do anything to further your cause. it is just a reiteration of your same fundamentally flawed point but you've replaced human child with pet dog. just because there are criminal prosecution possibilities for animal cruelty doesn't mean there should be. if you have a dog and then decide you don't want to be responsible for it anymore, you could give it to someone else to take care of just as with a child. if you don't give it up and it dies through neglect, then you are implying that is morally wrong and you should be prosecuted. but this is a matter of opinion. someone could defend themself by saying i took on a responsibility and now i am giving up the responsibility. if the dog dies, it dies. it is no longer my responsibility. i did not sign a contract in blood saying i should take care of it till it or i die. even if i signed a contract, i might change my mind and if you think people should follow a contract you are saying people should not have the right to change their mind which i consider a variant of fascism. it's like you enter a marriage contract, and then guess what? you get a divorce because you realize the "till death do you part" aspect is too extreme and you don't want that bullshit chain of responsibility around your neck. it's called exercising your ability to be a free human being.
your pizza example is again foolish and i've stated why already. THERE IS MORE THEN ENOUGH FOOD FOR EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. YOUR EXAMPLE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE WHEN TALKING ABOUT CURRENT POPULATION LEVELS ON THE PLANET RELATIVE TO THE OVERALL FOOD SUPPLY.
:hatsoff:
For the sake of all mankind, I hope you never father a child.
First of all, turn your Caps Lock off. It's annoying.
Secondly, my food isn't your food. Your food isn't my food. That is the point I was making, which is far from foolish. I'm willing to bet that you don't just let random people come into your house and eat your groceries. Why? Because, my food isn't your food and your food isn't my food.
Is there technically enough food on the planet to feed every single person that is alive? Yes, more than likely. But, in order to do that, you would have to take from the rich and give to the poor, so to speak.
In order to feed every single starving person in the world, you would have to take food away from people who were better off. Is that fair? If I have a refrigerator full of food, should it be ok for starving people to eat from it, leaving me with nothing? Is it ok for hungry people to just have my food, even though I paid for it? Even though I worked very hard to earn that money which paid for my food? Why should I just give it away?
I'm sorry that there are people who are starving, but why should we, as a country, take our own finances and support other countries, when we have our own problems to deal with? We have starving people in our own country, yet, we're dishing out billions and billions of dollars to feed people who lives thousands upon thousands of miles away.
i never said i personally would kill a kid or neglect it or whatever. i might be a better parent then you for all you know.
caps lock are annoying? and putting certain words in bold like you do isn't?
it's a matter of preference, just like taking on responsibility.letting a random person come into your house is not a good example. if i had enough food for someone who knocked on my door and was starving, i would help them because i am a kind human being. that is a more appropriate example for the topic at hand.
take from the rich and give to the poor? :1orglaugh you need to ask yourself how the rich get as rich as they do in the first place. it ain't purely through hard work. there is a lot of scamming going on that goes unadressed.
first of all you wouldn't necessarily have to take anything away from anyone if people would be willing to voluntarily change, which is not impossible although i wonder when i talk to people like you.
again you are using a bad example. let starving people eat from your fridge and leave you with nothing? no one is going to force you to starve. the idea is adequate food for all who are in need.
why should you give money away? because it shows you care about others. because you are acknowledging that people in other parts of the world often do absolutely nothing to bring their misery on themselves and you would not like it if you were in such a situation. i don't know, those are some typical answers. and the real answer isn't to give money away, but to stop malevolently interfering with other people's lives in other parts of the world. that can most likely only be done by drastically altering or abolishing our government.
there are very few starving people in the u.s. compared to the third world. it would be a very simple thing to eliminate whatever minimal level of starvation there is in the u.s. It would only be minimally more complicated to eliminate starvation around the world. it requires a will amongst a significant enough majority that currently doesn't exist thanks to kind hearted souls like yourself.
for the record, this is becoming increasingly tedious. hopefully something will sink into your thick skull soon.
In the sake of poverty there is no "fair", there is only what is the right thing to do. And to answer your question hypothetically, lets say yes to feed the poor you would have to have even a tiny bit less food than you normally would have. Wouldnt that be a good thing? We are all getting so fat it would seem to me that there is a case for removing some of the luxuries that we have. But that would be the "S" word that so many people on here are scared of on this board.
Although I highly doubt that any food we gave to them would even make a dent in how much food is eaten by western countries, and anyway its not food that they want its tools and to be given the necessary skills to be able to sustain themselves in a stable environment. Without living in fear of western supported despots, who reap huge rewards from the rape of their native lands whilst the people starve.
This is the 21st century no one should starve to death in one part of the world whereas in another some of us are so fat we cant get out of our own houses.
Similar threads
