Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Allah Uackbar

For god sake! Stop producing when you don't have FOOD! We should send condoms instead of money. We keep enabling these people to reproduce and starve it out every year. smh

Yeah. They better stay poor but with even less population!

America, various European counties, Russia, China and even India to a much lesser extent all interfere to keep various African countries destabilized in order to more easily reap the continent's vast resources, then retards complain about African's needing to just stop having children as the fix. Good show.

Yeah. Look at the usual Leftist Lie Machine go to work on Africa...Like how it would be a great place if only us mean whitey Nations would just leave them alone.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/26/7f/46/267f462ba59b5904703609432988385d.jpg

Good to see this place can leave politics aside for 5 minutes to focus on a worthwhile is--



Telling people in undeveloped or developing nations to stop having children--no matter what your reasoning is--is like telling those people to commit national suicide. Economic development and an educated populace will lead to future prosperity and stability, and they can't do that if millions of them are dying from lack of food and clean water. They need workers, inventors, labourers, students, taxpayers etc. Not mass graves.

Telling them to literally f*ck off with reproduction is the most asinine, selfish, greedy, and short-sighted thing a Westerner could say to them. It's pretty great that in the modern world, we still want one of the solutions to famine and global poverty to be mass death.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Good to see this place can leave politics aside for 5 minutes to focus on a worthwhile is--



Telling people in undeveloped or developing nations to stop having children--no matter what your reasoning is--is like telling those people to commit national suicide. Economic development and an educated populace will lead to future prosperity and stability, and they can't do that if millions of them are dying from lack of food and clean water. They need workers, inventors, labourers, students, taxpayers etc. Not mass graves.

Telling them to literally f*ck off with reproduction is the most asinine, selfish, greedy, and short-sighted thing a Westerner could say to them. It's pretty great that in the modern world, we still want one of the solutions to famine and global poverty to be mass death.

I agree with you, but I honestly think this person is just trolling at this point.

Whi... which one?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Whi... which one?

There is only one poster here who mentioned that they should stop reproducing.

5fQHZBr0wYg

Does this video correlate with the current topic? I feel we can never put a dent in starvation of the world. These people need to help themselves, instead of running to America and staying there.

Originally posted by vansonbee
These people need to help themselves, instead of running to America and staying there. The people who are starving to death in third-world countries can't afford water, and you think they're running off to suckle America's teat? Are you so filled with hatred for other people that you're blinded to common sense, or are you just blisteringly stupid?

Couldn't it be a combo of both?

Originally posted by Robtard
Couldn't it be a combo of both? Why not Zoidberg.

But yeah it's probably both.




QsBT5EQt348

Originally posted by vansonbee
5fQHZBr0wYg

Does this video correlate with the current topic? I feel we can never put a dent in starvation of the world. These people need to help themselves, instead of running to America and staying there.

I'm laughing at one of the comments on the video:

"Uh wow, okay, this video is very problematic. Wow, i need a moment, oh wow, you guys are just like the Death Eaters from Harry Potter, wow. Why don't you want immigrants who use their hands as toilet paper handling your food, wow, are you racist or something? Gosh this video has got me rattled, I need to watch some John Oliver to unwind."

What he says at the end isn't wrong. The best way to help the people of the under developed world is to actually help them where they live. Better infrastructure, more education, female emancipation, democracy, etc. Thinking that the only way to "help" people is by bringing them to you is deceptively arrogant.


That doesn't mean we should discourage immigration or turn away those fleeing war and famine. Do both; help them when they come here looking for sanctuary, help them when they stay at home and still need help. We're supremely wealthy and powerful enough to succeed if we actively make a concerted effort.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What he says at the end isn't wrong. The best way to help the people of the under developed world is to actually help them where they live. Better infrastructure, more education, female emancipation, democracy, etc. Thinking that the only way to "help" people is by bringing them to you is deceptively arrogant.


That doesn't mean we should discourage immigration or turn away those fleeing war and famine. Do both; help them when they come here looking for sanctuary, help them when they stay at home and still need help. We're supremely wealthy and powerful enough to succeed if we actively make a concerted effort.

Sure we are. The problem is that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people, and any "help" will only go so far before it cuts into their lifestyle..

Whether it's personal giving or government taxation.

Nothing is stopping 'you' from sending them money or opening your home to refugees.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nothing is stopping 'you' from sending them money or opening your home to refugees.

You're quite correct.

But that's the point, isn't it? Saying this country is so rich and powerful, that it could solve East Africa or anyone elses problems is asking people to do exactly that.

Some of them might, and many of them won't, but it comes down to the individuals. Wealth of a nation really means nothing, because people control wealth. Individuals. (Will add that I spoke of wealth concentration because Lucian brougbt up our countries vast wealth as a solution. It's a political to point out that vast wealth is in the hands of men and women, and not a monolth "American bank" we could direct.)

Originally posted by cdtm
You're quite correct.

But that's the point, isn't it? Saying this country is so rich and powerful, that it could solve East Africa or anyone elses problems is asking people to do exactly that.

Some of them might, and many of them won't, but it comes down to the individuals. Wealth of a nation really means nothing, because people control wealth. Individuals. Bingo. We possess agency, but lack the will. As a whole, we're generally more concerned with ourselves than we are with the sick, starving, and poor from the rest of the world--despite those poor making up the majority. It's a perverse reversal of the same inequality we complain about here. By the standards of the poorest humans, even the poor Westerners are rich. But neither level of poverty should be accepted as "good enough".


So instead of demanding that our governments (and our society, culture, and established institutions) do something to end world poverty, we gently rail against it while naval gazing. And to justify our apathy we come up with "obvious solutions" for humanity's destitute: "solve your own problems" we say, or "stop breeding," and declare that the world's problems aren't solvable because the people we "want" to help are too barbarous or stupid or worthless to help. It's their fault they're dying after all.

apolitical. Not "a political".

Demanding our government do something is just as much passing the buck as saying "stop having kids". if you want something done then do it yourself.

No, it's not. The government's work is to manage our economy. If people want to use it to say: help populations in need, they have the right to ask for it as much as they want.

Our economy, not the economy of other countries. if you want to help other countries, nobody is stopping you.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
No, it's not. The government's work is to manage our economy. If people want to use it to say: help populations in need, they have the right to ask for it as much as they want.

Again, it has to get the money from somewhere.

And that money is limited by "the people's" willingness to be taxed.

I don't agree asking the government to do something is "passing the buck", because the government literally is the people, but the people have to agree to having that tax burden put upon them.

And people generally don't like being taxed. Even wealthy "bleeding heart" liberals aren't pushing too hard for a 90 percent tax increase to try fixing the third world.

We're a democracy--super clever barbs about it not really being notwithstanding. Elected officials do and say what the voters want them to do and say because doing so will help them hold on to their job and power.


If we don't make a big enough collective stink about wanting something, no politician worth his re-election is going to bother pushing it. And none of this "not the government's job" to do this or that. The government is ours, we own it, we constitute its employees, its revenues, its offices, enforcers, its everything. It's not some separate entity with its own rights---it's our b*tch, and it behaves according to how much leash we give it. And we give it a f*ck ton too much.


We don't put enough pressure on the people we elect to use our national power and wealth to lift the impoverished out of poverty, to shake off dictatorship, and to aid in their education and enfranchisement. We could, but we don't. And it's selfish isolationists who care only for short-term personal profit and NIMBYism who spearhead the counter-initiative of justifying our lack of motivation and empathy with false flag political rhetoric or religious bullshit. And the rest of us go along with it because secretly, we don't want to bothered. We're all selfish *ssholes. Yaaay for honesty.

Originally posted by cdtm
Again, it has to get the money from somewhere.

And that money is limited by "the people's" willingness to be taxed.

I don't agree asking the government to do something is "passing the buck", because the government literally is the people, but the people have to agree to having that tax burden put upon them.

And people generally don't like being taxed. Even wealthy "bleeding heart" liberals aren't pushing too hard for a 90 percent tax increase to try fixing the third world.

It's passing the buck because instead of doing it themselves, they demand someone else do it so that they can continue to sit on their a$$ and post on the internet about how someone else should be doing more.

You're half right. But no individual or group of individuals can do what's needed to be done in the world's poorest nations. It takes sweeping government powers and oversight for that. What about that don't you understand?

Individuals might not be able to do it all, but they could do a lot. people just choose not too. they'd rather sit around and complain how the government should be doing more.

And if we the people demand it of the government, why shouldn't the government do more?

He still doesn't understand it.

What are you willing to give up so that the government can free up resources for other countries and are you doing anything on your own to help?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nothing is stopping 'you' from sending them money or opening your home to refugees.

I often find the same people who say "why don't you let refugees live in your house" are invariably the same people who say "we should help our homeless veterans first before we help immigrants"

Yet none of them let homeless veterans stay in their houses.

Funny that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
What are you willing to give up so that the government can free up resources for other countries and are you doing anything on your own to help? Well the U.S. Department of Defense had a budget of $534.6 billion last year, with the President wanting another, what was it? $54 billion added to that at the expense of the EPA--an organization with a gigantically bloated budget of... $8 billion.


How about we don't cut the EPA funding, and instead cut the monstrously out of control defense budget by a $100 billion or so, and start from there? USAID, the agency responsible for civilian foreign aid has a current budget of $27 billion. Let's see what a bit more in that department can do instead of financing the 800+ military bases the American industrial complex tells us is super duper important. Or the 10 new supercarriers the Navy's got in production at a cost of $10.4 billion each.



Ya know, cut the excesses.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Well the U.S. Department of Defense had a budget of $534.6 billion last year, with the President wanting another, what was it? $54 billion added to that at the expense of the EPA--an organization with a gigantically bloated budget of... $8 billion.


How about we don't cut the EPA funding, and instead cut the monstrously out of control defense budget by a $100 billion or so, and start from there? USAID, the agency responsible for civilian foreign aid has a current budget of $27 billion. Let's see what a bit more in that department can do instead of financing the 800+ military bases the American industrial complex thinks it needs to tell us is super duper important. Or the 10 new supercarriers the Navy's got in production at a cost of $10.4 billion each.



Ya know, cut the excesses.

In other words, you personally aren't willing to give up anything. that said, I'm all for cutting wasteful spending and putting that money where it'll help the most people.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Our economy, not the economy of other countries. if you want to help other countries, nobody is stopping you.

Do you have any idea how much wealth western countries have made out of Africa?

Originally posted by Silent Master
In other words, you personally aren't willing to give up anything. that said, I'm all for cutting wasteful spending and putting that money where it'll help the most people. Yes, good. So like toward improving the quality of life of 100s of millions, or billions over time of the world's poorest, most destitute, and most in need of help?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yes, good. So like toward improving the quality of life of 100s of millions, or billions over time of the world's poorest, most destitute, and most in need of help?

I think most should be spent on our own problems, but I have no problems with some of it going to help others.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I think most should be spent on our own problems, but I have no problems with some of it going to help others. We have our own problems no doubt, but alot of ours won't be solved by money alone. It's gonna take a change in how we think about lot of things in life--for instance, the notion that people from other countries shouldn't be helped because... they're not us... That one has roots somewhere deeper than simple "not my problem"ism.



Likewise, no amount of cash is going to make the world's dictators disappear, the starving and impoverished 100s of millions suddenly able to live a decent life, the uneducated and illiterate able to work and read. It takes genuine change in how we think of other people from different nations and cultures and skin colors.


Us or Them is a false dichotomy, IMO. There's no reason we can't help both, or stop seeing everyone else as "the Other" out to destroy us, or take advantage of us. It's only "Us," everywhere.

I agree that we can and should help people, both as individuals and as a country, my problem lies with the people who do nothing but cry and complain about the government not doing enough.

As for money not being able to solve a lot of our problems, that's true. but it can solve some of them.

Are you saying we all should be part of ONGs devoting our lives to this cause, because if we don't we are only crying to the government?

That's not how it works, pal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I agree that we can and should help people, both as individuals and as a country, my problem lies with the people who do nothing but cry and complain about the government not doing enough.

As for money not being able to solve a lot of our problems, that's true. but it can solve some of them. And what would you say to someone who would like to see the immensely powerful national government helping more people worldwide, but who has very limited resources themselves? They make enough for rent and a modestly furnished home, a functioning car, health insurance, decently nutritious food, and some pleasurable amenities. Nothing extravagant or lavish, but little else in terms of savings or retirement plans. If their car craps out now, they're gonna be in a bind to afford the repairs--plus risk losing their job if they're late for or miss work because of it.

Or say they get injured or sick, and the medical bills drain whatever was in their savings, and now they're in debt? Someone getting by alright, but just alright. But they still like the idea of the mighty United States Government doing more to help the billions of people who are worse off than him. This guy's not even asking for universal healthcare coverage for himself, but he is a fan of every child getting a full education in developing nations.




Do you tell him to shut the f*ck up?

No, isn't even close to what I'm saying.

Gotta love the guys who preach that they know what the government should be doing, but type out essays on making excuses why they can't contribute to causes they proselytize others for not investing in.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And what would you say to someone who would like to see the immensely powerful national government helping more people worldwide, but who has very limited resources themselves? They make enough for rent and a modestly furnished home, a functioning car, health insurance, decently nutritious food, and some pleasurable amenities. Nothing extravagant or lavish, but little else in terms of savings or retirement plans. If their car craps out now, they're gonna be in a bind to afford the repairs--plus risk losing their job if they're late for or miss work because of it.

Or say they get injured or sick, and the medical bills drain whatever was in their savings, and now they're in debt? Someone getting by alright, but just alright. But they still like the idea of the mighty United States Government doing more to help the billions of people who are worse off than him. This guy's not even asking for universal healthcare coverage for himself, but he is a fan of every child getting a full education in developing nations.




Do you tell him to shut the f*ck up?

I'm not going to hold not helping against someone if it's physically impossible for them to help.

Originally posted by carthage
Gotta love the guys who preach that they know what the government should be doing, but type out essays on making excuses why they can't contribute to causes they proselytize others for not investing in. Yes, everybody here is a jobless rich making up excuses. You caught us, sorry.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Yes, everybody here is a jobless rich making up excuses. You caught us, sorry.

Not what I said but you seem to be investing a lot of time telling others what they should be doing and not helping those poor Africans.

#Hypocrisy

It's the old "If you can't literally do the same thing that the national government can, then you shouldn't want the national government to do it."


It's a stupendously silly and poorly thought out train-of-thought.

Not at all if you really cared about what you're talking about, rather than just saying "WELL GUYS WE NEED TO ALL BAND TOGETHER TO FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THE WORK WE'RE TOO LAZY TO DO" rather than actually donating money/resources to the countless NGOS/charities that provide aid to Africa, then you're a ****ing hypocrite. Simple as that.

Comparing charity/NGOs with the resources a first world country can give. Lol.

Originally posted by carthage
Not at all if you really cared about what you're talking about, rather than just saying "WELL GUYS WE NEED TO ALL BAND TOGETHER TO FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THE WORK WE'RE TOO LAZY TO DO" rather than actually donating money/resources to the countless NGOS/charities that provide aid to Africa, then you're a ****ing hypocrite. Simple as that. Did you read my long-winded essay? Not for a second do I think that NGOs or charities can do what the power of western governments can. This isn't just a matter of giving money, it's not that simple. If it was, those problems would be long gone by now.


All these nations that need our help, have a tendency to have limited infrastructure and institutions needed to provide a decent standard of living. Most of the worst-off people on the planet are rural agriculture labourers. There's no roads or network of support like we take for granted here. Weak, inefficient, corrupt central governments. Overly powerful militaries with mercenary-like loyalty to a strongman dictator who pays their way in exchange for their lethal support.



Throw as much money from private citizens or western governments as you want at those countries, you only make the Samuel Does of the world stronger by giving him the billions he needs to empower his essential backers. These autocrats already wring everything they can out of their country's natural resources and people, and keep them weak, malnourished, illiterate, and uneducated to prevent them from being a threat. They take their labour and their meager incomes for themselves and their cronies. No amount of aid money or debt forgiveness gets ride of those men, only real, intense, concerted demands from the Western powers have ever made a difference in the policies of these nations.


Not charity money.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Comparing charity/NGOs with the resources a first world country can give. Lol.

So you're conceding you're not actually contributing to the cause and are just shitposting?

And you criticize Surtur for poor logic, keep it up

Originally posted by carthage
So you're conceding you're not actually contributing to the cause and are just shitposting?

And you criticize Surtur for poor logic, keep it up Is this strawman the best thing you could come up with? Lol.

I think we should re-introduce the Africans to cannibalism and sent them our excess of Fat Lazy Leftist Progressives.

I recommend a nice weak wine sauce to be served with Grimey -ala- auju.

Personally if I was going to donate money to any cause, it would go towards helping out homeless American citizens or starving Americans.

Originally posted by Surtur
Personally if I was going to donate money to any cause, it would go towards helping out homeless American citizens or starving Americans.

I don't give any money to a cause, I give it directly to the homeless people I see around town.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I don't give any money to a cause, I give it directly to the homeless people I see around town.

I don't either, but if I was so inclined to do so..I'd want it to be for something closer to home.