Originally posted by truejedi
how are we "letting them die?" Why don't they keep themselves from dying? they have just as good a chance of saving themselves as we do of saving them. It's racist to pretend that we are more capable of dealing with THEIR problems than they are.
fair point, let me rephrase:
you would be happy to sit by and watch as other people die even though you might have the ability to help
Originally posted by truejedi
how are we "letting them die?" Why don't they keep themselves from dying? they have just as good a chance of saving themselves as we do of saving them. It's racist to pretend that we are more capable of dealing with THEIR problems than they are.
It's not racist to admit that the west has a ridiculous amount of money and technology.
how can you be okay with using resources that could be allocated to taking care of American homeless and jobless to prevent the same thing in another country. I agree with ddm that if we had 0 percent American homelessness, we could save lives elsewhere.
How about we match every dollar that China spends on the problem? Sound fair?
Originally posted by truejedi
how can you be okay with using resources that could be allocated to taking care of American homeless and jobless to prevent the same thing in another country. I agree with ddm that if we had 0 percent American homelessness, we could save lives elsewhere.
that is a fair point, but why are you making a dichotomy between green reforms and employment?
Originally posted by truejedi
How about we match every dollar that China spends on the problem? Sound fair?
that is a complete strawman, and in the end, do you want to paint yourself as the moral equivalent of the chinese government? surely you can aim for better
Originally posted by inimalist
that is a fair point, but why are you making a dichotomy between green reforms and employment?
Green reforms by us will do nothing to save third world countries from global warming. It will take direct interference. What you and I are talking about is massive relief efforts, NOT united states energy changes, which at this point, simply don't matter anymore.
that is a complete strawman, and in the end, do you want to paint yourself as the moral equivalent of the chinese government? surely you can aim for better
Since when should a government care about morality? Legislation on morality is generally considered unconsititutional.
Originally posted by truejedi
Green reforms by us will do nothing to save third world countries from global warming. It will take direct interference. What you and I are talking about is massive relief efforts, NOT united states energy changes, which at this point, simply don't matter anymore.
well, obviously I'd disagree with the fact that American domestic energy policy wouldn't matter, if you really want to debate that, we can start another thread. EDIT: I guess this would be the appropriate thread... I'll do a proper response to this if you want, America by far is the greatest contributer to global warming, though I'm not sure on the numbers off the top of my head.
Aside from that, sure. Most of these nations we already have some form of aide to. If you want to talk about the most effective use of aide money, I'm with you, I'd rather a much more regionally based narrow focus rather than this trickle into many issues that never get dealt with. However, that is a far cry from just saying "well, their own fault for being poor and born in a geographically crappy place"
Originally posted by truejedi
Since when should a government care about morality?
surely you don't agree with that statement, else why not invade Venezuela and Alberta for their oil supplies? The **** are the Canadians going to do?
Originally posted by truejedi
Legislation on morality is generally considered unconsititutional.
im sorry, what? not to point to the 10000 pound elephant, but the drug war by chance is a good counter example
Originally posted by truejedi
dadudem, my post was referring to the third world countries. let them fix their own problems.
My bad. I had no idea where you were coming from. After re-reading your post, that was my fault and I took your post waaaaay out of context.
Originally posted by inimalist
you would be cool to let people die even if it were possible to do something?
If and only if we had done almost as much as possible for our own dying people: our own citizens that deserve more of my state's time and tax dollars (if it is from the state) than citizens in other countries.
I would still like to indicate that the individual can volunteer his or her time in another country without the aide of their originating state and, for me, that is perfectly acceptable.
The counter to my perspective: no man is an island. Meaning, no country is completely and wholly independent from all other nations. This means that all countries should have an active interest in the others that matter to them. That ends up being a slippery slope and borders on offensive imperialism. This is why I say states should make it as easy as possible to do humanitarian aide without investing too many resources into it. Tax breaks and stream-lined processes (visas) for aide workers are what I had in mind. The counter to that is this: isn't giving a tax break the same thing as allocating state resources? SURE! 😄 I can admit when my position becomes one of arbitrariness. It makes it seem as though I am making an ethical stance that is, at best, convoluted. I do not view it entirely like that, of course. A tax break is technically shifting a tax burden to someone or something else...which is the "hole" in my argument. But, at the same time, you can still claim that you are not allocating any funds directly to the aide projects. It is still not quite "you can have your cake and eat it too", but it is close. At least you can say your state never directly funded foreign aide programs when you had thousands of preventable deaths in your own country. So, in conclusion, I still like the idea of tax breaks for foreign aide groups and workers, but I do not like foreign aide to be given directly by the state when we still have thousands, nay, millions of early, preventable, deaths occurring in our own country. If our people can prosper more, then that allows for more people to have the chance to help others. I am not sure if that position is perfectly supportable because it becomes one of "trickle down". I don't like that idea.
Originally posted by truejedi
how can you be okay with using resources that could be allocated to taking care of American homeless and jobless to prevent the same thing in another country. I agree with ddm that if we had 0 percent American homelessness, we could save lives elsewhere.
Yes, exactly.
Homelessness is an inevitable early death. Our homeless programs could be vastly improved. That's just one example of many things that are wrong in the US that we should be funding here instead of helping citizens in other countries.
It is not as "romantic" and "sexy" to do that, however. I have never seen a commercial on TV to donate to the local homeless shelter. Nor have I seen an advertisement to volunteer my time at the local homeless shelter. But you cannot escape from the commercials about African babies, children, and "feed the Africans" n'stuff. It's just sexier. People want to feel good about themselves. We are no different than the pharisees that Jesus preached against: we like filling our metaphorical robes up with "good deed" beads, too. 😐 How much of it is virtue ethics and how much of it is trying to look good for society? Obviously, some are doing it just because it is good. Why aren't they doing anything in their home land? Surely they could do just as much good? Well, some believe there is far more good that can be done and I tend to agree. Even a little bit helps them.
Originally posted by inimalist
America by far is the greatest contributer to global warming, though I'm not sure on the numbers off the top of my head.
Turns out it is actually China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7347638.stm
and per capita:
Britain, with China fast on their heels.
"well, their own fault for being poor and born in a geographically crappy place"
The countries we are talking about are not in a geographically crappy place. They are ran by dictators that squander the resources. So in a way... yeah, it's their own fault for never joining the modern world in doing away with dictatorships.
surely you don't agree with that statement, else why not invade Venezuela and Alberta for their oil supplies? The **** are the Canadians going to do?
Because of the international fallout, the probability of guerrilla war that would limit the use of those resources, and the political fallout in our own country over the death of our soldiers in a non-necessary war.
im sorry, what? not to point to the 10000 pound elephant, but the drug war by chance is a good counter example
And who agrees the drug war is a good idea? Find one person.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that the fact that someone was born within the same arbitrary lines as you were makes it necessary better to spend money on then.
When it comes to my tax dollars, yes it does. When the concept of a state dissolves and we end up with a pure anarchy system (the good kind) that you are implying, sure, you'd be right.
Until that happens, you're dead wrong. There does not exist this make-believe 'we are all part of Gaia" bullshit. That's the path your line of reasoning leads down. We are individual states. My tax dollars should be used by the state to help those that are defined as being part of the state: citizens and legal aliens.
Originally posted by truejedi
The countries we are talking about are not in a geographically crappy place. They are ran by dictators that squander the resources. So in a way... yeah, it's their own fault for never joining the modern world in doing away with dictatorships.
Well, I'll have to disagree and state that there has been hundreds of years of civil wars just because of that...in Africa. One overturning results in another dictator. It's cyclic. Some do not have the means to overthrow the militaristic dictatorships.
Originally posted by truejedi
And who agrees the drug war is a good idea? Find one person.
Tons of Christians that think they have rights over your body. I'm sure you can guess that these same Christians are against abortion. 🙂
Originally posted by Bardock42
I've seen commercials and advertisements about "local" charities in both Britain and Germany. I think there could be enough funding for both though and I don't think that the fact that someone was born within the same arbitrary lines as you were makes it necessary better to spend money on then.
so why should i have to pay taxes,simply because i was born in some arbitrary line where they pay taxes?
Originally posted by dadudemon
When it comes to my tax dollars, yes it does. When the concept of a state dissolves and we end up with a pure anarchy system (the good kind) that you are implying, sure, you'd be right.Until that happens, you're dead wrong. There does not exist this make-believe 'we are all part of Gaia" bullshit. That's the path your line of reasoning leads down. We are individual states. My tax dollars should be used by the state to help those that are defined as being part of the state: citizens and legal aliens.
Why let an arbitrary declaration (that you apparently disagree with) decide that sort of thing?
Originally posted by truejediand per capita:
Britain, with China fast on their heels.
Careful about how you read things there. Britain is nowhere near the top per capita polluter, which is generally the US (if only counting those countries above a certain total level, as these things tend to do). That article only implies that the UK is currently above China, not that it is number 1.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Careful about how you read things there. Britain is nowhere near the top per capita polluter, which is generally the US (if only counting those countries above a certain total level, as these things tend to do). That article only implies that the UK is currently above China, not that it is number 1.
Exactly: the UK is only half, per capita, of what the US is.
UK: 8.1 tons per person, annually.
US: 16.9 tons per person, annually.
I'd say that was fairly clear the the US has the UK beat.
Originally posted by truejedi
so why should i have to pay taxes,simply because i was born in some arbitrary line where they pay taxes?
I agree with you. But if you refuse you will be punished by the forces in your region, you should try to work that out with them.
Regardless, there are non-sentimental reasons (though I won't discount those either) for helping other nations, and even then, you guys falsely assume that only government aid and tax dollars can be used to help people even though the initial point I replied to was about advertisements, which are usually done by non-profit organizations.