User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:16:11 PM EDT
[#1]
It is not emotionally difficult for me to know that these 100 chitlins are starving.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:16:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Hell fucking motherfucking shit no
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:17:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not emotionally difficult for me to know that these 100 chitlins are starving. So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:18:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Private charity should do what it wants to do, or what its contributors want it to do.
That is what private is all about. I know lots of people disagree with this, but that is how I feel. I like my private situations kept private, and I respect other people's rights to the same privacy. So, if a private charity wants to feed African children, or send them band instruments, it is no concern of mine. Of course, if I don't approve of what a private charity is doing, it won't receive any contributions from me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:18:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is not emotionally difficult for me to know that these 100 chitlins are starving. So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? No, I think he's just saying that he doesn't give a fuck. It's not emotionally difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:19:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Let Africa solve their inherent problems and those problems go away.
Accept democracy of some sort. Capitalism. Universal education. It will take time but had they started five decades ago can you imagine where they would be now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:20:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Private charity should do what it wants to do, or what its contributors want it to do. That is what private is all about. I know lots of people disagree with this, but that is how I feel. I like my private situations kept private, and I respect other people's rights to the same privacy. So, if a private charity wants to feed African children, or send them band instruments, it is no concern of mine. Of course, if I don't approve of what a private charity is doing, it won't receive any contributions from me. I agree with your point, but it does not answer the question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:20:10 PM EDT
[#8]
As others have stated, it is private. People can do what they want with their private property and money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:20:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Shit is a scam.
If sally struthers fat ass was shipped there instead of food they could live off her for months. Hi, Im the fattest woman on earth begging you to feed starving children.  Warning Graphic.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:21:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is not emotionally difficult for me to know that these 100 chitlins are starving. So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? Feels fine to me. I have my own responsibilities and obligations to take care of and worry about. These 10 year old commercials trying to play to someone's emotion to cause donation don't affect me. My kids, my wife, my family...that affects me. ETA: Charities can do what they want with their resources. Not my call to make nor do I care. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:23:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As others have stated, it is private. People can do what they want with their private property and money. I still agree, but it still does not answer the question. I am not proposing we legislate to interfere with the will of private charities. I am asking if private charities should be feeding starving Africans, not if they should be allowed to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:24:02 PM EDT
[#12]
I've stolen food from starving African kids before
But I threw that shit out, that UNICEF gruel is disgusting |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:27:38 PM EDT
[#13]
I personally think we should stamp out hunger here in America before we try to save the world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:27:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is not emotionally difficult for me to know that these 100 chitlins are starving. So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? It feels like this: We would be way ahead of the game of we relocated them to where they could grow food and gave them all a boatload of condoms, so their reproduction rate does not outstrip their ability to feed themselves. How can a person go there to dole out tiny amounts of food that will only prolong the suffering, only to retreat to their well stocked Hotel/Encampment to eat a nice dinner? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:28:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Africa isn't uniformly starving. There are plenty of people with means on that continent of several billion people.
Bearing that in mind, I have a modest proposal for any starving African who has children they can't feed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:29:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with your point, but it does not answer the question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Private charity should do what it wants to do, or what its contributors want it to do. That is what private is all about. I know lots of people disagree with this, but that is how I feel. I like my private situations kept private, and I respect other people's rights to the same privacy. So, if a private charity wants to feed African children, or send them band instruments, it is no concern of mine. Of course, if I don't approve of what a private charity is doing, it won't receive any contributions from me. I agree with your point, but it does not answer the question. In that case, you will just have to repeat the question. I have charities I some times donate to, but not any are feeding African children that I know of. So, I must not be too concerned about that situation, (or realize I can't do any thing significant to change it). I am a firm believer of charity in moderation. Every cent I donate to charity is one less cent that I can not spend on my personal consumption, (already minimal for my level of income/wealth), and investment. I do consider investment to be extremely important both to the individual, and to society at large. So do I let African children starve so I can help people in need who live close to me? The answer is yes. I like to choose battles that I have a chance of winning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:29:57 PM EDT
[#17]
I think private charities should be allowed to feed whoever they like.
Whether it's ultimately a good idea or not is none of my business. It's a private charity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:30:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Say there are 100 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Your charity can afford to feed them. The average African has more than 5 children. Assuming 50 of those 100 Africans you feed are women, then now you have 250 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Which is worse, having 100 children starve or having 250 children starve? Your feel-good charity is causing suffering, not curing it. Emotionally, however, it is hard to accept that letting 100 children starve is the best of two bad choice. For those who say, "yes but let us feed those 100 children and then we can educate them and blah blah blah liberal emotional stuff," I ask you to look at Africa and find some example of such success. All I see is more human suffering caused by more misguided welfare. Are you suggesting that we issue tags for African children every fall to reduce starvation later on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:30:51 PM EDT
[#19]
I don't give a shit what a private charity spends it's money on.
What pisses me off is our tax money going over there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:32:47 PM EDT
[#20]
I don't send money to those charities. However, I would imagine that the people who do just want to do what they can about what's in front of them, instead of letting actual people starve for the benefit of future hypothetical people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:33:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Ok. Flame Jacket ON!
In my opinion, they are just helping the people that 50 years from now will be killing our grandchildren. Just that simple..... Flame away 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:33:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Private charity should do what it wants to do, or what its contributors want it to do. That is what private is all about. I know lots of people disagree with this, but that is how I feel. I like my private situations kept private, and I respect other people's rights to the same privacy. So, if a private charity wants to feed African children, or send them band instruments, it is no concern of mine. Of course, if I don't approve of what a private charity is doing, it won't receive any contributions from me. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:34:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you suggesting that we issue tags for African children every fall to reduce starvation later on? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Say there are 100 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Your charity can afford to feed them. The average African has more than 5 children. Assuming 50 of those 100 Africans you feed are women, then now you have 250 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Which is worse, having 100 children starve or having 250 children starve? Your feel-good charity is causing suffering, not curing it. Emotionally, however, it is hard to accept that letting 100 children starve is the best of two bad choice. For those who say, "yes but let us feed those 100 children and then we can educate them and blah blah blah liberal emotional stuff," I ask you to look at Africa and find some example of such success. All I see is more human suffering caused by more misguided welfare. Are you suggesting that we issue tags for African children every fall to reduce starvation later on? So close to Godwin's rule.... almost there.... No, I am not suggesting Gnadentod. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:35:49 PM EDT
[#24]
You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:38:37 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. On that note, there's a reason I donate to pet rescues and the like instead of charities that help people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:39:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Say there are 100 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Your charity can afford to feed them. The average African has more than 5 children. Assuming 50 of those 100 Africans you feed are women, then now you have 250 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Which is worse, having 100 children starve or having 250 children starve? Your feel-good charity is causing suffering, not curing it. Emotionally, however, it is hard to accept that letting 100 children starve is the best of two bad choice. For those who say, "yes but let us feed those 100 children and then we can educate them and blah blah blah liberal emotional stuff," I ask you to look at Africa and find some example of such success. All I see is more human suffering caused by more misguided welfare. eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. The decision is theirs, not yours or anyone else's. Your question is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:41:53 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. I really don't think I am hiding behind semantics. It is not for me to approve or disapprove of their activities. Obviously, I may or may not find them good or bad, but they don't need my approval, and my disapproval should have no effect. I may debate the desirability of certain charities and their actions, but it is just idle chit-chat. It signifies nothing. I feel the same way about my consumption and my investments/speculations. It is a private matter. That doesn't mean I won't discuss it, but at the end of the day, I make my decisions, and people need to respect that. I extend this simple common courtesy to every one else. This is probably a subsidiary clause of the Golden Rule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:43:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Darwins been trying to fix the problem of having too many people who can't support themself in one area for a long time but we won't let it.
Having said that a private carity can do whatever they want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:43:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Should charity feed em? Sure. Should we the taxpayer feed em. No
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:43:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is not emotionally difficult for me to know that these 100 chitlins are starving. So you would let 250 children starve instead. How does that feel? I have no problem with that, it's Africa, and you can't fix it. They burn witches, kill medical aid workers ect....and you want me to worry about starving kids? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:45:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Food laced with contraceptives
DOUBLE WINNER |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:46:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Jonathan Swift figured this shit out a long time ago. No need to go reinventing the wheel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:46:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. That isn't a question of semantics to me. How can I, someone who believes in expanded personal freedom, tell someone what they can spend their money on? Is it a crime to feed a hungry woman? Your argument is suggesting it is. I reject that. What the woman decides to do is her problem. I may choose to not give her any more money, but that is my choice to make, not yours to make for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:47:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I personally think we should stamp out hunger here in America before we try to save the world.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:48:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. It's not semantics at all. It's simply none of my business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:48:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Well for God's sake let's move them all to Minnesota!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:49:11 PM EDT
[#37]
The great philosopher Sam Kinnison solved the problem of famine and homelessness over two decades ago.
Society refuses to implement his solutions. If he couldn't get the solutions implemented, I know that I can't. Charity in moderation is my motto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:50:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. Do I think that people should? No, but it is their right to do it because of a thing called FREEDOM. What they are doing is legal and as such why would I begrudge them their freedom to what they want with the money they earned through their jobs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:55:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Say there are 100 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Your charity can afford to feed them. The average African has more than 5 children. Assuming 50 of those 100 Africans you feed are women, then now you have 250 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Which is worse, having 100 children starve or having 250 children starve? Your feel-good charity is causing suffering, not curing it. Emotionally, however, it is hard to accept that letting 100 children starve is the best of two bad choice. For those who say, "yes but let us feed those 100 children and then we can educate them and blah blah blah liberal emotional stuff," I ask you to look at Africa and find some example of such success. All I see is more human suffering caused by more misguided welfare. eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. You have your pigeonholed emotional scenario, so there's no sense in arguing with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 12:56:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Really? Unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:00:57 PM EDT
[#41]
My cousin used to go on missions to teach them how to dig wells and grow crops.
They also took food and seeds for them. I doubt it will make a difference, but I give him credit for trying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:01:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That isn't a question of semantics to me. How can I, someone who believes in expanded personal freedom, tell someone what they can spend their money on? Is it a crime to feed a hungry woman? Your argument is suggesting it is. I reject that. What the woman decides to do is her problem. I may choose to not give her any more money, but that is my choice to make, not yours to make for me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. That isn't a question of semantics to me. How can I, someone who believes in expanded personal freedom, tell someone what they can spend their money on? Is it a crime to feed a hungry woman? Your argument is suggesting it is. I reject that. What the woman decides to do is her problem. I may choose to not give her any more money, but that is my choice to make, not yours to make for me. I am not asking you to tell anyone what they can spend their money on. I am asking if they should feed starving Africans, not if they should be allowed to. My argument is not suggesting it is a crime to feed a hungry woman. Your emotional response to letting 100 children die is likely interfering with your ability to be rational. I'll try to force the argument a little. In Muslim countries, people are strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies. Should Muslims be strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies in far away countries? When you answer no, can I tell you how wrong it is to force your choices on others? No, I cannot because that is not what we are talking about. I am not talkign about forcing anyone to do or not do something. I am asking if this should be done. Do you now see why I am saying people are hiding behind semantics with the original question due to how uncomfortable they are to say that allowing 100 children to die is the better choice? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:01:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Feeding starving Africans is like putting a dying man on life support. The only difference is the temporarily fed African can now reproduce and give birth to another starving African making the original problem worse. The same concept applies to hoodrats in America.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:04:07 PM EDT
[#44]
We need to stop the giving of food etc to Africa as it has created an entire population that are only looking for hand outs and a what can you do for me attitude. Fuck Africa and let them unfuck themselves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:04:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have your pigeonholed emotional scenario, so there's no sense in arguing with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Say there are 100 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Your charity can afford to feed them. The average African has more than 5 children. Assuming 50 of those 100 Africans you feed are women, then now you have 250 innocent, beautiful, starving African children. Which is worse, having 100 children starve or having 250 children starve? Your feel-good charity is causing suffering, not curing it. Emotionally, however, it is hard to accept that letting 100 children starve is the best of two bad choice. For those who say, "yes but let us feed those 100 children and then we can educate them and blah blah blah liberal emotional stuff," I ask you to look at Africa and find some example of such success. All I see is more human suffering caused by more misguided welfare. eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. You have your pigeonholed emotional scenario, so there's no sense in arguing with you. Okay, give me another scenario that is congruent with what is happening and has historically happened in Africa. My scenario is based on my understanding of how welfare has caused an increase in suffering and has been misguided. I am not comfortable with allowing 100 children to die, but I am less comfortable with causing 250 children to suffer instead of 100. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:06:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am not asking you to tell anyone what they can spend their money on. I am asking if they should feed starving Africans, not if they should be allowed to. My argument is not suggesting it is a crime to feed a hungry woman. Your emotional response to letting 100 children die is likely interfering with your ability to be rational. I'll try to force the argument a little. In Muslim countries, people are strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies. Should Muslims be strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies in far away countries? When you answer no, can I tell you how wrong it is to force your choices on others? No, I cannot because that is not what we are talking about. I am not talkign about forcing anyone to do or not do something. I am asking if this should be done. Do you now see why I am saying people are hiding behind semantics with the original question due to how uncomfortable they are to say that allowing 100 children to die is the better choice? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. That isn't a question of semantics to me. How can I, someone who believes in expanded personal freedom, tell someone what they can spend their money on? Is it a crime to feed a hungry woman? Your argument is suggesting it is. I reject that. What the woman decides to do is her problem. I may choose to not give her any more money, but that is my choice to make, not yours to make for me. I am not asking you to tell anyone what they can spend their money on. I am asking if they should feed starving Africans, not if they should be allowed to. My argument is not suggesting it is a crime to feed a hungry woman. Your emotional response to letting 100 children die is likely interfering with your ability to be rational. I'll try to force the argument a little. In Muslim countries, people are strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies. Should Muslims be strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies in far away countries? When you answer no, can I tell you how wrong it is to force your choices on others? No, I cannot because that is not what we are talking about. I am not talkign about forcing anyone to do or not do something. I am asking if this should be done. Do you now see why I am saying people are hiding behind semantics with the original question due to how uncomfortable they are to say that allowing 100 children to die is the better choice? No what you are doing is asking a question, then when someone gives you and answer you don't like you pull the semantics card and try to change the meaning of what you are asking through careful wording. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:06:53 PM EDT
[#47]
I will feed the 100 stupid starving kids so that I will have 250 stupid starving kids to parade in front of the camera to solicit more cash for my "charity" later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:07:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Shouldn't the question really be.. should private charities be allowed to do what they want to do with their money?
It is the essence of what you are asking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:07:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. And the answer is that they should do whatever they wish to do with their money. One can debate the morality of it until one is blue in the face, but at the end of the day it's still just one opinion among many. Some charities are much more intelligent in how they go about helping the people than others are. Some just hand the people food and send them on their way. Others use their funds to help the people build schools, medical facilities, water sanitization facilities, etc. Some people consider that work worthwhile. Others don't. Just opinions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:08:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am not asking you to tell anyone what they can spend their money on. I am asking if they should feed starving Africans, not if they should be allowed to. My argument is not suggesting it is a crime to feed a hungry woman. Your emotional response to letting 100 children die is likely interfering with your ability to be rational. I'll try to force the argument a little. In Muslim countries, people are strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies. Should Muslims be strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies in far away countries? When you answer no, can I tell you how wrong it is to force your choices on others? No, I cannot because that is not what we are talking about. I am not talkign about forcing anyone to do or not do something. I am asking if this should be done. Do you now see why I am saying people are hiding behind semantics with the original question due to how uncomfortable they are to say that allowing 100 children to die is the better choice? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: eta: You people saying "it's private so let them do what they will" are hiding behind semantics. The question is should they, not should they be allowed to. That isn't a question of semantics to me. How can I, someone who believes in expanded personal freedom, tell someone what they can spend their money on? Is it a crime to feed a hungry woman? Your argument is suggesting it is. I reject that. What the woman decides to do is her problem. I may choose to not give her any more money, but that is my choice to make, not yours to make for me. I am not asking you to tell anyone what they can spend their money on. I am asking if they should feed starving Africans, not if they should be allowed to. My argument is not suggesting it is a crime to feed a hungry woman. Your emotional response to letting 100 children die is likely interfering with your ability to be rational. I'll try to force the argument a little. In Muslim countries, people are strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies. Should Muslims be strapping bombs to children to blow up enemies in far away countries? When you answer no, can I tell you how wrong it is to force your choices on others? No, I cannot because that is not what we are talking about. I am not talkign about forcing anyone to do or not do something. I am asking if this should be done. Do you now see why I am saying people are hiding behind semantics with the original question due to how uncomfortable they are to say that allowing 100 children to die is the better choice? I think you are missing the point. If I say they shouldn't be feeding the hungry, then I am making a judgment call that they shouldn't be doing something with their own money. It's really quite simple. You seem to want to dress it up with a lot more superfluous wrappings. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
