User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:09:07 PM EDT
[#1]
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, I don't. I don't believe it is hiding, either. I make choices about things I can do some thing about, like my personal consumption, my charitable giving, and my investments/speculation. If I keep my level of charity constant as a per centage of my income, I have to decide where to give those assets. I don't tell other people what they have to do, though I may occasionally make suggestions, (as well as listen to suggestions). There are more problems in the world than I can solve, or help to solve. I do understand the law of unintended consequences, which is what I think you are trying to ask about. I just don't feel like I have to come up with an answer about something which I am not even contributing to. Another good thing about charity in moderation is that it reduces the level of thought and research that goes into choosing a charity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:09:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Most of these charities feed them so that they will sit through their worship services.
The same with homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the USA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:10:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Gee, wish I had thought of that answer.....  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:11:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. I carefully worded the original question and have not edited it. If you don't want to answer the original question, okay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:11:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As others have stated, it is private. People can do what they want with their private property and money. +1 It's their money so I don't care. But it's certainly doing no good in the long run. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:12:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:12:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Since most starving African children are being starved by their own government, the question is moot.
Any food or money donated will simply be stolen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:12:46 PM EDT
[#8]
The biggest problem is the warlords that do not want the people to be independent.
They steal the food, and anything else of value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:13:03 PM EDT
[#9]
I know a true believer that has spent time in Kenya doing peace corps type stuff. He said the happiest he's ever been was when he was over there. Then in the next breath he told me how he has PTSD from some of the things he saw there, and he came home because he got depressed and couldn't hack it.
He's a young guy, and wants to go to law school, and set up non-profits to help the Africans. Waste of fuckin time if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:13:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The answer is IF THEY WANT TO. The concept of PRIVATE charities means they can CHOOSE what to use their charitable contributions for. Asking if they 'should be' is tantamount to requiring them to. My opinion however is private AMERICAN charities should focus on their own Country and not some shithole 3rd world nation where the majority of charity is stolen from the people it was intended for and no, it doesn't bother a single tiny bit if 250 or 250,000 African kids are starving when there are American kids, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA starving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:14:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most of these charities feed them so that they will sit through their worship services. The same with homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the USA. I remember a South Park episode where they donated to save Starvin' Marvin and they tried to eat the bibles they were given. Do people really think that people will genuinely convert to Christianity because you feed them? I knew it happened some but you make it sound like it's the norm. If so, I did not know that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:14:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gee, wish I had thought of that answer.....
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Gee, wish I had thought of that answer.....
Sorry buddy, if you wrote that and I echoed it I apologize. I didn't read the whole thread before I responded. We're definitely thinking in the same ballpark here though. I think what TX Guy is fighting with is the idea that private charities can sometimes harm when they mean well. I guess it goes with the old adage that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? I personally think that freedom is a remarkably sharp object that cuts in any direction. Everything comes with an associated opportunity cost. Trying to protect against that cost is tough, and potentially dangerous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:15:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. What you are asking would have been better phrased "do you think feeding starving children in 3rd world nations is a worthwhile endeavor?" That is the essence of what I think you are asking, and you probably wouldn't have people jumping to the conclusion that you think it should be disallowed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:15:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. No. If they want to do some good then adopt an American HIV baby or something else that shows true devotion. What they're doing is lining the pockets of the people who run the charities and of Third World dictator's who re-sell the food rather than distribute it for free to the "starving". Most of the starving children are as a result of war and displacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:16:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The answer is IF THEY WANT TO. The concept of PRIVATE charities means they can CHOOSE what to use their charitable contributions for. Asking if they 'should be' is tantamount to requiring them to. My opinion however is private AMERICAN charities should focus on their own Country and not some shithole 3rd world nation where the majority of charity is stolen from the people it was intended for and no, it doesn't bother a single tiny bit if 250 or 250,000 African kids are starving when there are American kids, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA starving. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. The answer is IF THEY WANT TO. The concept of PRIVATE charities means they can CHOOSE what to use their charitable contributions for. Asking if they 'should be' is tantamount to requiring them to. My opinion however is private AMERICAN charities should focus on their own Country and not some shithole 3rd world nation where the majority of charity is stolen from the people it was intended for and no, it doesn't bother a single tiny bit if 250 or 250,000 African kids are starving when there are American kids, RIGHT HERE IN THE USA starving. There are very few Americans children starving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:16:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you are asking would have been better phrased "do you think feeding starving children in 3rd world nations is a worthwhile endeavor?" That is the essence of what I think you are asking, and you probably wouldn't have people jumping to the conclusion that you think it should be disallowed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. What you are asking would have been better phrased "do you think feeding starving children in 3rd world nations is a worthwhile endeavor?" That is the essence of what I think you are asking, and you probably wouldn't have people jumping to the conclusion that you think it should be disallowed. Fair point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:17:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I carefully worded the original question and have not edited it. If you don't want to answer the original question, okay. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I carefully worded the original question and have not edited it. If you don't want to answer the original question, okay. I did answer the original question...here is my answer again. 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 their money that they were given by people who want their money to be used for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:17:51 PM EDT
[#18]
What are you going to do?
tell a private charity that they can't donate private money to the people of their choosing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:17:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. In that case, yes. They should be allowed to do something specific that they are already doing.
Seriously though.. I would agree that restrictions are a necessary part of an orderly society. The debate comes into play how much of those brakes should be applied before harm is done. Providing that the charity isn't doing something against the law I can't see the problem. People will have to use their brains and think it through to see if causes harm or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:18:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a South Park episode where they donated to save Starvin' Marvin and they tried to eat the bibles they were given. Do people really think that people will genuinely convert to Christianity because you feed them? I knew it happened some but you make it sound like it's the norm. If so, I did not know that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most of these charities feed them so that they will sit through their worship services. The same with homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the USA. I remember a South Park episode where they donated to save Starvin' Marvin and they tried to eat the bibles they were given. Do people really think that people will genuinely convert to Christianity because you feed them? I knew it happened some but you make it sound like it's the norm. If so, I did not know that. My cousin was the director of international operations for Feed the Children. It's very common. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:18:18 PM EDT
[#21]
No.
Teach them to fish. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:19:41 PM EDT
[#22]
If that's want they wann'a do? Cool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:26:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Teach them to fish. A lot of the groups do that. Teach them to fish, farm, and purify water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:26:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 
They'll feed them and give them vaccines, and in two generations things will be so crowded, they will thin each other out with machetes, and the cycle will repeat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:27:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry buddy, if you wrote that and I echoed it I apologize. I didn't read the whole thread before I responded. We're definitely thinking in the same ballpark here though. I think what TX Guy is fighting with is the idea that private charities can sometimes harm when they mean well. I guess it goes with the old adage that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? I personally think that freedom is a remarkably sharp object that cuts in any direction. Everything comes with an associated opportunity cost. Trying to protect against that cost is tough, and potentially dangerous. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Gee, wish I had thought of that answer..... Sorry buddy, if you wrote that and I echoed it I apologize. I didn't read the whole thread before I responded. We're definitely thinking in the same ballpark here though. I think what TX Guy is fighting with is the idea that private charities can sometimes harm when they mean well. I guess it goes with the old adage that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? I personally think that freedom is a remarkably sharp object that cuts in any direction. Everything comes with an associated opportunity cost. Trying to protect against that cost is tough, and potentially dangerous. No apology necessary. It seems that a LOT of people responded like this, and OP is saying that we aren't reading the question correctly. I think that OP is focused on a very small aspect, and is missing the bigger picture as it relates to personal freedoms, which is where I try and base my decisions on interference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:27:52 PM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:31:20 PM EDT
[#27]
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? Well then it just has to grow so it can save the 250 I guess. Although many die due to disease, so its probably more like 150. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:31:43 PM EDT
[#28]
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 don't care about any of them. There. I said it. When the next real World War kicks off or our economy finally collapses, priorities will change and all these extra mouths will have nothing in them. ETA: To answer the OP question. Yes. Because it's their money and I don't care. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:35:26 PM EDT
[#29]
The problem isn't the starving children, it's the complete inability of some areas of the world to get their shit together. If you can't fix the bigger problem, then you're just making it worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:38:11 PM EDT
[#30]
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. absolutely they should. What would you like a government solution. Government does NOTHING well. They should foucs on the USa though let the rest of the world rot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:41:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem isn't the starving children, it's the complete inability of some areas of the world to get their shit together. If you can't fix the bigger problem, then you're just making it worse. This. The same goes for inner city America and welfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:42:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No apology necessary. It seems that a LOT of people responded like this, and OP is saying that we aren't reading the question correctly. I think that OP is focused on a very small aspect, and is missing the bigger picture as it relates to personal freedoms, which is where I try and base my decisions on interference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Gee, wish I had thought of that answer.....
Sorry buddy, if you wrote that and I echoed it I apologize. I didn't read the whole thread before I responded. We're definitely thinking in the same ballpark here though. I think what TX Guy is fighting with is the idea that private charities can sometimes harm when they mean well. I guess it goes with the old adage that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? I personally think that freedom is a remarkably sharp object that cuts in any direction. Everything comes with an associated opportunity cost. Trying to protect against that cost is tough, and potentially dangerous. No apology necessary. It seems that a LOT of people responded like this, and OP is saying that we aren't reading the question correctly. I think that OP is focused on a very small aspect, and is missing the bigger picture as it relates to personal freedoms, which is where I try and base my decisions on interference. He is wondering whether others consider it a worthwhile endeavor, given the seemingly inevitable results. Not debating whether it should be allowed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:42:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Most of the starving children are living under dictatorships.
Giving them AK47s will be the best long-term solution |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:43:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Good point.
Same with the ASPCA. Total waste of money. It's sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:44:32 PM EDT
[#35]
I really don't care what strangers do, as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg.
Personally, I'd rather donate my money to an animal charity than Africa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:44:58 PM EDT
[#36]
It's no different than fucking welfare here!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:51:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally think we should stamp out hunger here in America before we try to save the world. Funny, I have yet to see a person starving to death in America unless it was forced on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:54:09 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. The moral question of whether I'll feel bad if some children starve is No. Children have been starving for thousands of years. I, or any one charity, can't stop it. I do what I can for the charities I support. I sleep well at night with that knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:54:17 PM EDT
[#39]
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. Those people are answering your question. They should do whatever they want with their own money. Anyone that cares what they do with their money is the taint of society. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:54:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. No, because I am not asking if they should be allowed to do anything. I am asking if they should do something specific that they are already doing. Because it's their money, and they're doing what they want with it, the answer is: Yes, they should. Same as if they were teaching banana farming to Eskimos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:57:45 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I personally think we should stamp out hunger here in America before we try to save the world. There is approximately zero reason anyone should be starving in America. If people are starving it is because they spent their kid's food-stamp money on 40s, hair weaves and/or crack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:58:01 PM EDT
[#42]
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. I have been trying to make this case for years; it always falls on deaf ears. The only charity of which I am aware that does actual good are micro loans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:59:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Pretty hard to play God. Once kids are born they have a certain equality.
YMMV |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 1:59:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most of these charities feed them so that they will sit through their worship services. The same with homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the USA. Their charity their rules. Personally I would rather see them do that than hand them money to waste on non-food items. That is what happens to the money the government forces from me at gunpoint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 2:06:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Their charity their rules. Personally I would rather see them do that than hand them money to waste on non-food items. That is what happens to the money the government forces from me at gunpoint. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most of these charities feed them so that they will sit through their worship services. The same with homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the USA. Their charity their rules. Personally I would rather see them do that than hand them money to waste on non-food items. That is what happens to the money the government forces from me at gunpoint. Exactly. Not sure that it helps the kids out in the long run, but people donate money so the kids can eat. As long as the charity is using the money the way they say they will, I have no issues. The last two trips my cousin went on with Feed the Children were to Kenya and Haiti. Those places were probably back to normal a month later, but the charity tried to make a difference. In Kenya a group of militants stole most of the food and all of my cousins belongings including his passport, but he still does this because he believes in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 2:09:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 2:13:14 PM EDT
[#47]
My fear is feeding Africans, sets them up for famine and failure. The land can only support so many inhabitance.
Bring food from other continents disrupts this. If the populations swells on imported food, what happens if this food is delayed or stopped? Famine of the likes we haven't seen in centuries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 2:14:39 PM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 2:15:11 PM EDT
[#49]
I'm conflicted. Should private charities be allowed to do what they want with their money yes. If it were my charity would I? He'll to the no. There are children here on our own American soil that are homeless and starving. I worry about my own house before I'm troubled by the problems of another. So as for me and my family we will focus on helping our own citizens in need before even worrying an iota about anyone else. Bill Gates does that enough for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 2:18:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you suggesting that we issue tags for African children every fall to reduce starvation later on? Whoa... YOU are on to something there...
I get OP's question, and my personal answer is "no", let nature, cruel nature, take her course. Let africans take care of africa (or not). Fuck keeping an entire continent of social retards alive artificially. Remember folks, WE think of the future state of movie land "Idiocracy" as a tragedy, to the average african, it would be utopia compared to the fundamental cesspool that they actively and wholeheartedly participate in. In short, stop trying to save the weak... 
(OP, tell me if I answered your question?) |
|
|
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.
