why arent liberals going after china , they are worse on global warming

[Bern80]

I already explained how you are. Its completely compatible with the baby example. You are responsible, not only for the things you DO, but also for the things you do NOT do.

No you didn't. You did not explain specifically how me buying some luxury item in the U.S. effects a refugee in Africa. I want you to tell me specifically what the causual link is between me and him/her.

Not at all. Wealth does not have to be balanced out. However, it is not ok for the inequality to be so great that people are starving to death while others have huge unnecessary luxuries.

I love it when people make this argument. So you won't mind if come on over to your place, sell all the things you don't 'need', and send the money to charity right?

Newsflash, we don't live in a society based on necessity.

I am all in favor or a free market, but I also recognize that historical circumstances have not allowed everyone to benefit from that free market.

I would much rather look for a solution like that than then constantly throw money at a problem and think it's gonna fix the problem.

Please explain to me what their options are when they are driven out of their villages by militias who are intent on killing them, raping their women, and driving them out. Then they go to refugee camps run by the UN where they are all in tents, have no land to put up a shop, much less a farm to feed themselves. Tell me...what are these people supposed to do?

We help them as best we can. But I think you can agree a hundred dollar bill isn't gonna keep a refugee from being on the run. At the same time, the U.S. can not be the savior of the world, we have plenty of our own problems.

It has nothing about elitism, it has to do with recognizing that a great deal of what we get, and how we get it comes from where we were born and the circumstances of the society we were born in. Warren Buffet once said something to the effect that if he was born in Africa he would have been dead long ago...his skills are useless there.

You can't change that. You can't make life be fair much as you want it to be. Where you are born does play a huge role in the chances you have. But trying to equal everyone out to make up for that someone is not a real solution.

You don't seem to realize the reality of what many of these people are faced with. Its not like they can go and work at their local supermarket. In Zimbabwer unemployment is 80% now and inflation is at something like 4,000%. So tell me...what should they do?

Potential is a lot easier to realize when the society around you isn't completely fucked. It is you who is elitist. After all the logical consequences of what you are saying is that Africa is failing because the people there just aren't as good as us. Untrue...they have been put in a very unfortunate position and it is extremely difficult for them to dig out of the hole they are in.

No one probably realizes what they are faced with. It obvioulsy isn't something taht can be solved with money

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hi, China is a sovreign country, they can do whatever they want.

Hi, if that's your line of reasoning, the United States is a sovereign country too, and we can do whatever WE want. So stop already with the guilt-tripping.

Are you serious? It has to do with how much each individual would be negatively effected by a decrease in emissions. Besides the fact that the US is far, far, richer than China.

You don't get it, do you? Are you really as smart as you claim or are you just another liberal smart ass?

Lets see. We could waste our time trying to get something from a country that doesn't give a **** about anyone, has no democracy,and stifles dissent...or we could try and get something from a country that pollutes just as much, and has freedom of the press, and we can actually vote to change things.

Gee...hard decision.

I don't believe that excuse for a minute. Liberals will cry and moan about anything they want in this world. Why exempt China? I believe Red China gets a pass because it represents the true future of liberalism.

Free college is sick and dangerous? Well I can see how with your arguments you would want the populace to be uneducated. Then it would be harder for them to see how obviously silly they are.

No, eugenics is sick and dangerous. Which is what you suggested to shut down the free speech of rsr. It's amazing how on one hand you bleed for the hungry babies but on the other hand you support killing of babies through abortion. How on one hand you want to "save lives" but on the other you suggest eugenics for those who would disagree with you. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

And btw, if colleges were "free" just how much "freedom" do you think academics would have if they were all State-controlled? Welcome to Red China.

 

[Larkinn]

No you didn't. You did not explain specifically how me buying some luxury item in the U.S. effects a refugee in Africa. I want you to tell me specifically what the causual link is between me and him/her.

You are spending money that could be spent to save the life of one of those refugees. Hence you are effecting them by your non-action.

I love it when people make this argument. So you won't mind if come on over to your place, sell all the things you don't 'need', and send the money to charity right?

Sure like my...err...what do you think I have that will bring in a lot of money? I sold pretty much everything I owned last time I moved. I own a bunch of books, a computer which I need for work, a bunch of clothes, a car which I also need for work...I guess I have pretty nice sunglasses, but I doubt they would re-sell for much and my eyes are particularly sensitive to the light...the only thing that I can think of that I have that is a real unnecessary luxury is a MP3 player and I think I can justify that considering music is the most beautiful thing, ever.

Newsflash, we don't live in a society based on necessity.

Thats nice. I am descriping an ought situation, not an is situation.

I would much rather look for a solution like that than then constantly throw money at a problem and think it's gonna fix the problem.

What do you think I am advocating, dropping $100 bills over Sudan? There is nowhere enough money needed to help them going in there, but I am not advocating just giving it to the government or some shit like that.

We help them as best we can. But I think you can agree a hundred dollar bill isn't gonna keep a refugee from being on the run. At the same time, the U.S. can not be the savior of the world, we have plenty of our own problems.

No, you don't help them as best you can. As I pointed out before, the percentage that the US gives per capita is staggeringly low. Our problems are nowhere near as close as their problems.

You can't change that. You can't make life be fair much as you want it to be. Where you are born does play a huge role in the chances you have. But trying to equal everyone out to make up for that someone is not a real solution.

Sure it is. Provide everyone with a basic opportunity to succeed. That is a real option if we really cared about it.

No one probably realizes what they are faced with. It obvioulsy isn't something taht can be solved with money

Obviously? And pray tell why that is so obvious?

 

[Larkinn]

Hi, if that's your line of reasoning, the United States is a sovereign country too, and we can do whatever WE want. So stop already with the guilt-tripping.

I am part of the WE, fool. Hence I am entitled to comment on the state of affairs in my own ******* country.

You don't get it, do you? Are you really as smart as you claim or are you just another liberal smart ass?

I get that you want to use a system which inflates the US's numbers, unfairly.

I don't believe that excuse for a minute. Liberals will cry and moan about anything they want in this world. Why exempt China? I believe Red China gets a pass because it represents the true future of liberalism.

Red China? Looked at China lately? Its not exactly Red anymore.

And go ahead and believe incredibly stupid sentiments if you want.

No, eugenics is sick and dangerous. Which is what you suggested to shut down the free speech of rsr. It's amazing how on one hand you bleed for the hungry babies but on the other hand you support killing of babies through abortion. How on one hand you want to "save lives" but on the other you suggest eugenics for those who would disagree with you. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

You have a reading comprehension issue. Try re-reading what I said without your asinine bias of "omg all liberals are evil". I specifically said it in such a way to bait those who are hysterical idiots with no reading comprehension. Try reading it again and figure out where exactly I advocated for eugenics. Because I didn't.

And it is crystal clear that I am not suggesting eugenics to those that disagree with me. That is an out and out lie. Which is no surprise coming from you.

And btw, if colleges were "free" just how much "freedom" do you think academics would have if they were all State-controlled? Welcome to Red China.

[/quote]

I know...all the state schools we have today have no freedom at all, right?

 

[Bern80]

You are spending money that could be spent to save the life of one of those refugees. Hence you are effecting them by your non-action.

Sorry, not specific enough. You have to prove that my expenditure on something else directly causes something to happen to some person in Africa. You do understand cause and effect, right? Bascially you are arguing gullt by omission. It is the equivalent of arguing that I caused someone in CA to get hit by a bus because I was in Minnesota and wasn't there to tell the driver to stop.

For arguments sake though let's say I do give my money to some charity that helps African refugees. The chances are still slim to non-existant that the direct outcome of my donation will ever be able to measured in any meaningfull way. I for example would not be able to see a link between my donation and the saving of one life.

Sure like my...err...what do you think I have that will bring in a lot of money? I sold pretty much everything I owned last time I moved. I own a bunch of books, a computer which I need for work, a bunch of clothes, a car which I also need for work...I guess I have pretty nice sunglasses, but I doubt they would re-sell for much and my eyes are particularly sensitive to the light...the only thing that I can think of that I have that is a real unnecessary luxury is a MP3 player and I think I can justify that considering music is the most beautiful thing, ever.

Your argument was that I was spending money on things I don't need. In an attempt to point out how silly that argument is I asked if you would mind if I sold everything you don't need. I'm sure there are plenty more things that you take for granted that you have that you don't need.

But this really is what it boils down to as far as our difference of opinion goes: We don't live in a socialized like country where someone decides what everyone needs and that's suppossed to be enough. Our founders decided that we were going to have a country where you can pretty much attain anything you want.

They did this because they understand human nature. It is human nature to want more. That goes for pretty much everybody. From me and you to the refugees of Africa who most certainly want more. There are of course consequnces to that level of freedom. they are that you must allow people to make the decisions they want, whether you approve of them or not. You must allow people the freedom to make bad decisions as well (within legal reason of course). As soon as you take those things away because you feel you know best or because we'll be better off, or because it's wrong that some of so much and others have so little, then we are no longer free. If you feel that's okay then by all means go push for that kind of society or move to one that has something like that.

Thats nice. I am descriping an ought situation, not an is situation.

it shouldn't even 'ought' to be that way. I choose to live in a free country where i get to do whatever the hell I want (pretty much). who are you to legilsate to me or a nation how I can or can't use what I've earned?

No, you don't help them as best you can. As I pointed out before, the percentage that the US gives per capita is staggeringly low. Our problems are nowhere near as close as their problems.

so what? Why do you have this beliefe that it is America's job to be the good samaritan of the world?

Sure it is. Provide everyone with a basic opportunity to succeed. That is a real option if we really cared about it.

Opportunities can only be taken advantage of. And who is going to decide what constitutes equal opportunity for everyone? i don't really care about it. i dont think it should be that way because it make the world worse not better. Again it's the same argument we had with socialized medicine, this is not something you can have both ways. Your choices are you can have an average society where no one can reach their full potential or you have a society that allows people to fend for themselves and can succeed to their fill potontial. I choose the latter.

Obviously? And pray tell why that is so obvious?

How can it? Be specific.

This is my point about liberalism. It is all talk and no follow through. You say we should do all things. Socialized medicine, give money to refugees in Africa, etc. Yet not once have you been able explain how this will practically be done.

 

[hjmick]

It is the equivalent of arguing that I caused someone in CA to get hit by a bus because I was in Minnesota and wasn't there to tell the driver to stop.

That was you?! You Bastard! I miss Grammy very much.

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

[To red states rule:] Libs should unite and protest you polluting this board with your useless comments.

You have nothing to add, and nothing new to say.

Ever.

Now you can go ahead and drop another assinine comment about Liberals and their loving tolerance.

But I will rail against you, until you have something useful to add.

You ruin threads.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I am part of the WE, fool. Hence I am entitled to comment on the state of affairs in my own ******* country.

Sure, you can comment and politicize and pull the guilt card all you want but you have no higher moral authority to demand that the U.S. follow your liberal agenda. You need the vote in this country. That highly-evolved leftist country called Red China doesn't need to jump through such bothersome hoops.

I get that you want to use a system which inflates the US's numbers, unfairly.

Exact opposite pinhead.

Red China? Looked at China lately? Its not exactly Red anymore.

So what is it, just a bloody pink? Weren't you the one recently bringing up Tiennamen Square? If Red China is so wonderfully "not Red" anymore, why don't you just go on and live over there? In fact I think all liberals ought to live there since it is a country run by those wonderful leftist elites who know what is just the best for everyone.

And go ahead and believe incredibly stupid sentiments if you want.

You mean incredibly right on sentiments.

You have a reading comprehension issue. Try re-reading what I said without your asinine bias of "omg all liberals are evil". I specifically said it in such a way to bait those who are hysterical idiots with no reading comprehension. Try reading it again and figure out where exactly I advocated for eugenics. Because I didn't.

And it is crystal clear that I am not suggesting eugenics to those that disagree with me. That is an out and out lie. Which is no surprise coming from you.

Where do you get off claiming that you didn't suggest eugenics? You even start out "seriously"...

Seriously. He is a prime reason why we should make college education free and a very good example for those who would wish to practice eugenics.

I know...all the state schools we have today have no freedom at all, right?

I suppose you don't realize that alot of the money coming into state colleges is private?

 

[onedomino]

Red China? Looked at China lately? Its not exactly Red anymore.

This is pathetically uninformed; like many of the remarks that Larkinn posts. I recently lived in Shanghai for more than a year, and visited many other Chinese cities and rural areas, including Lhasa, Urumqi, Chengdu, Beijing, and Guangzhou. China is a totalitarian country where no one has ever voted for anything. Workers are exploited for extremely low wages. Dissent is not tolerated. I have been given a tour of Tiananmen Square by a Chinese engineering professor who was there the night that the PLA opened fire on the students protesting for democracy. In China, websites are routinely blocked. If you start a newspaper that criticizes the government you will go to jail. In China, school children are taught that Tibet has always been a part of China. No one is taught that Tibet was stolen by the PLA. Some non-state companies have emerged in China. But there is no private ownership. No one can buy a house and own the ground. A greater economic prosperity is enjoyed by the 200 million Chinese that live in the cities. But the 1.1 billion that live in rural China do not share in that prosperity. You cannot leave the countryside to look for work in the cities because there are PLA military roadblocks that prevent such migration. The comparatively privileged that live in the large cities are not interested in democracy. They are worried that the great multitude in rural China will want their fair share.

 

[red states rule]

No, as a percentage of GDP, the US gives very little. Less than many western countries.

The US leads in the total dollar amount given. When you combine the money from the US taxpayers, private donations, and corporate giving - we lead the world

To self centered libs it is never enough - much like how much people pay in taxes

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry, not specific enough. You have to prove that my expenditure on something else directly causes something to happen to some person in Africa. You do understand cause and effect, right? Bascially you are arguing gullt by omission. It is the equivalent of arguing that I caused someone in CA to get hit by a bus because I was in Minnesota and wasn't there to tell the driver to stop.

And why do I have to prove that it directly causes? Because you don't give a shit because it indirectly causes death? Well perhaps you should. And please explain to me what cause and effect is. Will you use the Kantian view, or the Humean view? Or perhaps even the Aristotelian view, although a bit out-dated by now. I suggest that before you "explain" it to me, you do a bit of basic research on causality so you don't embarass yourself.

And no, its not the equivalent of arguing that. You were a partial cause IFF you had the knowledge to stop it.

For arguments sake though let's say I do give my money to some charity that helps African refugees. The chances are still slim to non-existant that the direct outcome of my donation will ever be able to measured in any meaningfull way. I for example would not be able to see a link between my donation and the saving of one life.

You would not be able to see it perhaps, but it would still be there. Merely because you don't get to meet the person whose life it saved, does not mean it saved nobody's life.

Your argument was that I was spending money on things I don't need. In an attempt to point out how silly that argument is I asked if you would mind if I sold everything you don't need. I'm sure there are plenty more things that you take for granted that you have that you don't need.

Not really. I am not a huge fan of material things and I treat myself to few luxuries. How I survived without an income for a year. Regardless there are luxuries and then there are luxuries. There are things that one does not need, and then there are things that are completely unnecessary and wasteful. Who the **** needs 4 cars? Like...seriously.

But this really is what it boils down to as far as our difference of opinion goes: We don't live in a socialized like country where someone decides what everyone needs and that's suppossed to be enough. Our founders decided that we were going to have a country where you can pretty much attain anything you want.

Err no, thats not what the founders decided, thats how it worked out. And I am not advocating that the government take away people Yachts and sell them to give food to Africa.

They did this because they understand human nature. It is human nature to want more. That goes for pretty much everybody. From me and you to the refugees of Africa who most certainly want more. There are of course consequnces to that level of freedom. they are that you must allow people to make the decisions they want, whether you approve of them or not. You must allow people the freedom to make bad decisions as well (within legal reason of course). As soon as you take those things away because you feel you know best or because we'll be better off, or because it's wrong that some of so much and others have so little, then we are no longer free. If you feel that's okay then by all means go push for that kind of society or move to one that has something like that.

So do you consider Buddhist monks not human? Or how about the many cultures which had sustainable cultures set up that were not based around growth?

And again...I am not advocating government interference. I am condemning people for not doing what they can to help.

it shouldn't even 'ought' to be that way. I choose to live in a free country where i get to do whatever the hell I want (pretty much). who are you to legilsate to me or a nation how I can or can't use what I've earned?

Jesus...when did I ever bring up legislation?

so what? Why do you have this beliefe that it is America's job to be the good samaritan of the world?

Not just America, any country that has the ability. Its just that most countries that have the ability give much larger percentages than the US does.

Opportunities can only be taken advantage of. And who is going to decide what constitutes equal opportunity for everyone? i don't really care about it. i dont think it should be that way because it make the world worse not better. Again it's the same argument we had with socialized medicine, this is not something you can have both ways. Your choices are you can have an average society where no one can reach their full potential or you have a society that allows people to fend for themselves and can succeed to their fill potontial. I choose the latter.

Who said equal opportunity? I am advocating for a minimum opportunity.

How can it? Be specific.

How can money help people? Are you seriously asking this? Derr...lets see. Buy some bread, ship it to Africa, feed some people. Or we can buy some land and plant a farm and teach some of them how to farm it and give them the land. There are so many different ways to do it...

This is my point about liberalism. It is all talk and no follow through. You say we should do all things. Socialized medicine, give money to refugees in Africa, etc. Yet not once have you been able explain how this will practically be done.

You want me to show you practically how we will give money to refugees in Africa? This is pretty simple stuff man. And Socialized medicine, like any healthcare system, is an incredibly complex thing. You don't know how its done now, neither do I...we know the basics, but thats it. So no, I, nor anyone who is not very very well educated in the field can't set up a completely coherent new system. But I have faith in the innovation and the human spirit. I also have evidence that it works other places, and no reason to think that it won't work here.

 

[Larkinn]

This is pathetically uninformed; like many of the remarks that Larkinn posts. I recently lived in Shanghai for more than a year, and visited many other Chinese cities and rural areas, including Lhasa, Urumqi, Chengdu, Beijing, and Guangzhou. China is a totalitarian country where no one has ever voted for anything. Workers are exploited for extremely low wages. Dissent is not tolerated. I have been given a tour of Tiananmen Square by a Chinese engineering professor who was there the night that the PLA opened fire on the students protesting for democracy. In China, websites are routinely blocked. If you start a newspaper that criticizes the government you will go to jail. In China, school children are taught that Tibet has always been a part of China. No one is taught that Tibet was stolen by the PLA. Some non-state companies have emerged in China. But there is no private ownership. No one can buy a house and own the ground. A greater economic prosperity is enjoyed by the 200 million Chinese that live in the cities. But the 1.1 billion that live in rural China do not share in that prosperity. You cannot leave the countryside to look for work in the cities because there are PLA military roadblocks that prevent such migration. The comparatively privileged that live in the large cities are not interested in democracy. They are worried that the great multitude in rural China will want their fair share.

*sigh*...you do get the difference between totalitarianism and communism, right?

And the statement that "no one can buy a house and own the ground" is incorrect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1112110,00.html

 

[Larkinn]

Sure, you can comment and politicize and pull the guilt card all you want but you have no higher moral authority to demand that the U.S. follow your liberal agenda. You need the vote in this country. That highly-evolved leftist country called Red China doesn't need to jump through such bothersome hoops.

When you are pushing profit and I am pushing humanitarian causes, yeah, I have a moral authority over you.

Exact opposite pinhead.

Stunning argument.

So what is it, just a bloody pink? Weren't you the one recently bringing up Tiennamen Square? If Red China is so wonderfully "not Red" anymore, why don't you just go on and live over there? In fact I think all liberals ought to live there since it is a country run by those wonderful leftist elites who know what is just the best for everyone.

Are you retarded? Red means communist. China is still a totalitarian state, they are just losing many of their communist trappings. And when did I say it was wonderful? Oh wait I didn't. Another of a long list of lies from you.

You mean incredibly right on sentiments.

Incorrect, fuckwit.

Where do you get off claiming that you didn't suggest eugenics? You even start out "seriously"...

No, actually I started it out "Seriously." Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills would have known that it meant I agreed with the OP's point about rsr.

And here is a little fact about the world. When someone says "he is a prime example for those who wish to practice eugenics, the "those" means NOT ME. When have you ever heard the word "those" spoken when it was including the speaker?

I suppose you don't realize that alot of the money coming into state colleges is private?

Thats nice. Your point is what exactly? They are controlled and run by the government.

 

[Bern80]

And why do I have to prove that it directly causes? Because you don't give a shit because it indirectly causes death? Well perhaps you should. And please explain to me what cause and effect is. Will you use the Kantian view, or the Humean view? Or perhaps even the Aristotelian view, although a bit out-dated by now. I suggest that before you "explain" it to me, you do a bit of basic research on causality so you don't embarass yourself.

Because you have to be able to show that a different action would have yielded a different outcome. I don't need to name drop to explain the simplicity of that do I? Will you use the 'look how much the elitist learned at his liberal college approach' or the 'I am your moral supperior' response?

And no, its not the equivalent of arguing that. You were a partial cause IFF you had the knowledge to stop it.

Wrong, knowledge of a wrong is not enough to stop anything. You have to have the ability to as well.

You would not be able to see it perhaps, but it would still be there. Merely because you don't get to meet the person whose life it saved, does not mean it saved nobody's life.

Again be specific. all I'm looking for is something tangible.

Not really. I am not a huge fan of material things and I treat myself to few luxuries. How I survived without an income for a year. Regardless there are luxuries and then there are luxuries. There are things that one does not need, and then there are things that are completely unnecessary and wasteful. Who the **** needs 4 cars? Like...seriously.

and it seems all you really care about it is pointing out how much better and moral that makes you than everybody else.

Again the fact that you have to ask "who the **** needs 4 cars?' clearly shows you just don't get it. Needing the 4 cars is not the point.

Err no, thats not what the founders decided, thats how it worked out. And I am not advocating that the government take away people Yachts and sell them to give food to Africa.

The founders didn't want the nations citizens to be free?

So do you consider Buddhist monks not human?

No they've simply been able to suppress that trait.

Or how about the many cultures which had sustainable cultures set up that were not based around growth?

growth and the desire for more are different things.

And again...I am not advocating government interference. I am condemning people for not doing what they can to help.

Are you doing all you can to help? When you are then you can condemn the rest of us.

Jesus...when did I ever bring up legislation?

Government run healthcare ring a bell?

Not just America, any country that has the ability. Its just that most countries that have the ability give much larger percentages than the US does.

and you still believe the poor person gives a rats ass which person gave more of themselves.

Who said equal opportunity? I am advocating for a minimum opportunity.

No buddy you brought up equality.

Lmao...your right its selfish of me to think that those with more should give away more. This has nothing to do with me feeling good, it has to do with equality, respecting peoples human rights, and equalizing gross gross gross imbalances in wealth.

and again who is going to determine under what circumstances people have an opportunity? How are you going to equal out the people that have even better opportunities?

How can money help people? Are you seriously asking this? Derr...lets see. Buy some bread, ship it to Africa, feed some people. Or we can buy some land and plant a farm and teach some of them how to farm it and give them the land. There are so many different ways to do it...

Congeratulations you completed the exercise. here's a thought, now that you figured it out, shut the hell up and just go do it. Doesn't that seem like a much better way to accomplish this then pissing and moaning to everyone else?



You want me to show you practically how we will give money to refugees in Africa? This is pretty simple stuff man. And Socialized medicine, like any healthcare system, is an incredibly complex thing. You don't know how its done now, neither do I...we know the basics, but thats it. So no, I, nor anyone who is not very very well educated in the field can't set up a completely coherent new system. But I have faith in the innovation and the human spirit. I also have evidence that it works other places, and no reason to think that it won't work here.[/QUOTE]

Well you just said something was simple and complex in the span of two sentences.

As far as socialiized medicine goes I have given you plenty of reasons in the other thread (I responded to your most recent post there a while aga btw) to see why it is unlikely such a system will yield the outcomes you claim

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When you are pushing profit and I am pushing humanitarian causes, yeah, I have a moral authority over you.

Ah, here lies the beating heart of a liberal. Can you explain why you think you have the higher moral authority? And also, why you think that "moral authority" gives you the right to push others around according to your beliefs?

Are you retarded? Red means communist. China is still a totalitarian state, they are just losing many of their communist trappings. And when did I say it was wonderful? Oh wait I didn't. Another of a long list of lies from you.

Did I claim that you said it was wonderful? I said "If Red China is so wonderfully "not Red" anymore, why don't you just go on and live over there?" I guess my sarcasm was lost on you…once again.

I really think all liberal students should be required to experience living under a communist dictatorship.

 

[Larkinn]

Because you have to be able to show that a different action would have yielded a different outcome. I don't need to name drop to explain the simplicity of that do I? Will you use the 'look how much the elitist learned at his liberal college approach' or the 'I am your moral supperior' response?

Err, its pretty obvious how a different action would have yielded a different outcome. They get food, they don't starve. Hey wow.

Wrong, knowledge of a wrong is not enough to stop anything. You have to have the ability to as well.

And you do have the ability to stop some of the wrongs.

Again be specific. all I'm looking for is something tangible.

About what exactly do you want me to be specific?

and it seems all you really care about it is pointing out how much better and moral that makes you than everybody else.

Umm, no. YOU were the one who referenced me in this argument. I am merely condemning those who don't give...YOU are the one who talked about what my personal habits are.

Again the fact that you have to ask "who the **** needs 4 cars?' clearly shows you just don't get it. Needing the 4 cars is not the point.

So people should get whatever they want, despite the fact that people are dying from very very basic needs. Alrighty then...

The founders didn't want the nations citizens to be free?

That free is where you can attain whatever you want is a subjective definition of freedom.

No they've simply been able to suppress that trait.

Then others can as well.

growth and the desire for more are different things.

The desire for more creates growth.

Are you doing all you can to help? When you are then you can condemn the rest of us.

Ad hominem attack.

Government run healthcare ring a bell?

Other thread completely unrelated to this topic ring a bell?

and you still believe the poor person gives a rats ass which person gave more of themselves.

Yay, more lies.

No buddy you brought up equality.

In the context of pointing out gross gross inequalities. Yes, it would be great it everyone was equal. But right now I will settle for pushing for everyone having a minimum opportunity.

and again who is going to determine under what circumstances people have an opportunity? How are you going to equal out the people that have even better opportunities?

Lmao...merely because I think the world should be some way does not mean I have some grand plan to make it that way. I think that racism should go away, but how the **** you do that escapes me for sure.

Congeratulations you completed the exercise. here's a thought, now that you figured it out, shut the hell up and just go do it. Doesn't that seem like a much better way to accomplish this then pissing and moaning to everyone else?

Lets see...when I say I am going to law school to do exactly that, you mock me...and now you ***** and say "omg just go do it"?

Well you just said something was simple and complex in the span of two sentences.

Incorrect. Unless you think feeding African refugees and socialized healthcare are the same thing.

As far as socialiized medicine goes I have given you plenty of reasons in the other thread (I responded to your most recent post there a while aga btw) to see why it is unlikely such a system will yield the outcomes you claim

No, you haven't. And I stopped arguing because you were providing me with the same tired bullshit again and again and again.

 

[Larkinn]

Ah, here lies the beating heart of a liberal. Can you explain why you think you have the higher moral authority? And also, why you think that "moral authority" gives you the right to push others around according to your beliefs?

Are you stupid? You asked a question that I already anwsered that you quoted already. And who the hell am I "pushing around"?

Did I claim that you said it was wonderful? I said "If Red China is so wonderfully "not Red" anymore, why don't you just go on and live over there?" I guess my sarcasm was lost on you…once again.

I got your sarcasm, I also got that it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. You are like Domino in that if you say something false about something and I point out that falsehood you think I am defending them.

I really think all liberal students should be required to experience living under a communist dictatorship.

And I really think you should be required to experience living in an African refugee camp.

 

[Bern80]

Err, its pretty obvious how a different action would have yielded a different outcome. They get food, they don't starve. Hey wow.

not really, because you see a link where there isn't one. How can something that can not be proven (which you admitted earlier) be obvious?

And you do have the ability to stop some of the wrongs.

and it's my right to choose not to. If this is your cause or whatever just go do it. This is yet another fundamental flaw of liberals. they identify problem x and for god knows what reason the next step they take is this, "we must raise awareness crap and tell people what they should do about the problem".

You see on the side of the road someone needs a tire changed and instead of simply helping the guy change a tire, you believe the best way to help is to hold up a sign for passers by saying this guy needs his tire changed.

About what exactly do you want me to be specific?

I don't know how much more specific I can be. I understand liberals aren't big on logistics and all. Do you not know what the word tangible means? Tangible is i give the clerk a dollar she gives me a loaf of bread. I can see the transaction. How do you beleive the same would occur with me giving x amount of dollars to charity and somehow that money providing for a specific person? The way the system is set up now, all I have is some charities word (which has it's bill and administrative costs to pay).

Umm, no. YOU were the one who referenced me in this argument. I am merely condemning those who don't give...YOU are the one who talked about what my personal habits are.

No, you are comparing yourself to others, thus showing that you are better than others. As I said before I've never seen a more glaring example of todays liberal. You should trademark yourself or something.

So people should get whatever they want, despite the fact that people are dying from very very basic needs. Alrighty then...

Glad to see your catching on. they should do that because that what allows for the best outcomes for all. Ultimately greed has saved more lives then charity ever will.

That free is where you can attain whatever you want is a subjective definition of freedom.

and what would your definition of freedom be?

The desire for more creates growth.

not an econ major i see

Ad hominem attack.

It's called put your money where your mouth is. and an observation I've seen time and time again in liberals. they have all these great causes telling people what they should do, yet few actually do them themselves.

Other thread completely unrelated to this topic ring a bell?

Not unrelated as it is part of your belief system.

Yay, more lies.

No it isn't because you claimed they would. The comparison is pointless as far as a solution goes. It serves no other purppose then to make you feel good about yourself which is ultimately a selfish motive.

In the context of pointing out gross gross inequalities. Yes, it would be great it everyone was equal. But right now I will settle for pushing for everyone having a minimum opportunity.

Again if everyone is equal than the society can only be as good as it's lowest common denominator. What good is that if the race does out in 100 years because no one could find a cure for cancer?

Under certain circumstances it would be great if everyone were equal, but those circumstances will never be in this world. if everyone had the drive to work as hard as they could for example. Or if it were somehow amazingly possible to achieve your 'minimum opportunities' across the planet.

Lmao...merely because I think the world should be some way does not mean I have some grand plan to make it that way. I think that racism should go away, but how the **** you do that escapes me for sure.

That may be something you will want to work on then

Lets see...when I say I am going to law school to do exactly that, you mock me...and now you ***** and say "omg just go do it"?

and how will going to lawschool feed people in Africa? Yes that's a serious question.

Incorrect. Unless you think feeding African refugees and socialized healthcare are the same thing.

I would say both ventures will be fairly complex.

No, you haven't. And I stopped arguing because you were providing me with the same tired bullshit again and again and again.

No, you didn't respond because you don't have an answer for it. Where we were was that you claim something would occur under socialized medicine. the rest is simple. At some point you will have to show that your claims were correct, agreed? I tried to show how that could be measured and I believe I showed quite adequately that it is highly unlikely that your claims can be substantiated. It isn't difficult to continue the conversation. All you have to do is show some error in my calculations. For example what isn't going to happen (or even unlikely to happen) that I am assuming.

 

[Larkinn]

not really, because you see a link where there isn't one. How can something that can not be proven (which you admitted earlier) be obvious?

This is getting ridiculous. No, I did NOT prove say that it cannot be proven. All I said is that it is indirect.

and it's my right to choose not to. If this is your cause or whatever just go do it. This is yet another fundamental flaw of liberals. they identify problem x and for god knows what reason the next step they take is this, "we must raise awareness crap and tell people what they should do about the problem".

It is your right to choose not to. It is also your right to cheat on your girlfriend, lie, make small children cry, etc, etc. All of them also make you an asshole.

You see on the side of the road someone needs a tire changed and instead of simply helping the guy change a tire, you believe the best way to help is to hold up a sign for passers by saying this guy needs his tire changed.

Umm, no. You obviously don't know anything about advertising from a NGO's standpoint. Also please realize the massive difference between a solution that I myself CAN solve and one that I myself CAN'T solve. Besides the fact that we already went over that I am dedicating my life to saving these people, so really, save the bullshit that "omg your not doing anything".

Besides the fact that its an ad hominem attack, which are getting tiring. Continue on and I will return the favor four-fold. And trust me, I am much better and much less subtle at it.

I don't know how much more specific I can be. I understand liberals aren't big on logistics and all. Do you not know what the word tangible means? Tangible is i give the clerk a dollar she gives me a loaf of bread. I can see the transaction. How do you beleive the same would occur with me giving x amount of dollars to charity and somehow that money providing for a specific person? The way the system is set up now, all I have is some charities word (which has it's bill and administrative costs to pay).

There are watchdog groups that watch charities and show how much each pays for administration costs. Or if you really must see peoples face, ******* fly over there and hand it to them yourself.

No, you are comparing yourself to others, thus showing that you are better than others. As I said before I've never seen a more glaring example of todays liberal. You should trademark yourself or something.

No, YOU brought up what I was doing. YOU are comparing me to others. YOU are asking me to "put my money where my mouth is". If you are going to insist on making this about me, then don't condemn me when it comes off as "omg you think you are better than me". I think people have a responsibility to act in a moral and responsible way. You don't act in that way. I, for the most part, do. Where you get the idea that I think that I am so much better than anyone else is anyones guess.

Glad to see your catching on. they should do that because that what allows for the best outcomes for all. Ultimately greed has saved more lives then charity ever will.

So is it the greed which allows blood diamonds in Africa to be mined which is saving lives? Or maybe the greed of dictators who want all the power to themselves, like Mao or Pol Pot? Or is it perhaps the greed of would be emperors like Napoleon or Hitler which have saved so many lives?

and what would your definition of freedom be?

One which is subjective as yours, which is why I don't go around proclaiming that this or that is "freedom".

not an econ major i see

Stunning rebuttal. If you think I am wrong, show it.

It's called put your money where your mouth is. and an observation I've seen time and time again in liberals. they have all these great causes telling people what they should do, yet few actually do them themselves.

But when I show you how I do put my money where my mouth is, you are all "omg, you think you are better than everyone else".

Not unrelated as it is part of your belief system.

Merely because I think that healthcare should be run by the government is NO reason to assume that I think that this should be run by the government. Hence your asinine assumption is, once again, incorrect.

No it isn't because you claimed they would. The comparison is pointless as far as a solution goes. It serves no other purppose then to make you feel good about yourself which is ultimately a selfish motive.

No, I did NOT claim that they would. You are lying or stupid, one or the other.

Again if everyone is equal than the society can only be as good as it's lowest common denominator. What good is that if the race does out in 100 years because no one could find a cure for cancer?

Please realize the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes.

Under certain circumstances it would be great if everyone were equal, but those circumstances will never be in this world. if everyone had the drive to work as hard as they could for example. Or if it were somehow amazingly possible to achieve your 'minimum opportunities' across the planet.

It is "amazingly possible". This world has the wealth to promote that. The wealth is just amazingly concentrated in the hands of a very few.

That may be something you will want to work on then

Fuckwit.

and how will going to lawschool feed people in Africa? Yes that's a serious question.

There are numerous ways that it could help. I don't know exactly which path I will choose, since I have not earned a degree and I am not looking for jobs as of yet. However there are positions working for NGO's trying to get the worlds richest nations to honor their promises for aid to Africa. There is lobbying to try to get more aid to Africa. There is working with African governments to make sure the aid goes to where it needs to go. There is working with Western governments to make sure aid goes where it will be used efficiently. etc, etc, etc.

I would say both ventures will be fairly complex.

Feeding ALL Africans is...Feeding SOME Africans is not. And that wasn't your argument before, before it was that they are the same thing. Funny how when I show how your statements are bullshit instead of retracting them you just comment about something else.

No, you didn't respond because you don't have an answer for it. Where we were was that you claim something would occur under socialized medicine. the rest is simple. At some point you will have to show that your claims were correct, agreed? I tried to show how that could be measured and I believe I showed quite adequately that it is highly unlikely that your claims can be substantiated. It isn't difficult to continue the conversation. All you have to do is show some error in my calculations. For example what isn't going to happen (or even unlikely to happen) that I am assuming.

Be careful what you wish for. You want a response, you got it. But due to your constant ad hominem attacks, I no longer feel any need to be respectful to you in the slightest.

 

[Bern80]

It is your right to choose not to. It is also your right to cheat on your girlfriend, lie, make small children cry, etc, etc. All of them also make you an asshole.

we continue doing the inuendo crap or we can stop and debate the issue. Your choice.

Umm, no. You obviously don't know anything about advertising from a NGO's standpoint. Also please realize the massive difference between a solution that I myself CAN solve and one that I myself CAN'T solve. Besides the fact that we already went over that I am dedicating my life to saving these people, so really, save the bullshit that "omg your not doing anything".

And I believe you have more power right now than you give yourself credit for. If this your life's calling, hey good for you. I could be so lucky to know what that is for myself. If you found something you really want to do and can make a living at it, great. that should be enough for you. You shouldn't need to come onto some right wing message board claiming the moral high ground and telling everyone else how much more moral you are then they are.

No, YOU brought up what I was doing. YOU are comparing me to others. YOU are asking me to "put my money where my mouth is". If you are going to insist on making this about me, then don't condemn me when it comes off as "omg you think you are better than me". I think people have a responsibility to act in a moral and responsible way. You don't act in that way. I, for the most part, do. Where you get the idea that I think that I am so much better than anyone else is anyones guess.

You have no clue as to my morals. If you meat me on the street tomorrow not knowing it was me do you think you would consider me the son of satan or generally a decent guy?

So is it the greed which allows blood diamonds in Africa to be mined which is saving lives? Or maybe the greed of dictators who want all the power to themselves, like Mao or Pol Pot? Or is it perhaps the greed of would be emperors like Napoleon or Hitler which have saved so many lives?

I don't believe I ever claimed greed was all good. What I claim was that greed has lead to many inovations that have saved many lives.

One which is subjective as yours, which is why I don't go around proclaiming that this or that is "freedom".

Then answer the question.

But when I show you how I do put my money where my mouth is, you are all "omg, you think you are better than everyone else".

If you believe the path you are on is the one that will most effectively meet you goal, fine. I'm not so sure.

No, I did NOT claim that they would. You are lying or stupid, one or the other.

If your gonna stay in law school you may want to brush up on your word definitions a hair. Especially lieing. that's an important one for lawyers I hear.

Please realize the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes.

Funny I ask libs to do that all the time. Which are you for?

It is "amazingly possible". This world has the wealth to promote that. The wealth is just amazingly concentrated in the hands of a very few.

There really isn't anything that amazing about it.

There are numerous ways that it could help. I don't know exactly which path I will choose, since I have not earned a degree and I am not looking for jobs as of yet. However there are positions working for NGO's trying to get the worlds richest nations to honor their promises for aid to Africa. There is lobbying to try to get more aid to Africa. There is working with African governments to make sure the aid goes to where it needs to go. There is working with Western governments to make sure aid goes where it will be used efficiently. etc, etc, etc.

thanks just curious

Feeding ALL Africans is...Feeding SOME Africans is not. And that wasn't your argument before, before it was that they are the same thing. Funny how when I show how your statements are bullshit instead of retracting them you just comment about something else.

understanding arguments is important for lawyers as well

Be careful what you wish for. You want a response, you got it. But due to your constant ad hominem attacks, I no longer feel any need to be respectful to you in the slightest.

shakin in my boots. You want to use that as your excuse fine. You have condescended to me far more than I have to you. with Grrrs, and Errs, and Duh's and genius at the begining of most sentences. You are not that subtle wiseguy.