Africa

[Trunkx3]

I'm not going to argue with you people about this anymore. You are so unwilling for any change and the idea of it frightens you into a panic of curse words and insults. I thought It'd be nice to bring forth an argument for the other side of the issue but you guys apparently can't handle an opposition. Since insults are now the fashion of arguments, I'll throw out my own. Poor little GUiardra, you are a glaring example of humanitie's inevitable end. I'm afraid that your intellectual inabilities will keep you from ever understanding what I was truely trying to say. Do you not understand? Now flame back with insults of my incompetence and disillusions about the world. I won't pose a rebuttal so dish out all you like. I won't give you the satisfaction of reply because you'd refuse to attempt to understand a thing i've typed.

I still fail to see where my general observations of global issues has personally insulted you. (And your critical thinking skills are poor. To be filled with curse words and anger... like a child... really.)

Have fun thinking!

[banditcom]

All I know is that a former leader of the AIDS foundation in South Africa contracted AIDS by having unprotected sex with a woman he knew had AIDS but had believed he would be fine if he took a shower afterwards........

EDIT: Uhh Trunkx, just from a quick glance, you're the one throwing out insults. He was merely debating with you and now you're basically calling him stupid and backing out? Wow. Great job! Way to try to prove a point!! Seems you're the one disillusioned.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Trunkx3

I'm not going to argue with you people about this anymore. You are so unwilling for any change and the idea of it frightens you into a panic of curse words and insults. I thought It'd be nice to bring forth an argument for the other side of the issue but you guys apparently can't handle an opposition. Since insults are now the fashion of arguments, I'll throw out my own. Poor little GUiardra, you are a glaring example of humanitie's inevitable end. I'm afraid that your intellectual inabilities will keep you from ever understanding what I was truely trying to say. Do you not understand? Now flame back with insults of my incompetence and disillusions about the world. I won't pose a rebuttal so dish out all you like. I won't give you the satisfaction of reply because you'd refuse to attempt to understand a thing i've typed.

I still fail to see where my general observations of global issues has personally insulted you. (And your critical thinking skills are poor. To be filled with curse words and anger... like a child... really.)

Have fun thinking!

Uhh.........what?

First, you expect us to change our opinions after your one post? You know, in order for me to change my ideas, you have to present a convincing argument, which it seems you did not do. How is "unwillingness to change" generally bad? Would you berate yourself for being unwilling to change if someone suggested that it would be good to slaughter your entire family?

Taking a moral high ground does not make your opinion necessarily right.

Second, yes, my well-constructed rebuttal of proper form and grammar was panic-ridden. And the swearing reduced the value of my opinions to that of a nine year old, right? They couldn't have been used only to emphasize my distaste for that idea or anything, no, that was just childish.

Third, can't handle opposition? Refer to the bolded statement above.

Ah, then you jump on one line that Tass wrote and blow it out of proportion saying that everyone here just uses insults, and that it's therefore okay to do the same. Please.

I don't mind if you don't reply because, as you claim our critical thinking skills to be poor, your debating skills are nil. Drop the "everything I think is 100% correct" ego complex and then get back to us. (But hey, if you still want to reply, people say they're going to stop and don't all the time, so don't feel like your pride is at stake)

I also wanted to comment on this (since you ninja'd my post, so I just now read it):

And why is it that you don't consider a fellow human being on the other side of the world your problem? His pain and suffering is not as great as our own who are suffering? Lets assume in a couple centuries from now that all national boarder have dissolved and there is a united world government. Would you still feel that people in need over there were still second class human beings? That the don't deserve treatment before those who live closer to you? I know that my arguments have no effect on you because you've already decided how the world is, and I cannot change your views with words. Thats humanity. Most of us are greedy, self-centered, and incapable of adapting fast enough with the times. This will inevitably be the downfall of man, allowing another species to dominate this planet.

Again, I'll refer to the brother idea. Of course one human's suffering is no greater than another's, but to an individual, that is not the case. I will care more about my brother dying than some African. I will care more about my friends' and family's plights than a Botswanan's. This applies to everyone, too. There's nothing about considering people you don't know to be second-class or anything, either. I will cry more for my brother's death than for Tarja Halonen's (Finnish president). You would, too.

Now, I'm not as bothered with the death of the ten year old girl in Oklahoma this weekend as I would be with my own cousin's death, and if Texas were able to do something for her that Oklahoma couldn't or wouldn't, I wouldn't expect anything to be done. However, as she and I are both Americans, the distance between us that prevented significant empathy from me is greatly reduced when compared to someone from a different country. It's only natural.

So, running with your idea of a united world government, the laws of that nation would dictate whether or not he deserves things. If everyone everywhere is equal, then yes, I would expect everything I get to also be offered to him. However, this is not the case, and as such, doesn't need to be considered.

@talisman: I'm neither suggesting that anyone else should desist in their aid to others nor that we should do nothing; some things can and should be done, but I think Trunkx's suggestions are way over the top.

And one more thing, Trunkx:

I know that my arguments have no effect on you because you've already decided how the world is, and I cannot change your views with words.

banditcom touched on it, but do you see the irony here? You come into this thread, state your point, and when someone posts against your ideas, you throw your hands up and leave, calling us unmovable. Now, if you realize this but don't see the problem, refer again to the bolded statement above.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[talisman]

Guido what exactly is your position, beyond that people have varying degrees of priorities and concern for others as a function of themselves and of who the others might be? (I understand that you're speaking alot in rebuttal of trunk, but just trying to get your take on the topic itself).

More, less, or the same amount of governmental involvement in Africa?

[GuidoHunter]

Well, my response to the OP was in my first reply, but I don't think that's exactly answering your question...

I'm not entirely sure how much we're giving to Africa and for what it's going, but if it's about what I'm assuming, then probably the same or a little less. I'm all for some help in curing AIDS, but I think we should just stay out of the genocide. We've got too much foreign involvement already, and while some is for the protection of the homeland and some is for economic investment, we have no connections or anything to gain from helping the Tutsi or the other group (H-something?). Plus, if we DO choose to support one side over the other, we'll necessarily be picking the wrong one and thus be subjected to further negative world opinion (not that that worries me too much, but there's no reason to lower it in this case).

If Africa can't learn to control its own problems then it'll never have hope as an independent entity.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[-Izzy-]

Originally Posted by Trunkx3

I'm not going to argue with you people about this anymore. You are so unwilling for any change and the idea of it frightens you into a panic of curse words and insults. I thought It'd be nice to bring forth an argument for the other side of the issue but you guys apparently can't handle an opposition. Since insults are now the fashion of arguments, I'll throw out my own. Poor little GUiardra, you are a glaring example of humanitie's inevitable end. I'm afraid that your intellectual inabilities will keep you from ever understanding what I was truely trying to say. Do you not understand? Now flame back with insults of my incompetence and disillusions about the world. I won't pose a rebuttal so dish out all you like. I won't give you the satisfaction of reply because you'd refuse to attempt to understand a thing i've typed.

I still fail to see where my general observations of global issues has personally insulted you. (And your critical thinking skills are poor. To be filled with curse words and anger... like a child... really.)

Have fun thinking!

I know, they always do this and its very very anoying. It reminds me of when i tried posting on the peta forums and i talked about how i eat meat and they're like. holy **** you kill animals. I hate you and your family, and then they delete your posts. So they just sit there all day long agreeing with eachother.

[talisman]

good job commenting on the topic.

ps finding digging through the budgets is a pain in the ass... so **** that.

[stretchypanda]

Izzy, people's reaction to you and their reaction to Trunk are pretty incomparable. People generally don't disagree with you because you never present anything worth debating. They just yell at you because you can't argue.

Trunk, it's cool that you're all globally aware and everything, but Guido and Tass are right. We cannot help people an ocean away before we take care of our own messes. AIDS ravages the US just as it does in Africa. Poverty is overtaking our country. I live in a city with the most churches per capita, that also has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. How can I begin to feel concern for some poor souls in another country when right down the street men and women gather every Sunday for the one meal they may eat for days and a little fellowship?

It sounds selfish, but it isn't. When we are all able to stand on our own feet, we can help those around us stand up. Americans' first responsibility to Americans.

[talisman]

Again, could the money being spent by our government on AIDS in africa actually do any significant good for dealing with any domestic issue like poverty or even AIDS here?

I don't know what that amount of money is, if it even exists, but my guess is that it's incredibly small, relative to the budget.

and I only mention gov't spending because no one really has much place telling someone else "you can't give that money to africa spend it on AIDS research here" since, well, individuals can do whatever they well want with their money.

[GuidoHunter]

Any amount of money is small relative to the budget. And with the way America gives money away, I'd imagine the amount of aid is in the nine figure range, which could do a tremendous amount of good if invested properly. Probably not enough to raise numbers across the country, but it doesn't take a lot to "do some good".

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[talisman]

well first off it would help us alot to find out what that number is... I tried looking for like 15 minutes but had no luck.

secondly, like any economic decision, there are advantages and disadvantages. What about our standing in the international community? What will other nations think when they see that the U.S. is pulling out its African AIDS relief aid? What about our interests in Africa? What happens to their willingness to agree to favorable trade agreements when we pull out the rug on their AIDS support?

[GuidoHunter]

That first (well, second) question is a bit sticky. On one hand, nobody could really blame us for focusing more on helping our own people. The other hand isn't really relevant to the discussion, though, as it deals with us pulling our Africa aid for domestic priorities, when the more reasonable thing to do would be to reform our own systems and take money from other, more frivolous places before our Africa aid.

But our interests in Africa? The state in which Africa currently sits doesn't lead me to believe that they're in any position to refuse trade, especially with America.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

All this jazz about "Americans First" is all fine and dandy and I totally agree that America should be focused on the problems in America, but that's kind hypocritical is it not considering the sh*t storm going on in Iraq? Yeah, you could argue the whole "war on terror" angle, but the rest of the World isnt buying it. We can waste trillions of dollars on a war that is getting us nowhere, but we cant spare some money for a cure for AIDs.

In all honestly, I think a majority of the worlds problems would be solved a lot quicker if the government would back it with as much force as they did this "war on terror." How many people die of Cancer each year? A lot more people than the final death count of those who died on 9/11.

I mean, if you really support this whole "fix america's problems first" than what's wrong with nuking some terrorist hotspots? I mean, the rest of the world is mad at us, might as well give them a really good reason to.

The problem with the countries that hate America is that they arent afraid enough.

[Tasselfoot]

Hey Jewp... we weren't discussing that AT ALL. As such, it was never brought up.

I think that if it had been brought up, it would have been discussed in a similar manner. As a waste of funds that could best be used elsewhere.

So, yea... you went off on a tangent to answer a question that was never asked or brought up, and yet would likely have been answered in the same manner by those of us who feel African issues should be dealt by Africans. Then again, the one major difference is... terrorists attacking and killing Americans are coming from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Middle Eastern nations. They aren't coming from Africa. Therefore, there is SLIGHTLY more justification for spending money on Iraq/Afghanistan than Africa, as it can be justified as spending to make American safer.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

We can waste trillions of dollars on a war that is getting us nowhere, but we cant spare some money for a cure for AIDs.

In all honestly, I think a majority of the worlds problems would be solved a lot quicker if the government would back it with as much force as they did this "war on terror." How many people die of Cancer each year? A lot more people than the final death count of those who died on 9/11.

We ARE sparing some money for a cure for AIDS.

As I said before, cures for AIDS and cancer won't come quicker the more money and politicians you throw at them. Anyone with the brainpower to find a cure is already working on one, and no matter how much money someone has, they're not going to get any smarter.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

We ARE sparing some money for a cure for AIDS.

As I said before, cures for AIDS and cancer won't come quicker the more money and politicians you throw at them. Anyone with the brainpower to find a cure is already working on one, and no matter how much money someone has, they're not going to get any smarter.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Well, what about the Space Race? Had NASA not had the extreme backing it did do you think the US would have ever made it to the Moon in the time it did?

I think if Al-Queda was searching for a cure for AIDs/Cancer the US would totally be pulling out the stops to beat it to the punch.

@Tass, my comment was directed towards Panda's comment:

Americans' first responsibility to Americans.

PS. Africa, grow up already. You're the cradle of civilization and you cant straighten your sh*t out yet? Yeah, Great Britian and France did kind of f*ck you over royally, but look at India. There on the rise. Come on, let's see some unity. Strike out against the man, not against your brother. Same goes for you the Middle East, your in the same boat.

[talisman]

Originally Posted by guido

The state in which Africa currently sits doesn't lead me to believe that they're in any position to refuse trade, especially with America.

note how I said "favorable" trade agreements. My thinking is that if you've got a bunch of diamonds, and the US just pulled out its AIDS support, why not cut Russia a better deal for them? Or slap an export tariff on the ones going to the US?

I was talking to tass about this a few days ago and I basically think that it's virtually impossible to avoid globalization today... a nation as powerful as America simply can't afford to curl up and spend all of its money on itself, or it will lose its power. And decisions like giving foreign aid are very difficult to rescind for both political and diplomatic reasons.

But ignoring that practical reality, even in theory I think it makes sense to spend some money in Africa, fighting AIDS. Just seems like the (morally) right thing to do to me.

And don't be so dismissive about bringing up Iraq... talk about money that not only didn't need to be spent in the first place, but when spent was done so very ineffectively with little to no checks against for abuse by government contractors.

The connection between Iraq and Africa? Anyone remember one of the main justifications for the war? The supposed attempt to get yellowcake uranium from Nigeria? Yeah, the thing based on British intelligence that our intelligence doubted, that Joe Wilson publically disputed... followed by his wife's status being selectively and mysteriously declassified and released to only specific outlets in the press?

but it's late and I'm rambling... off to bed.