|
On October 22 2006 03:45 itzme_petey wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
Are we talking about the same country? The USA has ALOT of money and its spread among alot of different programs. So since there is "media" focus on a certain subject doesnt mean that other projects are forgotten.
There is a clear difference for spending 1 dollar on AIDS research and 2 dollars on AIDS research, simple enough?
I did NOT write they do not spend money on research to cure AIDS or anything like that, so wtf are you writing about?
|
if they cut funding for weapons research it doesnt mean that their gonna use it for something good. politicians are like that.
|
i know it's cruel, but doesn't anybody else find war and disease almost necessary? the same people who argue against war and disease probably also support the pro environmental arguments as well? Is this the case in other countries?
What causes environmental damage? People. What kills people? More people. Here in America we just arrived at an estimated population of 300 million. I must drive for 1.3 hours for my university, and 1 hour for my work. If there were less people in my way these times could be reduced. I know some people are turned against death as the ultimate evil, but it is a process that either evolved or was granted to people during creation.
As far as disease in Africa, I agree it is a tragic time, but should I be accountable for the 3rd or 4th generation of ignorance to a disease? Edit: There's a saying "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he can eat for his life time." For my entire life I have lived with ads on my television about feeding starving Africans. At what point do Africans (I know there are africans not in such bad situations, but the starving Aids infested I am talking about) start to fish for themselves, proverbially speaking?
I'm not much into socialisim, so yes my arguments are biased to a great extent. I guess my main point is, is it better to have periodic wars that redefine borders control populations and create a heirarchy of power or to live a pacifist life and race head long into what ever hell to which we are currently headed in the world? Even if I'm one to meet my inevitable death in war, I'd be more secure than living in fear, so I will choose the former.
|
On October 20 2006 13:16 IntoTheWow wrote:
I dont like this idea, it will fuck up FPS games.
Imagine counter strike with a rapid fire weapon like this. Its like a hax, =[.
nah in CS spraying is overly nerfed anyway
|
yare, wouldn't you agree that we should kill the africans with aids and feed them to the starving africans so that we solve both problems at once?
|
Norway28875 Posts
On October 22 2006 08:11 IdrA wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
people have been going to war since they had nothing but sticks and rocks to fight with. technology does not cause war, it prevents or slows it. now that everyone knows if there is a big enough conflict everyone will get whiped off the face of the earth by nukes it takes alot more to provoke such a fight.
an educated population prevents war to an even larger degree than improved technology does
I mean usa went to war BECAUSE another country supposedly had weapons capable of mass destruction, and with the help of an ignorant population
although yes if every country has the ability to nuke every other country the whole mutually assured destruction makes countries far, far less likely to wage war against eachother, at the same time it makes the inevitable conflict all the more destructive.
|
We don't need to send the africans food, we need to send them suitcases, so they can pack up their shit and get their asses out of desert. Why the fuck do you think they don't have any food? IT'S THE DESERT!
|
how would you want the population to be educated? the government was the one keeping the public ignorant in order to provide a reason to go to war. as long as people (especially governments) want things that can only be acquired by military conquest you're gonna have war. hell even getting rid of such governments requires military action.
and the technological progression of military weapons is hard to stop because no one wants to take the initiative. everyone always wants everyone else to disarm or stop research first, because whoever does it first leaves their asses hanging out unprotected.
|
On October 22 2006 11:23 yare wrote:
As far as disease in Africa, I agree it is a tragic time, but should I be accountable for the 3rd or 4th generation of ignorance to a disease? Edit: There's a saying "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he can eat for his life time." For my entire life I have lived with ads on my television about feeding starving Africans. At what point do Africans (I know there are africans not in such bad situations, but the starving Aids infested I am talking about) start to fish for themselves, proverbially speaking?
assuming medication = fish in your analogy, because they simply do not have the means to do so. to fish you need a stick and a string. its not quite so simple to make aids medication.
|
Another cruel/inhumane question that doesnt really relate to how i feel but i like to argue about anyways:
Why are dying africans our problem?
|
because 'we' feel it is immoral to watch others suffer through no fault of their own when we have the means to help them.
|
Norway28875 Posts
well its the problem of western europe partially because our exploitation and imperialism helped cause their shitty situation
not only our fault of course but we certainly didnt do enough to help them get out of a situation we created which is hard to get out of on your own
not to mention we don't lose anything from helping them as we can help withough making much of a dent at all in our own wealth
|
On October 22 2006 16:32 IdrA wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
assuming medication = fish in your analogy, because they simply do not have the means to do so. to fish you need a stick and a string. its not quite so simple to make aids medication.
He was talking about preventing AIDS, not treating it
"not to mention we don't lose anything from helping them as we can help withough making much of a dent at all in our own wealth"
$2.3 trillion has already went into developing countries. Hard to tell how much progess has been made 
|
On October 22 2006 19:02 BlackJack wrote:$2.3 trillion has already went into developing countries. Hard to tell how much progess has been made I'm sure without that $2.3 Trillion, 2.3 million people won't be alive now.
|
Norway28875 Posts
$2.3 trillion is certainly much less than our exploitation and imperialism has gained us materially.
|
Norway28875 Posts
and well
norway could easily give 2% of our BNP without it affecting us much at all
that being said though very, very many early humanitarian projects were very costly without accomplishing anything. however nowadays, while theres still a lot of dead money being given, there are many extremely useful projects as well.
|
lol nevermind i lost interest ><
|
Norway28875 Posts
ok 
|
On October 22 2006 07:53 aseq wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
By just using violence to those 100 weapons manufacturers you might save more lives elsewhere.
Killing those researchers wouldn't change anything. More would be trained to replace them, and possibly taken away from research that is more beneficial to the world as a whole. You are getting mad at the wrong people. These people design the weapons because they want to put food on their table. The government makes war, so the government is who you have a problem with, and nobody else. (I'm not calling for Bush's assassination, but our government should be fighting for our best interests, and it clearly is not (approval rating below 50%...))
EDIT:Just so you know, I realize you are Dutch, but the point can be translated to any nation/conflict that isn't supported by the nation's citizens.
|
Very intresting, but the money would have been better spent to prevent aids.
Or if military technology is really so important then the money should have been put towards purely defensive abilities, none of these offensive weapons acting on defense. We don't need bullets to stop missiles, we need electrostatic shields to stop missiles.
Keep in mind this is coming from a supporter of the Armed Forces, not a peace protestor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
