Over here we have a saying, "He's a member of the green ink brigade."
SpheresOfBalance wrote:So, yours was not necessarily a definitive experience, and you chose your level of interaction, as I seek mine. How effective were you? ...
One out of three.
Why is that the case? ...
Because the one had wider support amongst the populace and it had an economic base.
Who is to say which is better, gets more results. ...
Not what I say, what I say is that if one is going to moralise about a situation then one ought to be doing something concrete about it.
By the way I found out something interesting the other day that pertains to our argument, especially as it pertains to previous ignorant points of yours. So here you go:
"The United Nations: World Food Program (WFP) is the largest humanitarian program in the world and has been in existence for over half a century."
"65 percent of the world's hungry live in only seven countries: India, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ethiopia."
"In either 2008 or 2009 (not sure which) they (WFP) gave 3.3 Million Metric Tons to 90 million people in more than 80 countries
"30% of food for the program passes through one port in Norfolk Virginia, USA"
"In 2008 the USA was the leading donor to the World Food Program with more than $2 billion of food contributions.
Saudi Arabia ranked second, with more than $500 million"
You want to really help the hungry of the world? Then funnily enough I'm with bob evenson on this, lobby governments to drop all import tariffs to those countries and stop subsidising farmers in their own. Food aid does little more than distort the markets of those countries and make it uneconomic for their farmers to compete, as how do you compete with 'free' food. It also allows the governments of those countries(often dictatorships) to ignore their responsibilities and much of that food doesn't actually get to those who most need it as it often gets stolen or hoarded by those in power.
Your figures sound impressive but there appear to be about 870 million hungry people in the world so 90 million only helps 10% approximately.
Its not surprising that 65% of the hungry live in those countries as they are just over 46% of the worlds population.
Again you're seemingly dense, as to my meaning, which I have explained, as you seemingly project lies to support your argument. Meaning that you only care about winning, and not the issue at hand; that the facts through understanding, mean less to you, than stating your case, which doesn't really exist.
What are you waffling about now!? Do you deny that earlier in this thread you said that killing these poachers would be your solution. I'm just pointing out the irony that you do not consider them to have recourse to your excuses.
No, you cannot know this, that I did anything to kill, that's your assumption. ...
One based upon the fact that the US DOD is not a maker of fairy cakes.
But immaterial as well, as I was very young when I started working for the DOD.
As may be the poacher.
OK, since you're seemingly so dense:
While all are culpable, to one extent or another, which is more so, and does it matter?
The soldier that pulls the trigger, the authority that orders him to do so, the manufacturer that produces it, or the taxpayers that pay for it all. One can always leave the country, and find some unclaimed coral atoll, an archipelago.
Your logic is flawed. One is not to be held accountable, intellectually, for the acts of a human construct, created long before they were born, that they were programmed to do, as the young mind that they were, in a society thought to be their own, as they, like all children, try and be accepted, by what they believe to be, their kind. Wise, usually older, adults, are the only ones capable of finding any real quantity of truly free will, as they can always seek the unclaimed atoll. ...
Wise old adults accept their culpability and live with it. The less wise try to change the situation.
Also, I've apparently done plenty, look at that statistic in red above again, so as to visit your folly.
Read my response to understand yours.
The universe is "god," you fool! One way or another, this is a fact as it pertains to human existence. The only argument is, as to either intelligent purposeful creation, or arbitrary chance creation. And that, at this stage, is merely a flip of a coin, not very certain, huh?
The only argument is that both are a waste of philosophical time as they are pointless metaphysics from the point of philosophy now.
Not that it really matters, "Arising_uk," but where do you think the UK was on that whole list, as partially referenced above in red? There is quite a disparity between the number one and number two spot, don't you think?
Per chance, do you live on an atoll, in international waters, "Arising_uk?"
Nope I live on an island. One affiliated with the EU which gives about 29% of all 'food aid'. Of that group the UK is the largest donator.
But see my thoughts above about the whole matter.
But the real question is, "your honesty, yes your honesty," while you do the math, as presented throughout this message, as to your place in the equation. Or to be fair, it might be ignorance, show me which it is, in how you choose to respond.
I did, and think on the whole that my solution would do the hungry of the world more good.
