Pensacola Fishing Forum / General Discussion / Off Topic / Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world? / Latest Posts

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Garbo — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:47:36 GMT

When Ron posted this, things were very different than they are now. Gas was under 3.00 a gallon, China was on the way to what it is in practically owning the US, in Debt.

Do you have a different view now?

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

SouthernAngler — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:28:24 GMT

I just saw a commercial yesterday and they wanted you to donate your old laptops for the kids in need in third world countries...doesnt make sense to me.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Fishhound — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:07:35 GMT

[quote][b]dustcover (11/14/2007)[/b][hr] And for this, each man is paid 125 daka, the equivalence of which is a bit less than $2 per day.
Words cannot describe how these surroundings have impacted my thought process!![/quote]

$2.00 per day? $2.00 PER DAY? Are you f----ing kidding me? $2.00 PER DAY. That is $10.00 per week...and can buy tons and tons of rice to feed over 500 hundred kids for a year. The State of Florida tells divorced fathers that it costs $15.00 per day to feed a kid; so, figure how much I would have to make to feed 500 kids for a year. Those kids are earning a fortune - and why are they not sharing amongst themselves?:banghead:banghead

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

jspooney — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:14:33 GMT

It is quite easy to call a basketball game from the stands better than from the floor. It is easier to see the obviously open receiver from the box seats than from the field. It is also much easier to say "screw em...let's just sterilize them all and not help because the got themselves into this mess" when we are eating all we want and then more...having never walked with them and actually seen their misery first hand. True, there are abuses on all levels...true, there is an education problem...true, there is a line between enabling and helping...but true, to let them starve goes against our core values as a nation and as a people. I am truly a part of the greatest country on earth...a place where most people actually care about people who are suffering. I am pretty sure Tunaman and others care about people who are suffering. I think personal experience with suffering changes our view of who is "worthy" of help and who is not. This is truly a difficult problem.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

konz — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:07:21 GMT

Dustcover,

I have seen the same thing my friend. Except when I saw it, it was on the 10th floor of an office building and it was a group of kids carrying bags of morter and equipment up the stairs, b/c they weren't allowed to use the elevators.......and yes I said kids! After carrying it up, they got to work...then slept there for the night.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

hot_reelin_honey — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:27:39 GMT

Well I Agree I also think that it you can't feed them don't have them-- shouldn't our money be going for birth control so they don't have as many to feed and most americans have a hard time feeding there own hince all the foodstamps and public assistance-- so how can we feed anothers country???? I think they should video tape these commercial and then mail them to donald trump and bill gates :)

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

yucarenow — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 00:01:13 GMT

now that we're on the subject of government waste...........we should have held back on spending(and borrowing) the trillions of dollars on the iraqi war and built a few theme parks across malaysia and west africa......spark their economies with tourism........hell, we could have created a governmental multi-cultural disney-world of sorts.....free cotton candy for the malnourished and starving!

brilliance!

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

dustcover — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:35:35 GMT

In no way would I presume to criticize another's views on this question. However, it wasn't until I witnessed the poverty and hunger of others firsthand and up close that my own views on the question were forever altered. I cannot in clear conscious post some of the pictures I've taken of the helplessness of others that I've recently witnessed, they are just too graphic.

But I will post one photo which I took just yesterday that shows laborers demolishing a building using sledgehammers to make way for a new building. They begin work at 7:00 am and work until 7:00 pm. After they pulverize the brick and mortar into rubble, they fill bags with the debris, each weighing approximately 80 lbs, and then carrying the bag on their head to load in awaiting carts. Six men then haul the cart away to unload in a dumping area. And for this, each man is paid 125 daka, the equivalence of which is a bit less than $2 per day.

Words cannot describe how these surroundings have impacted my thought process!!

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

markm0369 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:04:41 GMT

I think I agree most with the last post. while typically opinionated, and on the subject I certainly have an opinion, this it the type of discussion for friends over a fire and a couple of beers, friends who have some Idea of your background, experiences, and who while they may not agree, will at least understand where the opinion comes from.

Along the same lines of discussion, which I will opt out of also,but I'll throw it out there, what if we did'nt go to Iraq, and just divided up the trillions and that is with the T, and gave each man woman child their cut would we have less dead Americans and Iraqis for that matter. Not attempting to steal the thread, nor offer any solution, just food for thought.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

bigfishrookie — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:14:46 GMT

First let me say "Thank You" for your service and to all that have served this great country.

Now I could be the one standing out in LEFT field. But I haven’t seen any rebuttal that makes sense to me, obviously not to many others do either.

You see, there is no solution. Brother, this is an age old question that has no answer. There are opinions, though some may not agree with your view. Keep in mind you are not 'right' on everything Tuna Man. Neither am I. You and I share very similar beliefs on this, but I wouldn't construed other's beliefs as wrong. Just different.

However, I don't get how other 'rebuttals' don't make sense to you. You may not agree with them, but certainly you are intellegent and they at least make sense. Maybe you can't see the forrest through the trees, I don't know.

Another thing- refusing to speak up doesn't mean there isn't a good rebuttal. Just means they don't want to offer it. Maybe they don't want to post. Maybe they don't want to get in some pissing match. Just don't make the mistake of thinking there aren't any out there.

BTW- I never heard your solution. You did speak about the problem, but never did offer a solution. Besides, your question was posed "Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?" That question is so broad and loaded that you really need to define it if you want to hear some intellegent answers. Who is 'we' and what 'world'? I didn't know 'we' were feeding the 'world'. Certainly you are not suggesting that the United States is feeding the entire 'world'.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Tuna Man — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:43:17 GMT

[quote][b]bigfishrookie (11/14/2007)[/b][hr]Was gonna stay out of this, but....Not sure who you're beef is with Tunaman. [/quote]

First of all the TV commercial was for donations, that is fine with me. I don't have to donate to them just as I don't have to buy any other product advertised. I started this thread, if you read my opening to invoke thought about what we as a nation are doing. I feel that we are in fact (by feeding the millions) NOT helping these people (on the surface yes we are) but in reality we are not. By being the Good Samaritan country that we are, we are creating a much larger problem. Doing as we are is like putting a band aid on a gun shot wound. Looks good, makes you feel good.

This is just insane....doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Just ain’t goanna happen. History has showed us this.

This is something I wrote this morning in MS Word that I didn't post.

[quote][b]Boatjob1 (11/14/2007)[/b][hr]Maybe we should come up with a birth control pill that is nourishing and full of daily nutritional requirements. magazines...............[/quote]

I was going to add something along those lines, in fact I'd even go a step further, to the point of sterilization, but their culture encourages women to have many children as a sign of fertility/status. Ones culture is hard to change (if in fact we even need or have the right to go there) and I'm not talking about here in the U.S. where we have that right to some extent. One just needs to look right here in the United States and at our own welfare system. One that in the past (and to a certain extent still does) rewards those with "no personal responsibility"...the more children one has the more welfare money is handed out, just one example. Look at the disability program. I know people for a fact that are 100% disabled, get payments, work and get paid cash under the table. :doh Have we not understood that doesn't work right here, at home? With the present birth rate (probably a conservative estimate), if left unchecked, say you have 6 million starving today (I mean starving and not just "poor") and you feed them; in 5 years you now have 8 million in the same position, nothing has changed except for the numbers. Add 30% every 5 years. We are enforcing and condoning their very beliefs. There can likely be a point in time that no matter how much food is produced, it won't be enough. (From a phone conversation a few minutes ago) There WILL be a time that under the present "AID" programs that the United States has, that we CAN'T live up to what is expected of us through out the world. Then what...I don't know. I have no humane answer.

Think about this….. You have a moderate income, are able to feed your family healthy food. You are not "poor" yet you don't have an abundance of money to throw around. You have one cat a female. Now left unchecked, you know she will without a doubt come up pregnant (you can't have them spaded, give them away, kill them, or use them for bait). At what point is it that you just can't feed them anymore? What are you going to do? No way am I suggesting people are like animals. It’s just an analogy. No problem PETA will come to the rescue and kill them.

I served in Viet Nam, and was fortunate I escaped any service related problems (so I'm not looking for one thin dime), and here we are taking care of others and casting away our own. As an American and veteran, I am utterly ashamed of this fact (the VFW and such gets my donations), I really am. Without any reservation what so ever, a veteran (by the shear fact of being a veteran) COMMANDS to top the list for assistance. Remember "Agent Orange" Classic way the United States F***s the veteran. If it weren't for the veterans we wouldn't be the Land of the FREE, Home of the BRAVE.

Now I could be the one standing out in LEFT field. But I haven’t seen any rebuttal that makes sense to me, obviously not to many others do either. I really can’t see an end to this terrible situation. I would really like to see the light at the other end of this tunnel.

:banghead:banghead:banghead:banghead:banghead:banghead

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

bigfishrookie — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:39:58 GMT

Was gonna stay out of this, but....

Not sure who you're beef is with Tunaman. Are you angry at them asking for the donations, mad at the 'countries' or impoverished people, or are you just pissed that our government choses to spend our tax dollars on inefficient programs/policies in the guise of helping the impoverished? Or maybe all of the above?

Personally, I don't care if they ask for donations. I am educated and can make a decision on where, when and how I spend my money. Whether I choose to or not, it is still my choice. I also feel that our government wastes our tax dollars foolishly on programs that really aren't our problem. Not that I'm insensative, but why MAKE us pay for it via taxes. You see we've gotten so pissed and untrusting of our government that we resent any donations to foreign countries. i think we can all agree that we shouldn't be doing that while we have homeless war veterans, who need assistance. (War is a bitch and it takes a toll mentally on some.)

So, to answer your question- yes we should be helping the world's hungry with donations- not tax dollars! Hell I'd rather send a hundred bucks a year to Feed The Children- then have have MY government blow my thousands of tax dollars. But I won't do both!

Side note: took a new job last year in sales and had a big lick, I was shocked at the chunk they took right off the top. Absolutely pissed. i gained a much better appreciation for my dollar after that, and only then did I fully realize how much they take out.

Not trying to derail your topic Tuna, but I think you'll enjoy this:

> Tax his land,
> Tax his bed,
> Tax the table
> At which he's fed.
>
> Tax his tractor,
> Tax his mule,
> Teach him taxes
> Are the rule.
>
> Tax his cow,
> Tax his goat,
> Tax his pants,
> Tax his coat.
>
> Tax his ties,
> Tax his shirt,
> Tax his work,
> Tax his dirt.
>
> Tax his tobacco,
> Tax his drink,
> Tax him if he
> Tries to think.
>
> Tax his cigars,
> Tax his beers,
> If he cries, then
> Tax his tears.
>
> Tax his car,
> Tax his gas,
> Find other ways
> To tax his ass
>
> Tax all he has
> Then let him know
> That you won't be done
> Till he has no dough.
>
> When he screams and hollers,
> Then tax him some more,
> Tax him till
> He's good and sore.
>
> Then tax his coffin,
> Tax his grave,
> Tax the sod in
> Which he's laid.
>
> Put these words
> upon his tomb,
> "Taxes drove me
> to my doom..."
>
> When he's gone,
> Do not relax,
> Its time to apply
> The inheritance tax.
>
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax,
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax
> Interest expense
> Inventory tax
> IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Service charge taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road usage taxes
> Sales Tax
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> Workers Compensation Tax

To put this in perspective, not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
> and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no
> national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed
> home to raise the kids.

> What happened?

> And I still have to "press 1" for English

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

John B. — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:36:14 GMT

[quote][b]konz (11/14/2007)[/b][hr]Well I don't think stopping all aid will solve any problem, but I do think it's time to step back and re-think the way we are "aiding". I agree that there are things going on here at home that need to be taken care of first. You can't help others if you can't help yourself! I do feel that education is part of the answer, but it's going to take far more than that! I would also like to disagree with anybody that doesn't feel one should be helped b/c they don't share the same religious beliefs....but that's just my opinion.[/quote]

agreed.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

konz — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:30:18 GMT

Well I don't think stopping all aid will solve any problem, but I do think it's time to step back and re-think the way we are "aiding". I agree that there are things going on here at home that need to be taken care of first. You can't help others if you can't help yourself! I do feel that education is part of the answer, but it's going to take far more than that! I would also like to disagree with anybody that doesn't feel one should be helped b/c they don't share the same religious beliefs....but that's just my opinion.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Tuna Man — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:46:36 GMT

[quote][b]Stumpknocker (11/14/2007)[/b][hr]Calm down Tuna Man, I just wanted to make a smartass comment for once on one of your many politically-angled posts that have little to no relevance to fishing or hunting.[/quote]

1) Correct...not related to fishing or hunting...hence "OFF TOPIC"

2) If you don't like to read something other than fishing and hunting topics, may I suggest (now that is just a suggestion, mind ya) you bookmark those "FORUMS" only. I didn't force you to partake in this topic, and I didn't berate you for your thoughts. In fact I welcome other points of view, no matter how I perceive them flawed. Seems that you happen to be one of few standing out in LEFT field.:banghead

3) Smart ass comments I can take with the best. I doubt that many took it as a smart ass comment, now I could be wrong. Besides, I just laughed at it, just as I have with the "ASSHAT" and the "Vacuous" labels.....my favorite being the "ASSHAT"

4) When all done and said....NO ONE that I know of holds these topics against one another and the fishing/hunting is the common bond.:clap:clap:clap

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

freespool50 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:38:37 GMT

this reply is only in reference to treedog's misuse of scripture. he quotes matthew in thinking 'we' as a society ought to help all people because they are our 'brothers'. but Jesus is saying that he was clothed, fed, etc... when someone did the same to "the least of these MY BROTHERS". that last statement is key. a spiritual brother of christ is one whom Christ has made a covenant with to be kings and priests with him in his fathers heavenly government (Rev. 20:6)

this is not to say that charity is not incumbent on a christian. it most definitely is. Acts 20:35 comes to mind. the famous quote attributed to Jesus saying there is more happiness in giving than receiving. this could be spiritual or physical giving. at least one thing ron is correct in saying charity begins at home. in the book of 1 or 2nd Timothy chap 2 i think it says christian man is worse than one w/o faith if he does not provide first for his own family.

the only hope for mankind is the kingdom of heaven that Jesus taught us to pray for. it is commonly known as the "our father" prayer. his will is being done in heaven, just not completely on earth yet. though this is not a popular idea, the bible teaches that God will restore the earth to a paradise as he originally intended. this means no one going hungry anymore. and by extension it means a whole lot more. just pm me if you really want to know more about the paradise earth statement.

i dont mind anyone quoting scripture, i do it all the time. just please use it in the proper context. so just because Jesus says something, doesnt mean we need to apply it for every occasion.

flame on

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Flounderpounder — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:28:20 GMT

Actually, one could easily make a strong case for overpopulation having great relevance to fishing and hunting. For some facts (?) try

www.populationinstitute.org

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Halfmoon — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:02:37 GMT

You can start feeding me than take on the World!!:hungry

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Stumpknocker — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:01:31 GMT

Calm down Tuna Man, I just wanted to make a smartass comment for once on one of your many politically-angled posts that have little to no relevance to fishing or hunting.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Craig W — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:51:31 GMT

ASSHAT.......that is my favorite word of all time

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Tuna Man — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:48:27 GMT

[quote][b]Stumpknocker (11/14/2007)[/b][hr][quote][b]
[/quote]Dude, this is the Pensacola Fishing Forum, not the Pensacola Fascist Forum.[/quote]

OK, so now I'm a Vacuous Fascist Asshat.:banghead

Did you pull that term "Fascist" out of your ass or do you really know what it means. Why do you have to resort to putting a label on me for my thoughts, and not my actions. Dude...label me all you want, but do your homework first to back it up.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Stumpknocker — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:15:15 GMT

[quote][b]Tuna Man (11/13/2007)[/b][hr][quote][b]Stumpknocker (11/13/2007)[/b][hr]100 years from now American wetlands and coastlines will probably have been rendered useless for outdoorsmen. For some reason I still give my hard earned dollars to Ducks Unlimited and CCA. Same idea. Plus, if you had diseased and malnourished children I'm sure you'd have a different sentiment.[/quote]

Big difference...With one you have something that is progress in the right direction. With our donations to DU and CCA, you see something is being done. Land purchases are growing every year. Wetlands expanding in hopes forbigger and betterbreeding grounds for a resource, even if it does what you feel "rendered useless" a "100 years from now". On the other side of the coin you see that same expansion, but in the wrong direction. Still expanding a larger breeding base for what, an even larger breeding base? All looking for a handout so they can breed, as all animals do. That isour purpose on Earth.The average birthrate in Niger is 8 children per woman, imagine that in a country like Niger which is one of the poorest countries in the world, constantly plagued by droughts. Add a rapidly expanding population and you have a recipe for long term poverty and conflict over scarce resources. Somalia and Uganda are not far behind the list with birthrates of 7 and 6.9 children per woman. It also doesn't’t help that in many of these high birth rate countries, culture encourages women to have many children as a sign of fertility ignoring the difficulty in providing for all of them. It is only by managing population numbers can issues such as health care, access to clean water, AIDS, economy and other issues can be dealt with in an effective manner before the growing population of many of these countries render their governments efforts null. African countries have enough problems and adding more people to the equation will not improve things at all.

You are so correct....[quote]if you had diseased and malnourished children I'm sure you'd have a different sentiment.[/quote]...but you know something...I'm blessed and not in that situation. But then again I don’t have 6-8 children knowing that I would have to look for handouts to feed and clothe my children either. So we have to pay for their culture? Sorry not me.

[/quote]

Dude, this is the Pensacola Fishing Forum, not the Pensacola Fascist Forum.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Garbo — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:48:44 GMT

I did a term paper on this topic my Senior Year of High School, and almost got kicked out of my Lit. Class.

At one time Ethiopia was the hunger hotspot on the planet, and we (America) was doing all we could to "help" the Ethiopians. We were providing food, living supplies and medical services that the country had never seen. In my paper I debated that we only made the problem in Ethiopia worse, and built an argument with the fact that practically doubled the population for the future and in doing so doubled the size of the problem.

The life expectancy in Ethiopia at one time was less than 30 years before we (America) decided we would "help" them. After we (America) got involved the people there began living longer and in doing so raised the population level. To make matters worse in many third world countries prosperity is gauged on the size of the family and the larger the family the more prosperous. So as the people began to live longer and the families became larger the problem increased 2 fold, and actually the people in that country faced worse living conditions after we (America) "helped" them than before, not to mention we taught them to be dependant on America.

It is a very sad thing to think about, but it is very real. I have a friend that is a Doctor in Dothan Alabama. He makes a 3 month mission trip to a small country in Africa every year. When he first started this annual trip his goal was to provide for the people there in an effort to help them, and after several years of providing he realized that he could not have a great impact due to the more he provided the more they would except. He then began to provide education instead of life supporting goods and services. His trips are the same length of time except he plans them based on what he can teach them about caring for themselves and provideding for themselves, and he feels that his future impact is making a greater difference now than before.

I am a firm beleiver in helping others, but I also beleive if you give a drug addict money without a source of education, you are hurting them, with good intent of course.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Craig W — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:16:50 GMT

This is a very touchy subject and has obviously gotten some emotional responses.

In my opinion you cannot ignore the fact that human beings are in dire need and we cannot stand by and watch them starve to death on our high definition plasma TVs.

BUT...we also need to focus on the root of the problem and attack it from there. I see Tunaman's point, he is not saying F'em let em starve. He is saying JUST giving them food is not solving the problem but is actually contributing to it. The whole give a man a fish, teach a man to fish analogy.

I don't know everything on the subject but I think we can help the hungry people in the short term by sending them food and in the long term by fixing the reason they are not self sufficient, i.e. move out of the desert, overthrow the warlords.

Teach them to fish not just give them fish.

Just my $.02

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Boatjob1 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:00:17 GMT

I have read most of this, but have wondered this point for yearsssssssssssssssssssssss. While we are shipping food over there every year, after year after year, why don't we ship over birth control??????????????? I know I'm going to catch flack over this question, but why not???? Does anybody ever wonder how they can be so malnourished that they can't stand for more that 10 minutes at a time, but it always seems as thought those kids are in a family (if you want to call it that) with sometimes dozens of kids?

Maybe we should come up with a birth control pill that is nourishing and full of daily nutritional requirements. REMEMBER, you heard it here. Wow, another million dollar idea. What's the old saying about killing two birds with one stone????????????? Not trying to derail this post, but hoping somebody could form an opinion that would let me see things in a light other than what I've seen on the tube and in magazines...............

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Flounderpounder — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:39:24 GMT

Ok, most of my (voluntary) charitable giving stays in the USA. I have no problem with helping starving kids overseas, even via our tax dollars.

This is probably going to get me in trouble with a few of you. It is absurd to give billions in food aid, and BAN federal $$ to be used for birth control education (as has been done)! Ron makes valid points. Have you ever seen a graph charting the growth of the world's population? If not, you should!

If this offends anyone's religious sensibilities, my apologies.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

LITECATCH — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:16:00 GMT

i say give to our vets. they have given all of us this chance to help others. so START with them. then what is left over help who you can. their should not be a homeless vet in the USA!

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

FenderBender — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:49:54 GMT

[quote][b]jspooney (11/13/2007)[/b][hr]If I am understanding you correctly, TunaMan, you are proposing that we should let all of these reprobate breeders starve to death (which is, in fact, what is now happening) because they got themselves into this whole mess. Right? I think you are making far too many assumptions. First, that the value of a life is determined by what he or she adds to society (example, they don't deserve help because they are uneducated breeders.) Using the same logic (which is what Hitler did) we should then place an equal standard to our own people...if you are blind, retarded, handicapped in any way, your life is less valuable and therefore should not get the same help as someone who is "whole." Second, you are assuming that the situation will never change. Maybe, maybe not. I ask you, how many children would need to turn out as a success for the program to be justified? 100, 1000, 500,000? The fact is sometimes people change and sometimes nations change. To use the excuse that "nothing will ever change so I'll let them starve" is to give up hope before hope has been given a chance. Third, you are assuming that these people are in this situation because of ignorance. Sometimes this is true, but take Little America (that is Liberia.) They had a booming economy until civil war broke out 20 years ago. The civil war destroyed most all of their infrastructure and has resulted in hungry people. One cannot forget that in most every case, third world countries are controlled by corrupt dictators and governments. Things beyond the average person's ability to control. They can do nothing but wait for help. Fourth, your assumption that these families are just animalistic breeders with no concern for their young. Have you ever been there? I have...when a child dies (or anyone for that matter) there is deep mourning. However, with so much death people tend to get numb to life...and death. We should never think that these women do not love their children. They do...and they give them all they have. Finally, as to why the cameraman doesn't give them his sandwich...I assure you sometimes he does. However, when you have 500 hungry people looking at you and you have 3 sandwiches...who would you give it to? That is a good way to start a riot (I have experienced this as well.) All in all, as Americans we cannot solve all the worlds problems, but we can meet needs when we see them. If you want to know where you stand in the worlds wealth scale check out www.globalrichlist.com. Everyone on this forum is in the top 5%. We are given the choice to "feed the children." If you don't want too, go buy yourself another plasma TV or buy some more fishing gear. If you actually care about human suffering and value all humans equally...then keep your current plasma TV and give 10 bucks to help feed some starving kids. It is your choice.[/quote]

WELL SAID... thank you sir:clap

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

jspooney — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:47:21 GMT

If I am understanding you correctly, TunaMan, you are proposing that we should let all of these reprobate breeders starve to death (which is, in fact, what is now happening) because they got themselves into this whole mess. Right? I think you are making far too many assumptions. First, that the value of a life is determined by what he or she adds to society (example, they don't deserve help because they are uneducated breeders.) Using the same logic (which is what Hitler did) we should then place an equal standard to our own people...if you are blind, retarded, handicapped in any way, your life is less valuable and therefore should not get the same help as someone who is "whole." Second, you are assuming that the situation will never change. Maybe, maybe not. I ask you, how many children would need to turn out as a success for the program to be justified? 100, 1000, 500,000? The fact is sometimes people change and sometimes nations change. To use the excuse that "nothing will ever change so I'll let them starve" is to give up hope before hope has been given a chance. Third, you are assuming that these people are in this situation because of ignorance. Sometimes this is true, but take Little America (that is Liberia.) They had a booming economy until civil war broke out 20 years ago. The civil war destroyed most all of their infrastructure and has resulted in hungry people. One cannot forget that in most every case, third world countries are controlled by corrupt dictators and governments. Things beyond the average person's ability to control. They can do nothing but wait for help. Fourth, your assumption that these families are just animalistic breeders with no concern for their young. Have you ever been there? I have...when a child dies (or anyone for that matter) there is deep mourning. However, with so much death people tend to get numb to life...and death. We should never think that these women do not love their children. They do...and they give them all they have. Finally, as to why the cameraman doesn't give them his sandwich...I assure you sometimes he does. However, when you have 500 hungry people looking at you and you have 3 sandwiches...who would you give it to? That is a good way to start a riot (I have experienced this as well.) All in all, as Americans we cannot solve all the worlds problems, but we can meet needs when we see them. If you want to know where you stand in the worlds wealth scale check out www.globalrichlist.com. Everyone on this forum is in the top 5%. We are given the choice to "feed the children." If you don't want too, go buy yourself another plasma TV or buy some more fishing gear. If you actually care about human suffering and value all humans equally...then keep your current plasma TV and give 10 bucks to help feed some starving kids. It is your choice.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

FenderBender — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:11:19 GMT

[quote][b]Tuna Man (11/13/2007)[/b][hr][quote][b]FenderBender (11/13/2007)[/b][hr]No one is forcing you to give money, we don't "have" to pay for their 8 children... its simply a donation for food. If someone wants to give a gift, its just that, a gift. Granted, I think education and information on contraceptives would certainly help the situation, but just letting children die off is not the answer, regardless of their skills or purposed "value" to society. [/quote]

Sorry, I beg to differ...That's BULLSHIT...My hard earned money that's taxed is sent there and I have no choice in the matter.[/quote]

Oh there is ALWAYS a choice... if there is something so wrong with offering HUMAN BEINGS a basic need of life (food) then you could always move to Canada, or Australia... or better yet... Mexico:shedevil

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Tuna Man — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:56:01 GMT

[quote][b]FenderBender (11/13/2007)[/b][hr]No one is forcing you to give money, we don't "have" to pay for their 8 children... its simply a donation for food. If someone wants to give a gift, its just that, a gift. Granted, I think education and information on contraceptives would certainly help the situation, but just letting children die off is not the answer, regardless of their skills or purposed "value" to society. [/quote]

Sorry, I beg to differ...That's BULLSHIT...My hard earned money that's taxed is sent there and I have no choice in the matter.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

FenderBender — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:42:08 GMT

No one is forcing you to give money, we don't "have" to pay for their 8 children... its simply a donation for food. If someone wants to give a gift, its just that, a gift. Granted, I think education and information on contraceptives would certainly help the situation, but just letting children die off is not the answer, regardless of their skills or purposed "value" to society.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Tuna Man — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:29:29 GMT

[quote][b]Stumpknocker (11/13/2007)[/b][hr]100 years from now American wetlands and coastlines will probably have been rendered useless for outdoorsmen. For some reason I still give my hard earned dollars to Ducks Unlimited and CCA. Same idea. Plus, if you had diseased and malnourished children I'm sure you'd have a different sentiment.[/quote]

Big difference...With one you have something that is progress in the right direction. With our donations to DU and CCA, you see something is being done. Land purchases are growing every year. Wetlands expanding in hopes for bigger and better breeding grounds for a resource, even if it does what you feel "rendered useless" a "100 years from now". On the other side of the coin you see that same expansion, but in the wrong direction. Still expanding a larger breeding base for what, an even larger breeding base? All looking for a handout so they can breed, as all animals do. That is our purpose on Earth. The average birthrate in Niger is 8 children per woman, imagine that in a country like Niger which is one of the poorest countries in the world, constantly plagued by droughts. Add a rapidly expanding population and you have a recipe for long term poverty and conflict over scarce resources. Somalia and Uganda are not far behind the list with birthrates of 7 and 6.9 children per woman. It also doesn't’t help that in many of these high birth rate countries, culture encourages women to have many children as a sign of fertility ignoring the difficulty in providing for all of them. It is only by managing population numbers can issues such as health care, access to clean water, AIDS, economy and other issues can be dealt with in an effective manner before the growing population of many of these countries render their governments efforts null. African countries have enough problems and adding more people to the equation will not improve things at all.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

overNunder — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:06:13 GMT

i think the money goes to the camera men and the reporters, to help them eat on the field trips they take down there.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

mickanole — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:01:01 GMT

This why I thought one of the funniest but in a way serious things I have heard is Sam Kinison's skit about feed the african children. " It's a desert,aaaauuuugggghhh nothing is ever going to grow there.Why don't we just bring them to the food?"

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

bonita dan — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:37:06 GMT

Excellant point Ron:clap I think those Lions and Tigers in Africa need to grow in populations too so I'm sending a nice juicey steak over there for them instead:shedevil

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Stumpknocker — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:12:10 GMT

I guess Iraq is going to become dependant on government handouts.

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

JLMass — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:48:44 GMT

thats what i was thinking

Black Hawk Down is also a great movie

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

Baitcaster — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:44:49 GMT

Why do scenes of "Blackhawk Down" suddenly come to mind ?

RE: Do we really need to feed the hungry of the world?

The Raven — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:43:52 GMT

Nothing man can do will create dependency faster than a handout.