United Nations General Assembly

[rrl308]

Just came across this. I thought some of it was interesting so am I posting the Link.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10801.doc.htm

[Garcia Bronco]

A "right" to food? What does that even mean?

[banyon]

A "right" to food? What does that even mean?

This resolution, as most GA resolutions are, appears to be aspirational.

Is it really so abominable that we should aspire to a standard where famine and poverty don't cause people to starve to death?

[Adept Havelock]

A "right" to food? What does that even mean?

It's akin to the right to life and liberty an American drowning alone in the Pacific has, I suppose. :shrug:

[Garcia Bronco]

This resolution, as most GA resolutions are, appears to be aspirational.

Is it really so abominable that we should aspire to a standard where famine and poverty don't cause people to starve to death?

Depends on how you look at it. How long would you shuttle food in to a place that could not support an environment to grow food? How long would you give others what the should learn to accomplish for themselves? Are you really helping them?

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he eats for life"

So from that perspective, one of education, is a proper path. But dropping food into the desert for example, not really a great idea.

[Adept Havelock]

So from that perspective, one of education, is a proper path. But dropping food into the desert for example, not really a great idea.

And if they starve to death while you're trying to teach them...meh. :shrug:




:shake:

[patteeu]

Just another example of how divergent US ideals (freedom) and UN ideals (entitlement) are. :shake:

[Radar Chief]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VKNoJ2BzSRU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VKNoJ2BzSRU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

;)

[banyon]

Depends on how you look at it. How long would you shuttle food in to a place that could not support an environment to grow food? How long would you give others what the should learn to accomplish for themselves? Are you really helping them?

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he eats for life"

So from that perspective, one of education, is a proper path. But dropping food into the desert for example, not really a great idea.

It's a good thing you're not in the middle of that desert and have the luxury of such philosophical musings, I would guess.

Aren't you aware that many famine-related conditions are related to infrastructure and weather conditions? There are grain silos in India that are filled and spoil while people starve because there's not a good method of distribution. It's not always because you are so industrious and they are just so damn lazy.

When Willie Nelson and the gang sang "we are the world" did you just see them and give them the finger and say "what a bunch of f*cking douchebags"?

[patteeu]

It's a good thing you're not in the middle of that desert and have the luxury of such philosophical musings, I would guess.

Aren't you aware that many famine-related conditions are related to infrastructure and weather conditions? There are grain silos in India that are filled and spoil while people starve because there's not a good method of distribution. It's not always because you are so industrious and they are just so damn lazy.

When Willie Nelson and the gang sang "we are the world" did you just see them and give them the finger and say "what a bunch of f*cking douchebags"?

How does your Indian grain silos story relate to his point about giving food handouts to people who live in a place that can never support their food needs? At least the Indians can hope to improve their distribution systems. Encouraging population growth on land that already can't support it by masking this deficiency with food aid will just tax the already overtaxed land even more.

I'm not saying that there isn't some alternative other than turning a blind eye to these poor, suffering people, but it's worth thinking about the negative incentives created by some well-intentioned ideas.

[banyon]

How does your Indian grain silos story relate to his point about giving food handouts to people who live in a place that can never support their food needs? At least the Indians can hope to improve their distribution systems. Encouraging population growth on land that already can't support it by masking this deficiency with food aid will just tax the already overtaxed land even more.

I'm not saying that there isn't some alternative other than turning a blind eye to these poor, suffering people, but it's worth thinking about the negative incentives created by some well-intentioned ideas.

Where did you get that opinion?

Blame the starving kids for being stupid and living in their homes. Beautiful.

BTW what, exactly, are these negative incentives for aspiring to feed the hungry? Should we let Jesus know about them?

[Ultra Peanut]

Just another example of how divergent US ideals (freedom) and UN ideals (entitlement) are. :shake:FUCK YOU, I'VE GOT MINE

Love,
The United States

Blame the starving kids for being stupid and living in their homes. Beautiful.Bootstaps, my boy.

[Brock]

We ought to be concerned with our own poor and underfed before worrying about anyone else's.

[patteeu]

Where did you get that opinion?

Blame the starving kids for being stupid and living in their homes. Beautiful.

BTW what, exactly, are these negative incentives for aspiring to feed the hungry? Should we let Jesus know about them?

I got it from Garcia Bronco's post where he established the premise. One incentive that I already mentioned is that the local population will be encouraged to continue to reproduce at a higher rate than is sustainable as long as food is available via aid.

Yes, please let Jesus know. Tell him you heard it here at ChiefsPlanet. :p

[banyon]

We ought to be concerned with our own poor and underfed before worrying about anyone else's.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either, but I would think that these are exactly the kind of toothless high-minded resolutions accomplishing nothing and requiring nothing of us that you guys would ordinarily want the UN writing.

[patteeu]

**** YOU, I'VE GOT MINE

Love,
The United States

Aren't you guilty of this very thing? I don't know your economic circumstances, but I'm pretty sure you live pretty well compared to the poorest of the foreign poor, but yet you don't give it all away to help them.

[banyon]

I got it from Garcia Bronco's post where he established the premise. One incentive that I already mentioned is that the local population will be encouraged to continue to reproduce at a higher rate than is sustainable as long as food is available via aid.

Yes, please let Jesus know. Tell him you heard it here at ChiefsPlanet. :p

Well, you said "never", which is a pretty long time. There are technologies on the cusp like cloud seeing and drought-resistant crops that are altering the field of possibilities.

But how you get a correlation between degree of fewer people starving and population growth is also a mystery. If anything, the vast array of demographic data on countries in the world would indicate precisely the opposite, the better fed (and perhaps less desparate for survivors) a country is, the lower the birth rate.

[patteeu]

I don't necessarily disagree with this either, but I would think that these are exactly the kind of toothless high-minded resolutions accomplishing nothing and requiring nothing of us that you guys would ordinarily want the UN writing.

I can't speak for Brock, but I don't appreciate resolutions like this (toothless or otherwise) because it provides a basis for stupid comments like the one below when we refuse to be obliged by them:

**** YOU, I'VE GOT MINE

Love,
The United States

[patteeu]

Well, you said "never", which is a pretty long time. There are technologies on the cusp like cloud seeing and drought-resistant crops that are altering the field of possibilities.

But how you get a correlation between degree of fewer people starving and population growth is also a mystery. If anything, the vast array of demographic data on countries in the world would indicate precisely the opposite, the better fed (and perhaps less desparate for survivors) a country is, the lower the birth rate.

Yes, "never" didn't allow for the possibility that someday technology will solve these problems. My bad. I'm talking about foreseeable future here. We're not going to turn the Sahara desert into the breadbasket of Africa anytime soon.

I doubt that there is perfect negative correlation between how well fed people are and population growth. I'm sure that at the upper end of prosperity you're right, but I suspect we'd find a different relationship at the lower end.

[Garcia Bronco]

And if they starve to death while you're trying to teach them...meh. :shrug:




:shake:

Then natural selection has taken it's course

[Garcia Bronco]

It's a good thing you're not in the middle of that desert and have the luxury of such philosophical musings, I would guess.

Aren't you aware that many famine-related conditions are related to infrastructure and weather conditions? There are grain silos in India that are filled and spoil while people starve because there's not a good method of distribution. It's not always because you are so industrious and they are just so damn lazy.



No one said anyone was lazy, but that they lack the knowledge to do what it vital to continued existence. By giving that which they did earn only serves to weaken them, because it will not fix the problem.

[Garcia Bronco]

Where did you get that opinion?

Blame the starving kids for being stupid and living in their homes. Beautiful.

BTW what, exactly, are these negative incentives for aspiring to feed the hungry? Should we let Jesus know about them?

No. You relocate them to where they can farm. It's how the people that settled this country learned to survive.

[Garcia Bronco]

I got it from Garcia Bronco's post where he established the premise. One incentive that I already mentioned is that the local population will be encouraged to continue to reproduce at a higher rate than is sustainable as long as food is available via aid.

Yes, please let Jesus know. Tell him you heard it here at ChiefsPlanet. :p

That's the next point. Once you keep feeding people that cannot sustain themselves in a particular environment, they reproduce and create an even bigger problem.

[Garcia Bronco]

Aren't you guilty of this very thing? I don't know your economic circumstances, but I'm pretty sure you live pretty well compared to the poorest of the foreign poor, but yet you don't give it all away to help them.

I would bet good money he gives zero or close to it. And not everyone can. There is no shame in that. But to speak for someone elses lot says much about their character.

[Garcia Bronco]

Well, you said "never", which is a pretty long time. There are technologies on the cusp like cloud seeing and drought-resistant crops that are altering the field of possibilities.

But how you get a correlation between degree of fewer people starving and population growth is also a mystery. If anything, the vast array of demographic data on countries in the world would indicate precisely the opposite, the better fed (and perhaps less desparate for survivors) a country is, the lower the birth rate.

That has more to do with education and not food supply. Humans, much like a virus, will spread out, consume all resource, and produce more waste than it can get rid of.

[Ultra Peanut]

Aren't you guilty of this very thing? I don't know your economic circumstances, but I'm pretty sure you live pretty well compared to the poorest of the foreign poor, but yet you don't give it all away to help them.There's a very big difference between helping out and "giving it all away," so it's kind of hard for you to even begin making a point.

Shocking that disingenuous assclowns would portray agreeing with a proclamation that says it's shameful that there are people in this world who starve to death as being tantamount to kneeling before tyranny. Ugh, fuckin' entitlements.

[banyon]

No. You relocate them to where they can farm. It's how the people that settled this country learned to survive.

So, you'd rather spend the money to relocate a whole population than just to build some infrastructure and irrigation to help them sustain themselves?

Is that really cost-effective?

If they're so stupid, why wouldn't they just starve to death wherever we move them?

[banyon]

That has more to do with education and not food supply. Humans, much like a virus, will spread out, consume all resource, and produce more waste than it can get rid of.


you sound like the guy at the end of Wargames (professor Falken?, was that it?) who was convinced we were all going to die so the answer was to do nothing and he just needed a couple of spunky kids to jostle him out of his complacency to realize that something could be done.

There's not really anywhere on the planet that i can think of besides maybe the middle of Antarctica that we couldn't get food to (from a regional source) if we wanted to create the infrastructure.

[patteeu]

There's a very big difference between helping out and "giving it all away," so it's kind of hard for you to even begin making a point.

Shocking that disingenuous assclowns would portray agreeing with a proclamation that says it's shameful that there are people in this world who starve to death as being tantamount to kneeling before tyranny. Ugh, ****in' entitlements.

Eat your own words UP. There's a very big difference between anything I've said in this thread and this idiotic statement:

**** YOU, I'VE GOT MINE

Love,
The United States

[patteeu]

There's also a huge difference between owing someone something and doing it for them because you choose to help them. The United States is the most benevolent country in the world when it comes to helping those who live in poverty, but numbskulls around the world and even here at home look right past that and blame the US for not doing even more. Resolutions like the one about a "right to development" are pushed by those kinds of people.

[banyon]

There's also a huge difference between owing someone something and doing it for them because you choose to help them. The United States is the most benevolent country in the world when it comes to helping those who live in poverty, but numbskulls around the world and even here at home look right past that and blame the US for not doing even more. Resolutions like the one about a "right to development" are pushed by those kinds of people.

As a pct of GDP? (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html)

[Ultra Peanut]

Eat your own words UP. There's a very big difference between anything I've said in this thread and this idiotic statement:silly nubs and their entitlement (read: stating that perhaps it would be a good thing if there were food for the incredibly impoverished)

Freedom's just another word for, "Ain't got no food."

Just another example of how divergent US ideals (freedom) and UN ideals (entitlement) are. :shake:Kill yourself.

[patteeu]

As a pct of GDP? (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html)

I don't know about GDP, but based on your link Norway, Switzerland and Norway apparently outdid us on a per capita basis. Yawn.

[patteeu]

silly nubs and their entitlement (read: stating that perhaps it would be a good thing if there were food for the incredibly impoverished)

Freedom's just another word for, "Ain't got no food."

Kill yourself.

I'm not apologetic for being on the side of freedom. Sorry.

[Ultra Peanut]

I'm not apologetic for being on the side of freedom. Sorry.Appropriating words may be fun, and all, but it doesn't mean anything.

[patteeu]

Appropriating words may be fun, and all, but it doesn't mean anything.

I wouldn't know, but I'll take your word for it.

[Saggysack]

About 16,000 children die each year from starvation. That is about 1 every 5 seconds. Unacceptable.

By and large, Americans and western cultures will never know what it is to be hungry, or the desperation of seeing your own child dieing from hunger. But wtf do you expect when we have a large majority of our population require themselves to overeat on 98% fat free hot dogs, 6 different kinds of sushi rice and 10lb cuts of meat.

Yeah, yeah yeah, americans give more than any country in the world. Nice way to pat(pun intended) yourself out an excuse to not really giving a damn.

We, as a human race can do better towards our fellow man. Especially for our most innocent of them.

[mikey23545]

Further steering the course towards increased <b>“justiciability”</b> of social, economic and cultural rights was today’s passage of an updated resolution on the right to development...

“justiciability”? ROFL

Ya just can't make this stuff up...

[patteeu]

About 16,000 children die each year from starvation. That is about 1 every 5 seconds. Unacceptable.

By and large, Americans and western cultures will never know what it is to be hungry, or the desperation of seeing your own child dieing from hunger. But wtf do you expect when we have a large majority of our population require themselves to overeat on 98% fat free hot dogs, 6 different kinds of sushi rice and 10lb cuts of meat.

Yeah, yeah yeah, americans give more than any country in the world. Nice way to pat(pun intended) yourself out an excuse to not really giving a damn.

We, as a human race can do better towards our fellow man. Especially for our most innocent of them.

How much more should someone give? How much more should the US give? How much more should Ultra Peanut give? Should Ultra Peanut keep giving until there is no one left hungry anywhere in the world or until she finds herself in the same boat as the beggars, whichever comes first?

BTW, the primary issue that I've been addressing in this thread isn't whether we should give more or less, it's whether those who are considered needy should be thought of as victims of the supposed lack of generosity of the haves or beggars living off the good will of the haves. I'm firmly a part of the latter school of thought. Those who support resolutions like these seem to be in the former.

[Ultra Peanut]

beggars living off the good will of the havesQ.E.D.

[patteeu]

Q.E.D.

What's your actual argument, UP? Someday when you have enough money saved up for reassignment surgery, are you going exercise your freedom to indulge yourself or are you going to donate it to some poor people somewhere who are "entitled" to development? Or do you only buy into that crap when you can do it with other people's money?

[stevieray]

What's your actual argument, UP? Someday when you have enough money saved up for reassignment surgery, are you going exercise your freedom to indulge yourself or are you going to donate it to some poor people somewhere who are "entitled" to development? Or do you only buy into that crap when you can do it with other people's money?

Do you actually believe he cares more about it than just arguing on a message board?

ianyone who makes 40k lives in the top five percent of wealth in the world....

[patteeu]

Do you actually believe he cares more about it than just arguing on a message board?

ianyone who makes 40k lives in the top five percent of wealth in the world....

No, you're right. I don't actually believe it. And your point about how wealthy even the working class poor are in the US is well made. And, to a large degree, these people barely pay income taxes. It's a lot easier to be charitable when you're doing it with someone else's money.

[BucEyedPea]

There are grain silos in India that are filled and spoil while people starve because there's not a good method of distribution. It's not always because you are so industrious and they are just so damn lazy.
Could it be due to their socialism? Hmmmm? What they need are more Indian entrepreneurs to get the food in those silos to the people—at a profit, of course. Otherwise they won't do it. I mean what's the sense in that?

No I am not talking about American mercantilist type businessmen starting factories in India for cheap labor becuase they finagled US govt policy to redistribute American jobs either.

[dirk digler]

BTW, the primary issue that I've been addressing in this thread isn't whether we should give more or less, it's whether those who are considered needy should be thought of as victims of the supposed lack of generosity of the haves or beggars living off the good will of the haves. I'm firmly a part of the latter school of thought. Those who support resolutions like these seem to be in the former.

I can't speak for the adults motivations but I think the primary focus should be on the children that are dying daily because of malnutrition. I know you don't think they are beggars do you?

They obviously can't help where they were born or where they live and it is the fault of their government not to provide for their citizens. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help.

[BucEyedPea]

That help should be done voluntarily and privately. Since Americans are the most generous in the world....I'm sure they'd give. Afterall, we gave more voluntarily ( before Bush and Clinton got on tv) to the Indonesian tsunami victims than the Europeans combined who relied on tax dollars.

[dirk digler]

That help should be done voluntarily and privately. Since Americans are the most generous in the world....I'm sure they'd give. Afterall, we gave more voluntarily ( before Bush and Clinton got on tv) to the Indonesian tsunami victims than the Europeans combined who relied on tax dollars.

I think it should be done both ways. We don't have to give money we can give food and water to these people.

You should watch the 60 minutes story about the new ready to eat food that might solve alot of malnutrition in kids.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml

You've probably never heard a good news story about malnutrition, but you’re about to. Every year, malnutrition kills five million children - that's one child every six seconds. But now, the Nobel Prize-winning relief group "Doctors Without Borders" says it finally has something that can save millions of these children.

It's cheap, easy to make, and even easier to use. What is this miraculous cure? As CNN's Anderson Cooper reports, it's a ready-to-eat, vitamin-enriched concoction called "Plumpynut," an unusual name for a food that may just be the most important advance ever to cure and prevent malnutrition.

[patteeu]

I can't speak for the adults motivations but I think the primary focus should be on the children that are dying daily because of malnutrition. I know you don't think they are beggars do you?

They obviously can't help where they were born or where they live and it is the fault of their government not to provide for their citizens. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help.

Do you think all beggars are bad people? That might be the source of the confusion here because I'm not using that word to suggest any moral culpability on the part of these people at all. Their age doesn't make any difference here nor does their motivation.

They may not be beggars in a literal sense (in that they may not actually be literally begging), but they are in the same position as a beggar. They have an unfilled need that will only be satisfied through the generosity of others.

The idea behind resolutions like these isn't to suggest that it's a commendable thing to help people like this but instead to provide a basis for the pov that as long as people like this continue to exist, the most wealthy nation in the world (i.e. the US) is worthy of criticism no matter how much it does to help.

[BucEyedPea]

I think it should be done both ways. We don't have to give money we can give food and water to these people.
We are under no obligation to do anything. There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires us to do so. Saying we should do something implies that you want to use the govt to force other people to help what you value as a good cause. That is not charity. Charity is voluntary. Doing wrong, in this case using govt force, to do what certain people feel is right is never right.

You should watch the 60 minutes story about the new ready to eat food that might solve alot of malnutrition in kids.

I can imagine. I would never trust something like that because man does not know all the co-factors in food that Mother Nature has supplied. It's still a science we're learning about. I will tell you this though, more primtive people have had more nutritious diets than modern Americans. Even Europeans do who have hardly any obese people. You can be stuffed but still malnourished.

[patteeu]

I think it should be done both ways. We don't have to give money we can give food and water to these people.

You should watch the 60 minutes story about the new ready to eat food that might solve alot of malnutrition in kids.

The only reason I can think of to provide this assistance collectively is if we decide that there is a return on the investment in terms of our national interests. I'm open to that argument, but not to the idea that the UN has any place telling us that we owe it to anyone.

[BucEyedPea]

The other thing dirk, if the UN starts mandating that we do such things....well where will that end? It won't end. Not until there is a massive redistribution of American wealth to pull poorer nations up. I think it needs to stop right now instead of expanding these ideas.

[dirk digler]

Do you think all beggars are bad people? That might be the source of the confusion here because I'm not using that word to suggest any moral culpability on the part of these people at all. Their age doesn't make any difference here nor does their motivation.

They may not be beggars in a literal sense (in that they may not actually be literally begging), but they are in the same position as a beggar. They have an unfilled need that will only be satisfied through the generosity of others.

The idea behind resolutions like these isn't to suggest that it's a commendable thing to help people like this but instead to provide a basis for the pov that as long as people like this continue to exist, the most wealthy nation in the world (i.e. the US) is worthy of criticism no matter how much it does to help.

I definitely don't think that all beggars are bad people and what you said makes sense now that you explained it. I think though the word beggar isn't probably the best word in this example.

No matter how much we donate or send our country will always be criticized for not doing enough. That is just the way that it is.

[dirk digler]

We are under no obligation to do anything. There is nothing in the US Constitution that requires us to do so. Saying we should do something implies that you want to use the govt to force other people to help what you value as a good cause. That is not charity. Charity is voluntary. Doing wrong, in this case using govt force, to do what certain people feel is right is never right.



I can imagine. I would never trust something like that because man does not know all the co-factors in food that Mother Nature has supplied. It's still a science we're learning about. I will tell you this though, more primtive people have had more nutritious diets than modern Americans. Even Europeans do who have hardly any obese people. You can be stuffed but still malnourished.

I would argue morally we are obligated to help where we can but I agree we shouldn't be forced to do anything.

The one thing the U.S. should do is mass produce Plumpynuts. It cost for a 4 week supply $35\child. We could make a huge dent in malnourished children for a fairly small price.

[dirk digler]

The only reason I can think of to provide this assistance collectively is if we decide that there is a return on the investment in terms of our national interests. I'm open to that argument, but not to the idea that the UN has any place telling us that we owe it to anyone.

The other thing dirk, if the UN starts mandating that we do such things....well where will that end? It won't end. Not until there is a massive redistribution of American wealth to pull poorer nations up. I think it needs to stop right now instead of expanding these ideas.

I agree with both of you that we shouldn't be mandated by the UN or anyone else to help out.

[BucEyedPea]

I would argue morally we are obligated to help where we can but I agree we shouldn't be forced to do anything.

The one thing the U.S. should do is mass produce Plumpynuts. It cost for a 4 week supply $35\child. We could make a huge dent in malnourished children for a fairly small price.
US private sector or US govt via mandate? In the latter that means another tax for me. That would be using force. Americans need to repair their economy first, and get Americans back to work, then they'll be more to give to others—voluntarily. There's other food sources that can feed them too. I think they're even less but don't recall the name of it off the top of my head.

[Brock]

It often is in our national interests to provide assistance to poor countries, as we should have done for Afghanistan when the Russians left.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh yeah! The 'ole collectivist canard again.We could also mind our own business and be left alone—again—too!

[Brock]

Yeah, it's too bad reality often interferes with your delusional vision of utopia.

[BucEyedPea]

Yeah, it's too bad reality often interferes with your delusional vision of utopia.

Oh I have no delusions at all particularly the claim that I recommend a "utopia." It's those trying to use govt to perfect man and his world who are the utopians. Ya' know like buying off leaders with foreign aid. That's who benefits from most of it anyways...not the people.

I also know of no part of our Federal Constitution that enumerates any powers of our federal govt to pay money to foreign countries our "interests." I don't even know if the word "interests" are even included in the document. I do know about providing for the common defense.
But that's narrower then the word "interests."

[Garcia Bronco]

So, you'd rather spend the money to relocate a whole population than just to build some infrastructure and irrigation to help them sustain themselves?

Is that really cost-effective?

If they're so stupid, why wouldn't they just starve to death wherever we move them?

I feel confident if they could get water there they would have themselves. Being uneducated in food growth techniques doesn't mean that they are stupid.

[BucEyedPea]

I feel confident if they could get water there they would have themselves. Being uneducated in food growth techniques doesn't mean that they are stupid.

Me too. I call it "faith in the people" more than govt management ( which probably is causing the problem.)

[Brock]

Oh I have no delusions at all particularly the claim that I recommend a "utopia." It's those trying to use govt to perfect man and his world who are the utopians. Ya' know like buying off leaders with foreign aid. That's who benefits from most of it anyways...not the people.

I also know of no part of our Federal Constitution that enumerates any powers of our federal govt to pay money to foreign countries our "interests." I don't even know if the word "interests" are even included in the document. I do know about providing for the common defense.
But that's narrower then the word "interests."

You can't set up sweatshop factories without securing the area first.

[Ultra Peanut]

What's your actual argument, UP? Someday when you have enough money saved up for reassignment surgery, are you going exercise your freedom to indulge yourself or are you going to donate it to some poor people somewhere who are "entitled" to development? Or do you only buy into that crap when you can do it with other people's money?The point, my unenlightened friend, is that assisting the starving is in no way a punitive measure, nor is their plight necessarily being blamed on anyone.

There's enough food in this world to feed those who need it, with plenty left over to do it all again. If you can't even muster the humanity to agree that it's a shame that people still starve despite that fact, you can go eat a dick.

But not mine, because I need it in order to have surgery someday and "indulge" myself in a remotely normal life. What makes you fucktards think the tranny card is going to do anything for you?

[patteeu]

The point, my unenlightened friend, is that assisting the starving is in no way a punitive measure, nor is their plight necessarily being blamed on anyone.

There's enough food in this world to feed those who need it, with plenty left over to do it all again. If you can't even muster the humanity to agree that it's a shame that people still starve despite that fact, you can go eat a dick.

But not mine, because I need it in order to have surgery someday and "indulge" myself in a remotely normal life. What makes you ****tards think the tranny card is going to do anything for you?

LOL, try not to be too emotional, sunshine. I would have never mentioned reassignment surgery if you hadn't decided to make that a public part of your ChiefsPlanet life and if it didn't so dramatically illustrate how hypocritical you are. If I knew that your goal was to use money that could have fed the starving to buy a fancy car someday or to donate to your prep school to get your name on a building, I might have used one of those as an example instead. How can you even think about having reassignment surgery when there are poor little kids starving to death in remote corners of the world?

In the words of a great poet and philosopher:

**** YOU, I'VE GOT MINE

Love,
Ultra Peanut

[Garcia Bronco]

The point, my unenlightened friend, is that assisting the starving is in no way a punitive measure, nor is their plight necessarily being blamed on anyone.

There's enough food in this world to feed those who need it, with plenty left over to do it all again. If you can't even muster the humanity to agree that it's a shame that people still starve despite that fact, you can go eat a dick.

But not mine, because I need it in order to have surgery someday and "indulge" myself in a remotely normal life. What makes you ****tards think the tranny card is going to do anything for you?

How could you think of being a gender bender when there are so many starving children out there. Unbelivable.

[Ultra Peanut]

Seriously. How dare I.

Those fucking third world leeches.

brb gonna go destroy some crops

[Garcia Bronco]

Just effing with you.

[Otter]

I'll donate a large sum of money to help feed the poor in Africa when they start adding birth control to the grain I'm buying. Maybe, just maybe if you're homeless and not sure where your next meal is coming from having kids isn't the best thing to do right now.

But no. Let's throw some food at the problem and make it worse. That's the humane thing to do, right?

[Garcia Bronco]

I'll donate a large sum of money to help feed the poor in Africa when they start adding birth control to the grain I'm buying. Maybe, just maybe if you're homeless and not sure where your next meal is coming from having kids isn't the best thing to do right now.

But no. Let's throw some food at the problem and make it worse. That's the humane thing to do, right?

Billy Idol gets it. I don't understand why everyone else doesn't.

[Adept Havelock]

I'll donate a large sum of money to help feed the poor in Africa when they start adding birth control to the grain I'm buying.

Decent notion, I suppose. Maybe the incoming administration will get rid of the idiotic restrictions put in place in '01 on discussing Birth Control and Abortion that go along with some foreign aid, aka "the gag rule".

Dirk, thanks for the link about "Plumpynut". Sounds like a heck of a useful development.

[BucEyedPea]

What if some of them have a peanut allergy?