Noteworthy said:

The reason is, in my opinion, because no one on earth has the right to decide who deserves more than another. We all have our opinions. But overall, there is no standard that everyone will agree on.

Thus, everyone must be given equal rights, or else there is favouritism.

As for the education issue.. I think it is good to have equal schooling... schooling is not a matter of making you smarter, it is a matter of making you aware of the expectations of society. The focus of school, at least primary school, ought to be about allowing children to develop social skills, language skills, and a broad opportunity to apply their mind to different situations. Disabled kids are disabled kids, theyre always gonna get in the way of everyone else. But gifted kids can always be given extra schooling. Both gifted and disadvantaged kids can be taken to special schooling.

So im not sure why you make education the significant topic here. I don't think equality is really considered much in today's world anyway, except as a legal guideline for avoiding potential unfairness. That is where the juicy issues are. Eg. I think an employer should be allowed to hire whoever they want. If they chose the white guy with less skills than the black woman, then thats their own bad choice. They shouldnt be forced to hire the black woman if they think that it will upset the dynamics of their workplace. This said, the introduction of equity has probably done more good than harm

---

Noteworthy said:

Do you feel like your potential was not reached?

---

meatcakeman said:

Ah, I didn't fully verbalize the full extent of my thoughts.

In a Meatcakeman-istic society, those who can't provide, whether for themselves or for society, shall perish. Not only will Darwinism occur, but at the core, it's truly just nature taking its course as it has done so since the very conception of Earth and its pertaining biological life. It's like trimming the fat.

But, yes, society today tries to provide for those in need, but fail to realize that the very society, itself, is in need. You can't try and patch a wound on someone else when you're already bleeding.

Yes, I'm indirectly referring to Africa and other impoverished areas.

---

Bard said:

meatcakeman said:

Ah, I didn't fully verbalize the full extent of my thoughts.

In a Meatcakeman-istic society, those who can't provide, whether for themselves or for society, shall perish. Not only will Darwinism occur, but at the core, it's truly just nature taking its course as it has done so since the very conception of Earth and its pertaining biological life. It's like trimming the fat.

But, yes, society today tries to provide for those in need, but fail to realize that the very society, itself, is in need. You can't try and patch a wound on someone else when you're already bleeding.

Yes, I'm indirectly referring to Africa and other impoverished areas.

---

But did you consider that those you speak of doesn't wanna "perish"? And probably they are the majority... They will fight for their lives, even if it's philosophically incorrect... So it is impossible to realize your idea. People are not machines, to turn them off, rather animals with life instinct.

---

Yes, I am aware of these repercussions. I'm assuming that the human population would at least be reduced 2/3 in its size. This will be due to war, famine, and disease. But this will also create a huge genetic shift in mankind's evolution. And I think it'd be for the better.

GazzBut said:

Well you did say you were high but woah....wtf are you smoking there?!

"But, yes, society today tries to provide for those in need, but fail to realize that the very society, itself, is in need. You can't try and patch a wound on someone else when you're already bleeding.

Yes, I'm indirectly referring to Africa and other impoverished areas."

What you fail to grasp is that western society has played a large role in helping Africa down this road to poverty and famine. I am not saying we are solely responsible but we have certainly played our part. According to your warped view of the world we should now cut them adrift and let them all perish? You mention "shifts in mankinds evolution" As far as Im concened if nobody had thoughts like yours that would represent a much more positive shift in human evolution.

"Yes, I am aware of these repercussions. I'm assuming that the human population would at least be reduced 2/3 in its size. This will be due to war, famine, and disease. But this will also create a huge genetic shift in mankind's evolution. And I think it'd be for the better."

So the only way forward is via war and famine? You are basically advocating genocide so there is less for the rest of us to worry about or have to deal with. Then we can carry on our greed fuelled lifes without a hint of guilt? Truly enlightened thought...But guess what, a new underclass would soon be created to replace the one that had been disposed of. Its the nature of the system.

---

You barely scratch the surface.


And I don't fail to grasp anything. Western society has played a huge role in aiding Africa; yes. What's your point?
My point is that we shouldn't. We shouldn't waste millions of our taxpayers' dollars on helpless Africans when we need to spend it on ourselves; on education, on healthcare, etc. Africa is just another spending indenture for agencies to make money. Every time the government moves massive amounts of money, agencies involved get their own share. It's wrong. We are trying to profit off those who are in dire need.

But Africa doesn't necessarily need our help. To become sustainable, Africa needs to make internal reforms. They don't need external help. But if they can't fend for themselves, then yes, I do believe they should all perish. They are a waste of our time, money, and energy. Sure, innocent people will die by the millions, but when have they not in contemporary society. People die; it's an inevitable fact we must succumb to. And we have no right to say whether someone has the right to live or die. In nature, they must survive on their own, or else they weren't meant to survive at all. That's the law of nature.



And no, I'm not advocating genocide. I'm advocating Darwinism. Just because we stop helping others doesn't mean it's genocide. What kind of twisted logic is that? People will die worldwide. That's the point. Americans will die, Brazilians will die, Australians will die, Africans will die, Chinese will die, etc. We trim the excess fat so those who truly deserve Earth's resources are allowed to utilize them. It's not greedy, and evil; it's wise. Instead of thinking about the now, we need to think about the future. Welfare helps no one. It keeps the poor on the bottom of the food chain. It's like feeding wild fauna at a park. They get used to getting fed by humans so much that they lose their own sense of foraging for food. Eventually, they become dependent on us, rather than themselves. That's sickening, really, because we are just manipulating nature's process and hurting those involved.

Noteworthy said:

I think ive had a very good education. But I have nothing to compare it with.

---

Noteworthy said:

yeah but I also know that some students don't take what is offered and get stuck in that sort of rebellious resistance to schooling.. not sayin its in your case, but I know plenty of people could have had better school experience if theyd taken all the opportunities they could. Of course if you got no opportunities then thats not an option.

but I dont think that we really spend enough money on africa for it to make a difference if we spent it on our own country. Still, it probably woul dbe better spent on the poor people in our own country.

The problem then is that you have less poor people... which would be horrible for the economy... it would reduce the drive people have to get more and more and avoid potential poverty

---

The US has spent tens of billions of dollars on Africa. The majority of these monetary resources are given to the pertaining African governing bodies within Africa, not the people of Africa, per se. Who's to say that these government agencies don't take a cut of the cheese, too?

I do believe that the moral of the general issue is right. Humanitarianism is a reflection of good morality. But besides the concept of it, the relief effort in Africa is a lost cause. It does Africa no good when we dump billions of dollars on them. They need their own political reforms in order to become a sustainable, working economy that can provide resources for itself and the world.


Imagine what America could do with $3 billion (how much it spent on Africa just in 2006) for itself?

A lot. And if we cut military spending, we'd have even more money to spend on self-advancement. Instead of focusing on oil, we could spend money to develop applicable methods of alternative energy. Also, we could create machines to do mundane jobs for us; cashiers, bag boys, and bank tellers could all be replaced by equally, if not more, capable machines.



Yeah, that means people will lose their jobs. But that's just more of an incentive for those people to become professionals. No one ever says: Well, yeah, I guess I'm just not good enough to become a professional, or learn a trade. I guess I'll just bag groceries for a living.

Noteworthy said:

oh, you are talking about the way that unrest is maintained in africa to prevent people from taking control of the resources that are rightfully theirs?

in fact thats the point of this thread. so wtf?

---

Quote:

not everyone can or should get equal education, you accept this.

---

Quote:

I disagree with your assumption that everyone should become professional... I dunno where you get that value from? maybe it is all the emphasis you put on getting a good education?

---

Quote:

Western society has played a huge role in aiding Africa; yes. What's your point?

---

Quote:

My point is that we shouldn't. We shouldn't waste millions of our taxpayers' dollars on helpless Africans when we need to spend it on ourselves; on education, on healthcare, etc. Africa is just another spending indenture for agencies to make money. Every time the government moves massive amounts of money, agencies involved get their own share. It's wrong. We are trying to profit off those who are in dire need.

---

Quote:

But Africa doesn't necessarily need our help. To become sustainable, Africa needs to make internal reforms. They don't need external help.

---

Quote:

But if they can't fend for themselves, then yes, I do believe they should all perish.

---

Quote:

And no, I'm not advocating genocide. I'm advocating Darwinism. Just because we stop helping others doesn't mean it's genocide.

---

GazzBut said:

Quote:

Western society has played a huge role in aiding Africa; yes. What's your point?

---

Very droll. I believe Western society has plundered far more from Africa than it has give back in aid. To be fair it doesnt really seem that the Africans help themselves as they are mightily corrupt. On the other hand that shouldnt mean we knowingly take advantage of this to the detriment of the poor in Africa.

Slave trading, Sugar, coffee, cotton, minerals etc etc have all played their part in building the western world as we know it today.

For you to then turn around and say we should turn our back on these people and basically let them sink or swim is fairly revolting.

Quote:

My point is that we shouldn't. We shouldn't waste millions of our taxpayers' dollars on helpless Africans when we need to spend it on ourselves; on education, on healthcare, etc. Africa is just another spending indenture for agencies to make money. Every time the government moves massive amounts of money, agencies involved get their own share. It's wrong. We are trying to profit off those who are in dire need.

---

Firstly is it really being wasted? Secondly the whole game of money is a complete farce in the first place.

I am not interested in tax payers dollars. I try to avoid getting caught up in illusions and fairy stories whenever possible.

The planet we live on is insanely abundant. Nobody needs to go hungry or want for clean water. That is a choice we make by the rules (i.e money) we impose on the way we organise ourselves and interact with each other.

Greed is the problem. End of story.

Btw, if the US and UK had pumped half of what they have into securing oil fields in the last 10 years into Africa the whole place would be looking completely different.

Quote:

But Africa doesn't necessarily need our help. To become sustainable, Africa needs to make internal reforms. They don't need external help.

---

I agree with your first two points but why wouldnt they need external help. To be honest you dont sound like an expert on international development to me.

Quote:

But if they can't fend for themselves, then yes, I do believe they should all perish.

---

I feel sorry for you.

Quote:

And no, I'm not advocating genocide. I'm advocating Darwinism. Just because we stop helping others doesn't mean it's genocide.

---

So hypothetically it is in our power to save a whole nation of people but we decide not to..they all die. Not genocide? Indirect genocide? passive genocide? Call it what you like...its still fucked up.

And you think this is Darwinism? No my friend, Darwin is turning in his grave right now.

You are infected with greed buddy...its not pretty to watch.

---

You're so bland.

Greed isn't everything. Greed isn't necessarily bad either. We evolved to be greedy in order to survive in our natural surroundings. It's an innate drive to fend for ourselves and keep to ourselves in order for self-advancement.


Money doesn't fix things.
You think the US and UK could fix Africa by pumping money into it? You are gravely misguided. Africa needs to know how to use the money we give it. Without that knowledge, money is worthless to them. That's why I believe internal reforms are better than external aide. Can you not connect the dots here?

And passive genocide doesn't exist; that's an oxymoron. Genocide is purposeful. It is caused by a drive to exterminate an ethnicity, religion, etc. Fending for ourselves rather than helping Africa isn't genocide. If the political purpose of doing so was to kill all of Africa, then yes, it would be genocide. But that wouldn't be the purpose. The purpose would be to self-advance. The purpose would be to focus on ourselves rather than others; to meddle in our own business. America lacks these intentions. It roams around the world with its myriad of military bases and navy ports, policing Earth. Why? Who gave us the power to do such heinous injustices?


And, to be honest, you don't sound like an expert on international development to me, either. So, touche.



And yes, the indiscretions we committed to Africa are innumerable and apparent. Although the gesture would be nice, that doesn't necessarily mean that we should help them any.

Africans live happily in the UK and US. If it wasn't for the slave trade, African-Americans would cease to dominate the athletics scene. They wouldn't be multimillionaires, and they wouldn't have any opportunities back home. Africa had resources, but it didn't know how to exploit that. They never industrialized, just in case you forgot that little historical factoid. That's how industrialized countries like the Spain, Britain, the US, and the Netherlands exploited Africa; they had the technology to do so.

Let me tell you this:

Pity does nothing.

And as blatant as it seems, change is accomplished by involvement, not emotional agendas and moral issues. So, my take on it is that if we don't want to involve ourselves and integrate ourselves into their society, we might as well just let them be, for our existence to them serves no purpose.

meatcakeman said:

And, also, I'd like to point out that I do believe that inequality should be enforced by the government in terms of voting and political candidacy; a literacy and political aptitude test should suffice for that. Those who know about politics should meddle in politics. Those who are politically ignorant shall focus on other issues.


It's kind of a wasted endeavor if you vote on something you know nothing about.



Inequality, ftw.

---

Quote:

You're so bland.

---

Quote:

Money doesn't fix things.

---

Quote:

You think the US and UK could fix Africa by pumping money into it? You are gravely misguided.

---

Quote:

And passive genocide doesn't exist; that's an oxymoron. Genocide is purposeful. It is caused by a drive to exterminate an ethnicity, religion, etc. Fending for ourselves rather than helping Africa isn't genocide.

---

Quote:

The purpose would be to focus on ourselves rather than others; to meddle in our own business. America lacks these intentions. It roams around the world with its myriad of military bases and navy ports, policing Earth. Why? Who gave us the power to do such heinous injustices?

---

Quote:

And yes, the indiscretions we committed to Africa are innumerable and apparent. Although the gesture would be nice, that doesn't necessarily mean that we should help them any.

---

Quote:

Africans live happily in the UK and US. If it wasn't for the slave trade, African-Americans would cease to dominate the athletics scene.

---

Quote:

Africa had resources, but it didn't know how to exploit that. They never industrialized, just in case you forgot that little historical factoid. That's how industrialized countries like the Spain, Britain, the US, and the Netherlands exploited Africa; they had the technology to do so.

---

Quote:

And as blatant as it seems, change is accomplished by involvement, not emotional agendas and moral issues.

---

Quote:

So, my take on it is that if we don't want to involve ourselves and integrate ourselves into their society, we might as well just let them be, for our existence to them serves no purpose.

---

Too late buddy! We already involved and we are already intergrating.

Smoke another fat one and come up with a new theory...this ones run its course

Quote:

GazzBut said:

Quote:

You're so bland.

---

lol.

---

Quote:

Quote:

Money doesn't fix things.

---

Predictable cliches. Let me correct "your" thinking for you:

Using money will not necessarily fix anything. However it is possible that money can be used to solve problems that would have potentially been impossible to solve without the use of money.

---

I assumed your argument was solely pertaining to donating money.

Quote:

Quote:

You think the US and UK could fix Africa by pumping money into it? You are gravely misguided.

---

If we applied ourselves to the situation fully and were 100% committed to helping Im sure we could make a big difference. This would cost alot of money. I never said simply throwing money at Africa was the solution.

---

Indeed, it would cost a lot of money. But there's a stark contrast between seemingly aiding Africa and truly aiding Africa.

Quote:

Quote:

And passive genocide doesn't exist; that's an oxymoron. Genocide is purposeful. It is caused by a drive to exterminate an ethnicity, religion, etc. Fending for ourselves rather than helping Africa isn't genocide.

---

Yeah whatever. My point was that whatever its called its fucked up.

Standing by and watching hundreds of thousands of people die of starvation when it is well within our capability to help. You call that a good idea?

---

If we are incapable of helping them, then yes. If we are able, then we shall. But as of right now, the reality of the matter is leaning towards the former.

Quote:

Quote:

The purpose would be to focus on ourselves rather than others; to meddle in our own business. America lacks these intentions. It roams around the world with its myriad of military bases and navy ports, policing Earth. Why? Who gave us the power to do such heinous injustices?

---

Oh so the only way America meddles in the world is by building military bases?

You ever heard of a little thing called globalisation? We make money our of Africa not just through import and export but by opening Mcdonalds and Starbucks too. Your notion that we can compartmentalise sections of the human race and leave them too "fend" for themseleves is plainly ridiculous. The entire human race are linked to each other like never before and this level of intergration/unity is only going to increase. We need to find better ways of dealing with it not take steps backwards.

---

My purpose of inequality does not separate mankind into classes. As sentient, living organisms, we have the innate right of Life. Biologically, we are all equal; we were all given life. But what you do after birth determines who you are.

Integration of inequality within society means that a Citizen of the Earth must prove his right of existence; not Life, mind you. If he be inapt, he shall no longer pertain to society; he cannot vote, he does not pay taxes, he no longer receives benefits from the government (Driver's License, financial aid, healthcare, etc.), etc. He is socially shunned. But if he can sustain Life by himself, then he shall live. He is a living being, he deserves that right.

Quote:

Quote:

And yes, the indiscretions we committed to Africa are innumerable and apparent. Although the gesture would be nice, that doesn't necessarily mean that we should help them any.

---

Thats just a matter of personal ethics. As far as Im concerned it means we should help them plenty.

---

Go ahead then. You talk behind a computer screen, grudged by an impersonal avatar named meatcakeman. At least I'm doing what I personally believe is right; by not doing anything.

Quote:

Quote:

Africans live happily in the UK and US. If it wasn't for the slave trade, African-Americans would cease to dominate the athletics scene.

---

An example of how intergration and unity has increased over time. But hey lets forget about that and pretend that we have no connection or links with the whole of Africa and sit tight and ignore them if they ever look like they could do with a helping hand. I mean we would be too busy concentrating on "self-advancement" lol.

---

Oh, those in need who are hard working individuals will have their benefits. But crack dealers, itching for a welfare check, will not. You prove your worth. Again, we should lend a helping hand by involving ourselves and immersing ourselves into these poorer communities. For example, spending more money on community programs and educational programs there. Give them the cool new football field, too, not just the White suburbs.

Quote:

Quote:

Africa had resources, but it didn't know how to exploit that. They never industrialized, just in case you forgot that little historical factoid. That's how industrialized countries like the Spain, Britain, the US, and the Netherlands exploited Africa; they had the technology to do so.

---

Shame we had to exploit rather than work towards both parties getting somewhere near equal benefit. But that was a long time ago and society has evolved alot since then.

---

Indeed we have.

Quote:

Quote:

So, my take on it is that if we don't want to involve ourselves and integrate ourselves into their society, we might as well just let them be, for our existence to them serves no purpose.

---

Too late buddy! We already involved and we are already intergrating.

Smoke another fat one and come up with a new theory...this ones run its course

---

How are we involving ourselves? How are we integrating?


Empty claims full of emptiness and despair posed as goodwill and wishful thinking.

Claims such as those need proof to be seriously considered by others.

And smoking is what I do. And if I do think of something strange, I'll post it on here. If you disagree with what I have to say, then I will continue to attempt to refute you unless you convince me otherwise.

Quote:

If we are incapable of helping them, then yes. If we are able, then we shall. But as of right now, the reality of the matter is leaning towards the former.

---

Quote:

My purpose of inequality does not separate mankind into classes.

---

Quote:

Integration of inequality within society means that a Citizen of the Earth must prove his right of existence; not Life, mind you. If he be inapt, he shall no longer pertain to society; he cannot vote, he does not pay taxes, he no longer receives benefits from the government (Driver's License, financial aid, healthcare, etc.), etc. He is socially shunned. But if he can sustain Life by himself, then he shall live. He is a living being, he deserves that right.

---

Quote:

How are we involving ourselves? How are we integrating?


Empty claims full of emptiness and despair posed as goodwill and wishful thinking.

---

Quote:

Claims such as those need proof to be seriously considered by others.

---

Quote:

A marginal change has occurred during the last 30 years

---

That is but the blink of an eye!

what exactly have you lost faith in Btw?

P.S I was just reading the thread in Politics regarding Iran. I pretty much agree with 100% of what you had to say on that subject