Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 May 2000 17:50:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
590 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > I am apalled by this heartless attitude. How can you care so little for
> > people who are suffering, just because they don't live in your country?
>
> How can you say how much I care or not? I didn't address my personal caring
> for those people, I made a statement about how they rate in my priority system
> when I'm thinking about how I'd like for my government to spend the money it
> takes from me.
And by saying you don't want our government to spend added money on finding a
cure for a disease that is infecting millions of people in another country, it
shows you don't hold nearly as much compassion for human life as you should.
> If it makes you and other people feel better, let's step out of reality for a
> minute. • <snippage of pointless statement I got from my six year old niece last week>
> Now, back to reality.
>
> The money trees don't produce as much as we'd like them to - mine sure
> doesn't. The government can only take so much from me and others like me to
> fund loads of truly worthless crap in addition to some good things, like
> medical research or ... well, whatever it is the government does that isn't a
> waste of money.
Why do you assume that the AIDS research money will cause a rise in Taxes? I
never heard anything of the sort. And, since all tax money goes into a pool of
funds, just think of your taxes as going to pay for the programs you feel are
good.
> Given that, given that completely finite amount of money, given that not all
> things can be done, I'd put people in the US ahead of those outside of the
> US. Sorry, call me a chauvanist, call me a patriot, call me heartless if
> you'd like, but if I had the choice between saving 10 Americans or 10
> Africans, not knowing anything about them other than their nationality, and I
> had to do it with tax money, I'd save the 10 Americans every time.
I'd prefer to save 5 Americans and 5 Africans myself. It might even reduce the
population densities in the respective areas, as well.
> > many of them are suffering from major internal strife. This strife, coupled
> > with the large number of people infected with AIDS could easily collapse
> > these country's governments.
>
> So? I don't subscribe to the USA as the protector of the whole world. I know
> some do, but it seems like the more we stick our nose in other places the more
> we get slammed for it. For every place that publicly thanks us for the
> boatloads of money we dump into "needy" countries (wait - does anyone thank
> us?) we get crapped on for trying to do what's "right" in 10 others. Leave us
> alone and we'll leave them alone - I think we should try that for 10 years and
> see how the rest of the world turns out.
We are all of the same species, we should do everything within our power to
help each other. Just because no one else wants to help (or help as much)
doesn't mean we shouldn't. Would you feel the same way if it was the UK
suffering? How about Canada?
Personally, if "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," I'll choose
trying to help and going to hell instead of doing nothing and going to heaven.
> > And don't think for a second that us High and Mighty Americans
> > will be unaffected.
>
> Well, I'm not high or mighty, but I'll remain mostly, if not completely,
> unaffected by what happens in most parts of Africa.
I seriously doubt that, but if you want to live in your little fantasy world,
go right ahead.
Jeff
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Wow, thanks for passing moral judgement on my level of compassion based on my desire for fiscal responsibility. Aside from the fact that I could ask what qualifies you as one to set the level of acceptable compassion for human life (assuming (...) (25 years ago, 9-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Should? (...) Uh? increased funding of anything requires more money...right? So the money either comes from increased revenues (taxes) or by taking it from other government programs. Where do you think it should come from? (...) of (...) (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) How can you say how much I care or not? I didn't address my personal caring for those people, I made a statement about how they rate in my priority system when I'm thinking about how I'd like for my government to spend the money it takes from (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
