PDA

View Full Version : Australians Should Donate 5% of Their Income to the World's Poor



Nachtengel
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009, 04:49 AM
Watch video here:
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2657896.htm


Summary

In this three-part series prominent Australians present their views and ideas on ‘a good life’. Each program features one guest whose argument is then examined in interview with Compass presenter Geraldine Doogue. In
Episode 3, Australian philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer talks about alleviating world poverty, the subject of his latest book The Life You Can Save. He argues the affluent West has a moral responsibility to help the world’s extreme poor, and that if we do – we will lead a better life as a result.


Do-gooders. :oanieyes

rainman
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 05:31 PM
We have a moral responsibility to sustain humanity. We can not do this by allowing it to degenerate into a weaker and less competent state. Rewarding the sick, stupid, criminal, inept, incompetent etc. is counter productive towards human survival. I believe in helping people but only in a sustainable way.

The west has caused mass starvation and suffering. We feed 10 Africans who are hungry and a generation later they have bred and now there are 100 hungry mouths to feed. We feed them. Then there are 1,000 hungry mouths. It obviously is not sustainable and leads to suffering.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 06:42 PM
We have a moral responsibility to sustain humanity. We can not do this by allowing it to degenerate into a weaker and less competent state. Rewarding the sick, stupid, criminal, inept, incompetent etc. is counter productive towards human survival. I believe in helping people but only in a sustainable way.

The west has caused mass starvation and suffering. We feed 10 Africans who are hungry and a generation later they have bred and now there are 100 hungry mouths to feed. We feed them. Then there are 1,000 hungry mouths. It obviously is not sustainable and leads to suffering.

Precisely. It's really worse than throwing money away.. these third worlders are then imposed upon our own countries to rape our daughters and take our jobs through affirmative action and be positioned above us by hate crime laws that legislate only against US!

Leftists are the worst enemies of our people, and it's sad that there are so many very young brainwashed people who ramble on about "social justice" even here on Skadi, pretending that they care about our people while stabbing us all in the back in their folly. They are just too stubborn to stop and think that they might be wrong.

Kogen
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 08:18 PM
Having more people who hate me will improve my life?

I have never donated willingly to other people and I never will.

Nachtengel
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 08:46 PM
We have a moral responsibility to sustain humanity.
That's it, we don't. We only have a moral responsibility to sustain our own kind. Screw humanists.

rainman
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 09:20 PM
I think you should care about everyone and everything to some degree. You should improve your environment, uplift those you are around and generally make the world a better place because of your existance. "screw other people" is a self defeating attitude.

I think you should care about other people, but you should put your own people first. There is a natural heirarchy. You should choose your immediate family over your race. You should choose your race over someone outside it. You should choose a human over an animal etc. I wouldn't say that I don't care about animals, other people outside of my folk etc. I don't think that is a good way to live nor is it in my nature. The problem I think with most people is they don't put their own family first, and they don't put their own folk first.

I think we can clearly see the screwed up self hating attitude in people who would tear down human homes to make room for a spotted owl to live or something. This is a sickness and a self hatred. Or people who would harm their native land in order to bring in foreign refugees. Something wrong there when you don't care about your own people.

But then again some people I think are defective and not fit for survival. I think preserving them is a crime against nature. So I don't think we have a moral obligation to keep those people alive (retards, defective races etc.). We should sustain humanity though because we are a part of it.

Æmeric
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 10:57 PM
Instead of feeding these people we should be using the money to sterilize them. Many of these women in places like Africa would accept $1k to voluntarily sterilize themselves, do themselves & the West a great service in the longterm.

RoyBatty
Thursday, October 1st, 2009, 11:16 PM
We have a moral responsibility to sustain humanity.

Errrrr, no.

"Humanity" is a very over-rated commodity. Too much "humanism" has led to the inevitable mess that Europe finds itself in today. While practicing "humanity" in one's already multi-kultied environment may seem like the sensible thing to do (after all, we're all one big community now) it makes no sense whatsoever from a European preservationist viewpoint.

The entire point and idea is to guard and protect our territories and homelands against foreign invaders, "humanists" and liberals.... not to start adopting an "if you can't beat 'em then join 'em" attitude.

The responsibility for "humanity" to sustain themselves lies with that "humanity". Not us.

Kogen
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 12:31 AM
I think this explains fully how we should use our money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhVM0HmGado#t=7m55s

Rightpath
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 01:56 AM
I much prefer


Australians should give Nothing of Their Income to the World's Poor, and should start looking after their own interests in this time of financial crisis.

Ok I made that up but,

With the debts of our nations continuing to spiral out of control are we really still expected to pump much needed funds from our economies into aiding corrupt and inept governments, this isn't a new thing we have been doing it for decades.., Funny but no matter how many millions we give them in aid the larger picture never seems to change.

I will however donate money to what I consider to be more deserving causes, such as care for our elderly and sick. Although a large amount of my donations go to poppy day (Armistice day) appeals for our war veterans and also other military veteran associations.

Nachtengel
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 03:10 AM
I think you should care about everyone and everything to some degree.
Well I don't. I care about my kind and our almost immediately related, and that's it. I feel no responsibility towards non-Europeans in particular. If their conditions are crappy, it's not our fault. It's their own, for disorganization. No one from Africa would jump to our help if we were facing and problems.

Resist
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 04:23 AM
I think you should care about everyone and everything to some degree.
We've been told this by multiculturalists for decades, and it doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's time to try a whole new strategy?

rainman
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 04:17 PM
I understand where you're coming from. I'm not saying its your responsibility to care for someone else like feed them and clothe them I just mean you should have a general good will about you. A cat would never come to my aid either but if I saw a wounded kitten on the side of the rode I'd try to help it if possible. I often stop to pick up turtles and put them somewhere safe so they don't get hit by cars. I do it because I'm human, I'm not an animal. I don't expect animals to act as civilized. At the same time if the cat population is out of control I would be for sterilizing them and even sometimes the neccessary deaths that need to occur to bring them down.

With humanity I think we are better off in this world if we can work together and foster constructive relationships rather than conflict. A lot of times though these other races show no respect towards whites and are even openly hostile. So I guess at some point it makes sense not to care. I don't think the cure to racism is neccessarily more racism- like someone treating me bad because I'm white so I treat them bad because they aren't. Though I guess you do have to defend yourself and look out for your own interests.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 06:55 PM
Anyone who doesn't realise that he is ruled by the jew is a complete and utter fool. Why else would Christmas trees and crosses be banned and yet when we would not feed these pests who would consume all and give nothing, they chide us for lacking Christian charity. The policy if the jew is simple.. anything that is against the culture of the European Gentile or hinders his survival.. this is what they most ardently advocate.

Kogen
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 07:29 PM
I understand where you're coming from. I'm not saying its your responsibility to care for someone else like feed them and clothe them I just mean you should have a general good will about you. A cat would never come to my aid either but if I saw a wounded kitten on the side of the rode I'd try to help it if possible. I often stop to pick up turtles and put them somewhere safe so they don't get hit by cars. I do it because I'm human, I'm not an animal. I don't expect animals to act as civilized. At the same time if the cat population is out of control I would be for sterilizing them and even sometimes the neccessary deaths that need to occur to bring them down.

With humanity I think we are better off in this world if we can work together and foster constructive relationships rather than conflict. A lot of times though these other races show no respect towards whites and are even openly hostile. So I guess at some point it makes sense not to care. I don't think the cure to racism is neccessarily more racism- like someone treating me bad because I'm white so I treat them bad because they aren't. Though I guess you do have to defend yourself and look out for your own interests.

Then what makes you think that you need to help other humans, who should be civilised and able to help themselves?

And you know for a fact that only Europeans and a few select groups of other races act the same way you do.

Beornulf
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 02:27 AM
Ridiculous idea, I'd support the idea of raising funds for mass sterilization for countries that breed in excess however.

But either way nature will take care of it eventually.

Æmeric
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:11 AM
Ridiculous idea, I'd support the idea of raising funds for mass sterilization for countries that breed in excess however.

But either way nature will take care of it eventually.

Nature would take care of it if the liberals in Europe & North America would stop interfering whenever there is a famine or plague in the third world. Every little girl saved from hunger or disease in Africa grows up to have 6+ more children that will need to be saved at some point by international aid.

Kogen
Sunday, October 4th, 2009, 04:40 AM
Well think of it in a positive way: eventually it will become so large that even the Liberals will not be able to stop it, then it will destory itself.

Our biggest worry are the invaders.

ChaosLord
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 05:03 AM
I'm taking environmental biology this year in college and this is a subject that we've been discussing in class the past two sessions. There was talk of the north/south divide and how wealth is distributed across the world. Of course Western nations were vilified and blamed due to expansionism, colonialism, imperialism, and biopiracy. Many people think that it's the West's obligation to support turd-world countires since we live beyond our needs. I don't necessarily agree with this fact because it took a lot of work to make our countries prosperous. Yes, some people may be have beem exploited, but that's the general cost of progress in an industrialized civilization. People should choose if they give to charity or not without the need from gov't pressures.

Malthusian theory states that food grows arithmetically while populations grow exponentially; eventually surpassing their carrying capacity. That's the problem with third-world countries is they're incapable of progress in their own means and instead breed like rats. Garret Hardin's "Lifeboat ethics" states that a lifeboat (wealthy nations) can support X amount of people. If the third-world swimmers were to be introduced to this lifeboat it will eventually sink, causing further damage than before. With this said most third-world countires cannot be saved because they're an ever-consuming blackhole on the coffers and they'll eventually lose the incentive to progress by means of humanitarian handouts.

Simply put, we should help our own people (countrymen) before we worry about others. It may be cold and callous, but it's rational truth. There's plenty of poor and starving people in our own countries. Take care of them first.

Bärin
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 05:26 AM
If you want to help a nation that is poor, it's better to teach its people to produce their own means of survival. If you keep giving them money they'll just leech off you until there's nothing left. There are few categories of people who genuinely deserve charity. The rest have to work if they want to eat.

Patrioten
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009, 05:39 PM
If you want to help a nation that is poor, it's better to teach its people to produce their own means of survival. If you keep giving them money they'll just leech off you until there's nothing left. There are few categories of people who genuinely deserve charity. The rest have to work if they want to eat.They know how to survive, at least they used to, just not how to maintain the kind of developed civilization that exists in the west and in other developed parts of the world. Nor how to sustain a society built on industry and a service sector, rather than subsistence agriculture in small village communities. We in the west just need to stop kidding ourselves that these people will ever rise above their situation and the whole thing will sort itself out.

Healfdan
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009, 06:47 AM
We have a moral responsibility to sustain humanity.

Start small. You had the right of it when you talked about developing community.
I have a moral responsibility to sustain my family first, then friends, local community, general community... THEN I'll worry about the world.
The West is not totally innocent of causing grief in undeveloped countries but it's not entirely responsible either. The governments of famine stricken countries must take a fair portion of the blame as a large chunk of GNP is spent on military hardware and self aggrandisement. Famine is a political beast as you're aware.
What some see as a debasement of our culture others see as changes made to fit us all into a nice conformative global market in which to peddle their wares and get on with what they see as the main game...making profits.

Mistress Klaus
Saturday, December 12th, 2009, 11:38 AM
I think this 'do-gooder' concern for the 'under developed' peoples should stop. It is ridiculous! Nobody REALLY cares.... Horrible rich snobs....greenie hippies...pretend 'nice people'....absolute BULLSHIT!! Leave them alone & they will get along just fine.

Frau Holle
Friday, December 25th, 2009, 06:25 PM
How about "humanity" starts paying for all the damages its members have been doing to this country? We don't owe "humanity" anything. Ridiculous BS.

Mouse Shadow
Wednesday, April 28th, 2010, 09:17 AM
I think the worlds' poor are better off as they are, except for people of our heritage who have been raped by jewish banks.

I would gladly give some of my income to my blood family, and absolutely no other.

The rest of the world should not get a cent. If in their societies, tribal huts and shacks are the penultimate of their achievements, then that's exactly what their mental makeup likes and is motivated to achieve. We should not try to grow them as us, push them into cities and high pressure, intellectual jobs.

They don't like it, they can't manage it or sustain ethical conduct. So obviously, 'evolution of breeding rules' is a fundamental component too.

If they overpopulate, well that's natures way of saying, if there's food, eat it and expand. If your members die in starvation times, so be it. It's their natural way of living.

We fair skinned folk adapted/evolved, we plan ahead and will necessarily cut back on bearing children if times become difficult, stressful or we can't envisage a happy life for our kids. We are also one of the only races who put great emphasis on trying to live sustainably. We have very light population centres (when left alone) which coincide with greater environmental care.

Anyway, rapid breeders are rapid die-rs, boom and bust. It’s their way. We shouldn’t interfere or give them reason to boom into our life support mechanisms.

We have been artificially inflating their numbers by giving them our support, which in turn causes greater, wide scale misery. Every time we give, that just kills more and more children and people of theirs at a later date.

In fact it seems evil to me that we do such a thing.

So, they will get no love, no support and no care from me. I’ll just sit back and watch them do their natural thing until they evolve out of it, if they ever do. We shouldn't feel ashamed of not giving to them, give to our own people in need.