^hey, knowing is half the battle, man

3/20/2007 2:54:21 PM

what in the hell are you talking about?

3/20/2007 2:55:20 PM

what is an example of another country that might be more generous or give more aid of some type? just throw out a name if you have even one in mind

any ideas?

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 2:58:16 PM

Nazi Germany. after all, they killed, what, 6 million jews?

3/20/2007 3:06:47 PM

so sarijoul you cant even throw out one idea for a more generous country?

3/20/2007 3:17:09 PM

i was meeting with my advisor. there are lots of countries who give more (relative to their economy). see norway, denmark, luxembourg, sweden, netherlands, portugal, france, switzerland, belgium, UK, finland, germany, canada, australia, spain, new zealand, austria, greece and japan.

see http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf

3/20/2007 3:20:27 PM

what about who gives more absolutely? since we have such a big economy

3/20/2007 3:22:08 PM

^^Did you forget the fact that private giving from the US is 3-4 times greater than government aid? Or did you just ignore that factor because it didn't help your argument?

The fact is that the US gives far more than any other country, both from public and private aid sources.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : 2]

3/20/2007 3:25:40 PM

I wonder if that takes into account charities... I doubt it.

3/20/2007 3:26:06 PM

according to that measure, the united states. but since when is giving a smaller portion of a large pie more generous?

3/20/2007 3:26:07 PM

since you are still getting more pie, which will fill you up, maybe?

3/20/2007 3:27:00 PM

sarijoul

Quote :

"^^Did you forget the fact that private giving from the US is 3-4 times greater than government aid? Or did you just ignore that factor because it didn't help your argument? "

3/20/2007 3:29:19 PM

the claim is baseless. saying america is the most "generous" without defining what the word means is pointless. there are obviously lots of ways of interpreting the term. some of these put america on top. some of these put america far below.

and if we're counting charitable giving i would call that Americans being more generous (which i'd still like to see some proof of -- it very well may be true, but it doesn't seem like a simple thing to quantify -- it's certainly far easier to just say it and hope no one will question you) but the original statement said that "the United States" is the most generous country in the history of the world.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 3:30:42 PM

Quote :

"^^Did you forget the fact that private giving from the US is 3-4 times greater than government aid? Or did you just ignore that factor because it didn't help your argument?"

Uhhh...proof, please...

3/20/2007 3:33:04 PM

and usually the ones that put the US far below are skewed in order to make the US look bad.

3/20/2007 3:33:39 PM

wtf?

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2007 3:34:37 PM

^^^The proof is in the link, which I can't cut and paste because it's PDF.

US private aid in 2004 was 71 billion. Public aid was 19 billion. Of course that is just dollars and doesn't factor in military aid, R&D for new medicines, etc.

But nowadays guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into private charities, so you can expect private donations to go way up over the next decade.

Read the link if you are interested in a more specific breakdown of global philanthropy.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : 2]

3/20/2007 3:38:20 PM

Quote :

"but since when is giving a smaller portion of a large pie more generous?"

Since when is it the United States' fault that other countries have smaller economies?

3/20/2007 3:53:36 PM

We are the most generous but that isn't really saying much if nobody is generous ENOUGH and when we have only used our aid for political leverage/incintive. We produce enough food to feed everybody starving four times over and still have surplus but people in the world are starving. If we were so generous nobody would die of starvation. WE BURN FOOD to keep it from rotting for heavens sake.

This whole page of discussion is moot because that far down the road we will be in a crisis of our own (economicly, debt) relocating cities and people yadda yadda, our food supply will decrease or just become more expensive so we sure won't have the means to help in the biggest aid project EVER.

Quote :

"The United States is the most generous country in the history of the world and its still not good enough for you. "

Generous enough to sign the kyoto protocol and others? I think not.

Greedy and selfish are better words for that.

3/20/2007 5:17:16 PM

Quote :

"We produce enough food to feed everybody starving four times over and still have surplus but people in the world are starving. If we were so generous nobody would die of starvation. WE BURN FOOD to keep it from rotting for heavens sake."

All the food and money in the world is useless if it doesn't get to the right people or if the infrastructure and power isn't in place to ensure it gets to where it needs to go.

Quote :

"Greedy and selfish are better words for that."

Because mutual suicide and international pacts to retard the industrialization of other countries is a good plan.

3/20/2007 6:14:54 PM

Okay if you can convince every other country to go with the global market then we can feed everyone. However as long as you have countries in the middle east that hate the US just because we have things they don't we will never have a open market. Life isn't fair and we cna't help everyone. We aren't GOD!!!

3/20/2007 6:39:12 PM

See, there goes the classical ignorance and arrogance "they hate us because they're jealous" bullshit. everybody that hates us hates us for a reason and I hate to say it, but most of them have justifications for hating us.

3/20/2007 7:18:30 PM

^ Equally so, we have justifications for not helping them out. Also way to ignore the point about aid being useless if you can't get it where it needs to go in the first place.

3/20/2007 7:20:56 PM

So we can invade iraq but we don't have the capabilities to deliver food to places in africa because the leadership won't alllow it. please...

3/20/2007 7:24:21 PM

^ basically, yes. we delivered food aid to iraq, but the food never got to the people. the same shit happens in Africa. you give the food to the leader, cause he won't let us go into the country ourselves. then the leader just ends up hoarding the food and it never goes to those who need it.

3/20/2007 8:36:05 PM

Quote :

"So we can invade iraq but we don't have the capabilities to deliver food to places in africa because the leadership won't alllow it. please..."

Any method of delivering aid to the people of a country that goes around or against the leader (or current leading group) of that country would be an invasion.

3/20/2007 8:38:40 PM

besides, based on what others have said, I would think that aristotle doesn't think we have the capability to invade iraq, anyway, since it has all been such a dismal failure anyway...

3/20/2007 8:41:54 PM

So Iraq wasn't starving like other places so why didn't we go to the other places? Why can't we invade Africa now with a "coalition of willing"

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM. Reason : we could probably get un aproval as well but we won't do it because it won't benefit us]

3/20/2007 8:42:15 PM

un approval? hahaha. fuck that, the UN doesn't give a damn about africa, except when it's convenient

3/20/2007 9:13:50 PM

Quote :

"This whole page of discussion is moot because that far down the road we will be in a crisis of our own (economicly, debt) relocating cities and people yadda yadda, our food supply will decrease or just become more expensive so we sure won't have the means to help in the biggest aid project EVER."

Actually, studies have been done to show that if Global warming occurs as predicted the United States will come out ahead economically. That is, the gains from an increased temperature outweight the losses. I posted a link to a letter from a Harvard Professor (in an appropriate discipline) to the Senate in the other global warming thread.

Quote :

"Generous enough to sign the kyoto protocol and others? I think not. Greedy and selfish are better words for that."

Its pretty obvious here you've done little reseach into the Kyoto Protocol. Even if every country in the world followed the protocol, their efforts would reduce global temperatures by 0.17 degrees Celsius by the year 2050. A ridiculous figure given the trillions of dollars lost by all countries. Are you aware that not a single country that has signed onto the Kyoto Protocol (save 2, with special circumstances) will meet it by 2008 or 2010? The economic losses would be huge, and totally unnecessary given that there is no consensus that manmade effects on global temperature are noticeable. All the Kyoto Protocol tries to do is give an economic advantage to Europe, and increases outsourcing of jobs from the United States to developing countries (i.e. China, India, Mexico) that are not held accountable by the Kyoto Protocol, and never will be.

3/20/2007 9:15:16 PM

^ so, how much is Exxon paying you?

3/20/2007 9:18:12 PM

How else you think I afford to live in NYC man$ $ $ $

3/20/2007 9:18:46 PM

Quote :

"So Iraq wasn't starving like other places so why didn't we go to the other places? Why can't we invade Africa now with a "coalition of willing" "

Because in theory neutralizing established threats is easier in the short nd long term than trying to fight through a nebulous mass of ever changing power in an unstable country.

That said, since we're taking on the burden on Iraq pretty much on our own, why can't the rest of the world help africa? Clearly if as you believe, feeding these people is so easy, surely the UN would have no problems with ensuring that Africa is well fed. Heck we could even provide the food, we're just a little short on man power.

3/21/2007 8:30:17 AM

^And people forget that 25% of the UN's cash flow comes from the US.

3/21/2007 12:11:17 PM

^^My argument was never that the rest of the world was generous and we weren't. My argument is that NOBODY is generous enough and when shit hits the fan pretty much EVERYWHERE people will save their own ass and many will suffer.


Back to the real topic....

People love to bring up cycles well....Never before in the cycle has the temperature and co2 levels changed with AS HIGH OF A RATE AS THE TEMPERATURE IS RISING RIGHT NOW.

and that my friends, is your walk off homerun.

3/21/2007 4:48:07 PM

damn this guy Aristotle makes salisburyboy look normal

3/21/2007 4:49:54 PM

^ Not really, no.

3/21/2007 4:55:45 PM

Seems like Gore is losing more and more credibility.

3/21/2007 4:59:22 PM

^^^^misinformed again. The 1920s-1930s saw the highest and fastest increase in global temperature. Sorry you lose again.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ^]

Anyone hear that when he spoke in front of Congress yesterday he didn't submit his planned speech 48 hrs before, as is required/customary. I wonder why that was. Oh yeah, so nobody could look into his claims and refute them.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ridiculous]

3/22/2007 12:04:25 PM

^no they didn't.

we have factual data that cannot be argued with that dates back 780,000 years. Out of all 100% of that 780k years of data, this the warmest, fastest warming, and most co2 there has been. EVER. Non Debatable. PERIOD

3/24/2007 2:21:47 AM

I was half sleep and forgot to mention that the data is from ice cores fyi.

3/24/2007 11:42:40 AM

^^^ yeah, they said he give them a copy of his speech like, 30 minutes before he was due to speak

3/24/2007 4:49:57 PM

Quote :

"Actually, studies have been done to show that if Global warming occurs as predicted the United States will come out ahead economically."

Too bad economics aren't the only thing that fucking matter if the planet heats up. You fail to consider fragile eco-systems that would destroyed by desertification of varying degrees.

3/24/2007 5:13:12 PM

^ What about the new ecosystems that would be created? Personaly I'm getting sick of squirrells and bears and deer.

3/24/2007 6:25:47 PM

let's kill them all and let god create new ones.

3/24/2007 6:56:09 PM

It seems that those on anti GW side need need to acknowledge that humans are contributing something to greenhouse effects. How much is debatable due to the huge amount of knowledge we don't know yet about longterm climate/solar changes.

Those GW proponents need to recoginize the the level of agreement from scientists is far from decided. And average people are not going to change their lifestyles with so much disagreement among experts. And it would be foolhardy to risk screwing up the economy for avoiiding a problem that is so nebulous.

What we should all agree on is to speed up our search for non fossil fuel energy sources. It's got to be out there somewhere. I read that just the force of the ocean currents that flow off the east coast could supply all of the country's power. We just need to figure out an alternative.

3/24/2007 10:09:37 PM

And average people are not going to change their lifestyles with so much disagreement among expertsno matter what.

3/24/2007 10:27:01 PM

Quote :

"And it would be foolhardy to risk screwing up the economy for avoiiding a problem that is so nebulous. "

This is the biggest load of BS coming out of the anti-GW folks. The measures being asked for WILL NOT in any way "screw up" the economy. Some industries will have decreased profits (but still be filthy rich) like the oil companies, but a push for cleaner energy sources will help a lot of other industries and research too.

If you follow the money, you'll see that the anti-global warming outcry is not coming from scientists, it's being funded by special interests to try and drown out the global warming people. There's a lot of FUD on both sides, but the FUD coming from the anti-GW people is MORE dangerous to humanity. They're basically wanting to "stay the course" and we know where that can lead.

3/24/2007 11:21:41 PM

the alarmists (this thread included) are such a joke its barely worth retorting anymore.

3/25/2007 2:09:30 AM

Or rather you know that you have been intellectually bitchslapped so you are punking out. Good day.

3/25/2007 3:35:32 AM