• We have updated to the newest version of the forum. Please let us know if you see any issues. And, yes, we know the shoutbox is gone. We'll see about getting it back if they make a newer version.

The help for Haiti...

Workdawg

Workdawg

NARWHAL
Off topic: You guys clearly have a different definition of fate.
Definitions of fate on the Web:

-destiny: an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future
-destiny: the ultimate agency regarded as predetermining the course of events (often personified as a woman); "we are helpless in the face of destiny"
-destine: decree or designate beforehand; "She was destined to become a great pianist"
-fortune: your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that was her portion"
Click to expand...
AJ sees it as the first, but doesn't believe in it.
Kyle seems to believe it is more of number three. Things that are completely out of our own control.

Blah blah blah, fate argument done.

On topic:
While it's unfortunate when ANYONE, ANYWHERE, falls on hard times, I don't think it's up to our government to divert our tax dollars to aid. Was there a vote at some point that said that x% of our tax dollars should be shipped off to world aid? Is it our countries DUTY to help the less fortunate? I don't think it is.

If individuals want to donate their own money to those people, then go for it. But if I wanted my money to go to some charity someplace, I'd give them my money directly. At least then I could claim it as a tax deduction.
 
Z

ZoomZoom Diva

New Member
LASERBLUE135 said:
seriously you guys are taking the term "fate" too literally, too storybook/psychic. There is NO BELIEVE. Its a FACT you don't choose your parents, you don't choose to be born, you don't choose where you are born. These things just happen. THERE IS NO "I BELIEVE..."

The reason this is important is because the OP just happens to be from the US, therefore believing that giving aid to another country could somehow be wrong. All I'm saying is if you take away the fact that you just got plopped here on US soil, and rethink the argument, it makes sense to spread the wealth.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion, Kyle. While you don't choose your parents or place of birth, it is a matter of opinion the level of impact that has on a person's life, and how much a person can control the impact of those factors and make their own factors.

I also disagree that just because you got plopped on US soil by chance that makes a difference as to how one addresses and prioritizes need. Sheer chance is as good of a reason as any to prioritize needs close to home if for no other reason the more direct impact it has on our existence.

Dan, what vote is there on any government spending? One can even make the argument that the humanitarian aid is unconstitutional as there is not enumerated power to provide aid to other nations (unless agreed to by treaty, which is possible). However, the providing of aid after a catastrophic event is a long-standing tradition, and one that I really cannot find fault with, particularly when it reflects very small proportions of the overall budget. Also, we are far from the only nation providing aid.
 
L

LASERBLUE135

Active Member
Workdawg said:
Off topic:
Kyle seems to believe...
Click to expand...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhh!!!
LASERBLUE135 said:
you guys are taking the term "fate" too literally
Click to expand...
And then you throw the DEFINITION up there. If there is a better word than FATE I would have used it. I looked, seriously, and couldn't find a better word. What I mean is not something you can believe in by CHOICE. (for instance: can you CHOOSE not to believe that the Earth exists? Can you CHOOSE not to beleive that you were born? Can you choose not to believe that a huge earthquake just destroyed another country?) These things happened or are. You can't stop them, you can't "not believe" in them if you are sane. It comes from ethics, John Rawls's "original position".

ethics is the question of right and wrong. the original question...
AJ said:
While I feel terrible for what has happened, I'm torn due to the immediate response and dedication of funds from the U.S. We have homeless with shelters lacking funding to help. We have schools being shut down and a rise in student to teacher ratio. We still have a city with a nick name of "The Big Easy" that seems to be left to fend for itself. Cali is fucked in so many ways it's retarded. Detroit is fucked in many more ways. Drugs, Homeless, Gangs, Healthcare, and the list can go on... all going to shit in our own country due to funding. Yet we have millions and millions to continue to send other in aid?

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
...is an ETHICS question (right or wrong).

Workdawg said:
While it's unfortunate when ANYONE, ANYWHERE, falls on hard times, I don't think it's up to our government to divert our tax dollars to aid. Was there a vote at some point that said that x% of our tax dollars should be shipped off to world aid? Is it our countries DUTY to help the less fortunate? I don't think it is.
Click to expand...
Our government understands that there are PEOPLE in need, not just AMERICANS in need. They understand DUTY goes beyond our borders and beyond our taxpayers sometimes. (and I'm guessing that comes from the ethics of John Rawls's "original position".) Our govenment has resources beyond what charitable contributers have (mobile medical forces). Why do they do it? Do the people in our government really care about Haiti? I don't know. But somewhere along the way they decided it was ethically right to give aid for some reason or another. To look better in they eyes of the world, to look more powerful, to be nice, who knows: there's lots of different reasons.
 
Workdawg

Workdawg

NARWHAL
LASERBLUE135 said:
And then you throw the DEFINITION up there. If there is a better word than FATE I would have used it. I looked, seriously, and couldn't find a better word. What I mean is not something you can believe in by CHOICE. (for instance: can you CHOOSE not to believe that the Earth exists? Can you CHOOSE not to beleive that you were born? Can you choose not to believe that a huge earthquake just destroyed another country?) These things happened or are. You can't stop them, you can't "not believe" in them if you are sane. It comes from ethics, John Rawls's "original position".
Click to expand...
You can choose to believe ANYTHING that you want. A belief does not have to based upon fact. For many years people beleived the earth was flat. The world was never flat, that is a fact, but people still believed it was true. Billions of people believe in a god(or many gods) despite there being no proof that any gods exist.

===============

There are many charitble organizations that DO have the resourses to bring aid to other countries. The red cross, etc. The govt could also contract out it's resources to do good for a reasonable fee if it was a matter of needing them.

As far as govt spending is concerned. No, we don't have a vote. Surely no one is going to agree with every tax dollar spent, but it's a lot harder to argue with the spending when it's going to improve the country in some way. Throwing tax dollars at another country doesn't improve the US in any way, other than to look good to other countries. If we wanted to look good in the global community, there are much better and cheaper ways to do it.
 
L

LASERBLUE135

Active Member
ZoomZoom Diva said:
to prioritize needs close to home if for no other reason the more direct impact it has on our existence.
Click to expand...
^^^Yes! That's it exactly. If you take away the direct impact on our own existance. My argument goes beyond personal greed. You want the resources used for yourself. Of course you (not "you" in particular, but you as people) do! Its perfectly natural. So imagine that The World is you. Take away the fact that fate--->(or if you prefer: all the things that you can not possibly change) placed you were you are. Then you get greedy for the world, you want everyone to be better off. So as a whole, as a species, world, universe (we don't have aliens yet). You want to make it all better. That's what our government is doing.
 
Z

ZoomZoom Diva

New Member
Since the resources don't exist to fix every problem at once, how do you prioritize resources? What makes basing support on your location (both by choice and otherwise) or personal preferences less valid than other factors? Personally, I see no good reason to take away your placement when making these decisions.

Note: I do believe the aid to Haiti is the proper one, because there needs to be a balance between the needs closer to home (prioritization method) and when a catastrophic event pops up outside of that circle.
 
Stealthgator

Stealthgator

New Member
Workdawg said:
I don't care if people want to make the world a better place. I care if my money is spent to do it.
Click to expand...
Is the "problem" that the Haiti is another country? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position. You are okay with giving aid (in the form of declaring a federal emergency) to states within the U.S.?
 
AJ

AJ

110 HP of FURY!
Stealthgator said:
You are okay with giving aid (in the form of declaring a federal emergency) to states within the U.S.?
Click to expand...
If we don't we fail those who pay for it through taxation.

I think we can all agree that Haiti getting aid is deserving, I just wish some of this effort would of continued in the Big Easy the last couple years or being used in Cali where a water shortage is slowly killing a very large part of US crops and has driven prices up.
 
dmention7

dmention7

Hater
Workdawg said:
Is it our countries DUTY to help the less fortunate? I don't think it is.
Click to expand...
I actually do believe it is. Perhaps not "duty" in a legal or contractual sense, or maybe responsibility is a better term. I just can't get behind the philosophy that our country's duty to protect and help people (with or without public money) ends at our borders. Now exactly what the level of that duty is, is another discussion completely...
 
AJ

AJ

110 HP of FURY!
dmention7 said:
I actually do believe it is. Perhaps not "duty" in a legal or contractual sense, or maybe responsibility is a better term. I just can't get behind the philosophy that our country's duty to protect and help people (with or without public money) ends at our borders. Now exactly what the level of that duty is, is another discussion completely...
Click to expand...
I'm all for extending past our borders as well, I just don't like knowing this aid gets whipped out like a big dick so fast. Maybe whipping it out sooner to continue to rebuild New Orleans would be a smart move?
 
Z

ZoomZoom Diva

New Member
One has to wonder when it becomes the responsibility of New Orleans and those who wish to live there and the like to continue the rebuilding and formation of the city after the immediate needs were cared for.
 
L

LASERBLUE135

Active Member
"company executive cited the economic importance of the resort to the local citizens as well as the opportunity to deliver much-needed supplies"

I've gotta agree. There has to be a return to normalcy too.
 
W

WhiteSpy9

Guest
After the worst earthquake in 200 years, the capital of Haiti is leveled.
Damage estimates are in the tens of dollars.

3 haitians walk into a bar
it collapses

what's 5 feet tall and has hundreds of arms and legs?
a haitian hotel

my favorite haitian band is new blocks on the kids
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top