Yet another reason to tell the UN to fuck itself

[Arkaron]

By that rational we shouldn't offer aid to areas of the US hit by hurricanes.

[Riggen]

Oh come on Relbeek it's not like we're kicking around the idea of what to do here--it's already done. If I "offered" anything, it was an insight into the probable thought process that resulted in the creation of the coalition. If Bush doesn't trust the UN, he's not going to hand them boatloads of money when the US is fully capable of administering an alternative in which it has more control. I'm not saying I agree that's what should be done, I'm just saying that's likely part of the reasoning behind the coalition's creation. And the current administration's track record has little or nothing to do with that.

[Relbeek Einre]

Ah. So you're saying it's the Bush administration's likely thought process.

I doubt it. Plausible, but unlikely.

[Riggen]

Not the complete process, mind you. But probably an influencing factor. If you really want to nitpick we can chuck control, greed, and a desire for PR onto the pile with distrust.

[Relbeek Einre]

Agreed.

[Ddrak]

Eid,

You need to just give up on this thread right now. Your reading skills have abandoned you once again. I never mentioned Enron or made the statement about white collar crime.

I suggest you take a step back and apologize for your rampant misquoting and misunderstandings and start somewhat fresh before you continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

If I was to make a comment on USAid vs the UN and OCHA then I'd be looking at figures that show money in vs aid actually received. When you look at the excesses and overcharging of the contractors that USAid hires, I'm doubtful you'd find any significant benefits of giving money to the former and not the latter. In fact, I'd be surprised if USAid wasn't far less efficient than OCHA.


Chants,

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. You've done nothing to prove any "greater good" from any of the excesses of the first world but merely asserted it exists. Not only that, but you've constructed an argument that implies I was suggesting that R&D was somehow a personal expense outside of "dollars needed to survive" which is blatantly false.

The fact is your "constant truth" simply doesn't exist and you've utterly failed to do anything but assert its truth when I challenged you. R&D may have well been the realm of personal leisure time for ancient Greeks (the bizarre core of your argument) but it is most firmly in the realm of companies and business in the post-industrial world and firmly attached to the company's survival in more ways than you can count.

Because you are having such a hard time comprehending my argument that you somehow have produced a demand for my "concession" after your repeated failures to do anything but assert your position rather than proving it, I'm forced to explain something I thought was obvious that Relbeek and I believe Riggen have understood from the beginning - the definition of "stingy" that has thus far eluded you.

What is "stingy"? I suggest it is the act of withholding something which you do not need from someone that does need. It is the opposite of generousity. When taken in the pure definition, the entire capitalist first world is essentially stingy as it generates trillions of dollars of "disposable income" while millions starve in third world countries. How can you argue that someone is generous when they (from my own example) are spending cash weekly on pure leisure (not your bizarre grecian definition but the common one) while people die from simple lack of food - which that cash could have bought.

You are the one who made the initial claim that "Americans are very generous" without any sort of discussion on what exactly you define as "generous", let alone the adverbs you apply to that. I suggest your definition of "generous" is exactly the definition of "generous" used by the Pharisee in the parable I mentioned earlier - someone that gives a small amount of their disposable income but witholds the majority for themselves.

I say let's stop pretending. Enlightened self interest is simply a nice word people put over the fundamental core of "greed is good" that is at the heart of every capitalist society. I happen to agree with that statement so I very much doubt that Chairman Mao and I would see eye to eye on any sort of economic discussion as any of the pure communistic criticisms of capitalism can be quite simply answered with "well, at least my system works".

So no, Chants. I will definitely not concede to someone who has failed to define the terms of their own argument, undulged in distortions and bizarre fabrications of terms (R&D being leisure - wtf?) and avoidance of the core point that you need to force a significant amount of self delusion to use the term "generous" to any society that spends billions of dollars on leisure (in the modern definition) while people starve.

To make any sense, I simply ask you to define what you mean by "generous" that encompasses the above statement of fact, and how you use the adverb "extremely" in front of that when speaking of any first world nation.

I'm sure Engeland and I don't use the term "stingy" in the same terms at all - after all, he was only using it to drum up more donations and was wildly successful in doing that.

Dd

[Ddrak]

Oh, for the record on the "separate" coalition - it's working closely with the UN and made absolute sense that it was established simply from the reaction time point of view. I think most people with a beef about that particular issue are grinding their own personal hatchets rather than looking at the realities of the UN's reaction time vs the military response of the coalition nations.

I doubt there's significant duplicated work going on here and the "coalition" will pass control to OCHA when it makes sense to do so.

Dd

[Rsak]

Not only that, but you've constructed an argument that implies I was suggesting that R&D was somehow a personal expense outside of "dollars needed to survive" which is blatantly false.

Which part is blatantly false?

That R&D was somehow a personal expense outside of "dollars needed or survive" or that you were suggesting this?

[Ddrak]

That I was suggesting it. Note that all my examples were of personal non-essential expenditure. If you want to look at business donations then I would happily argue that R&D is necessary for business survival, but not only that, I have always been arguing that this "stinginess" is a good thing and not a bad thing.

Is it truly a bad thing to keep something non-essential for yourself to the detriment and even death of someone else?

Dd

[Rsak]

Then with all honesty I believe you and chanta are not really discussing the same things.

I get the impression that Chants is applying the logic outside of the realm of personal time or expenditures. Chants is looking at the country as a whole and seeing all of the non neccessary things that the country and the society as a whole is doing that is benifiting the rest of the world.

You are both looking at this from different definitions of generosity and stinginess.

[Ddrak]

I agree, Rsak, which is why my rebuttal of Chants continues to be primarily showing that he's simply not addressing any point I made and his "counterarguments" are simply irrelavent to my statement.

What amuses me the most though, is the "not stingy" defense always boils down to an absolute dollar argument and not something relative to the economic strength of the nation. Look at the arguments and links Chants provides - they all without fail criticize the UN measurement of not counting private donations but fail to use the same measure including private donations to show that they don't make a difference - the US is still behind (as are most first world countries).

So, while the US does give a huge amount in raw dollar value, they are not that high on the scale of donations as a relative measure of how rich the country is. It comes back to the Pharisee in the parable. Was he really more generous because he offered more in raw cash value?

I know Chants is smart enough not to be deceived by the bait and switch of denouncing the UN percentage measure and propping up a "raw dollar" measure so the only thing I can conclude is that he's practicing self delusion and honestly blinds himself to the irrelavency of the arguments he presents - the numbers simply don't add up to the claims being made from them.

In my mind, the most generous nation with respect to Tsunami relief would have to be East Timor. They are impoverished, have no reason to aid Indonesia at all and yet still give money. That is generousity we should all stand in awe of.

Dd

[Rsak]

I think there is validity in both of your arguments when taken in proper perspective.

However I also take offense when charity is expected or people look down on you when you only give a certain amount.

Whether you are generous or not should be determined by whether you give anything at all, not by how much you give.

[Riggen]

Given the circumstances, Ddrak, that's not generosity. That's utter and complete stupidity.

I would argue by logic mirroring yours that in giving away money while any of its own population is in need that the government of East Timor is abrogating its responsibility to its people.

What's gave me a laugh is that in my search for information on this, I discovered that the East Timor Action Network is collecting its donations for tsunami relief from people in the United States.

[Ddrak]

I kind of agree. I take exception to any charity that expects donations. I want them to prove why they deserve my money and if they resort to morality arguments then they lose. Like I said - I know I'm stingy. I do give and spend reluctanty (the dictionary definition) and dammit, they need to convince me and not the other way around.

Whether you are generous or not is not up to the charity to determine. It's just irrelavent because it's subjective and not objective. Taken objectively the only thing you can conclude is everyone is stingy without distorting the definition and that's really what I was saying with my argument.

Dd

[Ddrak]

Above post was to Rsak.

I would argue by logic mirroring yours that in giving away money while any of its own population is in need that the government of East Timor is abrogating its responsibility to its people.

I would agree. Isn't that a definition of generousity? GIving to your own detriment? Just as I would argue that stinginess is not giving to the very point of your own detriment.

Dd

[Riggen]

If you think stealing from one person in need to give to another is generous.

[Ddrak]

Who is doing that? East Timor is taking from itself, not someone else. Last I looked it's not possible to steal from yourself unless you want to twist definitions again.

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

Ddrak,

You're arguing a very convoluted point here. You claim to despise charities that seem to think they have more right to your money than you do. And instead of then arguing that Jan Egeland is an idiot for making a comment portraying the UN in exactly that light and saying let's move on, you go into a semantic definition of the word 'stingy' worthy of Rsak on a Nyquil bender.

Frankly, Ddrak, when making personal decisions regarding charity, "what can I afford?" is not the ONLY question I ask. I also pause to consider how much the recipient will NEED and how worthy the recipient is of my aid.

For example, the earthquake victims here are very worthy of my aid. They did nothing to deserve the natural disaster that befell them. OTOH, I wouldn't send a dime to the Bill Clinton Legal Defense fund. He got himself into that mess by boinking an intern on the Oval Office desk, exposing himself to Paula Jones, and then committing perjury about it.

This also inclines me to regard the UN as an organization unworthy of my charity. I don't want to assume the risk that some of the money I give to help deserving Tsunami victims is going to line the pockets of assholish UN bureaucrats who make plenty of money already.

Then there's the question of how much the aid recipient really needs. If a single mother needs a car to get to work, I'm not going to buy them a brand new $40,000 BMW when a $2500 used car will serve their need just as well. Thus my earlier point about Bush's aid pledges going up as the damage estimates went up.

Frankly, Ddrak, I don't run around in a dither saying "ZOMG, I need to spend 7% of my annual income on charity...it's December 31st and I have to find four more worthy causes...ZOMG". I see a worthy cause and I give what I can, even if it's only volunteer hours.

[Riggen]

You're the last person who should be talking about twisting definitions in this thread.

The government of East Timor is stealing from its own people. Or maybe you disagree that a government's first responsibility is to its own.

[Relbeek Einre]

Dude gives his "volunteer hours" to a science fiction convention! Worthy charities!?

I'm kiddin' buddy, I'm kiddin'.