More Money Than They Will Ever Need.

[SuBe]

Others have been dealt really ****ty card and crawled out of it to become successful.

Charities are there to help the needy. But as soon as charity is not optional - it no longer becomes charity.

Pursuit of Happyness! That Movie Rocked!

 

[Bubonic]

Plus the Earth needs people dying of hunger, disease, etc. Its natural order. We make it so that all people on this world have an easy life - the world gets over populated.

Indeed it does, and we've greatly upset that balance with our anthrocentrism.

Isn't it convenient that the ones who should die to maintain this "natural" order are disproportionately descendants of victims of colonialism?
Western Europe has fabricated this "natural order".
We've robbed them of much of their culture, displaced them, exploit their resources... Even this, if we didn't rip them off wholesale for their own products they'd be better off.

Food for thought. Why do we deserve to be the ones that survive?

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING.

There you go.

Just because people are better off than you, mostly because they are much better at making money than you or poor people in other countries. If you dare punish people for being successful, no one will ever work to become successful, so then all those rich people disappear and you're left with a bunch of poor people that don't want achieve anything lest they be stuck back down, because you are jealous.

Again, they are simply better at making money because, more often then not, they were born into conditions that improved those chances.

Sharing ones wealth to better the human condition should actually be motivation to be successful, so that you can contribute more. It is the individualistic mentality that we are breed in that would have such abject feelings against altruism.

Others have been dealt really ****ty card and crawled out of it to become successful.

Charities are there to help the needy. But as soon as charity is not optional - it no longer becomes charity.

In a "free" society, at least there is the mobility to do so, and thats great.
But in the countries where redistribution would help, they are born in a hole, and die in that hole. They often don't have access to anything that could better their situation.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

Indeed it does, and we've greatly upset that balance with our anthrocentrism.

Isn't it convenient that the ones who should die to maintain this "natural" order are disproportionately descendants of victims of colonialism?
Western Europe has fabricated this "natural order".
We've robbed them of much of their culture, displaced them, exploit their resources... Even this, if we didn't rip them off wholesale for their own products they'd be better off.

Food for thought. Why do we deserve to be the ones that survive?



Again, they are simply better at making money because, more often then not, they were born into conditions that improved those chances.

Sharing ones wealth to better the human condition should actually be motivation to be successful, so that you can contribute more. It is the individualistic mentality that we are breed in that would have such abject feelings against altruism.



In a "free" society, at least there is the mobility to do so, and thats great.
But in the countries where redistribution would help, they are born in a hole, and die in that hole. They often don't have access to anything that could better their situation.

Very well said, i could not have said it better.

 

[Gilpesh]

Again, they are simply better at making money because, more often then not, they were born into conditions that improved those chances.

Sharing ones wealth to better the human condition should actually be motivation to be successful, so that you can contribute more. It is the individualistic mentality that we are breed in that would have such abject feelings against altruism.

I'm not Ayn Rand over here. I'm saying that it's a crap idea to force people to be nice with THEIR money.

People can CHOOSE to give, but they shouldn't be forced EVER.

 

[Bubonic]

I'm not Ayn Rand over here. I'm saying that it's a crap idea to force people to be nice with THEIR money.

People can CHOOSE to give, but they shouldn't be forced EVER.

What do you call taxes?

Actually, come to think of it, taxation would be the fairest and easiest way to implement this. Not suggesting it wouldn't lead to riots, considering our selfish demeanour.

And I feel it should be the sort of taxation where the rich would have a larger percentage knocked off then the more moderately equipped. 30% of a billion is enormous, yet that person would still have 700 million dollars, 30% of a low income would be counter productive.

This way things wouldn't be completely like a potlach where the richest people gave everything away. They'd have more then enough to sustain their life, company, whatever.

 

[StorminNorman]

Indeed it does, and we've greatly upset that balance with our anthrocentrism.

Isn't it convenient that the ones who should die to maintain this "natural" order are disproportionately descendants of victims of colonialism?
Western Europe has fabricated this "natural order".
We've robbed them of much of their culture, displaced them, exploit their resources... Even this, if we didn't rip them off wholesale for their own products they'd be better off.

Food for thought. Why do we deserve to be the ones that survive?

Race and culture shouldn't be the deciding factors of survival - those that thrive - thrive. Those that have not prospered, have not kept up with most of civilization - they fall behind. Thats nature...Darwinism.

 

[Bubonic]

Race and culture shouldn't be the deciding factors of survival - those that thrive - thrive. Those that have not prospered, have not kept up with most of civilization - they fall behind. Thats nature...Darwinism.

Sounds more like Social Darwinism actually...

 

[xisaacx]

its a dog eat dog world, survival of the fittest

 

[Steve Rogers]

I love how people say things like, "Being forced to give up some of your money is un-American." Or, "People who think we should give some money away are communist."

Um...what about that favorite American, Capitalist, Democratic, Red White and Blue past time of paying taxes?

 

[StorminNorman]

Sounds more like Social Darwinism actually...

Naturally. Darwinism as applied to society would tend to be Social Darwinism.

 

[StorminNorman]

I love how people say things like, "Being forced to give up some of your money is un-American." Or, "People who think we should give some money away are communist."

Um...what about that favorite American, Capitalist, Democratic, Red White and Blue past time of paying taxes?

Taxes and Charity are completely differently.

 

[CieloAzul]

Well taxes are used to pay for things that everyone, or a majority of the population, uses. They're not for divying up among the masses.

 

[redmarvel]

Consider this, the very rich people keep a lot of other people in business, even if they don't donate to charity. How many people does Microsoft employ? How many people does Bill Gates employ to do all the stuff he doesn't want to do (laundry, house keeping, car maintenance, etc)? How many people are employed simply in producing the products he uses (cars, homes, planes, etc)?

Each of those people can donate to charity if they wish to, simply because he employed them to begin with. There is a trickle down effect.

Sure it's not fair that there are people starving, but sending money to those people doesn't seem to help. Too much of that money gets diverted to other people to run the charities or run the governments of those countries.

The only thing that does seem to help is to go over there yourself and dig wells, plant crops, build fish farms, etc. Are you prepared to do that?

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

The rich may donate,but they don't want to give all their money to those who really need it. Greed is still a fundimental part of humanity.

 

[Bubonic]

Naturally. Darwinism as applied to society would tend to be Social Darwinism.

I was in a hurry, had to go to Savate.

First let me point out that thinking behind Social Darwinisms greatly influenced eugenics and Nazi doctrine, and basically fell apart because of the consequences of such horrors. So your climbing a slippery slope using this line of argument.

The theory arise from a horrible misunderstanding of natural selection. People make the mistake to assume that evolution is about attaining the highest peak of perfection. It isn't, it is simply about survival, about adaptation and passing the genes to the next generation.
All this doesn't always entail fitness, and understanding of sickle cell anaemia could clarify this point, but I won't bother explaining.

Anyways, Eurocentric Westerners figured they where the apex of humanity, they had the culture, they had the power, so it seemed self evident to them they were the best.
Especially when they where exploring and found these "primitive" peoples who's lands they wanted.

They had a model of society, hunter-gatherers on the bottom, and them on the top. Social Darwinism was used to justify genocide, and the complete exploitation of indigenous people.

But the people where much more adapted to the lands then the Europeans ever were, they lived sustainable as they had for thousands of years. They progressed in their own ways, and they were not inferior simply because they had no immunization against the disease ridden Europeans, or adequate defences against their artillery.

It could be argued that Europeans were very much inferior to most indigenous peoples they conquered, killed, exploited, ... Inferior in they're respect for life, for nature.

If you think Social Darwinism is a viable doctrine, your disgustingly racist if you even understand the implications of what your suggesting.

It sickens me that to this day there are still some that blame indigenous people for what has happened to them, they're horrendous lives, and their apparent hopeless situation.

That people sit there, with an undeserved sense of superiority and judge the victims of colonialism, and exclaim "gotta look out for number one".

People dare imply that I've got fascist ideals in other threads, but there is a lot more fascist thinking coming from others then me.

 

[primemover]

As long as these people with more money they they will ever need are spending said money, either by consuming, or creating industry, all should be fine. Misers are the ones that should be railed against.

 

[Elijya]

Every day people die in third world countries from easily preventable diseases, people all over the world are starving, dying. People living on the breadline trying striving to make ends meet.

All the while people like Bill Gates, Steven Speilberg, George Lucas, Donald Trump, The Hiltons & Bill Gates right hand man sit on billions upon billions of dollars. Okay so they give something to charity but it should still be noted that these people as well as the overly rich famous live lives that other people could only dream.

People like footballer David Beckham who earn just under a million pounds a week yet he gives twenty thousand pounds to charity? twenty thousand? thats like you or i giving five pound/dollars.

I remember watching Children in need (british telethon for abused children, child cares & ill or dying children) kelly osborn was on there with her mother sharon saying 'lets give ten thousand pounds' to which her daughter replyed no we can do better than that 'lets give twenty' a week earlier i watched 'The Osbournes' with Sharon being excited that her 2 new cars were so cheap at a mere one hundred thousand dollars each.

It's stupid that people are allowed to earn so much, spend money on stupid things (a diamond encrusted skull was sold at auction last year for millions of pounds made by Damien Hirst) All the while people are dying from things that could so easily be prevented, contaminated water for one.

There should be a tax for people like Gates, Hilton Et al, never mind there contributions, they should have to give a certain amount to charity each year, not what they want to give.

These people have way more money than they will ever need, than any of us will ever need, its time they gave something back.

Your thoughts?

My thought is this:

Philanthropy

In 2000, Gates and his wife founded the charitable Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The generosity and extensive philanthropy of David Rockefeller has been credited as a major influence. Bill Gates and his father have met with Rockefeller several times and have modeled their giving in part on the Rockefeller family's philanthropic focus, namely those global problems that are ignored by governments and other organizations.[51]

The foundation's grants have provided funds for college scholarships for under-represented minorities, AIDS prevention, diseases prevalent in third world countries, and other causes. In 2000, the Gates Foundation endowed the University of Cambridge with $210 million for the Gates Cambridge Scholarships. The Foundation has also pledged over $7 billion to its various causes, including $1 billion to the United Negro College Fund. According to a 2004 Forbes magazine article, Gates gave away over $29 billion to charities from 2000 onwards. These donations are usually cited as sparking a substantial change in attitudes towards philanthropy among the very rich, with philanthropy becoming the norm.[52]

$29 BILLION. So far. As of 4 years ago.


From the New Statesman's "Heroes of our time - the top 50" article. Gates came in #8

Gates is not just a global businessman. He is the "philanthropist-in-chief" on a global basis, and is committed to giving away 95 per cent of his wealth before he dies. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, established in 2000, aims to make health and learning available to all, and to ensure that advances in these areas reach those who need them most. It supports work in more than a hundred countries, with about 60 per cent of its grants going outside the US.

In creating and continuing to develop a global brand that is part of our daily lives, Gates has amassed a personal wealth of $50bn. Impressive in itself. But what makes him so special is that he recognises the potential of the influence he has on businesses and governments (he has recently agreed to advise the UK Treasury on globalisation) and on the lives of people worldwide. He does his best to exploit this influence, not only for his own benefit, but also to inspire a new generation of businesses and emerging economies, as well as to improve the lives of others.

95% is a far cry from your comparison of "That's like me giving 5 pounds", unless you make 6 pounds a year.

So, I'm sorry DK, but your foot is in your mouth here going after Gates. Two seconds of research would have told you that Bill Gates is one of the most generous and giving people on the planet. I think you can forgive him for owning a big screen TV. PARIS Hilton is an idiot, along with many top paid athletes, but Gates is not some demon just because he's a good business man.

I have to ask - you start a thread like this, but don't talk about yourself. Surely you own some nice things, right? How often do you donate blood, or give food to the homeless (aside from a milkshake), or write a check to a charity?

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

My thought is this:

$29 BILLION. So far. As of 4 years ago.


From the New Statesman's "Heroes of our time - the top 50" article. Gates came in #8


95% is a far cry from your comparison of "That's like me giving 5 pounds", unless you make 6 pounds a year.

So, I'm sorry DK, but your foot is in your mouth here going after Gates. Two seconds of research would have told you that Bill Gates is one of the most generous and giving people on the planet. I think you can forgive him for owning a big screen TV. PARIS Hilton is an idiot, along with many top paid athletes, but Gates is not some demon just because he's a good business man.

I have to ask - you start a thread like this, but don't talk about yourself. Surely you own some nice things, right? How often do you donate blood, or give food to the homeless (aside from a milkshake), or write a check to a charity?

Firstly i never went just after gates, i mentioned other people too. as for what i give to charity do you really think i would start a thread like this without giving money and other 'things' to charity?

Not once have i singled out Gates i mentioned him amongst other people and granted i may have my factswrong about him.

Read again my mention of the 20 thousand was linked to the Beckhams, not gates.

 

[Elijya]

You didn't single him out, but you mentioned him repeatedly (three times in the first post). I don't know everything about all those people, but I knew you were dead wrong about Gates, so I'm letting you know that everything you're asking rich people to be, he already is and more.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

You didn't single him out, but you mentioned him repeatedly. I don't know everything about all those people, but I knew you were dead wrong about Gates, so I'm letting you know that everything you're asking rich people to be, he already is and more.

if it looks that way was not meant to.

 

[StorminNorman]

Double

 

[StorminNorman]

I was in a hurry, had to go to Savate.

First let me point out that thinking behind Social Darwinisms greatly influenced eugenics and Nazi doctrine, and basically fell apart because of the consequences of such horrors. So your climbing a slippery slope using this line of argument.

I am never going to defend the horrific acts of the Nazi's, nor of the European Colonists.

The way the Nazi's view Social Darwinism and my view of it - the way most view it - is completely different. Social Darwinism does not rely upon genocide.

The theory arise from a horrible misunderstanding of natural selection. People make the mistake to assume that evolution is about attaining the highest peak of perfection. It isn't, it is simply about survival, about adaptation and passing the genes to the next generation.
All this doesn't always entail fitness, and understanding of sickle cell anaemia could clarify this point, but I won't bother explaining.

Yes - survivor. Adaptation. You don't need to talk down to me - I know about how sickle cell anemia is a biological response to malaria in Africa even though potentially harmful. I understand exactly what evolution is.

Anyways, Eurocentric Westerners figured they where the apex of humanity, they had the culture, they had the power, so it seemed self evident to them they were the best.
Especially when they where exploring and found these "primitive" peoples who's lands they wanted.

They had a model of society, hunter-gatherers on the bottom, and them on the top. Social Darwinism was used to justify genocide, and the complete exploitation of indigenous people.

And Christianity was used to justify slaughter, bombings and other horrors - that doesn't make it a bad concept to practice. It just means that in the past others have committed great evils in the name of it.

But the people where much more adapted to the lands then the Europeans ever were, they lived sustainable as they had for thousands of years. They progressed in their own ways, and they were not inferior simply because they had no immunization against the disease ridden Europeans, or adequate defences against their artillery.

It could be argued that Europeans were very much inferior to most indigenous peoples they conquered, killed, exploited, ... Inferior in they're respect for life, for nature.

To paint all natives with this same brush and curse all Europeans with the other is incredible naive and ignorant.

If you think Social Darwinism is a viable doctrine, your disgustingly racist if you even understand the implications of what your suggesting.

In todays world Social Darwinism is. The world is not large enough for all of the worlds civilizations to thrive. To try to do that does nothing but hurt all people. The strong civilizations will live - the ones struggling will die out. Thats nature.

It sickens me that to this day there are still some that blame indigenous people for what has happened to them, they're horrendous lives, and their apparent hopeless situation.

I don't blame the indigenous people at all for what happened to them. I find it disgusting the actions that took place. Regardless I am a realist - and in reality this is the way it is going to, and has to, happen.

That people sit there, with an undeserved sense of superiority and judge the victims of colonialism, and exclaim "gotta look out for number one".

People dare imply that I've got fascist ideals in other threads, but there is a lot more fascist thinking coming from others then me.

I'm glad you got your rant out - I sure hope you feel better.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

yes of course we should help the people who are less fortunate than ourselves but its just like saying we shouldn't murder each other or abuse kids, to the intelligent its nothing more than common sense

but sadly charity isn't always easy, the old saying charity begins at home is extremely true. lets that the idea in this topic, david beckham earns more in a year than i will in my entire life. therefore i feel he doesn't need all the money so i demand he give a load of it to charity until i feel he has the money i think he's entitled to, alls well and good.

now say i earn far more than the guy living a few streets away he feels that i don't need all the money I've worked for there fore he demands i give a certain amount till charity until i have an amount he feels i deserve, and so on and so on. so where does the cycle end

yes people who have more should be willing to help out more, but in no way should they be forced to. you may not agree with how they got it but they did earn and work for what they have in some way, and you have no right to control how they use what they have earned.

 

[Bubonic]

I am never going to defend the horrific acts of the Nazi's, nor of the European Colonists.

The way the Nazi's view Social Darwinism and my view of it - the way most view it - is completely different. Social Darwinism does not rely upon genocide.



Yes - survivor. Adaptation. You don't need to talk down to me - I know about how sickle cell anemia is a biological response to malaria in Africa even though potentially harmful. I understand exactly what evolution is.



And Christianity was used to justify slaughter, bombings and other horrors - that doesn't make it a bad concept to practice. It just means that in the past others have committed great evils in the name of it.



To paint all natives with this same brush and curse all Europeans with the other is incredible naive and ignorant.



In todays world Social Darwinism is. The world is not large enough for all of the worlds civilizations to thrive. To try to do that does nothing but hurt all people. The strong civilizations will live - the ones struggling will die out. Thats nature.



I don't blame the indigenous people at all for what happened to them. I find it disgusting the actions that took place. Regardless I am a realist - and in reality this is the way it is going to, and has to, happen.



I'm glad you got your rant out - I sure hope you feel better.

As a matter of fact, ranting does make me feel better at times.
I get heated, and I apologize for the condescension that sometimes prevails.

To me, social Darwinian doctrine is upsetting.
From a realist perspective it can be easily seen that some cultures were in over their heads, and as such had to put up with the atrocities that ensued.

I just don't like the inference that just because "they" were wiped out, annexed, or whatever, that it makes them inherently inferior.

They were inferior in technology, weaponry, military tactics, population density, resistance to disease, etcetera.
But in no way should that be understood that they were inferior culturally.

I painted indigenous peoples with the same brush because in essence what makes a group indigenous is that they've inhabited a certain area for centuries.

The point here is that many of them had learned how to deal with their particular niche in nature very harmoniously, they'd usually know how to sustainably hunt, they'd know all about the fauna in the area, what works as medicines etcetera.

For the Europeans, I just meant the colonizers of the time.

Realistically, many cultures got the short end of the stick... But I still think we can do better by them.

I still have an idealist dwelling within me, slowly being crushed by the harsh realities of life... But really not willing to fade out, as there are still some steps to be taken to fight against complete exploitation, cultural genocide and the like.

I'm just adamantly opposed to the attitude that the prevailing cultures are completely superior, and the sentiment that it is "their" fault that they are victims.