Are you saying my response is not reasonable?

"Give these people the tools they really need and they will do great things."

Im saying: Get to giving.

Seems like you're agreeing with me, not arguing.

James

If it disagreed with the original, of course .

The world needs a lot of change. The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Regardless of politics, few debate the evil of Sadam. Everyone debates whether it was right to take him out and even if it was indeed right, how it should have been done. That is the complicated part.

I firmly believe Clinton wanted Osama like he wanted another female intern. No President sleeps well knowing people in uniform died on his watch and we have not responded. Clinton had Khobar Towers and USS COLE. Ships are capitalized and are a proper name for the grammar watchers.

I know how badly Clinton wanted Sadam. I was there during the years between the wars and we built up several times while he worked on getting backing to go in. He never got the international backing to do what he wanted. Of course, everyone in the UN was getting rich on the Oil for Food program. They definitely had no desire for the US to stop their flow of money. A little more complicated when the decision makers are getting rich off the suffering of others.

Look what happened when we went in to Somalia. We started taking losses trying to feed people and had to leave. We still have forces in Bosnia, almost a decade later. The world is a lot more complicated than one simple theory.

[Intentional separation]

Money isn't the answer. Compelling the leaders of the world to actually do something about these evil regimes is. In North Korea there is famine even today. People are dying there, what is anyone doing about it? Has China or Russia shown a desire to force Kim out and demand an end to the insanity? Then again, how well is China doing feeding its 2 billion people under their current oppressive regime. Tianamen Square should ring a bell if there is a debate on whether they are oppressive or not. Of course, now that I mentioned that, this entire forum will be banned from viewing in China...

If we want to be outraged and dare people to do more, lets all be outraged at, and as part of, the international community allowing these evil regimes to stand or even being these evil regimes and doing nothing to change. Personally, I am sick of everyone waiting for the US and our close Allies to do something then blaming or villifying us. Giving money isn't the answer, money is the problem.

How do Hezbollah and the Palestinians get their resources? The Palestinians cannot even pay their Govt employees but can buy rifles and bullets and bombs. If the money dried up, is there the possibility of everyone being willing to sit down and actually find a middle ground?

In any decent business graduate school you learn to differentiate symptoms from the real problem. You are taught to solve the real problem and that will, in turn, solve the symptoms. It is harder and there will always be bodies in the wake. Unfortunately, that is the world in which we live.

There, the issue of giving money was debated.

You, as I read it, was talking about giving them money. The money will either go into the pockets of their governments, or make them dependent upon the ones giving and will still not be able to feed themselves. Money is not the answer. You are just spreading the propaganda of you teachers and their socialist agenda.

"Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves, especially in the U.S.A." Means just that. Perhaps this will be easier to understand without the comma. Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves. Especially in the U.S.A.

James writes: "They cannot help what they were born into."
I'm curious again. Who can help what they are born into? People are born into poverty all over the world, even in the U.S.A.(dang, there's that comma again. Sorry.)

James writes: "About the law, I was somewhat correct, but also mistaken. (As far as I can find. Perhaps I am right, but from what I have found, Im slightly mistaken.)"
I don't think your sure of anything.

James writes: "However, this means nothing." (Concerning http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/3-PenalLaw/125/125-25(2).pdf)
This does mean something. This means that your bold statement that I am in BIG trouble and its against the Law, and I am compelled by the law to help someone has still not been proven by you. It means you toss around ideas and statements that you yourself have admitted are lacking. (see the example directly above)

James writes: "So to those who do not believe Bob was wrong to let the child die, I believe we are done discussing this topic."
So that part in your first post, "I hope you all take the time to read this and give your comments.", is no longer a valid statement? (I have my suspicions if it ever was)

James writes: "Compelling the leaders of the world to actually do something about these evil regimes is."
Compelling eh? Don't want to get too political or put too much stress your research department, but since compel means to force, to pressure by force, to exert a strong irresistible force on, just how do you propose this force be applied and by whom? I sure hope you don't respond with the U.S. Government because I will be forced to ask where in the Constitution you find the people gave that power to the Government.

James writes: "Anyway, the point of the argument is to put you in a situation where you feel you have some moral obligation to do something." and "You will then conclude you must change the way you react to the current situation."
James I understand you want us to feel we have a moral obligation, not realize we have a moral obligation. You wish to manipulate the language and scenario in such a way that we will feel this obligation. The term propaganda I used earlier comes to mind. You will find/learn that people will not always conclude what you say they will. You will also find/learn that people will not accept your manipulation of reality at all times. Perhaps stronger direction was needed. An attractive assistant, a flash of light or something, more work on your presentation, etc.

James writes: "All I am asking for is a reasonable argument against the article I posted."
So you do want dissenting views, just not those that refuse to accept that Bob was wrong to let the child die. (In your mind this is not an option, so therefore anyone who thinks this is a Monster. I get it.) Also I take it that you will be the one who decides what is and isn't a reasonable argument?

James writes: "One last thing, I have not read the article posted above (I will), but Im assuming it says what you say it says. To that, I admit I was mistaken."
Are you also willing to admit that no law exists that compels(there is that word again)me or anyone to help anyone in any way?(Other than S.S. which isn't a law, and I am firmly against for the record.)

Seven days and counting for either proof, or submission by apology, or admitted fault.

James writes: "About the law, I was somewhat correct, but also mistaken. (As far as I can find. Perhaps I am right, but from what I have found, Im slightly mistaken.)"


Sounds like somthing Bill Clinton would say!

Jerrine says: I'm curious again. Who can help what they are born into? People are born into poverty all over the world, even in the U.S.A.(dang, there's that comma again. Sorry.)

Exactly, no one can. Sounds like we agree on that one. Also, can we stop with the punctuation remarks? It isn't making you look any more smart. All it is doing is making you look immature. The issue at hand is world poverty, not my typing abilities. Lets stick to the issue and stop trying to degrade me.

Jerrine says: "I don't think your sure of anything."

that's right! I most certainly am not sure of anything. No one is. (except you, right?) Its called being open minded. I admit that the law I found wasnt what I was looking for, but it was similar. However, since I am not a lawyer, it could be that I just didn't find the correct law. (Or it could be that what I stated was mistaken completely, I don't know.)

Jerrine says "This does mean something. This means that your bold statement that I am in BIG trouble and its against the Law, and I am compelled by the law to help someone has still not been proven by you. It means you toss around ideas and statements that you yourself have admitted are lacking. (see the example directly above)"

Ok, let me rephrase this since you obviously took it out of context. I meant it means nothing in respect to the argument posted originally. The fact that such a law does not exist (Im not saying it doesn't, but IF it doesn't) has no impact on the argument I typed out before.

Jerrine says: "So that part in your first post, "I hope you all take the time to read this and give your comments.", is no longer a valid statement? (I have my suspicions if it ever was)"

How you got to such a ridiculous conclusion is beyond me. However, I will attempt to clarify. When two people debate, they are both very interested in what the other has to say. When I posted this, I was very interested in what people had to say. However, when you begin an argument and someone does not except one of the premises of your argument, then it is no longer logical to continue the debate. (Unless you are arguing for/against that premise) Take the example of abortion. If one were to try and convince an atheist that abortion is wrong because it says so in the bible, then they would be at an impasse. The atheist will not accept the premises that what is in the bible is true. Therefore using such an argument on the atheist makes no logical sense. Much the same is happening here. If you don't accept that what Bob did was wrong, then the argument no longer holds. We are at an impasse and we need not bother discussing the topic anymore. (unless we were to discuss the actions of bob directly)

Jerrine says: "Compelling eh? Don't want to get too political or put too much stress your research department, but since compel means to force, to pressure by force, to exert a strong irresistible force on, just how do you propose this force be applied and by whom? I sure hope you don't respond with the U.S. Government because I will be forced to ask where in the Constitution you find the people gave that power to the Government."

You can play word games all you want. We all know I did not mean to use the word "compel" in a literal sense. I suppose the better word (if you want to use the literal sense) would be "encourage"

Jerrine says: "James I understand you want us to feel we have a moral obligation, not realize we have a moral obligation. You wish to manipulate the language and scenario in such a way that we will feel this obligation. The term propaganda I used earlier comes to mind. You will find/learn that people will not always conclude what you say they will. You will also find/learn that people will not accept your manipulation of reality at all times. Perhaps stronger direction was needed. An attractive assistant, a flash of light or something, more work on your presentation, etc."

Perhaps you are not very familiar with arguments. I don't know, but that is how you are coming off. This isn't propaganda, its argumentation. I give you a situation in which you think you have some moral obligation to do something. I show you that that situation is morally equivalent to a different situation. You then conclude you have a moral obligation in the different situation. Its not propaganda, its argument. A valid one at that. (look up the logical definition of validity on wikipedia if you don't know it)

Jerrine says: "So you do want dissenting views, just not those that refuse to accept that Bob was wrong to let the child die. (In your mind this is not an option, so therefore anyone who thinks this is a Monster. I get it.) Also I take it that you will be the one who decides what is and isn't a reasonable argument?"

First of all, again, you're not making any sense in the conclusions you are drawing here. Yes, I want dissenting views if they are thought. And yes, I want the views that say Bob was right to let the child die. (This is yours) However, once we have acknowledged this view, we no longer need to discuss the topic. As already posted above, we are at an impasse. And no, I do not decide what is reasonable. First of all, an argument has not been typed out against my position. period. This would be something like:

"I feel Bob was morally wrong to let the child die. However, I do not feel I then have an obligation to give up some of my material wealth and give it to starving people. The reason I think so is this:"

After this they would provide a reasonable, logical, morally significant argument on how the two situations are different.

Jerrine says: "Are you also willing to admit that no law exists that compels(there is that word again)me or anyone to help anyone in any way?(Other than S.S. which isn't a law, and I am firmly against for the record.)

Seven days and counting for either proof, or submission by apology, or admitted fault."

Yes, I am quite willing to admit that. (To the best of my knowledge) However, laws are not what define morality. That is why I said it means nothing whether or not that law was in place. All one needs for this argument to work is that you accept Bobs actions as wrong. that's all it takes. The conclusion of helping others follows. (this is the definition of valid in case you didn't look it up. The conclusion follows from the premises)That is, unless disputed in an argument like the one I posted above.

Also, about the law. First off, Im over that topic. If Im right, it doesn't matter. You will still think your action of letting the child die is right. (You'll think the law is wrong most likely) If you're right, then it doesn't alter the argument in any way. As you can see, its pointless. All it is doing is providing you a way to say "HAH! I TOLD YOU!" Anyway, as already posted, I admitted that according to what I found, I was wrong. However, I may simply not have found the correct law. I don't know since Im not a lawyer. You can take that as "Im right, he was wrong" or you can take it as "I should look into that so I can know for sure"

James

Classy.

Did you miss my post on the time value of money and productivity and giving now versus giving in the future?

Balducci,

I did see your post and I'm sorry I didn't address it. However, I wouldn't call your post an argument. One could reason that saving the money and investing it will enable you to give more later. In fact, a lot of very wealthy people do this. They set up trusts that appreciate and they give X amount each year. This way with, say, a million dollars you can give X each year, but you appreciate more than that, so after however many years you end up giving more and for a longer period of time. This is fine and is hardly a problem with the argument. It isn't saying we shouldnt give. Its saying we should give. (just the method of giving is different) I think this would be fine.

James

When a person comes to the conclusion that they have a moral obligation, I wish they could just oblige and leave everyone else out of it.

Regardless, I believe in personal responsibility. And as death is the natural and inevitable conclusion, we might say this too is natural. When a population of deer overgrow an area, they starve. And when there is a population that can increase enough that losing 250,000 children a week still is less than growth I personally don't think I will accept the blame or even care about the outcome.

Life sucks then you die, as they say. Rather like my momma always used to say: "No one ever said life was fair".
Let those with enough money and time to worry about the plight of the world take care of it..... How much does ethics classes in college cost nowadays?

James F said: When two people debate, they are both very interested in what the other has to say.

NO James! The object of debate is to win, or to persuade the other side to think the way you do. It is when two or more engage in a discussion, people listen to the other persons point of view.

You put forth ideas that made people feel (that is an emotion) they where being attacked. I felt like the point of view that was presented was quite insulting to everyone, in the U.S.A.. We here give more money, U.S. tax dollars and privet donations, to the needy around world, than the rest of the world combined, and your post made it sound like we are a bunch of cold hearted, sorry S.O.Bs. What kind of reaction did you expect.

Maybe you should look at the millions upon millions we send to A.I.Ds ridden Africa alone, be for you say we don’t give enough. I do hope you decide to question your sources first from now on, before you start pointing fingers.

You tell him, Josh!

Who, besides me, believes that answer to the original thread heading is Yes?

Since that was the question.

Yes, we are giving more than enough!

James,

First I want to thank you for capitulating on the legal matter. Not a ha ha I told you so, more of a, learn your lesson when you go about smacking people because they don't agree with you and start tossing out legal threats, kind of deal. I get touchy when people do that.

About the commas, it's not your use of them I was pointing out. You seemed to have trouble getting a grasp of how they work per: "Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves, especially in the U.S.A." You jumped on the "especially in the U.S.A." when it was an after thought to "Poor people that stay poor have no one to blame but themselves." I'm not attempting to degrade you, I want you to understand me. A failed attepmt at humor, nothing to do with maturity.

As for being sure of anything, yes I am. I am sure that if I jump in the air I will come down. If cut I will bleed. A proper glide will go undetected. I could go on and on. There is a difference between open mindedness and what P.T. Barnum spoke about.

I'm not interested in debating you. You gave a scenario and asked for comments, you got them. You didn't like mine and called me a Monster. Fact.

As for word games as you call them, words are all we have here. You should choose them carefully and know what they mean. It will help you look more smart, as you say. Compel is a strong word, as is illegal.

Wikipedia is not the best source for knowledge. Fact.
You wanted to walk us down the path and we resisted. Your/Singers argument/propaganda was not strong enough. You copied and pasted a scenario that you could only see one possible outcome to and I for one flat denied it. I've read your original post again and only see you asking us to read the following and to comment on it. Hoping that it will change us as it did you. James writes: "I give you a situation in which you think you have some moral obligation to do something. I show you that that situation is morally equivalent to a different situation. You then conclude you have a moral obligation in the different situation. Its not propaganda, its argument. A valid one at that." Problem is I don't buy it. Reading other posts I get the idea I'm not alone. It's not an arguable position. You either buy it or you don't. Which is why I put it in the propaganda category.

Plenty of refusals to your position have been posted. Not only do you not like the way I and others have responded, but you fail to acknowledge what we have written. You have decided what will and won't be a reasonable by giving an example of how it would look. Again, in life you don't always get what you want or expect.

I told you if you wanted to discuss poverty I would be here. Would you like to do that?

The U.S.A. gives and gives and gives. Both from the Federal level and the private sector. Me? Not so much. How do I feel about that? Fine & Dandy.

Thanks again for capitulating on the legal matter. It only took 8 days for it to happen. As stated before, there is no need for me to look for what is not there. I am not a Lawyer, though I have successfully defended myself in a Court of Law. I avoided a possible $1000 fine and 2 years in jail, not to mention legal fees, by simply reading at the library. Making oneself aware of the law, and the rights one has under it, is a responsibility that I can not place enough importance on. Do I know as much as I should? No. Am I willing to learn more? Yes.

Since it was asked again, I will state it again. I am no better than anyone else but as good as I think I am and that is good enough. I also believe all of us are no better or worse than anyone else.

The minority view is arguing what they wish and tailoring the debate to one that they cannot lose. Dissenting opinions are discarded as irrelevant. If I score a touchdown, I get 6 points, if you score, you lose 6 six points type of scenario.

I say 2+2=5 in an estimated sort of way. Prove that one wrong.

Jerrine,

Im glad we got the legal question out of the way. As for the commas, I kind of get what youre saying. Ill just accept that you didn't meant it in a degrading way, although it sure seemed like it. I do understand that humor can often be misinterpreted over the internet.

Actually, no, you shouldnt be sure of anything. (Including those listed) You can be VERY VERY VERY confident, but not sure. If you believe in a God, I would suppose he/she is the only being capable of being "sure." However, the issues we are talking about here are much less concrete than whether or not I can jump out of a plane and not hit the ground. I get your point, but I think comparing ethical values and physical laws is a stretch.

You are correct that Wikipedia is not a very good source of anything. However, since I suggested you visit the site and I know what Valid means, you can assume I have read it and that is why I am referring you to it. Why would I refer you to an article so that you can understand my point when the article doesn't even say the right thing? I just wanted to make sure you knew where I was coming from in case you didn't know the definition of the word I was speaking of. (Although you may know it, Im not trying to assume either way)

You're right. I asked for comments, and I got them. I then called you a monster. All of those are facts and I don't remember ever denying them.

As for the words, I think your point is rather pointless. (weird) We all know what I meant by compel. If you truly thought I meant it in the literal sense, then I am sorry. I doubt this however. There are endless words we use and don't mean them in the literal sense. You can tell by context clues. By the way I have been talking, I doubt anyone thought I was saying we should invade these countries and force their leaders to treat their people better. If that were the case, I would start a thread about that, not about giving money.

Jerrine says: "You wanted to walk us down the path and we resisted. Your/Singers argument/propaganda was not strong enough. You copied and pasted a scenario that you could only see one possible outcome to and I for one flat denied it. I've read your original post again and only see you asking us to read the following and to comment on it. Hoping that it will change us as it did you. James writes: "I give you a situation in which you think you have some moral obligation to do something. I show you that that situation is morally equivalent to a different situation. You then conclude you have a moral obligation in the different situation. Its not propaganda, its argument. A valid one at that." Problem is I don't buy it. Reading other posts I get the idea I'm not alone. It's not an arguable position. You either buy it or you don't. Which is why I put it in the propaganda category."

Now we're getting to something. First of all, I still deny this is propaganda. More on that in a second. You are right, you did resist. Ive already stated this before: If you deny the fact that Bobs actions were immoral, then this argument no longer holds. I don't see why this is still an issue. I am aware of the fact that you feel Bob was right in his actions and thus my argument will not hold weight against you. I am no longer attempting to convince you. I am very openly admitting that my argument has failed to persuade you and we no longer need to discuss the topic together. However, I think a great deal of people feel Bob was in fact wrong. (Im not saying they agree with my conclusion, but they feel Bob was wrong) My point now is for those people to explain some morally relevant difference between Bobs position and their own. Unless they can do this, they must logically conclude their actions are as immoral as Bobs. Here is where the propaganda thing comes in. This is an argument, and you can argue against it. Singer talks about many arguments people have brought up against him. This is how Im seeing this: Nobody has come up with a reason, so Im assuming that means they CANT. Instead of concluding "Well, I cant think of a reason, so I guess they are the same. So, I must donate" they are thinking "This isn't even an argument, its propaganda" Do you see the problem? Just because you cant think of a rebuttal to an argument doesn't make it propaganda. It makes it sound. (Soundness is when an argument is valid [conclusion follows from the premises] and all the premises are true. This makes sense. If the premises are all true and the conclusion follows from the premises, its true. Common sense stuff)

Again, I admit that you, Jerrine, are not convinced. You don't need to provide a reason why these situations are different because you do not think Bob was wrong. However, someone who thinks Bob was wrong does indeed have to explain a morally relevant difference between Bobs situation and theirs. Again, so far none has been presented.

I have not refused anyones "argument" If I have, PLEASE by all means copy and paste it here. Copy and paste where someone has posted how Bobs situation and our own is different in a morally significant way. If I have honestly missed it I apologize. Im not saying this as a challenge, I genuinely would like to see such an argument if it has been posted.

You are right that the US gives. However, while we are on the subject of facts, lets learn a little. Straight from Singer's book:

"Britain, for instance, has given rather more than most countries. It has, to date, given 14,750,000 pounds. For comparative purposes, Britain's share of the nonrecoverable development costs of the anglo-french concorde project is already in excess of 275,000,000 pounds, and on present estimates will reach 440,000,000 pounds. The implication is that the British government values a supersonic transport more than thirty times as highly as it values the lives of the nine million refugees."

Here, Singer is talking about what happened in Bengal.

"Australia is another country which, on a per capita basis, is well up in the "aid " table. Australia's aid, however, amounts to less than 1/12 of the cost of the Sydney opera house. The total amount given, from all sources, now stands at about 65,000,000 pounds."

"We know, too, that at least in the next year, the United States government is not going to meet even the very modest target by the United Nations, of 0.7 percent og gross national prodcut; at the moment it lags far below that, at 0.09 percent. Not even half of Japan's 0.22 percent or a tenth of Denmarks 0.97 percent."

So yes, our government can give more and so can we. To those who give, I am not trying to say you don't give enough. (maybe you do, maybe you don't) Im saying that those who don't give PERIOD should.

James

Posted: Jan 3, 2007 4:09pm
Quote:
On 2007-01-03 00:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:
James F said: When two people debate, they are both very interested in what the other has to say.

NO James! The object of debate is to win, or to persuade the other side to think the way you do. It is when two or more engage in a discussion, people listen to the other persons point of view.

You put forth ideas that made people feel (that is an emotion) they where being attacked. I felt like the point of view that was presented was quite insulting to everyone, in the U.S.A.. We here give more money, U.S. tax dollars and privet donations, to the needy around world, than the rest of the world combined, and your post made it sound like we are a bunch of cold hearted, sorry S.O.Bs. What kind of reaction did you expect.

Maybe you should look at the millions upon millions we send to A.I.Ds ridden Africa alone, be for you say we don’t give enough. I do hope you decide to question your sources first from now on, before you start pointing fingers.

Sorry Tom, but you're wrong. First of all, I never said what the POINT of a debate was. Thanks for offering that information though. I said when two people debate they are very interested in what the other has to say. That is most certainly true. After all, how can you debate someones point of view if you don't even know it. I cant possibly argue that your point of view is wrong if I don't even know it. So yes, they are interested. And yes, the point is to convince others. that's what Im trying to do if you havent noticed the 3 pages of discussion.

Yeah, we do give more. (Thats because we make more) As posted above, we give VERY little of our gnp. Yeah, it may be a lot, but percent wise, youre wrong. Also, yes a lot of americans do give. Im not talking to those people necessarily. Im mainly talking to those who don't give at all. Im also saying that we can give MORE. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people.

Finally, a lot of people keep mentioning this as "socialist" or "propaganda" Maybe youre right on the socialist aspect. Im no political science major, but socialism seems to make a lot of sense to me. I always thought it insane that there are people with million dollar homes, yet there are also people starving to death. doesn't really make sense to me. Im not saying everyone should be exactly equal, but the field should be leveled out. We can still have room for success and moving up while not having people dying of malnutrition. I can see a conversation however many hundreds or thousands of years from now between a child and their parent. I can imagine the child saying "I don't get it...You mean they actually bought 3 cars and went on cruises and had million dollar homes when their were people dying from not having food? Why would they do that? That doesn't make sense..."

James

Suppo says: "Since it was asked again, I will state it again. I am no better than anyone else but as good as I think I am and that is good enough. I also believe all of us are no better or worse than anyone else.

The minority view is arguing what they wish and tailoring the debate to one that they cannot lose. Dissenting opinions are discarded as irrelevant. If I score a touchdown, I get 6 points, if you score, you lose 6 six points type of scenario.

I say 2+2=5 in an estimated sort of way. Prove that one wrong."

I think on a moral view, some people are better than others. I would like to think you and I are morally better than Hitler. If you cannot deny that, then I can definitely say I hope I don't see you at a convention.

I am not tailoring the debate. Im asking for a rebuttal that makes logical sense. Find the ones in the thread that I have supposedly "overlooked" Id love to read them and comment on them. Im all for admitting fault, I just need to be proven wrong first.

And finally, mathematics is based on an axiomatic system in which statements can be proven correct or proven incorrect. (Because of the axioms we have adopted as true) A mathematical proof can be given that 2+2=5. That is completely different. Nice try though.

James

Josh, that's like saying "I wish when people came to conclusions on why we get sick or objects fall off trees or planets orbit the sun, they would just keep it to themselves" That makes absolutely no sense. Morality can be treated as the same. If an argument is both valid and sound, it is just as true as any of the things that explain those topics I just listed. If this argument is valid and sound, then why would one keep it to himself? Its all for the betterment of mankind.

You believe in personal responsibility? No matter what responsibilities these people have, they can do nothing to change their situation. Its having compassion and love for all people that is important, and our responsibility. There is nothing greater. How about instead of letting those people die because there are too many, we give money to organizations who will help reduce the population. How about when there is an area of people starving and dying of dehydration, we give money to organizations who will go and build wells and give the people farm animals. You all keep saying to fix the cause, that's fine. Things like that will fix the causes and keep the people alive who are alive now.

Finally, Josh, something tells me that if it were you over there seeing your children starve to death and wondering if youre going to have food the next day you wouldnt think back to your momma and say "Well, its ok that other people have SUVs and go on cruises and waste food and Im sitting here watching my loved ones starve to death. After all, life isn't fair" Give me a break. that's one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard.

James