How about that tsunami?!

Clarence,

My argument was that the only justification for supporting, at least partially, a federal aid to Florida is based on long self-interest. By the same standard, with the world becoming smaller and smaller due to technological advancements, it is in our long term interest to help, admittedly to a lesser extent, the tsunami victims recover from their losses. If we were a completely isolated nation, this would not have been necessary. But reality is that we aren't and our dependency on others, whether we like it or not, is only increasing.

As to your reference to the person wearing an Osama T-shirt, can you *practically* exclude such people from our help? I am sure there were murderers, robbers and rapists among those affected by the hurricanes. Did we check every person's criminal record before, say, taking them on an ambulance? How practical would that be?

In fact, is it not possible that the guy wore the T-shirt because that is the only thing he could find, say in a shelter, after losing everything he had? Are you not finding him guilty without even giving a trial? How objective is that?

coaltontrail

Post 41

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 7:59pm

Yes I am, at my earlier posts, I said I was for aid if it was in out national self-interest; I used the Marshall Plan as an example.

That fool wearing the Bin Laden shirt isn�t guilty and I�m not convicting him of anything; I�m just saying that a lot of the people we�re helping aren�t nice people and would stab us in the back if given the chance. If I were running the show, I would not help Indonesia or any other country affected except perhaps India because they are actually worth something to us.

As for �finding him guilty without even giving a trial�, in general, guilt or innocence is objective whether or not you�ve had a trial. If I catch Bin Laden tomorrow, I�m not going to bring him in for a trial. One, I don�t need it to determine his innocence and two, well�lets just say he would wish I did turn him in.

Post 42

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 8:03am

Clarence Hardy wrote:"If I were running the show, I would not help Indonesia or any other country affected except perhaps India because they are actually worth something to us."

That is an interesting remark, considering the fact that India politely refused aid, saying it has enough resources for the moment.

Anyway, thanks for this conversation.

coaltontrail

Post 43

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 2:23pm

"If I were running the show, I would not help Indonesia or any other country affected except perhaps India because they are actually worth something to us."

This sounds very much like something Friedrich Nietzsche would say. Interesting man, but some of his ideas were so practically flawed that I cannot help but to not take him seriously. What do all of you think about him?

Post 44

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 6:19pm

Well, I like him as much as i like any other german philosopher, that is, not very much. I didn't mean to sound like him but thats the way things should be done by the government. It helps us, not others.

Post 45

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 2:48pm

"Well, I like him as much as i like any other german philosopher, that is, not very much. I didn't mean to sound like him but thats the way things should be done by the government. It helps us, not others."

I'm not sure if I understand..."It helps US, not others."

There are children dying in those countries, I'm not saying that they have no help but i am saying that they need all the help they can get. Isn't this a case of someone with a lack of simple compassion? Somethign which means so little to you means so much to them. I'm not saying that the Government should take my money, far from it, but I am saying that if you can spare something for a child would you not do so?

Post 46

Sunday, January 9, 2005 - 5:16pm

I have not nor will I ever give to charity. THAT IS MY CHOICE!!! I don't know how I can make it any clearer, the money the government gave wasn't their's to give in the first place. The "but the children..." argument dosen't make any sense either, liberals were saying that during the Cold War.

What I meant was that our government that was made for our use should only take actions to benifit us, period. No one else is paying for it so why should they recieve the benifits?

And to answer your final question, I would not. I do not lack compassion but I don't share it with all, children are the responsibility of their parents and their parents hate us.

Post 47

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:55am