does anybody else agree that the raising of cash and aid from countries for the tsunami just seems to be a competition between countries?

Captain Smuty

no. What makes you believe that ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
no. What makes you believe that ?

At least in the U.S. the media keeps updating us on who has donated what and which country has donated the most, etc.

Originally posted by captain smuty
just seems to be a competition between countries?

Captain Smuty

Shame is a great motivator.

Are you asking if the ends justify the means when it's for a good cause?

I think the media here in America is making a big deal of it because it takes the heat off of what the white house and their agenda.

Well, we were talking about saving lives. At least we got to four posts before Bush bashing.

Originally posted by Brooks
Well, we were talking about saving lives. At least we got to four posts before Bush bashing.

??

WTF?

How does someone opining that the Media may be making a big deal of the tsunami because it directs people's attention away from the White House and their agenda equate to **"Bush bashing"**.......?!?!?!?!

Originally posted by Echo2
Are you asking if the ends justify the means when it's for a good cause?

I think the media here in America is making a big deal of it because it takes the heat off of what the white house and their agenda.

If you fail to see the negative message or theme in this post...then you need to reread.

maybe somewhat off-topic, but i was watching the o'reilly factor a few nights ago (i was really bored, alright?) and he posted a list of which countries have given the most money to help tsunami victims. i remember him going on about america's generosity (we were second on the list). but then he said about japan (who were first) "they want to establish themselves as a rich superpower in the east." so...when america gives money to tsunami victims, we are generous, but when japan gives more, it's because they're after power.

lol. typical....

a quote from Oxford's Richard Dawkins' article that appeared in the UK Guardian newspaper:

"Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety.

Let's get up off our knees, stop cringing before bogeymen and virtual fathers, face reality, and help science to do something constructive about human suffering".

Originally posted by Freethinker


[i] If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety.

i]

We should also give money to cover soil erosion in Bulgaria, salinity levels in low lying ponds in Crete, early morning fog causing auto accidents in Lithuania, toxic smog in industrialized parts of Bosnia, mysterious otter deaths in Norway's fjords, macaq overcrowding in Brazil, human interference in the Galapagos, overharvesting of oysters in Togo, bird habitat destruction in Tierra del Fuego, crop rotation education in Lima.....

I get it, I get it. Tax breaks + churches + no warnings = Bush's fault people died. You are a predictable bore.

Here are some pictures of what you have chosen to exploit politically.
http://homepage.mac.com/demark/tsunami/1.html

Originally posted by Brooks

I get it, I get it. Tax breaks + churches + no warnings = Bush's fault people died.

You don't "get it" at all. No one mentioned anything about George Bush.

Richard Dawkins is pointing out ---correctly-- that;

Tax breaks + churches + no warnings = people who prefer to fund religion instead of science could have done something more beneficial to human beings with those monies.

You are a predictable whiner-when-you-think-your-RightWing-hero-has-been-criticized.

Originally posted by Brooks
We should also give money to cover soil erosion in Bulgaria, salinity levels in low lying ponds in Crete, early morning fog causing auto accidents in Lithuania, toxic smog in industrialized parts of Bosnia, mysterious otter deaths in Norway's fjords, macaq overcrowding in Brazil, human interference in the Galapagos, overharvesting of oysters in Togo, bird habitat destruction in Tierra del Fuego, crop rotation education in Lima.....

I get it, I get it. Tax breaks + churches + no warnings = Bush's fault people died. You are a predictable bore.

Here are some pictures of what you have chosen to exploit politically.
http://homepage.mac.com/demark/tsunami/1.html
You're fucking brilliant, Brooks - :D This was single handedly one of the funniest posts I've ever read...

Cheers!

Originally posted by Freethinker
You don't "get it" at all. No one mentioned anything about George Bush.

Richard Dawkins is pointing out ---correctly-- that;

Tax breaks + churches + no warnings = people who prefer to fund religion instead of science could have done something more beneficial to human beings with those monies.

You are a predictable whiner-when-you-think-your-RightWing-hero-has-been-criticized.

You imply, imply, imply and then your balls fall off when you're called on it. (interesting use of hyphens, though)

************************************************** **

(Thank you Prae - but I pale in comparison to you and Trav)

Originally posted by Brooks

Here are some pictures of what you have chosen to exploit politically.
http://homepage.mac.com/demark/tsunami/1.html

BWAAAAAAAAAhahahahahah....

"Exploit politically".........ROTFL.

Yeah, a quote from Richard Dawkins about funding churches instead of tsunami warning systems is some really hardcore political exploitation........

....... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

There are literally billions of projects that have been sponsored by governments and people throughout the world. So why is it the fault of people that give to churches that there's no tsunami warning system? We could have taken the money used to build yet another monument to Robert Byrd in WV to build such a system? Or the money spent to fund midnight basketball? Or the money China spent to promote having the Olympics in Beijing? And of course any argument that suggests that people, companies, or countries should concentrate their budgets on one particular item at a time instead of spreading the money around to multiple items simultaneously is a bit silly anyway.

Originally posted by Brooks
(Thank you Prae - but I pale in comparison to you and Trav)
Nonsense. You belt out the occasional one-liner that keeps me in stitches for a while. Off the top of my head, your Popeye reference to Echo's poorly written post was classic. Keep 'em coming, for your entries are almost always a pleasure to read. :)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
There are literally billions of projects that have been sponsored by governments and people throughout the world. So why is it the fault of people that give to churches that there's no tsunami warning system? We could have taken the money used to build yet another monument to Robert Byrd in WV to build such a system? Or the money spent to fund midnight basketball? Or the money China spent to promote having the Olympics in Beijing? And of course any argument that suggests that people, companies, or countries should concentrate their budgets on one particular item at a time instead of spreading the money around to multiple items simultaneously is a bit silly anyway.
Exactly - Good post, Lionel.

many people are blaming this on reliegion, but not many the way freethinker and his boys are. Most people say god did it, but freethinker says tax breaks to churchs did it. both of those views are extreme and complelty stupid.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
There are literally billions of projects that have been sponsored by governments and people throughout the world. So why is it the fault of people that give to churches that there's no tsunami warning system? We could have taken the money used to build yet another monument to Robert Byrd in WV to build such a system? Or the money spent to fund midnight basketball? Or the money China spent to promote having the Olympics in Beijing?

True....and good points all.

But I think what Dawkins was talking about is that it is the function of governments to do those things which benefit the people as a whole, and handing out billions in tax breaks to religion just MIGHT be better utlilized if spent on things with a more direct and pragmatic benefit.

No one has ever suggested that spending taxdollars promoting the Olympics or building a monument to Robert Byrd is going to "save" people.....but the oganized churches that we give many times as much money to DO claim to be in the business of "saving" people.

Dawkins proposes that we as a society spend our tax money on something concrete and identifiable that will save people's lives and make them better, instead of giving it away for hollow fucking platitudes and unfulfilled promises from shamans and priests and seers.

Originally posted by Freethinker

But I think what Dawkins was talking about is that it is the function of governments to do those things which benefit the people as a whole, and handing out billions in tax breaks to religion just MIGHT be better utlilized if spent on things with a more direct and pragmatic benefit.



The Catholic Church provides more care to AIDS victims than any other single entity in the country. Would the tsunami early warning system help them? No.

But on the other hand, would more AIDS funds help the tsunami victims? No.

It all comes down to hoping you can guess correctly where the disaster will happen. If the Rainbow Bridge collapsed tomorrow, and 50 Canadians were killed, you would be bitching that the bridge is half ours and our money shouldn't have been used to bail out farmers.

Originally posted by Brooks
The Catholic Church provides more care to AIDS victims than any other single entity in the country. Would the tsunami early warning system help them? No.

But on the other hand, would more AIDS funds help the tsunami victims? No.

LOL.

The fact that you think that little factoid refutes --in any way-- Dawkins' point about what governments choose to fund only serves --IMO-- to highlight your ignorance and your prejudice on this particular subject.