so i just got banned

[wu_trax]

on my latest favorite place on the internet (i.e. freerepulic.com), apparently they don't like freedom of speech in the land of the free.
seriously, is this too insulting? ok, post 5 wasn't that nice either and probably a lot of bullshit, but still not enough for a bann. just read that crappy article.

ofc it would be far more efficent to bitch about it on that place, but i don't want to sign up again so i'll just have to bore you people with it.

[Androme]

Oh, I forgot, you are German, how could anyone debate anything with you. You are so superior to anyone else. A true descendant of the Master race, or just a reject wannabe?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA - that's too funny - but still deserved the bann :(

[wu_trax]

it was fun, also i needed a ballance for all the crazy commies on politikforum.de, they made me turn too far right. And where is the fun in discussing with people who agree with you anyway?

[Androme]

Why didn't you simply say the words "Hello Hitler" ?

[Androme]

Originally Posted by Weeks

cos he's not a twat androme?

Originally Posted by Weeks

He's obviously a twat.

Amazing how you've said 2 diametrically opposed statements within the space of 2 mins.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Androme2

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA - that's too funny - but still deserved the bann

yes, it was, but they banned me instead for 'trolling'. Trolling? wtf? How can it be trolling if i post my honest opinion?
I still don't get that Nazi-reference, i mean, honstely, how can they try to insult ME as a nazi with all the 'Führer-Kult' thats going on on that page?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Androme2

Amazing how you've said 2 diametrically opposed statements within the space of 2 mins.

I'm the german (and i used the name 'wu_trax' over there, so i didn't think i had to clear that up.

[Deepflow]

nah, you shouldnt have been banned.

well, maybe, does it say anywhere in the freerepublic.com rules that people who dont believe america is always right should not join?

[Deepflow]

also, from the article :

"And calculating giving as a percentage of a country's GDP is almost always going to skew the analysis to make the richest nations look the "stingiest" simply because of the mathematics involved in comparing enormously varying GDPs. "

ok, firstly he starts a sentence with "and" in an article, which sets me against him from the start.

but... WHAT??? does this sentence make any logical sense at all? crazy yanks

[Ragrrr]

You shouldn't hang at places like that. It's bad for you.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

I'm the german

You're German - holy shit!

Wait now I'm confused

[Nadval]

I can't believe i'm still amazed by the way Americans think... I've had enough experience arguing with them but each time I read something like this I'm still astonished by the level of ignorance, funny article though - things like that always make me laugh.

I'm now signing up an account there, this is exactly what i need for those boring days when I'm alone and GD has nothing interesting to offer - thankyou

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Androme2

You're German - holy shit!

Wait now I'm confused

surely you must have noticed my weird grammar?

[Androme]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

surely you must have noticed my weird grammar?

Not a slight note or anything :/ --- I even did GCSE German and got an ace grade but guess the examiner was drunk or something.

[Tactitus]

I don't think you should have been banned, but an argument about how much foreign aid some country/government "should" be giving is pointless, imho. First because so much aid doesn't get counted (private and corporate aid, primarily; but also indirect aid like subsidies), and secondly it's just a pissing contest that only the more collectivist societies can "win." Individuals are willing and able to donate their own money to worthy causes, both foreign and domestic--government(s) add virtually nothing to the process except politics and overhead (except maybe in the case of using the military to distribute emergency aid, since the military has the equipment, personnel, training and otherwise idle capacity to distribute supplies to remote areas).

[Marilyn Manson]

Errm, can somebody explain why you got banned and 'americanbychoice2', who was being imensely more twatish than you, was not?

That's just piss-poor modding. (I suspect it's part of a 'We don't like people who have widely divergent opinions to us' trend in their general attitude on there, although that's just a hunch.)

This is why politics forums (At least, politics forums that don't really don't have any real degree of mixed membership - which is to say, a lot of them.) are generally a bad idea.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I don't think you should have been banned, but an argument about how much foreign aid some country/government "should" be giving is pointless, imho. First because so much aid doesn't get counted (private and corporate aid, primarily; but also indirect aid like subsidies), and secondly it's just a pissing contest that only the more collectivist societies can "win." Individuals are willing and able to donate their own money to worthy causes, both foreign and domestic--government(s) add virtually nothing to the process except politics and overhead (except maybe in the case of using the military to distribute emergency aid, since the military has the equipment, personnel, training and otherwise idle capacity to distribute supplies to remote areas).

i know the whole thread was pointless, i just got annoyed by that whole 'we are so much better than anyone else'-attitude in that whole article.
I disagree with you on the private vs goverment aid: goverment aid can be far more efficent. even if it really is smaller as an amount of money, if its distributed steadly over a longer periode of time you can do far more good with it than with private aid. do you really think in 4-8 weeks anyone will give a damn about that tsunami? it will be out of the news and out of the mind. now people donate a lot, so much that it might even be too much to use and as soon as something else happens those private organisations will run out of money for this.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Errm, can somebody explain why you got banned and 'americanbychoice2', who was being imensely more twatish than you, was not?

That's just piss-poor modding. (I suspect it's part of a 'We don't like people who have widely divergent opinions to us' trend in their general attitude on there, although that's just a hunch.)

This is why politics forums (At least, politics forums that don't really don't have any real degree of mixed membership - which is to say, a lot of them.) are generally a bad idea.

i really have no idea. that's all i posted today (except a statistic that pointed out that the US hardly pays anything to the UN, which means that it makes no sense to call for a boycott of all US-payments to the UN), but that was just a link to some evil socialist website (to them even the OECD, the IMF and the worldbank are socialist and china is a communist country, so you have to understand that in this context i use the term socialist very loosely )
I don't see the point in a forum where everyone agrees with you. it's a pretty boring discussion if all people say is 'yes, you are right. those evil commies everywhere really suck.'.
i mean, for example i really like talking to Tactitus or Texan, even if i almost never agree with them, it just gives you another perspective.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

do you really think in 4-8 weeks anyone will give a damn about that tsunami? it will be out of the news and out of the mind.

sorry but I just have to disagree with you - THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TSUNAMI OF THIS MUCH DEVASTATION BEFORE (iirc.) - it will take years to rebuild everything - not months, days, weeks etc. but years - and this is just to the state it was in before (Asia as a whole - Sri Lanka & Nicobar Islands are the worst effected as they're not as rich as the other countries/places) which wasn't all that great either - those who don't give a damn - ie: you, are heartless bastards - I for one will continue to give a damn because people I know out there have died and I have family effected as do MANY people out there - the NHS (which is ALREADY IN A CRISIS) is having Sri Lankan doctors all quitting and heading over there and that's not to mention other doctors/male nurses heading out there to help -

To the dude who's questiong governments aids - say this: "you question governments aids - don't you dare undermine people's gifts and efforts - who the hell are you to judge governments aid handouts? just a single citizen who makes no country to the world as a whole if you die or not - DO NOT TRY AND CHEAPEN THE GOVERNMENTS + PEOPLE'S GIFTS - it's ****ing sad - I've seen it at a child's ward once - people cheapening other people's gifts given to other children - may be I've mis-read you and you're not the one with the attitude"

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

i do like reading freerepublic. lot on it recently about the tsunami, some people moaning about how no one offered aid to the us after the florida hurricanes so why should they help the filthy muslims now? shame its not possible to stab someone in the face over the internet, there would be a big market for e-Stab technology im sure

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Androme2

sorry but I just have to disagree with you - THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TSUNAMI OF THIS MUCH DEVASTATION BEFORE (iirc.) - it will take years to rebuild everything - not months, days, weeks etc. but years - and this is just to the state it was in before (Asia as a whole - Sri Lanka & Nicobar Islands are the worst effected as they're not as rich as the other countries/places) which wasn't all that great either - those who don't give a damn - ie: you, are heartless bastards - I for one will continue to give a damn because people I know out there have died and I have family effected as do MANY people out there - the NHS (which is ALREADY IN A CRISIS) is having Sri Lankan doctors all quitting and heading over there and that's not to mention other doctors/male nurses heading out there to help -

To the dude who's questiong governments aids - say this: "you question governments aids - don't you dare undermine people's gifts and efforts - who the hell are you to judge governments aid handouts? just a single citizen who makes no country to the world as a whole if you die or not - DO NOT TRY AND CHEAPEN THE GOVERNMENTS + PEOPLE'S GIFTS - it's ****ing sad - I've seen it at a child's ward once - people cheapening other people's gifts given to other children - may be I've mis-read you and you're not the one with the attitude"

hurrah, an argument.
yes, it will take years to rebuild, thats my whole problem with private aid. I just tried to say that in a few weeks this will be forgotten. it's sad but that is how it is. that earthquake in iran last year, that killed thousands of people, how cares or even thinks about that today? sure, it wasn't this bad, but still, completely off the map now and i doubt all damage has been repaired and people don't need any aid anymore.
Or think about other projects in developing countries that are piad for with private aid. Now we have had this big disaster, so people donate for this, but they don't just increase their aid, they probably will also shift money from the things the donated for before this happened to aid for the tsunami-victims. The other projects recieve less money.
I didn't say (or at least i didn't want to say) that private aid is a bad thing, i just tried to explain that i think that goverment aid is more reliable on the long term. i gave 50€ myself, that's probably not much, but really all i can effort atm.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

hurrah, an argument.
i gave 50€ myself, that's probably not much, but really all i can effort atm.

see that's the point, we can't afford to pick up the pieces of the worlds accidents.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

see that's the point, we can't afford to pick up the pieces of the worlds accidents.

Well, actually, we can, the thing is, does our conscience prick us enough on a daily basis to say "I could have a Mars Bar, or i could donate 30p towards a bottle of drinking water for someone who just lost their home and family"

Its an emotive argument, best done by people who still feel strong emotions.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Well, actually, we can, the thing is, does our conscience prick us enough on a daily basis to say "I could have a Mars Bar, or i could donate 30p towards a bottle of drinking water for someone who just lost their home and family"

Its an emotive argument, best done by people who still feel strong emotions.

there are too many people who want that bottle.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there are too many people who want that bottle.

So instead let's give it to someone who doesn't need it? (i.e. yourself)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i know the whole thread was pointless, i just got annoyed by that whole 'we are so much better than anyone else'-attitude in that whole article.
I disagree with you on the private vs goverment aid: goverment aid can be far more efficent. even if it really is smaller as an amount of money, if its distributed steadly over a longer periode of time you can do far more good with it than with private aid. do you really think in 4-8 weeks anyone will give a damn about that tsunami? it will be out of the news and out of the mind. now people donate a lot, so much that it might even be too much to use and as soon as something else happens those private organisations will run out of money for this.

Private charity doesn't all dry up when the disaster moves off the front pages; otherwise private charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. could not have kept operating for over a hundred years.

And governments are not immune from fickleness. In fact, I'd be willing to bet government aid for tsunami relief dries up faster than private aid.

[Androme]

Is it me or has the price of Mars Bar gone up

Anyway, 30p is enough to give someone a litre of clean water over there - think about it*



*which is gay as we pay way more than that

[Azof]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

also, from the article :

"And calculating giving as a percentage of a country's GDP is almost always going to skew the analysis to make the richest nations look the "stingiest" simply because of the mathematics involved in comparing enormously varying GDPs. "

ok, firstly he starts a sentence with "and" in an article, which sets me against him from the start.

but... WHAT??? does this sentence make any logical sense at all? crazy yanks

This sentence would make sense if it were spoken, but as you cannot mark changes in vocal tone in written language, you do not understand the sentence. (He's writing how one would talk, not how one should write)

I'll attempt to punctuate it in a way that makes sense.

And calculating 'giving' as a percentage of a country's GDP will almost always skew the analysis to make the richest nations look the "stingiest," simply because of the mathematics involved in comparing enormously varying GDPs.

Make sense now?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Azof

And calculating 'giving' as a percentage of a country's GDP will almost always skew the analysis to make the richest nations look the "stingiest," simply because of the mathematics involved in comparing enormously varying GDPs.

There's still little logic to it - I think he was referring to content at the end.

[Dante Hicks]

Freedom of speech does not include the right to express your opinions on a private forum maintained by someone else. People with wildly divergant views can often be highly disruptive. It's OK if it's a "general forum" (like this one, where almost everything goes) but if it's a list/forum with a specific slant, having to argue the fundamentals can get boring.

If I set up a forum to discuss current developments in evolutionary psychology (say) it'd be incredibly irritating to have to argue against creationists every day so I'd probably ban them on sight.

Having said all of that I don't know what type of forum Free Republic portrays itself as so I don't know whether your ban was justified. Probably not based on other people's reactions but I don't care enough to check.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Freedom of speech does not include the right to express your opinions on a private forum maintained by someone else. People with wildly divergant views can often be highly disruptive. It's OK if it's a "general forum" (like this one, where almost everything goes) but if it's a list/forum with a specific slant, having to argue the fundamentals can get boring.

If I set up a forum to discuss current developments in evolutionary psychology (say) it'd be incredibly irritating to have to argue against creationists every day so I'd probably ban them on sight.

Having said all of that I don't know what type of forum Free Republic portrays itself as so I don't know whether your ban was justified. Probably not based on other people's reactions but I don't care enough to check.

Except you're comparing criticising America with creationism... Yeh it's annoying when someone questions a widely accepted concept, replacing it with something for which they have no proof, simply "faith" - and it's also annoying (if you're American) when someone criticises your nation with something you can't (logically) argue against... However I wouldn't see it as narrow minded to ignore or ban the former from a discussion or debate, I would for the latter. Just my opinion though

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Azof

This sentence would make sense if it were spoken, but as you cannot mark changes in vocal tone in written language, you do not understand the sentence. (He's writing how one would talk, not how one should write)

I'll attempt to punctuate it in a way that makes sense.

And calculating 'giving' as a percentage of a country's GDP will almost always skew the analysis to make the richest nations look the "stingiest," simply because of the mathematics involved in comparing enormously varying GDPs.

Make sense now?

it will never make sense... when you say "the mathematics involved when comparing enormously varying GDPs... thats what % are for.

I am actually able to decipher poor grammar thankyou, its just its obviously logically untrue.

[mist]

azof: no, it still doesn't make sense.

the guy is effectivly saying that the reason that they give less as a percentage is because they make more money. if you expected everyone to give the same amount, monitarily, that would make sense.

however, realistically, the person with $20000 a year disposable income giving the same monetary amount as someone with no disposable income makes them a skinflint.

-mist

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Except you're comparing criticising America with creationism... Yeh it's annoying when someone questions a widely accepted concept, replacing it with something for which they have no proof, simply "faith" - and it's also annoying (if you're American) when someone criticises your nation with something you can't (logically) argue against... However I wouldn't see it as narrow minded to ignore or ban the former from a discussion or debate, I would for the latter. Just my opinion though

yes, well your opinion is void because it completely misses the point.

it isn't a matter of how grounded in fact your argument is, it's a matter of whether using it is pertinent to the discussion. in dante's example, creationism is an opposing philosophy to one wherein nuances are being discussed, thus it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. on freep, saying america is bad is in opposition to pointing out ways in which america is great, and once more is irrelevant. On DF3, if you weren't a Klan member, you were part of the great scourge and anything you said was unlikely to hold merit.

I'm not saying freep isn't ****ing stupid, i'm just saying that's the way it is. and within its own framework of lunacy, banning liberals is valid.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes, well your opinion is void because it completely misses the point.

it isn't a matter of how grounded in fact your argument is, it's a matter of whether using it is pertinent to the discussion. in dante's example, creationism is an opposing philosophy to one wherein nuances are being discussed, thus it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. on freep, saying america is bad is in opposition to pointing out ways in which america is great, and once more is irrelevant. On DF3, if you weren't a Klan member, you were part of the great scourge and anything you said was unlikely to hold merit.

I'm not saying freep isn't ****ing stupid, i'm just saying that's the way it is. and within its own framework of lunacy, banning liberals is valid.

And what I was saying is that I can understand why someone might ban a creationist from a "evolutionary psychology" forum, as it's not going to go anywhere it's conflicting views. But banning an opposing political view on a patriotic forum... Seems less easy to justify* - But as i said just my opinion you may disagree and that's allowed, as this isn't a forum for people who only believe in freedom of speech (or whatever the issue is here). A single-view forum where everyone can go "Yeeeh we're the best!" seems a bit illogical and pointless to me...

*Especially considering they didn't actualy have (or atleast supply) an opposing argument

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

azof: no, it still doesn't make sense.

the guy is effectivly saying that the reason that they give less as a percentage is because they make more money. if you expected everyone to give the same amount, monitarily, that would make sense.

Yes, it would.

however, realistically, the person with $20000 a year disposable income giving the same monetary amount as someone with no disposable income makes them a skinflint.

Possibly, but if the person with 10X only gives 5X more, does that make them a skinflint? Apparently there's no middle ground in this argument. :/

You're criticizing one standard (everyone gives the same amount) and replacing it with another standard (everyone gives the same percentage (of GDP)), but they both look arbitrary to me.

[Yahwe]

it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is ... for a camel ... to

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nadval

But banning an opposing political view on a patriotic forum... Seems less easy to justify*t

Phang is correct - it doesn't matter what the argument is, it depends on what the forum is there to do, that's my point.

To give an example, I was on a Marxist mailing list which was for Marxists to discuss activism, literature, economics, etc. Every once in a while someone virulently anti-Marxist would sign up to either troll or have some basic very tired arguments. The moderator after a period (say 48hrs or after 20-30 posts) would ban them. Why? Because that wasn't the purpose of the list. The list was for Marxists to discuss Marxism, not trolls to argue about the Soviet Union.

Similarly, from the same mailing list there was a case when the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia) started. Of the regular posters maybe 50-60 people were against the bombing, and 1 was for. After some prolonged arguments lasting many days the list maintainer asked the argument to stop since it wasn't getting anywhere. The one objector demanded he be able to post pro-bombing articles under the guise of free-speech. The moderators response was fairly interesting :

"I get up in the morning and I read my newspaper over breakfast about why we should bomb Serbia. I go to work and listen to the radio where they tell me why we should bomb Serbia. I get to work and read CNN.com, the BBC, etc about why we should bomb Serbia. I then get home and watch some TV news where they tell us why we should bomb Serbia. I then turn on my PC and go to read this list and you're saying I have to read about why we should bomb Serbia? That's not freedom of speech, that's totalitarianism."

Now, while patriotic arguments are hardly hard to find in the same way, I think the same point still stands - if wu_trax wants to argue about why Bush sucks (or whatever) then there are plenty of places he can do so.

[Wight]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, it would.
Possibly, but if the person with 10X only gives 5X more, does that make them a skinflint? Apparently there's no middle ground in this argument. :/

You're criticizing one standard (everyone gives the same amount) and replacing it with another standard (everyone gives the same percentage (of GDP)), but they both look arbitrary to me.

To use an example, imagine two people.

To remove bias we're assume them of the same nationality et cetera. One, however, is four times as rich as the other.

The poorer of the two gives all his money to charity. The richer gives half. Now, the richer has given twice as much, though only half as much in terms of percentage. Which is the most generous? (of course, whether giving all your money away is a sensible choice in the long-run is dubious, but all the same).

The person that gives everything is clearly more generous (or at least it appears that way to me). A single coin from a pauper is worth more than thousands from a King in terms of moral value (in pratical good that it will do the Kings contribution is worth more of course).

Now, if Americans (in general) want to be regarded as a benevolent generous nation, they ought to give the same amount in percentages as Europeans, if not more (fact is, Europe is only generous in comparison to America, both could do better)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Please use the default colours. Please.

[Nadval]

To be perfectly honest Dante I don't really understand that point of view. On a forum with 50-60 pro-marxist people, 1 anti-marxist is not totalitarianism because the mod is subject to anti-marxism everywhere else in his life. I don't understand why anyone would want to sign up to a forum where everyone says "yes, I agree". If there're enough pro-marxists on that forum then there'll be people queuing up to argue their beliefs with the one anti-marxist there. To me that would give the forum more point and any marxist who doesn't want to argue their beliefs is fighting a losing battle. A post on a forum, after all, is just a post. It can be ignored or made fun of if it's going back to basics - the only reason, in my eyes, someone would be banned is if their views scair people. That isn't freedom of speech. (That's discounting ACTUAL trolls who are just annoying about the way they present their arguments or are abusive.)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Now, while patriotic arguments are hardly hard to find in the same way, I think the same point still stands - if wu_trax wants to argue about why Bush sucks (or whatever) then there are plenty of places he can do so.

Look at that place, they don't argue about anything, they only tell each other about how they are right about everything.

If i'd simply want to say how much bush sucks i have some other forum full of ultraright- and leftwing germans who do nothing all day long but tell each other how evil the usa really is. On that place i sometimes try to defend the us, because the level of ignorance is just as high as on freerepublic.

[JonnyBGood]

No such thing as freedom of speech on the internet. You're not really going to get anywhere on there (in general). Presumably there are some fairly reasonable people on freerepublic, there are reasonable people in nearly every movement, who you might convince to re-evaluate some of their basic opinions in some small way but I doubt it'd be worth your time if you're out there solely to convince "right-wing" Americans they're wrong (there are slightly easier, ie less extremist, places to do that). It's pretty difficult to have a sensible argument with someone who comes at everything from an entirely point of view than you do, ever tried debating with a conspiracy theorist? I have and usually I use my giant bunny rabbit theory and troll until the other person thinks I'm not worth talking to. It's a good way of passing the time

[Sarina_Joy]

Dare I ask, what is your giant bunny rabbit theory?

[JonnyBGood]

There's a giant purple bunny rabbit orbiting Pluto in a cloaked spaceship who is responsible for all the suffering in the world which he causes using his vast and unknowable powers because he requires human beings to be in pain in order to feed off our mental emissions of anguish using some kind of funky super-duper ray gun. His name is Frank and he created the universe last week.

[queball]

That's an uninspired amalgam of Bart Simpson's Guide To Life and Donnie Darko.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I don't understand why anyone would want to sign up to a forum where everyone says "yes, I agree".

That wasn't the purpose of the mailing list. It was to discuss Marxist trends/advanced philosophy. It was a mailing list for Marxists.

A post on a forum, after all, is just a post. It can be ignored

This was a mailing list, and so you downloaded the e-mails (and it's responses) whether you wanted to or not (yes, you could filter things out, but it gets complicated once you consider replies). Besides, one idiot on a forum can be incredibly disruptive. It's glib to presume you can simply ignore the retards of this world.

That isn't freedom of speech.

No, and why would it be? How many times must it be said. YOU DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON A PRIVATE FORUM. It's not desirable, it's not practicable and it's not achievable.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Wight

To use an example, imagine two people.

To remove bias we're assume them of the same nationality et cetera. One, however, is four times as rich as the other.

The poorer of the two gives all his money to charity. The richer gives half. Now, the richer has given twice as much, though only half as much in terms of percentage. Which is the most generous? (of course, whether giving all your money away is a sensible choice in the long-run is dubious, but all the same).

The person that gives everything is clearly more generous (or at least it appears that way to me). A single coin from a pauper is worth more than thousands from a King in terms of moral value (in pratical good that it will do the Kings contribution is worth more of course).

"Moral value" is a rather empty concept here. Anyone truly in need would rather receive the King's thousands than the pauper's single coin. The only point of introducing such a concept as "moral value" is to make the pauper feel better about his contribution (or perhaps to make the King feel worse about his).

Now, if Americans (in general) want to be regarded as a benevolent generous nation, they ought to give the same amount in percentages as Europeans, if not more (fact is, Europe is only generous in comparison to America, both could do better)

Sorry, but I don't accept your standard of what constitutes a benevolent and generous nation. I also reject the idea that we should be overly concerned about how we are regarded. We should help others if and when we think it is the right thing to do and not worry if others regard it as too much or too little.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

[/color]
"Moral value" is a rather empty concept here. Anyone truly in need would rather receive the King's thousands than the pauper's single coin. The only point of introducing such a concept as "moral value" is to make the pauper feel better about his contribution (or perhaps to make the King feel worse about his).
[color=black]Sorry, but I don't accept your standard of what constitutes a benevolent and generous nation. I also reject the idea that we should be overly concerned about how we are regarded. We should help others if and when we think it is the right thing to do and not worry if others regard it as too much or too little.

Its not a question of 'moral value' its a question of 'stinginess'. The king, IS being more stingy than the pauper. Whether they would rather receive the more money or not is not the question... i think they would RATHER receive all the kings wealth, but thats neither here nor there.

And if you dont think you should be overly concerned about how you are regarded, do you disagree with all the arguments over stinginess? Or the counter arguments from the US at least. Why do you even care? why are you posting in this thread? Ok, that last sentence meant nothing, but you get my point i hope. If you dont care, you really shouldnt mind when people call the US stingy, especially when you are.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

Its not a question of 'moral value' its a question of 'stinginess'. The king, IS being more stingy than the pauper. Whether they would rather receive the more money or not is not the question... i think they would RATHER receive all the kings wealth, but thats neither here nor there.

You've just substituted 'stinginess' for 'moral value' but you haven't added any new argument.

And if you dont think you should be overly concerned about how you are regarded, do you disagree with all the arguments over stinginess?

I've pointed out several flaws in the arguments, but I guess it's the premise of the argument that I object to the most.

Or the counter arguments from the US at least. Why do you even care? why are you posting in this thread? Ok, that last sentence meant nothing, but you get my point i hope.

I got into this thread only to (try to) point out that the whole idea is meaningless. I guess it's my own fault for throwing rocks at mountains. :/

If you dont care, you really shouldnt mind when people call the US stingy, especially when you are.

If it makes you feel better about your own contributions then go right ahead!