Why is that dumb? Seems like common sense to me, although it might not be 'morally' correct just to let a kid who's family can't feed it die. But maybe if countries that can't feed themselves would invest in infrastructure to increase either the amount of food they could produce or the amount they could aquire instead they might be better off in the long run. You know, join the 1800's.

I remember seeing a poster on a subway that read 'Before this train reaches the next station 23 more children will die. Save one.' Someone had written after it; "So they can breed and thrive to produce more of them." Eternally throwing food at them is not the answer. Also, making sickening attempts to rip people's hearts and wallets out with TV ads of desparity is manipulative pan handling at best.

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

Well farking DUH! That's common sense! Question is...does he favor killing off the human race? The answer to THAT question is the important one.

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

For some reason, this just sounds like one of Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts.

Stewie: I love Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts. They are so stupid you have to laugh. One of my favorites, "Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn up." Hilarious....You are right, that quote does sound like a Deep Thought.


Not that I am a tree hugger or similar, but I have to add a few related quotes from some more of our village idiots that some of you may or may not remember:

"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world,I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff," --Mariah Carey

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." --Al Gore, Vice President

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"--Lee Iacocca

One more wisdom from Jack Handy:

"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have."

Now that is deep.

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby

This one sounds like a Photoshop waiting to happen.

I think we should start off by killing all these ecofreaks first...then move down the line of other worthless humans, rapists, parasites and the homeless...

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs

Sounds about right to me, except slugs don't start wars, make bombs, or get written warnings for calling someone 'n.igg.ardly'...

Has anyone actually ever heard of any of these guys?

Reminds me of the time when someone checked out the footnotes for Ann Coulter's latest book.

Among other things, it turns out that one of her examples of "extremist liberal propagranda" was taken from some random movie critic's review of "the Muppets take Manhatten."

Interesting how they can't seem to find any stupid quotes from guys like Ralph Nader or someone else I might've actually heard of.

hows this? "laura was offended when i used the word 'puke', but to me, thats what her dinner tasted like." anyways, killing of the human race? ha.. thats bad in any light. A) if your religious, then people have an obvious purpose. B) if your NOT religious, then mankind is life's only hope to escape planet earth before the sun consumes it a few billion years from now. so, you kill mankind (or any other sentient species that may evolve later), you kill life as a whole. good idea there asshats.

did you guys read the "Wrong Again" section at the bottom? Seems to me that the reason that those people are wrong is because they were right. Right? Because things were going so badly the evil leftist wackos got to strangle industry into tighter environmental restrictions. So the negatives outcomes were averted/delayed and they became wrong. Weird how that kind if ying-yangs itself huh?

Yeah and Ann Coulter has never made a stupid comment either..

wow, is sarcasm supposed give you a headache?

Some of those quotes sound very fabricated.

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come...

Ecofreaks? Not so sure he would have referred to himself as an ecofreak, except in jest. I suspect that one has been taken a little out of context or there has been some rather poor editing performed.

Anyway, I still say we should let the hungry eat the homeless and solve two problems in one go. :-P

xslumlordx, you say its strange that they were right, and changed industry, making them wrong? ok, so before, pollution was going to freeze the world. so they changed it, and now, pollution is going to cause global warming?? which is it? hey keep in mind the average temperature of the earth is ALWAYS CHANGING. for most of earth's history, there were no polor ice caps. and sometimes, we get bad ice ages. its part of living on earth.

did you guys read the "Wrong Again" section at the bottom? Seems to me that the reason that those people are wrong is because they were right. Right? Because things were going so badly the evil leftist wackos got to strangle industry into tighter environmental restrictions. So the negatives outcomes were averted/delayed and they became wrong. Weird how that kind if ying-yangs itself huh?

Good point.

"Obviously that law against shoplifting is unnecasary, because look, people aren't shoplifting much anymore."

And to get back on this topic, I don't see how "let nature takes its course" is any better reason to let hungry people starve than "They should go get jobs!"

also, chucking food at people in third world and such isn't such a good idea anyway.

i learnt this in GCSE geography and that was 4 years ago so.. bear with me.

There's some guy trying to make a living selling food to his neighbours. Aid organisations come along and give his neighbours food for free. Guy goes out of business. Aid organisations have to stay forever as if they now leave, they've ruined any chance the guy and his neighbours had to support themselves.

Does that make sense?

To stay on the Jack Handey offshoot, I rotate the following three quotes as part of my sig file:

"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes."


If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did."


"If God dwells inside us, like some people say, I sure hope he likes enchiladas, because that's what He's getting!"

Jaimeekae

So the gist of it is that if you offer aid to a developing country, you put the local food suppliers out of business. Ergo you need to continue to send aid indefinitely because the local industries have gone bust due to the initial supply of foreign aid.

Is that about right?

Never thought of it that way.

Environmentalist wackos are ... anti-American.

Isn't everyone apart from the Americans?

yup that's the gist
you explained it better than me
:)

There's some guy trying to make a living selling food to his neighbours. Aid organisations come along and give his neighbours food for free. Guy goes out of business. Aid organisations have to stay forever as if they now leave, they've ruined any chance the guy and his neighbours had to support themselves.
Does that make sense?

Not really. Since when do entire countries "go out of business"? Especially they'd have to keep producing food, if not for themselves, than for their own citizens. (Or would a country that previously relied on exporting surplus food suddenly just do away with growing food altogether?). And the aid organization doesn't work either , because why would they give aid to a guy who used to spend enough on food so that they could keep someone else's business running?

Well, let's see, we have the Whole Earth Catalogue, a former US Senator, Earth First! (they're most famous for putting iron spikes in trees, causing injury to loggers), an editorial in the Economist (I think that might've been taken out of context) and Prince Phillip (you know, the husband of Queen Elizabeth?)

I'd say anyone who hasn't heard of anyone in here or the organisations therein are living in a cave. These groups are analagous to Operation Rescue (wingnuts in an otherwise reasonable cause).

Those of you who are convinced we're destroying the planet should cease your excess consumption, now. I suggest getting rid of your computer, TV, automobile and other such luxuries of Western decadence.

WELL????

Bluefrogprince, if humans are so worthless, help the problem and slit your wrists.

Shawn Pickrell

that last comment from me was to veritas

Jaimeekae
"also, chucking food at people in third world and such isn't such a good idea anyway.

i learnt this in GCSE geography and that was 4 years ago so.. bear with me."

I've never understood why geography classes these days teach us about starving africans. What happened to maps good-damm-it!

Bet you learnt about quasia... erm... kawashia... um... that condition where your stomach distends when you've been starving for a long time.

Picturescrazy
Your point about global warming is well met, but i was referring more to the environmentalist movement in general.

Schrodinger: i didn't say the whole country would go out of business
It's when you look at it on a small scale that the individual guy (who is selling food to his neighbours etc, and not exporting) goes bust.

shrug, my understanding of this is only gcse level (which is an english qualification you get at the age of 16)

Delsydsoftware: "So, it's ok when the deer population restablizes because there is a food shortage, but it's immoral when the human population does the same thing. I think these people don't like the pro-evolution/natural selection spin of these quotes."

So take the red, blue, orange and yellow pills. Help alleviate the problem.

Or do you part and go without food for three weeks. Why are you more worthy of being fed because you live in a Western country?

Massive infusions of aid don't necessarily work. However free trade doesn't either. One sector (usually agricultural) of the economy might be helped and modernised (usually resulting in loss of jobs), but every other sector is swamped with cheap imports and loss of jobs in those areas.

What does work? Well countries should study the (economic) examples of Japan, the USA, Korea, Thailand and China. These are countries which have raised their financial standards.

Shawn Pickrell

Kwashiorkor. Deficiency of protein in the diet that results in distention of the stomach.

Veritas
"Kwashiorkor. Deficiency of protein in the diet that results in distention of the stomach."

Thats the one! I never got a good answer for why I was taught that in geography class and not biology.

Well, let's see, we have the Whole Earth Catalogue, a former US Senator, Earth First! (they're most famous for putting iron spikes in trees, causing injury to loggers), an editorial in the Economist (I think that might've been taken out of context) and Prince Phillip (you know, the husband of Queen Elizabeth?)

Okay. I'm still not sure what contributions these SPECIFIC PEOPLE (rather than the organizations as a whole) made to enviromental causes, but I'll go with it.

But how many of those were serious and not trying to be Handy-esque? ("We ecofreaks?" I'm pretty sure that's in jest.) Earth First? Wow, spikes in trees. I'm sure congress is shaking. The only other person on your list who seems serious is the Senator, who's main point is that global warming could be used to help get people to conserve energy. And he admits that global warming may not be real (Even though even Bush acknowledges now that it is), showing that he's openminded and thinking objectively. But hey, he wants to conserve energy. EVIL.

I agree with the quote in the tagline.

Some of the other ones are a little extreme. Destroy every structure made in the last 100 years? Return to the wilderness? Not gonna happen.

Another thing... we are approaching zero populationsgrowth. It will start around the end of this century, so that killer virus the environmentalists want so badly will not be needed.

If I was concerned with an overpopulated third-world, I'd create a retrovirus that cripples the body's immune system.

Its not quite that simple Shawn - a country cannot transition from a poverty stricken string of villages to a market based economy in one step by themselves - it must come either in gradual (and time consuming) steps on their own - or under the 'wing' of an advanced nation(s) - but there is legitimate concern that the advanced countries are simply moving themselves in to be dominant reapers of the region's resources and labor.

In the next year, it's probable that more people will die as a result of Robert Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe than will die from anything Saddam does. Why isn't there a coalition against Mugabe or is that a naive question?

Axisted

AIDS beat you to it, my friend.
;-)

Those of you who are convinced we're destroying the planet should cease your excess consumption, now. I suggest getting rid of your computer, TV, automobile and other such luxuries of Western decadence.

Why not rationally consume and do away with excess? Oh, that's right, an economy based upon agressive expansion might destabalize and collapse.

Axisted I think I just woke my neighbors up laughing so hard. Not that deadly viruses, overpopulation, and starvation are funny.

And veritas didnt get it.

Purple_Jack
"Why isn't there a coalition against Mugabe or is that a naive question?"

Couldn't have anything to do with oil could it?

Quote : "Although it has huge deposits of coal, the landlocked southern African country of Zimbabwe has no proven oil or natural gas reserves."

[/cynical]

DarkIdol, you're quite correct. However, over time, things can change.

In 1910, Argentina had a standard of living superior to the USA's. Now, well, you get the picture. Things might get as bad as they get in your stereotypical Third World country -- and South America has usually been able to at least feed itself.

In 1950, South Korea was as poorly off as your average sub-Saharan nation. Now it is quite near Japan.

Just imagine what would have happened had Congress listened to the insiduous call for "free trade" in the early 19th century. Do you think, even for a second, American industry would have gained the might that it did?

Of course these countries are far from innocent -- there are shenanigans going on such as military dictatorships, lack of respect for property rights and law, etc. Welcome to Zimbabwe. Formerly, the breadbasket of AFrica. Now starving.

It doesn't help when multinationals treat the rest of the world as their own personal p!ssbox -- Greets to the former chair of Union Carbide.

Shawn Pickrell

AIDS beat you to it, my friend.

Damnit! I guess I'll have to settle with "Operation: Enduring Freedom."

Axisted: "Why not rationally consume and do away with excess? Oh, that's right, an economy based upon agressive expansion might destabalize and collapse."

So, Axisted, tell me what I should get rid of to "rationally consume." This unenlightened mind awaits.

Blumf: If it's all about the oil, then why on earth do we support Israel, the only country in the Mideast that DOESN'T have oil? I mean, that throws a wrench in the conspiracy theorists right there ...

Shawn Pickrell

"If I was concerned with an overpopulated third-world, I'd create a retrovirus that cripples the body's immune system."

I suggest you try it out on yourself first. You know, consistency and all that.

Shawn Pickrell

Maybe Dave Foreman should be phased out.

Common sense envioromental concern is good, but these Earth First! and other radical groups are a bunch of crackpots whose mommies probably didn't love them.

What I especially like is the morons who protest fur while wearing leather shoes.

You cannot refuse to feed a starving child, but you can also refuse to have children that will starve...

Right-wing news, doing to informed debate what pigeons do to statues.

Anyone could pull wacky quotes from the fringes of any moevement, I bet I could have fun trying to discredit all conservatives by quoting Tim Mcveigh, but its meaningless.

Anyway, doesnt right-wing news oppose foreign aid or intervening in the glorious "free" market. So they agree with starving kids, as long as their is a profit to be made.

"Blumf: If it's all about the oil, then why on earth do we support Israel, the only country in the Mideast that DOESN'T have oil"

Because they are your little watchdogs, ready to slap down any oil state that gets out of line.