Do you give charity?

[sandy]

I have to agree with the "stop having kids for a few (hundred) years" idea. I've been saying this for a long time. The simplest, cheapest method of birth control involves saying no and keeping ones' legs closed.

The men who rape should be punished and forced to deal with/support the pregnancy/baby. I don't think pregnancy results from one rape very often. It's still a violent attack against women. The punishment should be severe and involve the man being the woman's slave for the next 18 years.

I remember reading of an attempt to get them to use condoms. They gave them to the kids to play with.

If they listen to advisors who tell them to stop breeding, to get their country back, fix the mistakes, get it prosperous, then have a child.

China has the right idea about one kid. Their only problem is if it isn't a boy it often ends up killed.

 

[lucifers angel]

I have to agree with the "stop having kids for a few (hundred) years" idea. I've been saying this for a long time. The simplest, cheapest method of birth control involves saying no and keeping ones' legs closed.

The men who rape should be punished and forced to deal with/support the pregnancy/baby. I don't think pregnancy results from one rape very often. It's still a violent attack against women. The punishment should be severe and involve the man being the woman's slave for the next 18 years.

I remember reading of an attempt to get them to use condoms. They gave them to the kids to play with.

If they listen to advisors who tell them to stop breeding, to get their country back, fix the mistakes, get it prosperous, then have a child.

China has the right idea about one kid. Their only problem is if it isn't a boy it often ends up killed.

the amount of women getting pregnant because of rape is higher than you would think!

 

[John99]

I have to agree with the "stop having kids for a few (hundred) years" idea. I've been saying this for a long time. The simplest, cheapest method of birth control involves saying no and keeping ones' legs closed.

The men who rape should be punished and forced to deal with/support the pregnancy/baby. I don't think pregnancy results from one rape very often. It's still a violent attack against women. The punishment should be severe and involve the man being the woman's slave for the next 18 years.

I remember reading of an attempt to get them to use condoms. They gave them to the kids to play with.

If they listen to advisors who tell them to stop breeding, to get their country back, fix the mistakes, get it prosperous, then have a child.

China has the right idea about one kid. Their only problem is if it isn't a boy it often ends up killed.

Excellent points Sandy. Do the poorest countries have the highest breeding rates per capita?

 

[Orleander]

I have to agree with the "stop having kids for a few (hundred) years" idea. I've been saying this for a long time. The simplest, cheapest method of birth control involves saying no and keeping ones' legs closed.

The men who rape should be punished and forced to deal with/support the pregnancy/baby. I don't think pregnancy results from one rape very often. It's still a violent attack against women. The punishment should be severe and involve the man being the woman's slave for the next 18 years....

Yes, by all means they should learn to keep their legs closed and the gang rapists should pay child support.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr540762004
http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=1016815

I can't think of a better way to wipe out a people. Take away their food, their homes, their jobs, and then tell them they can't have children because they can't support them.

 

[Tiassa]

I give pocket change and such to people who ask. (Had a really weird moment with that a couple weeks ago.)

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Agreed. You're talking about self-fulfilling prophecy. In the run-up to the Iraq war a friend of mine's position was "there will always be war". How depressing.

aslong as people remain the way we are and have been then war will remain. unless we all change our ways we cant accomplish anything. human greed and selfishness.

peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Well, that's a good question ...and one I asked earlier which you didn't answer! Why should we save the tigers? What good are they to anyone? And, yes, I'm being perfectly serious.



Think about it ....the USA, the richest, most powerful nation on Earth can't protect it's own southern border from illegal invasion, yet you think someone could seal off a section of wilderness in India? Are you even thinking straight here, Empty?

Again, ....what the hell good are tigers to anyone?

Baron Max

we should save the tigers because they are one of the last big cats to walk the earth, they are a big part of the natural eco systems. you bieng selfish doesent help me either, but im not always concerned about what i get out of something. i actualy care about the natural world and all animals in general, not because they directly give me something. i do think they are amazing animals, i do think future generations should be able to witness the beauty of the tigeer and i do think humans should strive to protect our dying natural wonders.


tigers might not be good for everybody and might not give you anything, but they are a part of the eco system they do play a role in the natural world. but its not all about what they do for us i care about what i can do for them,


peace.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

by the way, how can rapists pay child support from prison? i got paid £10 per week in jail for working 5 days per week in the library. whats that going to pay for? and i needed that to buy shit from canteen.


peace.

 

[Orleander]

by the way, how can rapists pay child support from prison? i got paid £10 per week in jail for working 5 days per week in the library. whats that going to pay for? and i needed that to buy shit from canteen.


peace.

If they pay child support, can they sue for custody when they get out?? Do they have to sign off on papers if she wants to give the child up for adoption? Can he then get the child?
Sandy, did you think this through??

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

If they pay child support, can they sue for custody when they get out?? Do they have to sign off on papers if she wants to give the child up for adoption? Can he then get the child?
Sandy, did you think this through??

i think she shoots from the hip alot and does not follow through with the thinking side much. its emotion without logic.

also she stated men should be slaves for 18 years to the women as punishment lol. she wants to bring back slavery aswell it seems.


peace,

 

[Baron Max]

we should save the tigers because they are one of the last big cats to walk the earth, they are a big part of the natural eco systems.
...they are a part of the eco system they do play a role in the natural world.

C'mon, you and I both know that that "eco-sysem" of which the tigers were a part is virtually gone! In fact, the very reason you're trying to save them is because the tigers ain't got no eco-system anymore!

And again, if all the tigers were simply gone, no one would notice it if the news didn't make a big deal out of it.

I think it's fine that you should feel the way you do, but I have to warn you, I was the same way about the wild horses on the American plains. We worked hard to "save" them, keep them free. And in doing so, we got several laws and restrictions passed .....then watched as the horses multiplied, ate up all the grazing, then died horrible deaths of starvation. And worse, they ruined the natural grazing so that it took decades for the horses to return to viable condition of "free".

Be careful that you don't make the same mistakes with your tiger buddies. What are they gonna' eat, for example? Even now, in many areas of India, there are attacks on humans. Man can fuck up the eco-system in ways that you can't even fathom!

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

Man can fuck up the eco-system in ways that you can't even fathom!

Amen. What really gets me, though, is that when some unfathomable damage is finally realized, that information is condemned as irresponsible and even hateful. Even though you and I might agree on this simple point, it seems there are many within the commercial and industrial institutions as well as among the people who would rather pretend it isn't so.

Global warming, for instance: for many, it is unfathomable that humans could have such relatively dramatic impact on the global condition. Yet, the more we understand these mechanisms, the more deeply entrenched the empowered majority becomes in its litany of chicken-little spite.

There are four words I don't like to say. In fact, I'm rather superstitious about them. It's a simple phrase, one that many say when their predicted result comes about despite the doubters. There are a couple of primary reasons I don't like to say them. First is the impression built by the phrase when I was young. There was always such spiteful glee behind it, an impish malice beyond mischief. It was the stench of moral haughtiness before children knew what it was. Thus, since that's how I see the phrase, it doesn't do me well to use it. The other reason, though, is that one must be sociopathic to take such smug pleasure in the outcomes predicted. If a gun owner shoots his own son while trying to stop the bad guys, should I say those four words? (I would shoot me, too, if I did.) If our home comes to ruin because of our apathy toward our habitat, is that really the time to bust out self-satisfaction for moral comfort?

We are at a point in American society where all the superstition, faith, and science in the world can point toward an outcome, and we will still be expected to pretend surprise when that result manifests. I suppose it's better than smirking and saying, "We may be molding in tropical heat while picking our way through the poisonous Death Valley Jungle Swamps, but at least I can pat myself on the back and say, '_ ____ ___ __!'"

So let it be known, now: You know it and I know it. We won't be surprised. And now, nobody can say those four dreaded words to you, because you already know for yourself.

And in that case, you can feel, well, less badly about yourself while treating people like shite.

 

[whitewolf]

My thoughts about the tigers are of two kinds. 1. Yes, gotta help the animals. 2. Species have been going extinct for millions of years, and nobody cared, and here we are. Nobody tried saving dinosaurs just so that dinosaurs could live around and make life pretty. The environment on Earth has been changing continually ever since Earth came into existence and stopping all change is a ridiculous task that is not up to our abilities; nor is it necessary. What is truly necessary is ability to adapt.

 

[purebred]

I would not assume that every charity is corrupt anymore than I would assume that all politicians are corrupt or all Catholic priests are pedophiles. But it is important for you to check up on a charity before you contribute to it. For most charities this can be done on line, or through your state’s better business bureau or similar agency.

In my opinion, those that have should give to those that have not, and make it a special point to give to those who cannot help themselves, such as the elderly, homebound, to the disable, to children’s causes, and to veterans who served their country, but are now in a hard predicament. Your motivation, like the amount of your contribution, is a private matter.

However, there is one problem with giving to charity, your name is put on a contribution list that is sold to other charities and you find your mailbox inundated with literature from every conceivable cause. There is just so much you can give to others, so I try to rotate my contributions to different causes and organizations serving the same cause over the years.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

C'mon, you and I both know that that "eco-sysem" of which the tigers were a part is virtually gone! In fact, the very reason you're trying to save them is because the tigers ain't got no eco-system anymore!

And again, if all the tigers were simply gone, no one would notice it if the news didn't make a big deal out of it.

I think it's fine that you should feel the way you do, but I have to warn you, I was the same way about the wild horses on the American plains. We worked hard to "save" them, keep them free. And in doing so, we got several laws and restrictions passed .....then watched as the horses multiplied, ate up all the grazing, then died horrible deaths of starvation. And worse, they ruined the natural grazing so that it took decades for the horses to return to viable condition of "free".

Be careful that you don't make the same mistakes with your tiger buddies. What are they gonna' eat, for example? Even now, in many areas of India, there are attacks on humans. Man can fuck up the eco-system in ways that you can't even fathom!

Baron Max

the horses you speak of, what was there natural predator? it is a guess of mine but im going to say the puma (mountain lion.cougar) whatever you want to call it, i will stick to the scientific name of puma for now,

maybe i am totaly wrong on this, but im assuming that pumas maybe were the natural predator of the horses and kept them in check? but because humans have over hunted the puma, or maybe wolf packs? im not sure if you guys even have wolves anymore maybe they were over hunted and killed off too,


as i said i could be wrong i havent looked anything up.

peace.

 

[Baron Max]

the horses you speak of, what was there natural predator?

Well, that wasn't the point of my posting that little bit o' info. I was trying to show you that we can have the greatest of intentions, but fuck things up even worse than they are by trying to do something "good".

On the western American plains, the horses had no real natural enemies, although wolves would sometimes kill the weak and young. But the horses were imported by the Spanish in the 1500s ...thus weren't even in the natural ecosystem of the Western hemisphere before that. The horse herds' natural "enemies" were the Indians ...but they just used them, they didn't kill them or eat them.

What kept the horse herds in check was periods of overpopulation, which led to overgrazing, which led to mass starvation. When man came along, they were smart enough to realize that and culled the herds every year or so. We smart-assed, overly-intelligent, overly-idealistic, overly idiotic, stopped the culling of the herds. Then we watched for the next few years as the herds multiplied, then began to starve to death in horrid pain and agony that lasted for months, weeks.

Pretty smart of us, huh? Saved the horses so they could starve to death!

You're doin' essentially the same thing for the tigers. Except in the tigers' case, they'll start attacking Indian villagers for their meals. Is that what you want to happen? What are the tigers that you save gonna' eat?

Baron Max

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Well, that wasn't the point of my posting that little bit o' info. I was trying to show you that we can have the greatest of intentions, but fuck things up even worse than they are by trying to do something "good".

On the western American plains, the horses had no real natural enemies, although wolves would sometimes kill the weak and young. But the horses were imported by the Spanish in the 1500s ...thus weren't even in the natural ecosystem of the Western hemisphere before that. The horse herds' natural "enemies" were the Indians ...but they just used them, they didn't kill them or eat them.

What kept the horse herds in check was periods of overpopulation, which led to overgrazing, which led to mass starvation. When man came along, they were smart enough to realize that and culled the herds every year or so. We smart-assed, overly-intelligent, overly-idealistic, overly idiotic, stopped the culling of the herds. Then we watched for the next few years as the herds multiplied, then began to starve to death in horrid pain and agony that lasted for months, weeks.

Pretty smart of us, huh? Saved the horses so they could starve to death!

You're doin' essentially the same thing for the tigers. Except in the tigers' case, they'll start attacking Indian villagers for their meals. Is that what you want to happen? What are the tigers that you save gonna' eat?

Baron Max

thanks for the history lesson, i didnt know any of that, (no sarcasm or jokes).

tigers wont breed as much as horses, see predatory animals are different to prey animals. prey (herbivores) multiply alot faster and naturaly are in more abundance than predators. the tigers wont over populate due to natural evolutionary reasons, they have no natural predator (apart from humans) so the numbers will be kept in check aslong as we monitor the numbers correctly.

peace.

 

[Bells]

the tigers wont over populate due to natural evolutionary reasons, they have no natural predator (apart from humans) so the numbers will be kept in check aslong as we monitor the numbers correctly.

peace.

Correction. The tigers will not "over populate" due to the fact their food sources is becoming so scarce. Hence the point Baron was making (I think). You take away their natural food sources and they will look elsewhere, primarily hairless mammals that are called humans. And when they do turn to humans as a food source, their numbers will dwindle due to the fact that humans are vengeful creatures who will hunt them down, regardless of their protective status. It is not evolutionary in that it is not natural.

So giving charity to help preserve the species is moot since we are doing nothing to preserve their habitat and natural food source.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Correction. The tigers will not "over populate" due to the fact their food sources is becoming so scarce. Hence the point Baron was making (I think). You take away their natural food sources and they will look elsewhere, primarily hairless mammals that are called humans. And when they do turn to humans as a food source, their numbers will dwindle due to the fact that humans are vengeful creatures who will hunt them down, regardless of their protective status. It is not evolutionary in that it is not natural.

So giving charity to help preserve the species is moot since we are doing nothing to preserve their habitat and natural food source.

so you agree with baron and are saying let them die out and dont care about them because they do nothing for you?

peace.

 

[Bells]

so you agree with baron and are saying let them die out and dont care about them because they do nothing for you?

peace.

No.

I am saying that trying to save the tigers, and only the tigers, will amount to nothing at all in the end. To help save the tigers should involve saving their environment, and therefore their natural food sources. Because if we do not do this, they will look elsewhere for food. This will mean they either hunt humans or they become dependent on humans, both of which would mean tragedy for the tigers.