Kony 2012- Epic Failure?

I do agree with Toast, his post had tons more content than just the little bit you quoted.

I am nothing like you. Your idea of morality is based in the Mystics of Muscle, and is therefore immoral.

1. Your opinion is wrong. There is nothing dignifying or fulfilling about a life of service.
2. Productivity moves society forward. Not unconditional love for everything and bits of charity.

I only have one obligation to my fellow citizens, and that is to leave them to their own devices.

I was just pointing out it was contradictory.

I have many times stated that morality is an opinion. So, you can tell me in your opinion I'm immoral, and I can tell you that in my opinion I am moral and you are immoral. However, I do not think you are immoral just because I disagree with you, I simply think you see life in a different way than me.

My opinion is an OPINION. By definition, an opinion can not be wrong. It can only be wrong in YOUR opinion. And I'm not talking about a life of service. I'm talking about helping other humans. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with helping other humans? ESPECIALLY if you have the means to do it!

So you can't be productive by helping people? That is being productive in and of itself. In my opinion, of course.

I'm not forcing help upon anyone! Do you really think some starving kid is gonna give a second of thought to taking food? I'm not forcing it, they are literally begging for help. Its everywhere, but Westerners will sit in their homes, unable or unwilling to do anything as they watch their fellow humans die on TV. Would you say its not our obligation as Americans to help people, if say New Orleans was cut off and their people were starving to death? Would you sit back and watch as a section of Manhattan is cordoned off and bombed into oblivion? Would you refuse to help if farmers from the Midwest were holed up in the Rockies starving to death because they are being bombed?

Words from the people of the movement.

To be certain, there is nothing wrong with helping someone else. However, it is utterly despicable to attempt to shove some sense of "obligation" down another mans throat. To take advantage of another by invoking guilt in him, telling that he has somehow inherited the sins of his ancestors, that he should feel guilty that another should die while he still lives. Guilty that someone else is starving while he isn't. Like it's somehow his fault.
The only thing worse than this, would be demand that he sacrifice to make amends for something he didn't do.

"Give a man a fish, and you him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life."
Productivity implies progression towards some end. Charity is simply the act of making poverty slightly "bearable".

We can and we will, either by our voluntary consent or to our own mutual benefit. But not because of your disgusting guilt trip and not at our own loss.

This is just silly.

I say it, because it works. You wouldn't be saying its wrong if it only had a snowballs chance in hell of working. I say it because it is the best way to get my point across.

Oh, believe me I agree wholeheartedly. On this, we can agree.

If you can and you will, then why is no change happening? Because saying you will, is not the same as doing it.

I doesn't work. It either produces negative results (Ex: Senseless military intervention, unnecessary burdens on the citizenry.) or no results at all.

Because at the moment, we see no reason. Nothing to gain really. Though, saying "no change is happening" would be false. There are plenty of organizations composed of rational individuals doing productive things, like building schools, out there by their own choice. (Ex: Redcross)

How do you know that that is the way they feel? Did you get inside their mind? I don't think you can so easily know their motivation for doing things. Some of them, for sure, but all of them? I don't know about that.

First, I love that two major debates are going on in this thread.

Well, it seems everything we do ends with no results or massive criticism.

Well, the more we do the better it is.

With good reason.

Not always the case. Go too fast and the natives will start to show resentment and the potential for mistakes rises.

The way to do humanitarian aid is the way we seem to always forget. We NEED to win over the hearts and minds and most importantly, stomachs, of the natives. From there, we educate them. And of course, you slowly begin to transition them.

To please God by converting a non believer maybe? I'll try not to intervene in the debate too much, but do you honestly believe the people who go door to door in order to tell people about Jesus or any other prophet/deity doesn't have the mind set of "this person here is living their life immorally so I must convert them to the one true religion of the world"? I must also ask hypothetically what you would think if I happen to come to your door to ask you if you believe in God and if you said yes then I proceeded to tell you why you're an ignorant fool with arguments such as "there's no proof" and "you're an idiot." This and if you try to argue against me I get hostile and either hit you or storm off.

1.Who is we? US citizens? Human Beings?
2.Feeding natives it's just as possible for them to become dependent on aid as to somehow begin to trust us
3.People need to learn how to stand on their own feet
4. History has shown that those who tend to give "aid" also usually meddle in the natives lives. People don't like to be meddled with

@BleedingHeartCaptain, post more, you may be the most level headed member of these forums. I never see a bad post from you.

Thanks. I try to remain objective and impartial to certain subjects. I have the utmost respect for Socrates so I try to use the Socratic method and think of myself as less knowledgeable and wise than the person I am responding to.

I'm not sure if you're serious or just poking fun at me. Anyways the Socratic method is more based on the idea of assuming that the person who is asked a question has more knowledge than you on the subject you're curious about. Telling someone that their wrong, but not giving an explanation as to why seems foolish. It would be even more pointless not to mention arrogant to bait someone into answering a question just so you could demolish them with your intelligence. Also Socrates never just asked a question then when given an answer went "No sorry you're wrong." While he may not have always given a reason to why someone what incorrect he did eliminate possibilities which is what the Socratic method is used for, to eliminate the possibilities that couldn't of happened. Aristotle I like as well for one being a student of Plato, tutoring Alexander and for also being a generally intelligent man. I'm not so big on how many people actually suspect he set science back by believing in the Geocentric theory and disregarding anyone who believed in the Heliocentric idea as a moron. Also its "therefore" not "therfor."

Wow, how did it come all the way to debating about Socrates? Lol.

Same way it came to debating the status of morals as an opinion.

True, true.

While I was against it I gave it a small chance to succeed, but then the guy masturbated in public.