Amiga.org

The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: SysAdmin on August 09, 2013, 05:56:38 AM

Title: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: SysAdmin on August 09, 2013, 05:56:38 AM
From Slashdot


http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/08/1622238/bill-gates-promotes-vaccine-projects-swipes-at-google



Quoted from link

"Bill Gates is not the philanthropist he pretends to be. The  Gates Foundation has an endowment of $30 Billion making it the largest  philanthropic organization in the world.  But one third of that money is  invested in companies whose practices run counter to the foundation’s  supposed charitable goals and social mission. In Niger, the  Foundation has invested more than $400 million dollars in oil companies  including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron. These firms  have been responsible for much of the pollution causing respiratory  problems and other afflictions among the local population. The  Gates Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst  polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical.


 It holds investments in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far  beyond what most patients around the world can afford and the Foundation  often lobbies on behalf of those companies for "Intellectual Property"  protections that make obtaining low cost medicines more difficult. Other  companies in the Foundation’s portfolio have been accused of forcing  thousands of people to lose their homes, supporting child labor and  defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care. In the mean time, Bill Gates' net worth has gone from $50 Billion to $70 Billion over the last 3 years."
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Manu on August 09, 2013, 06:53:05 AM
I bet Microsoft will have to take Bill back as the front figure and kick Ballmer out if they're ganna end this Win 8 -disaster.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: itix on August 09, 2013, 07:13:34 AM
I dont think I am going to care. It is his own money, isnt it?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on August 09, 2013, 07:26:10 AM
Gosh. And it must be true, because it says so on the internet.
Seriously..... however you cut it, Bill Gates has done a LOT of good with his money with things like Polio eradication. This article looks like a bit of a cheap shot from a Linux nerd or Jobs fan to me.

Let's not turn into /. here, eh?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: B00tDisk on August 09, 2013, 02:12:42 PM
Gates has done more to advance charitable health causes in the 3rd world than most others put together.  And no that's not just what I read on the internet; I've followed this effort of his for quite a while thru print and other media as well.

/. is peppered with angry linux neckbeards who'd tear down Microsoft and excoriate Bill Gates if he was giving away free puppies and ice-cream.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: SysAdmin on August 09, 2013, 02:39:49 PM
Gates could give all the poor countries he helps a MS Surface tablets so they don't end up in a landfill. They have millions of them unsold in warehouses.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: persia on August 09, 2013, 02:52:41 PM
The whole Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation story is a mixed bag.  On the one hand they've given away a pile of money, as much as some medium sized countries have given, to spread immunisation and other specific health concerns, they have their own agenda.  There are curious links with the ultimate corporate evil giant Monsanto.  The giving away of huge sums tends to lower criticism of the ability to gather such large sums in the first place.

Bill Gates' place in history is not entirely saint and not entirely sinner, but somewhere in between.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: dammy on August 09, 2013, 03:07:18 PM
Quote from: spirantho;744080
Gosh. And it must be true, because it says so on the internet.
Seriously..... however you cut it, Bill Gates has done a LOT of good with his money with things like Polio eradication. This article looks like a bit of a cheap shot from a Linux nerd or Jobs fan to me.

Let's not turn into /. here, eh?


Sure, if you have absolute trust in large multinational corporations producing such vaccines.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on August 09, 2013, 03:15:47 PM
Quote from: persia;744153
The whole Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation story is a mixed bag.  On the one hand they've given away a pile of money, as much as some medium sized countries have given, to spread immunisation and other specific health concerns, they have their own agenda.  There are curious links with the ultimate corporate evil giant Monsanto.  The giving away of huge sums tends to lower criticism of the ability to gather such large sums in the first place.

Bill Gates' place in history is not entirely saint and not entirely sinner, but somewhere in between.


Aren't charitable donations knocked off your tax bill in the US anyway?

If so he's not really giving away his own money.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on August 09, 2013, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: dammy;744155
Sure, if you have absolute trust in large multinational corporations producing such vaccines.


Indeed, such things are much better under state control.

I never had you down for a socialist Dammy. ;)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Ilwrath on August 09, 2013, 03:39:36 PM
Quote from: SysAdmin;744150
Gates could give all the poor countries he helps a MS Surface tablets so they don't end up in a landfill.


Yes, but he's trying to end suffering in 3rd world countries.  :D  Inflicting Surface RT on them would not help toward that goal.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Megamig on August 09, 2013, 04:14:34 PM
Give third world countries MS Bob, Windows ME, Vista or 8. After first use they will happy to return to their primitive methods.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: _ThEcRoW on August 09, 2013, 04:16:03 PM
Since when slashdot posts makes sense?.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Nlandas on December 13, 2013, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: SysAdmin;744075
From Slashdot


http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/08/1622238/bill-gates-promotes-vaccine-projects-swipes-at-google



Quoted from link

"Bill Gates is not the philanthropist he pretends to be. The  Gates Foundation has an endowment of $30 Billion making it the largest  philanthropic organization in the world.  But one third of that money is  invested in companies whose practices run counter to the foundation’s  supposed charitable goals and social mission. In Niger, the  Foundation has invested more than $400 million dollars in oil companies  including Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp, and Chevron. These firms  have been responsible for much of the pollution causing respiratory  problems and other afflictions among the local population. The  Gates Foundation also has investments in sixty-nine of the worst  polluting companies in the US and Canada, including Dow Chemical.


 It holds investments in pharmaceutical companies whose drugs cost far  beyond what most patients around the world can afford and the Foundation  often lobbies on behalf of those companies for "Intellectual Property"  protections that make obtaining low cost medicines more difficult. Other  companies in the Foundation’s portfolio have been accused of forcing  thousands of people to lose their homes, supporting child labor and  defrauding and neglecting patients in need of medical care. In the mean time, Bill Gates' net worth has gone from $50 Billion to $70 Billion over the last 3 years."


Bill Gates is a new kind of "philanthropist" and I use the term loosely. He's a Venture Philanthropist which I would argue often becomes an oxymoron depending on the outcome of what he tries to do to make money.

Bill Gates does things like back "Education Reform" in the guise of making education better, while actually forcing the whole reform movement towards requiring the use of his technology in the form of companies he owns. So spend money on "reform", while actually requiring the purchase of your technology and make far more money off the Venture Philanthropy.

In some cases you might be able to argue the result is positive, so it's likel a retarded cousin of true philanthropy but more often than not it ends up benefiting Gates only and just making the Gates Foundation money.

So, yes - not everything on the Internet is true but there is truth to the fact that the Gates Foundation is there to make money off what it markets as philanthropy.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on December 13, 2013, 03:46:03 PM
He may or may not be a Philanthropist but he is most certainly not an Altruist.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: XDelusion on December 13, 2013, 08:36:48 PM
And contrary to how the movie Pirate of S.V. will tell you, or how 99% of the Gates documentaries will tell you, the Gates family has been a huge player in the world of commerce for quite a long time! His mother was close friends with the head of IBM and was the one to arrange the meeting where in he could try to sell them DOS.
 Likewise, if you will look up TED and Bill Gates on Youtube, there is a video where he is discussing making vacinations available that will not only help save lives, but also help fight agains the alledged world over population problem, though he never stops to explain how a vaccine meant to preserve life, will help prevent it from over flowing...

...subversive birth control?

 Well either way, he said there will be plenty to go around for third world nations such as the land now known as Africa.

 At least Jay Miner told things straight...

[youtube]unOQuhiNOuc[/youtube]
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: slaapliedje on January 16, 2014, 03:47:19 AM
Jay Miner was a smart Mofo.  That's all I've got to say about that.  Actually, I'll have to say that I think he and Richard Stallman would have been awesome to see in the same room talking about Software freedoms and Computers being used to further divide society.

Jay, R.I.P.

slaapliedje
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 16, 2014, 03:55:46 AM
Eugenicist, promoter of Agenda 21, his father was the former head of Planned Parenthood.  He even admitted on stage that vaccines can and should be used to reduce population.  How do you think that can be accomplished?  I can think of only two things:  death and sterility.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Matt_H on January 16, 2014, 04:34:47 AM
My god, the cynicism in this thread. As someone who works in global health, I can tell you that the claims made here range from wildly inaccurate to utterly delusional.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gertsy on January 16, 2014, 07:16:22 AM
Quote from: Matt_H;757318
My god, the cynicism in this thread. As someone who works in global health, I can tell you that the claims made here range from wildly inaccurate to utterly delusional.


I had just ignored the tripe until now.
It's a psychological global constant Gates=Evil tall poppy, therefore any stories about him doing good must be wrong, or I am wrong. How could I be wrong?. Must prove gates is evil. Don't need any real evidence just social science and whammo. I'm safe and secure in my warm bubble of what's wrong with the world.

Nice coming from a pseudo charity such as Amiga org.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Astral on January 16, 2014, 08:15:18 AM
There's certainly a mixed bag of opinions here!

I suppose part of considering whether he is a philanthropist or not is in your understanding of exactly what philanthropy is. To me, it is "the act of giving with the intention to help". Whether it be time, advice, money, assets, knowledge or whatever. So based on my understanding he is most certainly a philanthropist.

But, is he a philanthropist with an alternative agenda of personal gain? Possibly - whether it be concious or sub-concious.

But who can TRULY say that when they perform an act of philanthropy that they aren't expecting SOMETHING in return. *** NOONE *** can. If you say you're not, you're lying. You may not think the return is significant, or tangible, but there certainly is something you get in return - whether it be a warm fuzzy feeling, all the way up the scale to a monetary gain.

Grain of salt on this one - as whatever way you look at it, he HAS GIVEN a lot, in a lot of different ways to people in all corners of the globe. And that, is something he should be proud of. :D
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Tripitaka on January 16, 2014, 09:12:43 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/kfc-africa-chicken-usaid-gates-foundation?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+(MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed)



.....yup......>sigh<........
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 16, 2014, 05:23:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzFeiKH1jQ

Remember that global warming and the idea that CO2 is somehow evil is a lie told to get you to agree to carbon taxes, tyranny, and the goals of Agenda 21.  Real environmentalism and pollution reduction is a good thing.  Fake environmentalism used to push a political agenda is not.

I'd estimate that around 80% to 90% of the population in the US and probably all of the western world is totally oblivious to what's going on.  The global banking elite want a world population reduction of between 85% and 98% depending on who you ask.  And as George Carlin said, it's a big club, and you ain't in it.

Bill Gates is one of those who is promoting these dangerous ideas... the culture of death.  He is not your friend.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 16, 2014, 06:10:58 PM
Clicked on link.  Read discription.  Hit the thumbs-down.  I suppose Bill Gates is also one of those reptilians, trying to take over the world?

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1861029,00.html

(http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 16, 2014, 06:27:43 PM
Quote from: blanning;757351
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzFeiKH1jQ

Remember that global warming and the idea that CO2 is somehow evil is a lie told to get you to agree to carbon taxes, tyranny, and the goals of Agenda 21.  Real environmentalism and pollution reduction is a good thing.  Fake environmentalism used to push a political agenda is not.

I'd estimate that around 80% to 90% of the population in the US and probably all of the western world is totally oblivious to what's going on.  The global banking elite want a world population reduction of between 85% and 98% depending on who you ask.  And as George Carlin said, it's a big club, and you ain't in it.

Bill Gates is one of those who is promoting these dangerous ideas... the culture of death.  He is not your friend.

Did you vote for a capitalist last time you voted by any chance?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 16, 2014, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757354
Did you vote for a capitalist last time you voted by any chance?


We're long past the point where voting matters.  I haven't voted in a long time.

By the way, I like the idea of capitalism.  The US isn't capitalism.  At least not anymore.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 16, 2014, 07:08:56 PM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;757353
Clicked on link.  Read discription.  Hit the thumbs-down.  I suppose Bill Gates is also one of those reptilians, trying to take over the world?


Thanks, I'm aware of the lizard people conspiracy theory.

Did you actually watch the video?  You know, it's actually Bill Gates stating his opinions in a public forum.  No lizards involved.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 16, 2014, 07:57:51 PM
I watched the video and i think it's confirmation bias. It's just playing with words.

For the record i think he is right. The population is too large. It needs to be reduced. In 3rd world countries there are people giving birth to up to 5 + children but can barely support one.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 16, 2014, 08:05:38 PM
Quote from: blanning;757357
We're long past the point where voting matters.  I haven't voted in a long time.

If voting changed anything it wouldn't be allowed.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said "The greatest argument against democracy is spending five minutes in the company of the average voter."
Quote
By the way, I like the idea of capitalism.

Then you will always be at the mercy of banks.

Quote
The US isn't capitalism.  At least not anymore.

Well it certainly isn't socialism you've got over there. Fascism perhaps but that's just another word for unchecked capitalism.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: A6000 on January 16, 2014, 08:09:55 PM
Quote from: Kesa;757360
I watched the video and i think it's confirmation bias. It's just playing with words.

For the record i think he is right. The population is too large. It needs to be reduced. In 3rd world countries there are people giving birth to up to 5 + children but can barely support one.


The problem with population reduction is that those proposing it are hypocrites, they will not cull their own families, only those in third world countries.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 16, 2014, 08:14:19 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757361
If voting changed anything it wouldn't be allowed.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said "The greatest argument against democracy is spending five minutes in the company of the average voter."


I agree.

Wow. You and me think alike.
Quote from: nicholas;757361

Then you will always be at the mercy of banks.


I disagree. Finance has a place but most people don't really understand how it works. Besides there are plenty of alternatives.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 16, 2014, 08:27:36 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757361
If voting changed anything it wouldn't be allowed.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said "The greatest argument against democracy is spending five minutes in the company of the average voter."


This is both a cultural and an education issue.  So in a society that's intentionally dumbing down the education system while also debasing the culture morally, and you end up with a population that cares only about reality TV and televised sports.

Quote

Then you will always be at the mercy of banks.


We are at the mercy of the banks because of the Federal Reserve.  Get rid of that and return the power to coin money back to the government, then enforce some common sense banking regulation, or at least enforce existing laws and throw the thieves in jail, and you end up with an imperfect, but much more free financial system that's much harder to hijack.

Education matters here also.  I'm reminded of the famous Henry Ford quote about our banking system.

Quote

Well it certainly isn't socialism you've got over there. Fascism perhaps but that's just another word for unchecked capitalism.


It's a hijacked, out of control capitalist system rather than the regulated free market capitalism that everyone thinks it is.  What we have now, and what will become more apparent in the near future, is that it's fascism at the top, but communism for the rest of us.  So you have huge corporations that own everything and remote-control the government writing laws that benefit them while enslaving us.  And we're not allowed to own property or engage in free enterprise.  

Just look at the trans pacific partnership.  Large corps can sue governments and force the tax payers to reimburse them for "lost profits" if they pass a law that stop the corporations from doing what they want.  Sooner or later, it will be you instead of a government that gets sued.  Was there a perceived loss because you didn't buy something?  Well that's an extra tax for you!

It's slavery, nothing less...  assuming you're still alive to play this game.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 16, 2014, 08:46:40 PM
Quote from: Kesa;757360

For the record i think he is right. The population is too large. It needs to be reduced. In 3rd world countries there are people giving birth to up to 5 + children but can barely support one.


Why do you believe this?  What's the real problem here?  Is it that there's not enough prosperity to support the number of people?  Or is it that there's too many people for the level of prosperity that has been imposed on them from outside forces?  Is the solution to increase prosperity?  Or to decrease the number of people (by force)?

There's easily enough arable land to support all of the people on the planet and many more.  Just visit an agricultural based country like where I live, and you'll be shocked by how much food is thrown out, or could be grown but isn't.  I watch entire orchards worth of fruit fall on the ground every year.  I've watched farmers throw out thousands of squashes, an entire harvest.  Why?  Because the economics aren't there.  It's not worth it for them to bring the food to market.  So the problem isn't overpopulation, it's politics, economics, and logistics.  And you can't say that they live in the desert and food would never grow there.  Look at what Israel has done.  In 1940, it was a desert.  Now they export fruit to Europe.

If there's food and water shortages, whether the root cause is economic or otherwise, the problem is artificial.  The real solution is to figure out who's causing these problems and stop them.  And if you do enough research, it's easy to figure out who is to blame.  

You think people in third world countries aren't aware of their economic situation?  People in poor countries have a lot of children because their children die.  And they want someone who can take care of them when they're older, just like you.  So to hedge against high infant and child mortality, they have more children.  Isn't it a double standard for you to try to deny them that when your children are unlikely to die before adulthood?  What if when they made the decision to have more children, they lived in a stable area and could feed them.  But later, an outside economic interest funded a civil war and now they're starving refugees?  Is the problem that they had too many children?  Or is the problem that some wealthy jerk enabled a psychopathic warlord to screw up their life?  You think this can't happen in the US?

Overpopulation is a lie told by advocates of Agenda 21 and its goals.  

Stop worshiping money.  Reject the culture of death.  Choose life.  Always.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gertsy on January 16, 2014, 09:28:53 PM
Wow and Gates caused all this?

I think people often forget they ARE society.
"be the change you wish to see in the world"
Don't tell other people to. Except when telling others not to tell others not to tell others...  Ohh no recursive loop......
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Matt_H on January 17, 2014, 04:23:05 AM
This thread is insane. I'm done with it.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: commodorejohn on January 17, 2014, 06:27:56 AM
It sure is nice for psychopaths that the population panic has made genocide cool again.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Astral on January 17, 2014, 06:58:32 AM
Quote from: Matt_H;757386
This thread is insane. I'm done with it.


Don't leave yet! The popcorn has just finished popping :D
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 17, 2014, 08:30:30 AM
Matt_H you're approaching it all wrong. Conspiracy theories are good for the brains :biglaugh:
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 17, 2014, 11:21:37 AM
And for the economy too! Now, who wants to buy a hat? Made of the finest Tin Foil, guaranteed to protect the brain from Aliens/The CIA/MI5/Cliff Richard. Honest.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 17, 2014, 12:06:14 PM
I have no intention of having children.  People who have loads of children are the biggest issue this planet and our environment face.
 
There are enough children without parents or good homes.  If you really feel the need to fill your time with children then foster or adpot
 
But population needs to be controlled through education not drugs.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 17, 2014, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: spirantho;757411
And for the economy too! Now, who wants to buy a hat? Made of the finest Tin Foil, guaranteed to protect the brain from Aliens/The CIA/MI5/Cliff Richard. Honest.

cliff ricahrd lol.   Find the idea of cliff being some eveil overlord quite amusing
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: A6000 on January 17, 2014, 12:08:02 PM
Quote from: spirantho;757411
And for the economy too! Now, who wants to buy a hat? Made of the finest Tin Foil, guaranteed to protect the brain from Aliens/The CIA/MI5/Cliff Richard. Honest.


I do not trust "third party" tin foil hats, I make my own.:)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 17, 2014, 12:16:14 PM
These are awesome and really show up our internet arguments.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxrWuE5qC5c&list=UUcKuvVKN-WDQ_PwoVuQ1ImQ
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 17, 2014, 03:04:50 PM
Quote from: A6000;757415
I do not trust "third party" tin foil hats, I make my own.:)

Make sure you use tin and not aluminium so you don't get Alzheimer's because that's what they want! ;)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 17, 2014, 03:14:19 PM
Quote from: JJ;757413
I have no intention of having children.  People who have loads of children are the biggest issue this planet and our environment face.
 


Why do you believe this?    If all the children are cared for and fed, why does it matter to you?  

I can't remember the exact numbers, but Beethoven was the youngest of something like 13 children.

Quote

There are enough children without parents or good homes.  If you really feel the need to fill your time with children then foster or adopt
 


I agree completely.  I have nine children.  The youngest five are adopted from three different countries.  After having experienced both adoption and having biological children, I would encourage everyone to do both.  They're great experiences for different reasons.

By the way, if adoption is so great, then why is the UN and UNICEF trying to shut it down?  

Quote

But population needs to be controlled through education not drugs.


I agree that education is always a good thing.  But you have to teach the right things.  And I don't think the world's population needs to be controlled at all.  However, history clearly shows that as you raise the standard of living for a society, birth rate drops significantly.  So what is the real solution to the population problem, if there is such a thing?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: A6000 on January 17, 2014, 03:37:33 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757420
Make sure you use tin and not aluminium so you don't get Alzheimer's because that's what they want! ;)


You see! the b******ds have got everything covered, we are all doomed.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 17, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: spirantho;757411
And for the economy too! Now, who wants to buy a hat? Made of the finest Tin Foil, guaranteed to protect the brain from Aliens/The CIA/MI5/Cliff Richard. Honest.

If the defense from that last individual is true, I want one!
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 17, 2014, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: blanning;757423
Why do you believe this?    If all the children are cared for and fed, why does it matter to you?  

I can't remember the exact numbers, but Beethoven was the youngest of something like 13 children.



I agree completely.  I have nine children.  The youngest five are adopted from three different countries.  After having experienced both adoption and having biological children, I would encourage everyone to do both.  They're great experiences for different reasons.

By the way, if adoption is so great, then why is the UN and UNICEF trying to shut it down?  



I agree that education is always a good thing.  But you have to teach the right things.  And I don't think the world's population needs to be controlled at all.  However, history clearly shows that as you raise the standard of living for a society, birth rate drops significantly.  So what is the real solution to the population problem, if there is such a thing?


Wow what the fook has Beethoven being 1 of 13 got to do with the price of wet fish. Do you have any understanding of the environmental impact of each child. Especially in the developed world
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: commodorejohn on January 17, 2014, 09:40:25 PM
Quote from: JJ;757436
Wow what the fook has Beethoven being 1 of 13 got to do with the price of wet fish. Do you have any understanding of the environmental impact of each child. Especially in the developed world
It has to do with the fact that, had his parents stopped before him (actually he was one of seven, and not the youngest - I think the confusion is with Mozart, who was the youngest of seven - but still,) world culture would be measurably poorer for it.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 17, 2014, 10:46:52 PM
Quote from: JJ;757436
Wow what the fook has Beethoven being 1 of 13 got to do with the price of wet fish. Do you have any understanding of the environmental impact of each child. Especially in the developed world


What environmental impact are you referring to?  Each one consumes oxygen.  Is that it?  How about water.  They all consume water.  Maybe it's that one?

You've been conditioned to believe that extra children consume "resources".  Whatever that is.  And why should we care?*  Aren't resources renewable?  The ones that are really needed by that child are renewable.  

Or are you talking about the non-renewable resources?  I think the people on the planet already can consume non-renewable resources (if there is such a thing) just fine without the help of additional children.  Even if we reduce the population by half, the remaining people could still consume an equal amount of resources.

I think the goal of the human race shouldn't be the reduction of population or the reduction of resource consumption directly.  I think the goal of the human race should be a major attitude change.  The goal needs to be that we all work together to elevate everyone.  And you can't do that when you have trillionaire bankers creating false flag attacks, civil wars, and world wars so that they can own another country.

You've been brainwashed.  Stop it.


* I have a flippant attitude about energy and resource consumption because there are many practical technologies that could replace things like fossil fuels, but are not allowed to exist because of money (greed placed over benefit to humanity).  If you want an example of what I mean by this, look into Nicola Tesla's lab burning down.  There's evidence to suggest that it was arson, ordered by JP Morgan, for financial gain.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 18, 2014, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: blanning;757443
What environmental impact are you referring to?  Each one consumes oxygen.  Is that it?  How about water.  They all consume water.  Maybe it's that one?

You've been conditioned to believe that extra children consume "resources".  Whatever that is.  And why should we care?*  Aren't resources renewable?  The ones that are really needed by that child are renewable.  

Or are you talking about the non-renewable resources?  I think the people on the planet already can consume non-renewable resources (if there is such a thing) just fine without the help of additional children.  Even if we reduce the population by half, the remaining people could still consume an equal amount of resources.

I think the goal of the human race shouldn't be the reduction of population or the reduction of resource consumption directly.  I think the goal of the human race should be a major attitude change.  The goal needs to be that we all work together to elevate everyone.  And you can't do that when you have trillionaire bankers creating false flag attacks, civil wars, and world wars so that they can own another country.


+1
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 18, 2014, 09:36:27 AM
Quote from: blanning;757443
What environmental impact are you referring to?  Each one consumes oxygen.  Is that it?  How about water.  They all consume water.  Maybe it's that one?

You've been conditioned to believe that extra children consume "resources".  Whatever that is.  And why should we care?*  Aren't resources renewable?  The ones that are really needed by that child are renewable.  

Or are you talking about the non-renewable resources?  I think the people on the planet already can consume non-renewable resources (if there is such a thing) just fine without the help of additional children.  Even if we reduce the population by half, the remaining people could still consume an equal amount of resources.

I think the goal of the human race shouldn't be the reduction of population or the reduction of resource consumption directly.  I think the goal of the human race should be a major attitude change.  The goal needs to be that we all work together to elevate everyone.  And you can't do that when you have trillionaire bankers creating false flag attacks, civil wars, and world wars so that they can own another country.

You've been brainwashed.  Stop it.


* I have a flippant attitude about energy and resource consumption because there are many practical technologies that could replace things like fossil fuels, but are not allowed to exist because of money (greed placed over benefit to humanity).  If you want an example of what I mean by this, look into Nicola Tesla's lab burning down.  There's evidence to suggest that it was arson, ordered by JP Morgan, for financial gain.

Good statement. But i think you lost credability when you accused someone else of being brainwashed. Never a good debating strategy...
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 18, 2014, 09:49:20 AM
Thank you kesa. Most of people have come to their own conclussions. Just because a view is different to you own strongly held beliefs or agree with widley held view does not Make it any less valid or mean someone has been brainwaahed
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Templario on January 18, 2014, 10:06:28 AM
Roundly, No, only it is whitewash.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 18, 2014, 11:10:53 AM
Quote from: JJ;757453
Thank you kesa. Most of people have come to their own conclussions. Just because a view is different to you own strongly held beliefs or agree with widley held view does not Make it any less valid or mean someone has been brainwaahed

Wasn't it Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to my death for your right to say it"?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Astral on January 18, 2014, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: blanning;757443
You've been brainwashed.  Stop it.


When I first saw this statement I thought similar to what that others have expressed. There is no such thing is "right" or "wrong". Right or wrong is simply an opinion - of an individual or of a collective group of people. As such, just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't mean they are right, wrong, or...brainwashed.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 18, 2014, 11:53:33 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757451
Good statement. But i think you lost credability when you accused someone else of being brainwashed. Never a good debating strategy...


Yet brainwashing exists today... carried out by the mainstream media and public education systems.  Maybe "propaganda believer" is a better description.

I don't need credibility.  The facts remain.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Astral on January 18, 2014, 11:58:34 AM
Now I've got Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall cranking on youtube :D
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 18, 2014, 12:04:22 PM
I guess it depends on whether you have an optimistic, pesimistic or cynical personality. You seem to be the latter 2 while i am optimistic.

I just finished watching Pirates Of Silicon Valley so i am listening to the Talking Heads - Burning Down The House.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 18, 2014, 12:56:42 PM
Quote from: JJ;757453
Thank you kesa. Most of people have come to their own conclussions. Just because a view is different to you own strongly held beliefs or agree with widley held view does not Make it any less valid or mean someone has been brainwaahed


Forgive me for making a reference to hitler, but it's apropos...  those people who believed "the big lie" in nazi germany... where their conclusions valid?  Or were they just wrong?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 18, 2014, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: Astral;757468
When I first saw this statement I thought similar to what that others have expressed. There is no such thing is "right" or "wrong". Right or wrong is simply an opinion - of an individual or of a collective group of people. As such, just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't mean they are right, wrong, or...brainwashed.


I disagree.  I believe there's right and wrong.  And that's a separate idea from having a difference of opinion.  Whether you think capitalism or socialism is better, that's a matter of opinion on which we can differ.   Forcibly sterilizing people in the third world because we believe they shouldn't have children, that's wrong.

Those who believe in moral relativism have been brainwashed.  I believe that's a fact.  But that's just my opinion.  :-)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 18, 2014, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Kesa;757472
I guess it depends on whether you have an optimistic, pesimistic or cynical personality. You seem to be the latter 2 while i am optimistic.


I have hope and optimism where I believe it's warranted.  But with regard to where the world is heading today, I see nothing but death and destruction coming... soon.  

I prefer the word "realist".  

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues to exist. - Phillip K Dick
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 18, 2014, 03:35:52 PM
Quote from: blanning;757477
I have hope and optimism where I believe it's warranted.  But with regard to where the world is heading today, I see nothing but death and destruction coming... soon.  

I prefer the word "realist".  

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues to exist. - Phillip K Dick

"realist" - is that the latest buzz word for depressing?
Phil seemed convinced the world was going to end in nuclear annihilation, instead its still chugging along long after Dick stroked out.
My guess is it will outlast us too (and hopefully the rest of humanity - scourge that it is).
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 18, 2014, 03:36:12 PM
A realist is a pessimist in denial.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 18, 2014, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757461
Wasn't it Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to my death for your right to say it"?


it was indeed :)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 18, 2014, 03:39:43 PM
Quote from: blanning;757476
I disagree.  I believe there's right and wrong.  And that's a separate idea from having a difference of opinion.  Whether you think capitalism or socialism is better, that's a matter of opinion on which we can differ.   Forcibly sterilizing people in the third world because we believe they shouldn't have children, that's wrong.

Those who believe in moral relativism have been brainwashed.  I believe that's a fact.  But that's just my opinion.  :-)

I agree that is wrong.  It is not the population expanding in the majority world that is the problem It is the populations in places like the UK, germany usa, te so called developed world,  that are causing the real drain on the planets resources.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 18, 2014, 06:25:32 PM
Quote from: JJ;757484
I agree that is wrong.  It is not the population expanding in the majority world that is the problem It is the populations in places like the UK, germany usa, te so called developed world,  that are causing the real drain on the planets resources.

Not all people in the west, just the materially obsessed consumer culture slaves.  I read the following quote somewhere a couple of days ago but I forget the name of who said it. I believe it was an American author IIRC  "These people are buying things they can't afford, with money they didn't earn, that they don't need, to impress people they don't like."
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Mr_DBUG on January 18, 2014, 11:07:50 PM
+1 to Slashdot
Gates is a fraud.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 19, 2014, 01:42:24 AM
Quote from: JJ;757484
I agree that is wrong.  It is not the population expanding in the majority world that is the problem It is the populations in places like the UK, germany usa, te so called developed world,  that are causing the real drain on the planets resources.


Which resources?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 19, 2014, 05:27:02 PM
Quote from: blanning;757515
Which resources?

ALL resources.
Our demands, as "civilized" human beings, greatly outstrips that of our more "primitive" brethren.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 19, 2014, 06:34:29 PM
Quote from: blanning;757515
Which resources?


Fossil fuels. They metals and minerals we are force miming form places like Africa to make mobiles and computers.  Food will become an issue in the not too distant future
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 19, 2014, 06:45:10 PM
Quote from: JJ;757543
Fossil fuels. They metals and minerals we are force miming form places like Africa to make mobiles and computers.  Food will become an issue in the not too distant future

It isn't already?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 19, 2014, 07:20:10 PM
Quote from: JJ;757543
Fossil fuels. They metals and minerals we are force miming form places like Africa to make mobiles and computers.  Food will become an issue in the not too distant future


I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 19, 2014, 07:32:46 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757550
I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.

I disagree with this. I don't call this evil or ignorance. I call it Darwinism. Humans are not born equal. Not just in genetics but also where you were lucky (or unlucky) enough to be born.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gertsy on January 19, 2014, 09:07:59 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757550
I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.


Thus the importance that we all take responsibility for our impact on the world and try to leave it in a better place by the time we leave. Philanthropy is the way to do that, in a considered and developmental way. Sponsoring agri projects and medical initiatives. Just like Bill Gates has.

Look at the amount of money Gates and Microsoft has pumped into the EU and the third world (Spain) through forced donations to corrupt bureaucracy.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 19, 2014, 09:50:31 PM
Quote from: gertsy;757560
Thus the importance that we all take responsibility for our impact on the world and try to leave it in a better place by the time we leave. Philanthropy is the way to do that, in a considered and developmental way. Sponsoring agri projects and medical initiatives. Just like Bill Gates has.

Look at the amount of money Gates and Microsoft has pumped into the EU and the third world (Spain) through forced donations to corrupt bureaucracy.

A better place?
Naive.
Has Bill Gates and his monopoly REALLY made this world a better place?
Not from my point of view.
Certainly not in relation to the costs imposed in making Gates the richest man on the planet.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 19, 2014, 09:57:51 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757550
I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.


+1
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 01:10:30 AM
Quote from: JJ;757543
Fossil fuels.


So it's better to force people not to have children than to find technological solutions to the reduction of fossil fuels?

Quote

They metals and minerals we are force miming form places like Africa to make mobiles and computers.  


Again, there are technological solutions.  The only reason these things aren't recycled from old electronics now is because it's not economically viable to do so.  So should we force people not to have children only because it's cheaper to do it that way?

Maybe if we had a different attitude, we wouldn't need to replace electronics so often.  No one ever suggests that.  

Quote

Food will become an issue in the not too distant future


Listen to me...  there is no food shortage.   You're being lied to.  If a place has no food, it's either because someone is economically raping a country, or because food is being used as a weapon.  The answer to this is not to reduce population.  It's to stop the people who are causing these problems.

Us "educated" and "advanced" people in the western world think we have all the answers.  We figured out how to do it all.  We know for sure that there's just too many people on the planet for the amount of food and water we have.  We really have this farming and nature thing down pat, right?  lol  Such arrogance!  Not even close.  Wanna see how wrong we got it?  Watch this movie:  http://www.backtoedenfilm.com  I challenge you to watch it to the end with an open mind, then tell me how much arable land there is on the planet.

You want to fix fossil fuel usage?  How about we stop using all these chemical fertilizers.  They're all petroleum based.  What about all the plastic bags and bottles that are so bad for the environment?  What was so bad about wood or metal boxes, glass bottles, or paper bags?  I think they were all better anyway.  If we stop our world-wide plastic orgy, that might reduce fossil fuels right?  Plastic sucks anyway.

Did you know that my car gets more than 45 miles to the gallon?  It kicks the Prius' butt.  And it's not even available for sale in the US.  Why?   But let's not stop there.  How about making all cars are electric cars?  And don't tell me about how we're burning coal at the plant anyway.  For the cost of a new car, I'm about to go off grid and install a wind and solar system at my farm.  Why couldn't I charge my car with this?

My point to all this is that there are technological and sociological solutions to all these problems that don't require forced sterilizations, aborting babies, and killing people.  But why aren't we pursuing those solutions?  When it comes to blowing up people at wedding parties, we have the highest technology ever attained by humans.  How about we apply that level of research dollars and effort into something that helps people instead of killing people?  I guess there's no money in it.

Like I said way up higher, humans have an attitude problem.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 01:22:06 AM
Quote from: nicholas;757550
I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.


I agree completely.  

If anyone wants to really see how deep the rabbit hole goes, go to amazon or youtube and search for "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.   That's a good place to start.

brian
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 01:27:58 AM
Quote from: gertsy;757560
Thus the importance that we all take responsibility for our impact on the world and try to leave it in a better place by the time we leave. Philanthropy is the way to do that, in a considered and developmental way. Sponsoring agri projects and medical initiatives. Just like Bill Gates has.


Heh, and Warren Buffet is just a nice old man who likes ice cream.

Quote

Look at the amount of money Gates and Microsoft has pumped into the EU and the third world (Spain) through forced donations to corrupt bureaucracy.


Spain is a third world country.  lol

I....  wow.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 20, 2014, 01:41:05 AM
I believe you when you say there is enough food in this world to feed everybody. But only in quantity. The quality of that food is not fit for consumption. I am going to make a guess and state that 99% of the food available is processed rubbish. How many generations can humanity flourish eating nothing but crap before our own DNA begins breaking down? I believe we should be focusing on quality nutrition and not quantity mush for the masses. To do this we need to reduce the population significantly.

And no before you say it i don't think we have the technology now to do it. Even if we wanted to. They tell us that we should eat lots of wholemeal grains to be healthy but the real reason is that grain is easy to mass produce. The human body isn't designed to eat this much grain. Technology cannot provide 9 billion people with quality food. We need to reduce the population
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 20, 2014, 02:24:36 AM
Quote from: blanning;757573
Heh, and Warren Buffet is just a nice old man who likes ice cream.

I must admit I liked that comment.
Don't count on rich philanthropists to solve the world's problems folks, they have their own interests to look after.

As to food production, about 12-15 years ago I looked into this and without much significant improvement we can probably manage to feed about 14 to 15 billion people.
So production is not really an issue.
Distribution and economics, those are the controlling factors.

I think its inevitable that we will see the world's population continue to rise.
It has about doubled in my lifetime alone.

The trick will be raising the general population's standard of living (which tends to inhibit over population) while reducing their impact on the environment.

Trust me, the biggest myth is that we are running out of space. Its a damned big planet.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 20, 2014, 02:32:36 AM
Quote from: Iggy;757576

I think its inevitable that we will see the world's population continue to rise.
It has about doubled in my lifetime alone.

Only in 3rd world countries. In western countries it is more or less staying the same.


Quote from: Iggy;757576
Trust me, the biggest myth is that we are running out of space. Its a damned big planet.

Right. Look what they are planning to do in Egypt. Really quite brilliant: http://pavelpodolyak.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/terraforming-sahara-desert.html
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 20, 2014, 02:38:27 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757578
Only in 3rd world countries. In western countries it is more or less staying the same.

EXACTLY, which is why, as hard to believe as it may be, we need to encourage the improvement of living standards globally.

Quote from: Kesa;757578
Right. Look what they are planning to do in Egypt. Really quite brilliant: http://pavelpodolyak.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/terraforming-sahara-desert.html

Makes sense to me.
That desert was once perfectly useful land.
Desertification need not be irreversible.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 02:44:24 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757574
I believe you when you say there is enough food in this world to feed everybody. But only in quantity. The quality of that food is not fit for consumption. I am going to make a guess and state that 99% of the food available is processed rubbish. How many generations can humanity flourish eating nothing but crap before our own DNA begins breaking down? I believe we should be focusing on quality nutrition and not quantity mush for the masses. To do this we need to reduce the population significantly.


Nope.  When I say there's no food shortage, I mean there's enough arable land to feed everyone on the planet fresh fruits and vegetables and grains and even meat.

Did you know that Qaddafi had nearly completed a huge public works project in Libya that was a huge underground aqueduct?  Had it been allowed to continue, it would have transformed Libya from a desert into farm land.  But we brought "democracy" to Libya.  In the 1940s, Israel was a desert.  Now they export fruit to Europe.  Why can't this be done in, oh I don't know, Ethiopia?  How about Sudan?  Somalia?  There's no reason why it can't.  Yet it doesn't happen.

I agree that most food out there is garbage.  Some in third world are malnourished because of the absence of food.  Some in the first world are malnourished because the food they have is devoid of nutrients.  

Quote

And no before you say it i don't think we have the technology now to do it. Even if we wanted to. They tell us that we should eat lots of wholemeal grains to be healthy but the real reason is that grain is easy to mass produce. The human body isn't designed to eat this much grain. Technology cannot provide 9 billion people with quality food. We need to reduce the population


I disagree.  That is, I agree that the food pyramid is a joke.  And the we shouldn't be eating the quantities of grain we're "supposed to".  But I don't think we need to reduce the population to feed everyone a quality diet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsAracLBCxI

Where I am (Uruguay) has some of the best farm land in the world.  And vast areas are simply empty.  No people, no food growing.  So much is thrown away because of economics or mismanagement.  Yet there are still poor people here who don't get enough to eat.  Would reducing the population here solve that problem?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 20, 2014, 02:44:58 AM
Improve living standards? I believe the reason why we are not breeding at the same rate is because of life pressures such as work. People are too busy to have kids these days. But yes i see your point.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 20, 2014, 02:47:55 AM
Quote from: Iggy;757579
EXACTLY, which is why, as hard to believe as it may be, we need to encourage the improvement of living standards globally.



Makes sense to me.
That desert was once perfectly useful land.
Desertification need not be irreversible.

Improve living standards? I believe the reason why we are not breeding  at the same rate is because of life pressures such as work. People are  too busy to have kids these days. But yes i see your point.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 20, 2014, 02:49:07 AM
>Improve living standards? I believe the reason why we are not  breeding at the same rate is because of life pressures such as work.  People are too busy to have kids these days. But yes i see your point.

Great! Lets get them jobs then and cut down on their free time to fornicate.

BTW - How the heck did these two posts change places?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 20, 2014, 02:49:49 AM
Quote from: Iggy;757579
EXACTLY, which is why, as hard to believe as it may  be, we need to encourage the improvement of living standards globally.

Makes sense to me.
That desert was once perfectly useful land.
Desertification need not be irreversible.

Improve living standards? I believe the reason why we are not breeding   at the same rate is because of life pressures such as work. People are   too busy to have kids these days. But yes i see your point.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 20, 2014, 02:54:21 AM
@Blanning. We have the same problem in Australia. We have excellent farming land that isn't being used. Instead we prefer to import our fruit and vegetables at a higher cost :confused:

@Iggy. What happened there?  :huh:

@Iggy. How is your quest for being self sustaining going? I remember you talking about it before.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 20, 2014, 04:17:55 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757585
@Blanning. We have the same problem in Australia. We have excellent farming land that isn't being used. Instead we prefer to import our fruit and vegetables at a higher cost :confused:

@Iggy. What happened there?  :huh:

@Iggy. How is your quest for being self sustaining going? I remember you talking about it before.

Believe it or not, at one time I was looking at the Doctorate program in Bio-regenerative Engineering at Cal State Polytechnic in San Luis Obispo.

I have some background in aquaculture and a BS in Preveterinary Animal Science.

I actually built some hydroponic systems at a local community college about 15 years ago that were fed by a few of our smaller aquaculture tanks.

So I have some experience in closed loop agricultural systems.

That being said, I don't think it is possible for us to be completely self sustaining.

I do still like to produce my own vegetables in season though.

And I keep track of the latest creatures that are popular in aquaculture ventures (funny these are often Australian).

Edit: Now that I think about it, a word as to why I would move from computers in the '80s and '90s to agriculture moving into the new millennium is in order.
Simple, I saw an opportunity to apply technology to our oldest profession (well, second oldest), and I find biology infinitely more interesting than electronics (with structures that are considerably more complex).

So OK, is that nerdy enough for you computer geeks?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gertsy on January 20, 2014, 07:16:34 AM
Quote from: Iggy;757562
A better place?
Naive.
Has Bill Gates and his monopoly REALLY made this world a better place?
Not from my point of view.
Certainly not in relation to the costs imposed in making Gates the richest man on the planet.

Confused.
So you don't think it's a good idea to try to leave the world in a better place?
And you don't think philanthropy is a way to achieve that?
And then you accuse me of nativity by drawing on the assertion that Gates can't be a Philanthropist because of his business exploits in the "first world"

No, I don't think my comments are naive at all. I think they consider a world view beyond the confines and limitations of a western view.

 I actually find your personal accusation insulting.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 20, 2014, 08:53:54 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757578
Only in 3rd world countries. In western countries it is more or less staying the same.




Right. Look what they are planning to do in Egypt. Really quite brilliant: http://pavelpodolyak.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/terraforming-sahara-desert.html


Sorry have to  pick up on this. Third world or developing world are not regarded as acceptable descriptions. It's now referred
To as the majority world
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: psxphill on January 20, 2014, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: blanning;757580
Did you know that Qaddafi had nearly completed a huge public works project in Libya that was a huge underground aqueduct? Had it been allowed to continue, it would have transformed Libya from a desert into farm land. But we brought "democracy" to Libya. In the 1940s, Israel was a desert. Now they export fruit to Europe. Why can't this be done in, oh I don't know, Ethiopia? How about Sudan? Somalia? There's no reason why it can't. Yet it doesn't happen.

Maybe they don't have huge cash reserves to subsidise the project or water trapped since the ice age to last 100 years.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River
 
Solving the problem isn't easy, because anything you do just causes new problems.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 20, 2014, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: gertsy;757594
Confused.
So you don't think it's a good idea to try to leave the world in a better place?
And you don't think philanthropy is a way to achieve that?
And then you accuse me of nativity by drawing on the assertion that Gates can't be a Philanthropist because of his business exploits in the "first world"

No, I don't think my comments are naive at all. I think they consider a world view beyond the confines and limitations of a western view.

 I actually find your personal accusation insulting.

Trust me...
First, I haven't gotten around to insulting you yet.
Ask anyone around here, if I go that course, you will notice it more than casually.
And second, your views are very western in nature. I'm not the one promoting Bill Gates (who in my opinion is little more than a thief).
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 06:37:47 PM
Quote from: Kesa;757584
Improve living standards? I believe the reason why we are not breeding   at the same rate is because of life pressures such as work. People are   too busy to have kids these days. But yes i see your point.


Or they could just have screwed up priorities.  

The entire feminist movement in the US was manufactured in order to get the other half of the US population working so that they could be taxed.  Those women were sold a bill of goods.  No longer did they need family and children to be fulfilled.  Now they can have a career!  Just think of what you can do with all that extra money!  In other words, they sold out.  They sold out their children for "a higher standard of living", whatever that is.  Later, the two income household was required just to make it.  This is because women in the workforce drove down wages (real wages I mean, taking inflation into account).

It's no accident that this had a negative effect on the family.  I believe this was a major contributor to the increase in infidelity and divorce.  While movies, TV, music, and other pop culture influences pushed the idea that sex outside of marriage was ok and only old prudish, behind the times people thought otherwise.  After all, if you get all the vitamin-P you want without getting married, why get married and have children?  One of the goals of Agenda 21 is to destroy the family.

What I would call the "correct" business model is for people to have a family with maybe 2 to 6 children where everyone including the father works at home.  They produce most of their own food and clothes.  They have several small businesses for some income to buy the things they can't or don't want to make for themselves.  And the parents and grand parents educate the children.  With this model, families spend more time together.  Kids aren't brainwashed by the state.  And if one of the businesses fails, they have others.  And if they all fail, they still have a place to live and food to eat.  This is what I'm trying to create now.  I hope I finish it in time.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 06:42:47 PM
Quote from: Kesa;757585
@Blanning. We have the same problem in Australia. We have excellent farming land that isn't being used. Instead we prefer to import our fruit and vegetables at a higher cost :confused:

... and pay farmers not to plant like in the US?  The cynic in me says this is on purpose so that we're dependent.

Here in Uruguay, food is supposed to be cheap and plentiful, since there are a lot of farmers and a relatively small population.  They export much more food than they consume.  The problem is that a farmer can choose to sell to the locals or export the food.  So that means that the locals have to compete with other, wealthier countries for the food grown across the street.  But salaries aren't any higher.  The end result is that food is really expensive.  Actually, it's about the same price as the US.  But that makes it expensive here.

When the economic crash comes, there will be a lot less demand since many places won't be able to pay for the food, and transport might be expensive or impossible.  So I expect food prices to crash here.  So in that sense, an economic collapse would be a good thing for the people here.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 20, 2014, 06:49:46 PM
Quote from: psxphill;757605
Maybe they don't have huge cash reserves to subsidise the project or water trapped since the ice age to last 100 years.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River
 
Solving the problem isn't easy, because anything you do just causes new problems.


Well they had the cash at one point.  The second thing the "liberators" did upon toppling Qaddafi was to steal the countries gold reserves.  I believe it was all sent to London.  It's hard to setup a gold dinar without any gold.

The first thing they did was to setup a foreign controlled central bank.  That's telling.  Let's see.... who still doesn't have a foreign controlled central bank?   That would be Syria, Iran, and North Korea.  What a coincidence!
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Dan on January 21, 2014, 07:00:35 AM
I'm an evil overlord, of course I want to breed as many followers as possible to extract as much resources as possible for me and work for me to beat all the other evil overlords.
The higher population density the easier it is to divide and conquer.
Don't you people play strategy games?

Now I'm of to invade Poland before Bill Gates beats me to it...
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: stefcep2 on January 21, 2014, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: nicholas;757550
I think most people are blissfully ignorant of the evil that western civilisation imposes on the rest of the world to supply the things that make our lifestyle what it is.

Ignorance is a choice IMNSHO.



Yes Nicholas because with Islam in control of things would be soooo much better for us all...
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: nicholas on January 21, 2014, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: stefcep2;757670
Yes Nicholas because with Islam in control of things would be soooo much better for us all...

Shut up you fcuking muppet.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 21, 2014, 08:38:42 PM
I'd rather have Nicholas (or another member of the Nation of Islam) looking out for me than a member of the US Republican Party.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Karlos on January 21, 2014, 09:27:53 PM
Quote from: stefcep2;757670
Yes Nicholas because with Islam in control of things would be soooo much better for us all...


And that kids is what grown ups mean when they say "Ad hominem"...
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 21, 2014, 09:36:21 PM
Quote from: blanning;757625
Or they could just have screwed up priorities.  

The entire feminist movement in the US was manufactured in order to get the other half of the US population working so that they could be taxed.  Those women were sold a bill of goods.  No longer did they need family and children to be fulfilled.  Now they can have a career!  Just think of what you can do with all that extra money!  In other words, they sold out.  They sold out their children for "a higher standard of living", whatever that is.  Later, the two income household was required just to make it.  This is because women in the workforce drove down wages (real wages I mean, taking inflation into account).

It's no accident that this had a negative effect on the family.  I believe this was a major contributor to the increase in infidelity and divorce.  While movies, TV, music, and other pop culture influences pushed the idea that sex outside of marriage was ok and only old prudish, behind the times people thought otherwise.  After all, if you get all the vitamin-P you want without getting married, why get married and have children?  One of the goals of Agenda 21 is to destroy the family.

What I would call the "correct" business model is for people to have a family with maybe 2 to 6 children where everyone including the father works at home.  They produce most of their own food and clothes.  They have several small businesses for some income to buy the things they can't or don't want to make for themselves.  And the parents and grand parents educate the children.  With this model, families spend more time together.  Kids aren't brainwashed by the state.  And if one of the businesses fails, they have others.  And if they all fail, they still have a place to live and food to eat.  This is what I'm trying to create now.  I hope I finish it in time.



OMFG did you really just say that about feminism. Honestly. Let me guess your wife is one of these old school people who just wants to look after their children and husband. Who is brainwashed again. Women are equal to men they can do as they please. Women having choices has nothing to do with the breakdown in families. Men not pulling their weight is a more likely cause.  I really don't know what to say in flabbergasted.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 21, 2014, 09:38:45 PM
Quote from: Karlos;757692
And that kids is what grown ups mean when they say "Ad hominem"...

@ 53 years old, with over 160 College credits, I thought I was a grown up, until I read that.
WTF are you talking about Karlos?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 21, 2014, 09:42:47 PM
Quote from: JJ;757695
OMFG did you really just say that about feminism. Honestly. Let me guess your wife is one of these old school people who just wants to look after their children and husband. Who is brainwashed again. Women are equal to men they can do as they please. Women having choices has nothing to do with the breakdown in families. Men not pulling their weight is a more likely cause.  I really don't know what to say in flabbergasted.

I didn't even want to touch that one myself.
My mother had her nurses license before I was born, and went on to upgrade that to a Nurse Anesthetist certification when I was 12.
By then end of her over 40 years in medicine, she was pulling in a 6 figure income (probably better than our sexist friend here).
Quite a role model really.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 21, 2014, 10:04:46 PM
Quote from: Iggy;757696
@ 53 years old, with over 160 College credits, I thought I was a grown up, until I read that.
WTF are you talking about Karlos?


He quoted stefcep2 above his comment... I don't think it was directed at you.

I'm not going to say anything about the argument though - any minute now someone's going to compare someone else to Hitler and then the argument will be over anyway. :) Some of the things said in this thread are just so ridiculous and insulting to great women like Emmeline Pankhurst and so many others, I'm not even going to honour them with a reply.

By the way, I've upgraded the firmware in my tin foil hats, and they now protect from EVIL OVERLORD DAN too. Yours for only $99.99 + taxes, import duty and another spurious surcharge I haven't thought of a reason for yet.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: stefcep2 on January 21, 2014, 11:56:14 PM
Quote from: Karlos;757692
And that kids is what grown ups mean when they say "Ad hominem"...


Rubbish,

Read any of his posts related to social issues ..everything is about how islam is the way forward, the only forward and about how Westerners and by inference Christianity is evil., all subtly done of course, but there nevertheless.

The guy even renames England as Englistan in his avatar, FFS!  WTF is that?

I can see through his %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! and his response is typical of people like him: all nice and tolerant of others views, as long as those views match *theirs*..
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 22, 2014, 12:39:07 AM
Seems like people are just posting random personal attacks, anti-feminist rants, and gibberish on this thread now. But since it's staying stuck at the top of the homepage I'll just stick this here. To all you Brits! :bitch:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT0yoo9B2Bc
 
 
;)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 22, 2014, 12:50:57 AM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;757712
Seems like people are just posting random personal attacks, anti-feminist rants, and gibberish on this thread now. But since it's staying stuck at the top of the homepage I'll just stick this here. To all you Brits! :bitch:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT0yoo9B2Bc
 
 
;)

Being of Irish descent, I'm not sure whether to be amused or offended.
After all, thanks to British land holders, Ireland was a mass exporter of food during the Potato famine, so anti-British sentiment is quite well founded.

Then again, coming from a country that had to kick the British military's ass (and still came to call the country an ally), I find that whole drama is SO over for me.

And...wtf were we talking about again?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 22, 2014, 07:27:32 AM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;757712
Seems like people are just posting random personal attacks, anti-feminist rants, and gibberish on this thread now. But since it's staying stuck at the top of the homepage I'll just stick this here. To all you Brits! :bitch:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT0yoo9B2Bc
 
 
;)

Really don't understand this post ?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 22, 2014, 07:43:46 AM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;757712
Seems like people are just posting random personal attacks, anti-feminist rants, and gibberish on this thread now. But since it's staying stuck at the top of the homepage I'll just stick this here. To all you Brits! :bitch:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT0yoo9B2Bc
 
 
;)


I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't realise just how disgusting posting a link to that video is.
To say it's tasteless is understating things... Ireland was very much an issue when I was growing up and I had see all the constant news reports of innocent people being maimed and killed as they did things like shopping, and dropping kids off at school.

To put it into perspective, imagine somebody had posted a video to you asking for Muslims to rise up and shoot innocent Americans. How would you feel? (Nicholas, I'm not meaning anything by this except how a lot of people are still angry about terrorism. I realise Islam is just as peaceful a religion as any other (and just as open to fundamentalism any other)).
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 22, 2014, 07:54:02 AM
Remember the point of terrorism is to terrorise you. If allow yourself to be scared they win. The best way to handle terrorism is to trivalise it by laughing.

I have German friends who play Nazi Zombies on Call Of Duty and they think it's the coolest thing ever! When i asked if they found it offensive they laughed at me. Then pointed out they can see the funny side of it but maybe their grandparents would not see the funny side of it.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 22, 2014, 08:01:03 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757726
Remember the point of terrorism is to terrorise you. If allow yourself to be scared they win. The best way to handle terrorism is to trivalise it by laughing.

I have German friends who play Nazi Zombies on Call Of Duty and they think it's the coolest thing ever! When i asked if they found it offensive they laughed at me. Then pointed out they can see the funny side of it but maybe their grandparents would not see the funny side of it.



I don't fear it, I just revile it. It's hard to laugh as people randomly blow up innocents and schoolkids.
But either way, posting links to pro-terrorism videos is in very poor taste.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gertsy on January 22, 2014, 09:29:11 AM
Quote from: spirantho;757727
I don't fear it, I just revile it. It's hard to laugh as people randomly blow up innocents and schoolkids.
But either way, posting links to pro-terrorism videos is in very poor taste.


A perfect fit for this thread then. As I think Mike was suggesting. I resisted clicking on the video. My choice you see.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 22, 2014, 02:40:22 PM
Quote from: gertsy;757731
A perfect fit for this thread then. As I think Mike was suggesting. I resisted clicking on the video. My choice you see.

I'm glad someone gets it. :) We'd already gone past "aliens", "tin foil hats", and "comparing things to Hitler", so why not add a little pro-terrorism in, as well? :roflmao:
 
Think this thread can be moved to "coffee house" instead of "Alternative operating systems" now, so that it will stop showing up at the top every #$(%% time I visit this site? :mad:
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: giZmo350 on January 22, 2014, 02:48:08 PM
Yes mods, please make this GO AWAY!
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 22, 2014, 03:04:29 PM
A topic for "Alternative operating systems" it is not, I say.
In fact, in not even sure if this is good coffeehouse fodder.

Sex, religion, politics, the world at large, anything we haven't dismissively commented on yet?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 22, 2014, 03:12:25 PM
Quote from: Iggy;757743
Sex, religion, politics, the world at large, anything we haven't dismissively commented on yet?

Miley Cyrus?  ;)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 22, 2014, 04:46:09 PM
Quote from: JJ;757695
OMFG did you really just say that about feminism.


Why, yes I did!   :-)

Some people would call what I did "traditional family values".  But anti-feminism is so much more incendiary.  lol

Quote

Honestly. Let me guess your wife is one of these old school people who just wants to look after their children and husband.


Yes.  But don't assume that she's uneducated.  She has a university degree and worked in the medical field for a number of years until the cost of daycare became oppressive, at which point she did what she would rather do anyway:  stay home with the kids.  Believe it or not, she was happy with her decision, the kids were better off, and it didn't make her a idiot.

How many women out there would prefer to stay home with the kids if they could afford it?  I'd argue quite a large percentage.  Oh, and this whole women working thing is so western-world.  There's women covering huge parts of the planet who would find it unthinkable to let someone else raise their children while they toiled away somewhere else for something so meaningless as money.

Quote

Who is brainwashed again.


You are.  :-)  But you're not alone.  I'd say that most people have bought the propaganda with little or no effort on the part of those pushing it.

Quote

Women are equal to men they can do as they please.


Men and women are not the same, regardless of what your TV says.  Men and women are physically and mentally different.  One isn't better or worse than the other, they're just different.  There's a reason why you don't put women on the front line in the military.  A civilization thinking rationally wouldn't dream of doing that, which is why they're getting ready to do it in the US.

I do agree that they can do as they please though.  Of course, once the women are brainwashed into giving up millennia of gender roles common to the entire human race, then they'll do what someone else pleases while believing they're free, right?

Quote

Women having choices has nothing to do with the breakdown in families.


Again, if you manipulate the women (and men) into distorting gender roles, then it does break down the family.  Brainwash them enough and they'll happily destroy their own family and argue with you when you point out what's happening.

Quote

Men not pulling their weight is a more likely cause.  


This is an entirely different problem that's also breaking down the family.  If men get all the sex they want, and aren't taught to treat women with respect, and instead are encouraged to never leave adolescence, then you end up with the problems we have today.

Quote

I really don't know what to say in flabbergasted.


Really?  Is that all it took? I'm just getting started!  How about this one...  I believe (and have encouraged my children to do so) that people should get married at around the age of 18.  This way, it becomes possible, even easy to wait for sex until marriage.  Of course, I also tell them that divorce isn't an option.  They have to make it work.

People think I'm insane when I tell them this.  After all, everyone knows that you should wait until you go to college and get an established career and a house and a mortgage and a mountain of debt and two cars... before you get married.  Maybe 30 is a good age!  After all, kids don't know anything and what if they get divorced?!  An conveniently, 30 is too late to wait for sex, so we can just sleep around with whoever we want.  Right?  I mean, we're all free and liberated, open-minded people, right?

How's that thinking working out for the western world?  The divorce rate is higher than ever.  Infidelity, illegitimacy, sexually transmitted diseases are all on the rise.  People on their second, third, or fourth spouse is commonplace.  At least if the 18 year olds get divorced later, they've only been with with (hopefully) one person the whole time, and the children all come from one father.

If you do things God's way, you don't have any of these problems.  Of course, the Christian community has all these problem also.  But that comes from not doing things God's way.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 22, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;757744
Miley Cyrus?  ;)

Good one!
I actually like her more now that the Disney produced crap is over.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 22, 2014, 09:13:08 PM
Quote from: blanning;757746
Why, yes I did!   :-)

Some people would call what I did "traditional family values".  But anti-feminism is so much more incendiary.  lol



Yes.  But don't assume that she's uneducated.  She has a university degree and worked in the medical field for a number of years until the cost of daycare became oppressive, at which point she did what she would rather do anyway:  stay home with the kids.  Believe it or not, she was happy with her decision, the kids were better off, and it didn't make her a idiot.

How many women out there would prefer to stay home with the kids if they could afford it?  I'd argue quite a large percentage.  Oh, and this whole women working thing is so western-world.  There's women covering huge parts of the planet who would find it unthinkable to let someone else raise their children while they toiled away somewhere else for something so meaningless as money.



You are.  :-)  But you're not alone.  I'd say that most people have bought the propaganda with little or no effort on the part of those pushing it.



Men and women are not the same, regardless of what your TV says.  Men and women are physically and mentally different.  One isn't better or worse than the other, they're just different.  There's a reason why you don't put women on the front line in the military.  A civilization thinking rationally wouldn't dream of doing that, which is why they're getting ready to do it in the US.

I do agree that they can do as they please though.  Of course, once the women are brainwashed into giving up millennia of gender roles common to the entire human race, then they'll do what someone else pleases while believing they're free, right?



Again, if you manipulate the women (and men) into distorting gender roles, then it does break down the family.  Brainwash them enough and they'll happily destroy their own family and argue with you when you point out what's happening.



This is an entirely different problem that's also breaking down the family.  If men get all the sex they want, and aren't taught to treat women with respect, and instead are encouraged to never leave adolescence, then you end up with the problems we have today.



Really?  Is that all it took? I'm just getting started!  How about this one...  I believe (and have encouraged my children to do so) that people should get married at around the age of 18.  This way, it becomes possible, even easy to wait for sex until marriage.  Of course, I also tell them that divorce isn't an option.  They have to make it work.

People think I'm insane when I tell them this.  After all, everyone knows that you should wait until you go to college and get an established career and a house and a mortgage and a mountain of debt and two cars... before you get married.  Maybe 30 is a good age!  After all, kids don't know anything and what if they get divorced?!  An conveniently, 30 is too late to wait for sex, so we can just sleep around with whoever we want.  Right?  I mean, we're all free and liberated, open-minded people, right?

How's that thinking working out for the western world?  The divorce rate is higher than ever.  Infidelity, illegitimacy, sexually transmitted diseases are all on the rise.  People on their second, third, or fourth spouse is commonplace.  At least if the 18 year olds get divorced later, they've only been with with (hopefully) one person the whole time, and the children all come from one father.

If you do things God's way, you don't have any of these problems.  Of course, the Christian community has all these problem also.  But that comes from not doing things God's way.


And you just lost the argument by bringing imaginary beings into the equation.  I think all the worlds problems are caused by not doing things the inspector gadget way.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gertsy on January 22, 2014, 09:15:14 PM
Go go gadget thread closer!
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: giZmo350 on January 22, 2014, 09:45:19 PM
(http://www.stardestroyer.net/BoardPics/ThreadClosed.jpg)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 23, 2014, 12:10:33 AM
Wishful thinking.
It lives!
 
Sexist, stupid, and in no way any longer related to Bill Gates, but its still here.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 23, 2014, 01:39:42 AM
Quote from: JJ;757754
And you just lost the argument by bringing imaginary beings into the equation.  I think all the worlds problems are caused by not doing things the inspector gadget way.


Imaginary being to you, very real to me.  Many things, too many to count, have happened in my life to make it obvious to me that God exists.  

Also, I didn't realize this was a contest to be won or lost.  I'm simply expressing my views.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: gaula92 on January 23, 2014, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: blanning;757778
Imaginary being to you, very real to me.  Many things, too many to count, have happened in my life to make it obvious to me that God exists.  

Also, I didn't realize this was a contest to be won or lost.  I'm simply expressing my views.

Yeah, so do Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse and Batman. So real to me! I even saw them on TV! :D

And now I will smash all of you non-god-believers: If God doesn't exist, who wrote the bible? Heh!
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Astral on January 23, 2014, 11:06:36 AM
Sorry for my absence guys and girls. I've been busy for the last few days so haven't kept up with this thread ;)

Did we end up working out whether Gates is a philanthropist or not? :)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 23, 2014, 11:15:30 AM
I think we worked out that Bill Gates was God, that Arnie doesn't like naughty threads, and that terrorism is bad (mmkay?).

Oh, and also, that my guaranteed tin foil hats are still available at the low, low price of $99.99 (+ spurious charges) and protect from EVIL OVERLORD DAN.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 23, 2014, 11:21:18 AM
What's a philanthropist again?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 23, 2014, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: Kesa;757801
What's a philanthropist again?


I think it's for people who get their sexual kicks from people called "Phil".
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 23, 2014, 11:44:52 AM
This could be a new game. Everytime someone says something that contains "Phil" they get called a pervert. We don't tell them why either  :razz:
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 23, 2014, 12:43:50 PM
Quote from: Kesa;757804
This could be a new game. Everytime someone says something that contains "Phil" they get called a pervert. We don't tell them why either  :razz:


Pervert! You mentioned "Phil".

:razz:
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Nataline on January 23, 2014, 12:46:29 PM
Quote from: spirantho;757802
I think it's for people who get their sexual kicks from people called "Phil".


I thought it meant "people who attribute humanlike characteristics to Phils".

Rumours suggest that there's a whole community of, um.. phillies out there. You know, people who like to create artwork of Phils in various humanoid forms and even dress up in elaborate Phil costumes and so on. Sure, I've heard that some phillies do view their hobby in a.. sexual way, but not all of them are like that, of course.

As for Gates.. Well, there's no sure-fire way to find out just by scouring the 'Net. I doubt that he'd sign his steamy Phil fiction stories with his own name (he would probably have created a "philsona" to represent himself), and besides you'd probably go blind sifting through that stuff. Or so I've heard.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 23, 2014, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: blanning;757778
Imaginary being to you, very real to me. Many things, too many to count, have happened in my life to make it obvious to me that God exists.
 
Also, I didn't realize this was a contest to be won or lost. I'm simply expressing my views.

Believe what you like mate.  I will never hold people beliefs against them until they start spouting sexist fanatical crap about how people should live "gods" way.  
 
Am i talking to somoone from a certain famous baptist church in america
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Karlos on January 23, 2014, 08:07:30 PM
Quote from: stefcep2;757710
Rubbish,

Read any of his posts related to social issues ..everything is about how islam is the way forward, the only forward and about how Westerners and by inference Christianity is evil., all subtly done of course, but there nevertheless.

And here you continue. Nicholas can't possibly have valid concerns or objections to "western" policy because he's a muslim obviously intent on furthering an agenda.

You can't counter his argument, so you attack (an attribute of) him instead. This is the very definition of argumentum ad hominem.

Quote
The guy even renames England as Englistan in his avatar, FFS!  WTF is that?

A sense of humour and a knowledge of other languages*. You might try growing one yourself.

Quote
I can see through his %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! and his response is typical of people like him:

"People like him"... What do you mean by that, exactly? Knowing the guy personally, I can't wait to hear your elaboration on this.

Quote
all nice and tolerant of others views, as long as those views match *theirs*..

Wow. Pot, kettle and all that.

*Englistan is the name for England in a number of asian languages.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 23, 2014, 08:38:57 PM
Quote from: JJ;757808
Believe what you like mate.  I will never hold people beliefs against them until they start spouting sexist fanatical crap about how people should live "gods" way.  
 
Am i talking to someone from a certain famous baptist church in america

Believe me, the vast majority of Christians have a problem with this particular baptist church also.

You should live God's way not because I tell you to, but because it's simply a better way to live.  It's like heroine.  Not doing heroine is a better way to live.  It doesn't matter what my opinion is about it.  

A friend of ours tells a story about a church she used to attend.  One day this other woman started showing up.  She wasn't married and looked a little, um, masculine.  But still people were relatively nice and accepting.  In the course of getting to know her, she revealed that she was a lesbian, but rejected that lifestyle because of her belief in God and the bible.  In other words, she wasn't "practicing".  It didn't matter, she was immediately shunned by all the other women in the church.  

This kind of behavior makes me sick.  Here's a woman doing exactly what the bible says she should be doing.  And she's ostracized for it.  It's Christians like these that are giving us all a bad name.  We're not supposed to be judgmental about these things.  Hate the sin and not the sinner after all.

I sometimes attend church and sometimes not.  It depends on how offended I am by the behavior of the others there, among other reasons.  Christians are supposed to be living their lives to be a good example to other people.  Other people are supposed to look at us and want what we have.  But it seldom works out that way.

If you're having a hard time believing in God, don't look at the church and say "if that's what it means to believe in God, then I want no part of it."  Instead, start first with God.  Ask God to show you that he's real.  And of course, you have to be open-minded enough to hear the answer.  After you've accepted Jesus, worry about church later.  And if you can't find one that isn't offensive to you, then don't go.  But most likely, you'll want to hear more.  And a church (that follows the bible) is the best place to start.

To get back on topic, I think Bill Gates is neither a Christian nor a philanthropist.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 23, 2014, 08:52:59 PM
Quote from: blanning;757820
...To get back on topic, I think Bill Gates is neither a Christian nor a philanthropist.

Well, I don't think we were discussing Bill's relationship with God (which is a relative unknown), but at least we agree on the latter.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 23, 2014, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: blanning;757820
It's like heroine. Not doing heroine is a better way to live.

Heroine. Noun. A woman noted for courage and daring action.
 
Considering your statement earlier that basically amounted to "a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", I find your misspelling to be particularly apropos. ;)
 
Being able to live your life as a good example to others has nothing to do with one's religion. People who use it for that reason are using it as a crutch.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 23, 2014, 09:20:45 PM
Quote from: blanning;757820
In the course of getting to know her, she revealed that she was a lesbian, but rejected that lifestyle because of her belief in God and the bible.


You can't reject your sexuality as a lifestyle choice. You either prefer men or you prefer women (or if you're really lucky, you don't care!) - you don't choose. If you "choose" not to follow a homosexual "lifestyle" then all you're doing is lying to yourself. That's not a good thing, and that's what led to so many years persecution of people just because they don't fit the perceived "norm".
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 23, 2014, 09:34:12 PM
So we are still mired in discussions about sexuality.
Sex, politics, religion, why not bring up drugs, abortion on demand, or some other hot topics?


ie - "I heard people named Phil secretly consume a drug extracted from the fetuses of the unborn, AND that Bill Gates REAL name is Phil Gates!"
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 23, 2014, 09:37:46 PM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;757823
Heroine. Noun. A woman noted for courage and daring action.
 
Considering your statement earlier that basically amounted to "a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", I find your misspelling to be particularly apropos. ;)
 
Being able to live your life as a good example to others has nothing to do with one's religion. People who use it for that reason are using it as a crutch.


2000% yes. Religion came about for two reasons. We didn't have the language to explain the world in which we found ourselves and two people were scared of dying. Easier to believe in an afterlife than believe our lives are just a breeze In eternity. Ever noticed how religions never to try to recruit people whose lives are in an even keel .......
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 23, 2014, 10:10:46 PM
Well...I'm scared of dying (who really isn't), but I hope there ISN'T an afterlife, and I am fairly religious.
I think you're dismissing the potential positive aspects JJ.
Like being humble, considerate, caring for the poor, etc.

And not being able to understand things?
Hey, we are just naked apes, there will ALWAYS be things we don't understand.
That isn't a call to superstition, just an acknowledgement of our limitations.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: jj on January 23, 2014, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: Iggy;757828
Well...I'm scared of dying (who really isn't), but I hope there ISN'T an afterlife, and I am fairly religious.
I think you're dismissing the potential positive aspects JJ.
Like being humble, considerate, caring for the poor, etc.

And not being able to understand things?
Hey, we are just naked apes, there will ALWAYS be things we don't understand.
That isn't a call to superstition, just an acknowledgement of our limitations.


You can be all those things and more without having to follow a book or a person who tells you how to behave.  Religion is control power and  money. Nothing more. This is all my opinion. Everyone can have theirs also.  Room for everyone up to a point :)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 23, 2014, 10:30:03 PM
Quote from: JJ;757829
You can be all those things and more without having to follow a book or a person who tells you how to behave.  Religion is control power and  money. Nothing more. This is all my opinion. Everyone can have theirs also.  Room for everyone up to a point :)

Organized
religion is "control, power and money".
But I don't have to attend a church in order to hold my beliefs.

And on that last part, yes, I'd defend your right to your opinion to the death.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 23, 2014, 10:56:09 PM
Quote from: spirantho;757824
You can't reject your sexuality as a lifestyle choice.


You can choose to perform those acts, or choose not to.  

And this idea that "orientation" isn't a choice is an opinion that's lately been forced upon us as fact.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 23, 2014, 11:00:32 PM
Quote from: JJ;757826
Easier to believe in an afterlife than believe our lives are just a breeze In eternity.


I disagree.  (At least according to my beliefs) Not existing is better than what comes later if you don't have salvation.  

Quote

Ever noticed how religions never to try to recruit people whose lives are in an even keel .......


This isn't really true either.  There are a lot of christian organizations trying to help people on drugs or whatever.  But there's just as many or more that are trying to reach regular normal people.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: blanning on January 23, 2014, 11:01:35 PM
Quote from: Iggy;757830

Organized
religion is "control, power and money".
But I don't have to attend a church in order to hold my beliefs.


Exactly right.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: persia on January 24, 2014, 03:01:44 AM
A lot of article on Quantum Entanglement and the soul lately...

http://io9.com/does-consciousness-arise-from-quantum-processes-in-the-1308844613 (http://io9.com/does-consciousness-arise-from-quantum-processes-in-the-1308844613)

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19dadj8axtuimgif/ku-medium.gif)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Iggy on January 24, 2014, 03:14:01 AM
Quote from: persia;757837
A lot of article on Quantum Entanglement and the soul lately...

http://io9.com/does-consciousness-arise-from-quantum-processes-in-the-1308844613

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19dadj8axtuimgif/ku-medium.gif)

Interesting new idea.
No doubt the next objection will refer to the software running in the brain as the "soul".
I, for one, don't have a problem with being a meat machine.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: spirantho on January 24, 2014, 07:45:05 AM
Quote from: blanning;757831
And this idea that "orientation" isn't a choice is an opinion that's lately been forced upon us as fact.



Am I the only one who sees the irony of a religious person dismissing science with this sentence?
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Tripitaka on January 24, 2014, 05:00:44 PM
Quote from: blanning;757831

And this idea that "orientation" is a choice is an opinion that's has traditionally been forced upon us as fact.


Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on January 24, 2014, 05:55:36 PM
Quote from: spirantho;757845
Am I the only one who sees the irony of a religious person dismissing science with this sentence?

It's pretty typical.  Also what the heck is that dancing thing in the post above this?  It looks like a mind flayer, or maybe Cthulhu, LOL.  ;)
Title: Re: Bill Gates not a philanthropist?
Post by: Kesa on January 24, 2014, 07:59:49 PM
It's an ooooooooob from dr who. The ball hanging from its neck is one of its brains.