Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bono Defends Steve Jobs Against Criticism Over Lack of Public Philanthropy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed you are part right but:
1) Why are these people that ARE suffering in Africa still breeding ? why are they bringing babies into the world they will not be able to feed ? blame to me lies there with the catholic church sending missionaries into these places preaching how evil contraception is, successive popes have killed more people than Hitler and Stalin with their policies on contraception, there are some crazed dictators out in Africa but babies are still being born by the second out there and that is not down to the dictators. if Gates and Buffett donated towards a sterilisation and contraceptive program out in impoverished parts of Africa they would have my respect.
2) Failed crops is a huge reason for famine in Africa, maybe even the biggest reason, the tv reports show here in the UK regularly about failed crops causing famine, if Gates and Buffett funded genetic crops that can't be destroyed that will ultimately help feed the population then they would be doing a lot more for the long term good of Africa.
I'm proud to be a fan of both. Both have moved mankind forward, and both deserve our respect. Both are exponents of brilliance and perfection.
I bet Steve would swap every penny he has got for good health, if he was offered a choice of being a pauper and healthy or 56 years old and the victim of 2 bouts of cancer, a whipple procedure and a liver transplant I bet he would choose the good health and poverty, anyone would
Giving should never be an obligation. Steve should be free to not give, as he sees fit.
"Watch out! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don't do as the hypocrites do--blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you."
-- Matthew 6:1-2, 3 (NLT)
"Watch out! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don't do as the hypocrites do--blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you."
-- Matthew 6:1-2, 3 (NLT)
I actually feel that the Gates Foundation is one colossal waste of money. You can't point to a single good thing that entity has done. Whereas with Jobs he revolutionized technology and improved millions of lives. The Gates Foundation is like a Microsoft spinoff of greed, fraud, waste & corruption.
Sorry, maybe I should clarify. I was agreeing with you about the quote you had responded to (about how no apple fan would dislike Steve Jobs). My post was regarding the quote you were refuting
.Sorry, maybe I should clarify. I was agreeing with you about the quote you had responded to (about how no apple fan would dislike Steve Jobs). My post was regarding the quote you were refuting
The point is Steve Jobs always looked at technology from the standpoint of an artist and to make some grand statement about humanity. Software & hardware were never just "tools" to him. Millions of others have subscribed to his way of looking at it as well.
But you are a racist. Plain and simple. I absolutely promise you that if you took a psychological test to determine whether or not you're prejudiced, you'd score unusually high. Yes, you're a bigot. Your hateful speech is evidence of that.
By the way, good on you for assuming exactly what you see on television is true. Tool. Exactly how are you blaming a person who "crawls hundreds of miles for water"? How is their life their fault? Do you honestly think if they had any choice in the matter that they'd be walking through hell? Or would they get some employment and make something of themselves--- something far, far easier? Obviously I do not attempt to appeal to your decency, nor to stir any sort of emotion within you, for I know you possess neither. But I am hoping to appeal to any shred of logic you possess, barren though you may be of it.
I see you've ignored the rest of my post; probably a wise choice, as it tore your argument to shreds. Ignore that which makes you look foolish; how else will you continue to live under the delusion that your thoughts are anything other than lunacy?
----------
You've got it a bit mixed up sweetheart.
The burden of proof lies with the party attempting to prove the existence of something when no evidence shows it to.
There's no evidence of God, ergo the burden of proof lies with creationists.
HOW HAS HE IMPROVED MILLIONS OF LIVES? SERIOUSLY, EXPLAIN YOURSELF, OR NOTHING YOU SAY IS GOING TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. I keep hearing people say he's "improved" lives." HOW? HOW HAS HE DONE THIS?
lol. If I were to say "unicorns don't exist" and you disagreed with me and say they do, then the burden of proof to prove they exist lies with YOU, not me.
A big massive super Yes here.
To all those people who thinks Jobs should give, I ask how many jobs would you be willing to trade per $1million of donation?
If your answer is less than 10 then you probably really agree with Mr Jobs, when he thinks his money is better off working to grow itself, creating employment that then gives people the means to give time and money how they see fit.
Ok, I'm tired (been out fishing all day, sun takes it out of me) and I probably won't do the best job of explaining myself, but I will say I do think most to all of the world's ills is really down to over population. I also am not sure how to really stop that as anything that would do a drastic help with that would be an evil in its own right or could easily be used to be evil.
The best I can say is education and try to encourage people not to have more than two kids at most. I am doing my part and having 0 kids (if I ever want kids there are plenty of unwanted kids that need to be adopted. And I'm sorry, I don't believe no kid is unwanted. If that were true you wouldn't have abused kids, kids in foster homes needing adoption, etc.). And I am pro-abortion as well for those reasons (but I don't believe that the fetus is a person until it develops enough of a brain to regret loss of life. I'm not religious and I don't believe in a soul so it's easier for me to not be against abortion. If I thought abortion was murder, I'd be against it too). I just don't see why force some one to have a kid they don't want when we have too many people here already. It's far better than forcing them to have the kid and then the kid ending up either stuck in foster homes most of its childhood or abused/neglected by a parent who didn't want them. And the argument that it would cause people to be irresponsible and have sex prematurely or not use birth control is BS... the fact they are irresponsible is the exact reason we shouldn't want them as parents!!!!
I also think the guy arguing it has points, but I do agree he is sounding very racist about it (Africa is far from the countries contributing most to overpopulation so why is he focusing on that continent?).
But, I agree that Africa would do well to get the missionaries out that are teaching people contraceptives are evil (and I refuse to donate my money to any organization that will also end up preaching that to people there. I don't mind if they feed them though part of me feels that as cruel as it sounds if the land can't support them, it is nature's way. But, I also realize that a lot of that starving has nothign to do with the land not being able to support the population either!).
And why do we always focus on Africa? There is a lot of good that needs to be done in a lot of places. Shoot, one can do a lot of good just by volunteering somewhere locally. And some people (like me) feel that I'd rather my charity go towards helping endangered species (the human race gets enough people worrying about it and it's not anywhere close to being endangered. As a species we're overpopulated and I'd rather be saving an animal that is much more needed for its species to survive). Maybe that makes me cold, but I feel we don't have the right to just destroy other wildlife for our own selfish good (and as I said, I think plenty enough people worry about the humans, it's only natural to think of one's own species first. But some people have to worry about the other species too). And in the end, us being overpopulated is going to bite us in the butt... Nature isn't kind when it decides to do stuff about overpopulation (disease, famine, in fighting, etc). Shoot, right now in India there are superbugs being bred like crazy because of the overpopulated conditions and right climate.... already we are seeing effects... Personally I think it's in our own best interests to keep a reign on ourselves rather than wait for Nature to do it.
The best I can say is education and try to encourage people not to have more than two kids at most. I am doing my part and having 0 kids (if I ever want kids there are plenty of unwanted kids that need to be adopted. And I'm sorry, I don't believe no kid is unwanted. If that were true you wouldn't have abused kids, kids in foster homes needing adoption, etc.). And I am pro-abortion as well for those reasons (but I don't believe that the fetus is a person until it develops enough of a brain to regret loss of life. I'm not religious and I don't believe in a soul so it's easier for me to not be against abortion. If I thought abortion was murder, I'd be against it too). I just don't see why force some one to have a kid they don't want when we have too many people here already. It's far better than forcing them to have the kid and then the kid ending up either stuck in foster homes most of its childhood or abused/neglected by a parent who didn't want them. And the argument that it would cause people to be irresponsible and have sex prematurely or not use birth control is BS... the fact they are irresponsible is the exact reason we shouldn't want them as parents!!!!
I also think the guy arguing it has points, but I do agree he is sounding very racist about it (Africa is far from the countries contributing most to overpopulation so why is he focusing on that continent?).
But, I agree that Africa would do well to get the missionaries out that are teaching people contraceptives are evil (and I refuse to donate my money to any organization that will also end up preaching that to people there. I don't mind if they feed them though part of me feels that as cruel as it sounds if the land can't support them, it is nature's way. But, I also realize that a lot of that starving has nothign to do with the land not being able to support the population either!).
And why do we always focus on Africa? There is a lot of good that needs to be done in a lot of places. Shoot, one can do a lot of good just by volunteering somewhere locally. And some people (like me) feel that I'd rather my charity go towards helping endangered species (the human race gets enough people worrying about it and it's not anywhere close to being endangered. As a species we're overpopulated and I'd rather be saving an animal that is much more needed for its species to survive). Maybe that makes me cold, but I feel we don't have the right to just destroy other wildlife for our own selfish good (and as I said, I think plenty enough people worry about the humans, it's only natural to think of one's own species first. But some people have to worry about the other species too). And in the end, us being overpopulated is going to bite us in the butt... Nature isn't kind when it decides to do stuff about overpopulation (disease, famine, in fighting, etc). Shoot, right now in India there are superbugs being bred like crazy because of the overpopulated conditions and right climate.... already we are seeing effects... Personally I think it's in our own best interests to keep a reign on ourselves rather than wait for Nature to do it.
1.) The idea should always be educate, not exterminate. I agree that the catholic church is insane about contraception. They are hippocritical in every sense.
We need to teach these people about contraception and the like, and if we could somehow blame the church in the media for being part of the cause of the famine due to their beliefs that they are forcing upon these people, we could go a long way I think.
2.) Popular Science voted their to their 100 Best Innovations of 2010 list, an above ground plant cultivation system that grows plants in a pot in very dry conditions. These were made for places like Africa where famine is high. They actually can transform useless soil into fertile soil.
Perhaps all the donations people make should go to those, since food rations are one time use, where-as these pots (which are like $2 a piece I think) are re-usable and could really spark a growth in agriculture there.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/ga...oking-back-100-best-innovations-2010?image=46
Though if someone claims someone is a 'dbag' or some version names for horrible human, the burden of proof lies with them.
I definitely agree about the other species. Especially fish. If we run out of fish, which we are slated to do in our lifetimes, it could be HORRIBLE. Most of the world get their protein from fish, and it would be a scary situation if we were to run out. Think, then we would turn to ALL our protein for land animals, and it would be just a vicious cycle until we are completely out of meat-based food.
But I don't think it's necessarily nature's way. I'm Catholic, but not a crazy one, and I truly believe that God may have put the hardships on Africa to test us to see if we would help. Who really knows though, we all have our doubts about a higher being, even the crazy christians, they are just too afraid to admit it.
However we are not proving the existence of a physical thing, we are trying to argue a personality trait and everyone be definition has a personality.
Though if you want to go that way, it is a fallacy to assume a person has a particular personality. Unless proved otherwise one cannot claim a personality trait. SO the burden of proof lies with the party that is trying to claim a particular personality trait.
Except we are not arguing about unicorns we are arguing a personality trait. Everyone has a personality and it is up to you to prove the particular trait you are claiming. You are the one responsible for backing your claim.
Also note I haven't actually said that SJ isn't a D'Bag.
Last edited:
Seriously, that's not how it works. You're just rewording things. The logical semantics are all the same; you're still misplacing the burden of proof.
But HE is the one claiming SJ is a D'Bag. HE is the one who is trying to claim a personality trait. The burden of proof lies with the person asserting the claim.
- Principles of Logic
Last edited:
No. That's the implication. The burden of proof is on you for proving that SJ does give to charity. Giving to charity is the magical unicorn. You got distracted.
But it was the OP's opinion in the first place, so HE is the one responsible for backing it up, or proving that SJ is a D'Bag if he does not donate to Charity.