• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Zambia & US relations shatter over 15 year jail sentence to Gay couple. US threatens severing aid, Zambia says "We are willing to forfeit aid"

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
Tension between Zambia and the United States has deepened following the sentencing of a homosexual couple to 15 years in prison by a central district court.
Amid choice words being exchanged between the US ambassador to Zambia Daniel Foote and Zambia’s Foreign minister Joseph Malanji, the envoy described the relations between the two countries as “decaying.”
"Let us stop the facade that our governments enjoy ‘warm and cordial’ relations. The current government of Zambia wants foreign diplomats to be compliant, with open pocketbooks and closed mouths," Mr Foote said.
The sentencing of the couple, which Mr Foote called “harsh and barbaric”, appeared to be the trigger for undiplomatic release of frustrations including over access to President Edgar Lungu and implementation of a US-led reform of the country’s energy sector.

Mr Malanji said Lusaka had complained to Washington over what it viewed as the envoy’s interference in its internal affairs.
Amid threats of severance of ties by the US, President Lungu told Sky News that his government was ready to forfeit aid if it was tied to acceptance of homosexuality in a predominantly Christian nation.

Mr Foote appeared to threaten a US aid cut as he complained about corruption. "I hope the government of Zambia commits to improve its decaying relationship with the United States but that is a decision for it to make."

This guy said "They want to tie it to aid, well, if this is how they want to bring us aid then the west should just leave us alone."

"No amount of money will change our minds" i gotta say, this threatening aid thing has failed everytime they try it and it never works, mostly because it's not just the government but the people back the stance as well, so there's no way to do what they did in parts of Eastern Europe and try to play groups against each other.

To be honest there's been a rise in Africans moving away from the west as the continent IS finally defying the UN and breaking old colonial laws making it for the countries within the continent to do business with each other easier, and fixing the visas so you don't have to fly out of the continent and back in WHILE getting a new Visa everytime you want to go to a different country, even if it's next door, among other policies. With these countries able to trade among themselves there will soon not be a reason to have to rely on western aid as countries can hire other countries men to built or open shops or increase their currency (though the IMF and world bank can and have screwed up currency in the past so.)

Also it seems Trump has a problem controlling his diplomats because he wouldn't have allowed something like this where the ambassador steps out of line and can help influence aid, he needs more control.

Anyway, this happens all the time, Ghana had many people killed in 2012 when Britain with Obama support cut off Ghana projects because they wouldn't accept it into law and they eventually managed to fix the infrastructure and water issues themselves due to other nearby countries, but now in 2019 there are so many alternate routes I'd have to say the west must be committing suicide on international relation at this point.

Not to mention they have done this so many times we are at the point where insanity applies. Especially looking at South Africa, the most gay friendly country on the continent, and how it's falling apart in governance but in society itself. There's basically zero reason for an African country to give up and follow demands from the west in 2019.

I feel that Trump is likely not aware of this however, he might have told Foote and those around him to sit down since he doesn't want china to gain more ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrRogers

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
29,181
5,306
1,285
I think the US need to stay out of other countries business especially when it comes to morality.
Sure but we also shouldn't give aid to countries fundamentally opposed to our views.

If Saudi Arabia can let women drive, African countries can tolerate homosexual couples without imprisonment. These are simply basic human rights that go beyond cultural differences.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
Sure but we also shouldn't give aid to countries fundamentally opposed to our views.

If Saudi Arabia can let women drive, African countries can tolerate homosexual couples without imprisonment. These are simply basic human rights that go beyond cultural differences.
Not only is this a dumb comparison, but there's also some weird idea that you and some others have where America is in consensus on the issue of Homosexuality, when it's not. Also why are they targeting Zambia and not Nigeria, Ethiopia, or several other countries that the US is basically "begging" to be let into the markets of? This seems more like some kind of agenda to try and screw over Zambia if anything.

But anyway Zambia is not "fundamentally opposed to our views" who's views? MSNBC's? Reseteras? There are many people here in the US that don't support the lifestyle or the media propaganda promoting it and think it's going crazy over here. If you had said that "they shouldn't be given 15 years in jail" you'd have a better and more sane argument than generalizing the whole country that's currently has half in backlash against the other half of the country for having drag queens read books to kids, and giving LGBT preferential treatment and laws shutting down criticism and free speech.

Meanwhile US doubled aid to Tanzania a place that actually kills gays multiple times a day and nobody is screaming about it because then they would be called bigots for insulting Islam.

See how all this SJW nonsense just collapses in on itself? But guys we should let africans starve because they placed people in jail that we would have never cared about otherwise.
 

johntown

Member
Dec 27, 2010
2,344
695
660
East Coast
[/QUOTE]
Sure but we also shouldn't give aid to countries fundamentally opposed to our views.

If Saudi Arabia can let women drive, African countries can tolerate homosexual couples without imprisonment. These are simply basic human rights that go beyond cultural differences.
We give aid to Saudi Arabia and they impose the death penalty for homosexuality so I am not sure your argument there holds up (using Saudi Arabia).

Your opinion is they are basic human rights but I disagree and the majority of the world disagrees on that too. Sexual deviancy is not a basic human right.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
29,181
5,306
1,285
Not only is this a dumb comparison, but there's also some weird idea that you and some others have where America is in consensus on the issue of Homosexuality, when it's not.
Pretty sure Americans are in wide consensus that gays shouldn't be jailed for being gay. Thats what we're talking about, not drag queens in classrooms.

But anyway Zambia is not "fundamentally opposed to our views" who's views? MSNBC's? Reseteras?
The Civil Rights Acts? Fourteenth Amendment? The Declaration of Independence itself which states that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights? If you jail people for being gay you are fundamentally opposed to America's views.

Meanwhile US doubled aid to Tanzania a place that actually kills gays multiple times a day and nobody is screaming about it because then they would be called bigots for insulting Islam.
We give aid to Saudi Arabia and they impose the death penalty for homosexuality so I am not sure your argument there holds up (using Saudi Arabia).

Your opinion is they are basic human rights but I disagree and the majority of the world disagrees on that too. Sexual deviancy is not a basic human right.
My point was that if even a hardcore theocracy like Saudi Arabia can embrace modern values so can Zambia. There are many countries I wish we didn't trade with, but alas, every day the average American engages in some way with dystopian China, corrupt Mexico, backwards Saudi Arabia, e.t.c. either voluntarily through products or involuntarily through our tax dollars. We at least try to limit those relationships to strategic trade/military contexts. Charity is a different story. Foreign aid is totally done at our discretion.

Being gay is not sexual deviancy by the way.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,389
7,170
880
Being gay is not sexual deviancy by the way.
It is deviancy, but deviancy isn't bad. It just isn't normal. Normal is heterosexual vanilla sex. That is like 90% of the sex that goes on around the world. Anything that isn't vanilla hetero sex, is by definition deviant.
 

johntown

Member
Dec 27, 2010
2,344
695
660
East Coast
My point was that if even a hardcore theocracy like Saudi Arabia can embrace modern values so can Zambia. There are many countries I wish we didn't trade with, but alas, every day the average American engages in some way with dystopian China, corrupt Mexico, backwards Saudi Arabia, e.t.c. either voluntarily through products or involuntarily through our tax dollars. We at least try to limit those relationships to strategic trade/military contexts. Charity is a different story. Foreign aid is totally done at our discretion.

Being gay is not sexual deviancy by the way.
Have you looked up the definition if deviancy? Here https://www.thefreedictionary.com/deviancy

That is exactly what it is. This is not being cruel or mean either it just means differing from the norms of society. The majority of the world agrees with this and does not support homosexuality.

I do agree in principal that aid should be cutoff to many countries.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
Pretty sure Americans are in wide consensus that gays shouldn't be jailed for being gay. Thats what we're talking about, not drag queens in classrooms.
Deflection, why do you think the Africans are putting them in jail? Because of the activities and aggressive advocations tactics backed by foreigners. Some of the most dangerous countries (that actually kill them not put them in jail) didn't like them but weren't actively sending swat teams after them until their country was wrecked by sanctions and cut aid.

The rest of your posts can apply to other groups you DON'T agree are backed by tho policies you cited, also using the civil rights act is dumb and doesn't help the current domestic issue of trans killing in the US by doing so, you'd think you guys would have learned to separate the civil rights movement from the LGBT by now but nope. Keep doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A Regular Guy

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,945
3,807
400
To put this in to perspective; this aid is to help poor, hungry people and the US are wilfully allowing (potentially) people to die of starvation because Zambia stick to their own beliefs and views over homosexuality? A topic which is subjective, not objective, with no proof who is right or wrong?

Really? Accept homosexuality or starve to death?

This makes British colonial rule of Africa look like a day at Disney land.

Zambia want Aid, not Aids.
 
Last edited:

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,682
4,311
1,640
In an interview with Sky News, Mr Lungu mounted a combative defence of Zambia's homosexuality laws.

"Even animals don't do it, so why should we be forced to do it?... because we want to be seen to be smart, civilised and advanced and so on," he said.
I see that Mr. Lungu doesn't even know what he is talking about.

You want to see some gay stuff? Observe giraffe's in the wild.

He lives in Zambia, they are in his backyard.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
2,236
1,663
460
deaftourette.com
To put this in to perspective; this aid is to help poor, hungry people and the US are wilfully allowing (potentially) people to die of starvation because they stick to their own beliefs and views over homosexuality? A topic which is subjective, not objective, with no proof who is right or wrong?

Really? Accept homosexuality or starve to death?

This makes British colonial rule of Africa look like a day at Disney land.

Zambia want Aid, not Aids.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
I see that Mr. Lungu doesn't even know what he is talking about.

You want to see some gay stuff? Observe giraffe's in the wild.

He lives in Zambia, they are in his backyard.
Giraffes don't display homosexuality, they have animal impulses that can be manipulated like any other beast,t hey aren't intentionally attracted and seeking out the same sex, this is why a lot of gay advocacy groups are moving away from the animal stance because it's dumb to apply terms to things and change the meanings to push an agenda.

Like there's a tradition for one type of racoon-like beat where as they grow older they may masturbate other males to get them ready for women, and then they go and seek out females, and yes advocate sites have said that's homosexual, even though it's not by definition. Yes, most other creatures wouldn't do that, but if those beats could understand English and you accused them of "intentionally" be attracted to the same sex they would maul you on the spot.

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonest.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,132
390
1,015
To put this in to perspective; this aid is to help poor, hungry people and the US are wilfully allowing (potentially) people to die of starvation because they stick to their own beliefs and views over homosexuality? A topic which is subjective, not objective, with no proof who is right or wrong?

Really? Accept homosexuality or starve to death?

This makes British colonial rule of Africa look like a day at Disney land.

Zambia want Aid, not Aids.
You're not wrong, but it's still not the best argument.

Tons of morality concerns are subjective, rather than objective. If that's the stance to take, then the US should essentially Zambia no matter what.
Owning slaves is a subjective issue too. Abortion, murder, torture, etc. Pretty much anything 'right' or 'wrong' is a subjective issue.

If the United States is standing up for the belief that all people are created equal - which they should, IMO - then this is a perfectly logical stance to take. Giving/receiving aid is a privilege, not a right.

Though, again, you're not wrong. It's just a shitty situation all around.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,945
3,807
400
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you.
Why?

You're not wrong, but it's still not the best argument.

Tons of morality concerns are subjective, rather than objective. If that's the stance to take, then the US should essentially Zambia no matter what.
Owning slaves is a subjective issue too. Abortion, murder, torture, etc. Pretty much anything 'right' or 'wrong' is a subjective issue.

If the United States is standing up for the belief that all people are created equal - which they should, IMO - then this is a perfectly logical stance to take. Giving/receiving aid is a privilege, not a right.

Though, again, you're not wrong. It's just a shitty situation all around.
I agree, to an extent. If these actions were taking place inside a nations' own boundaries, then yes, a government stepping in for the good of the people is admirable.

In this situation though, a foreign power is telling a nation how to act and what to believe in. If the shoe was on the other foot, it wouldn't go down so well.

On top of that, you have The US morally standing up for the rights of homosexuals, at the cost of people of all sexuality, potentially, going hungry or starving. While i don't believe that the US are, it could be seen as selective bullying. The perception being that homosexuals have more freedom and more right than other peoples of that foreign nation.

Maybe the US should encourage and offer a different solution and allow Zambia to figure it out for itself? Just as the west did only 20 years ago.

Though, as you say, it is a shitty situation.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,132
390
1,015
If the shoe was on the other foot, it wouldn't go down so well.
This is the crux of it, yeah. It's why I tend to believe that selective-aid is a bit of a mistake to begin with. It pretty much just begs for choosing favorites, which is bound to piss others off.
But at the same time, without aid, a whole ton of people are going to die.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't...


What does it mean "created equal", do you think?
I'm not following your question, I think.

I interpret it to mean that all people are born as equals, and deserve the same rights. The original 'All men are created equal' is a bit outdated and open for abuse, but the intent is still good.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,682
4,311
1,640
Deflection, why do you think the Africans are putting them in jail? Because of the activities and aggressive advocations tactics backed by foreigners. Some of the most dangerous countries (that actually kill them not put them in jail) didn't like them but weren't actively sending swat teams after them until their country was wrecked by sanctions and cut aid.

The rest of your posts can apply to other groups you DON'T agree are backed by tho policies you cited, also using the civil rights act is dumb and doesn't help the current domestic issue of trans killing in the US by doing so, you'd think you guys would have learned to separate the civil rights movement from the LGBT by now but nope. Keep doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over.
So you are saying they are only putting them in jail as revenge for some avocation tactics? That's the opposite of justice. You are literally saying they are going after their own citizens for something because of activities of an outside group.

You know what's even dumber? The anti-homosexuality laws are from the British Colonial era. At the end of the day they aren't enforcing an African law, but a law enforced when their whole country was under control by a European Empire. A law that they are too regressive to get rid of. Where is the national pride in that? Having a law that sentences people to 15 YEARS for consensual sexual relations in private. These are the "Zambian social and cultural values" that Lungu is talking about? Old British laws? Zambia is mad because Foote pointed out the 15 year jail is ridiculous when you look at the sentencing for poachers and the general corruption within that country.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,682
4,311
1,640
Giraffes don't display homosexuality, they have animal impulses that can be manipulated like any other beast,t hey aren't intentionally attracted and seeking out the same sex
They seek out another male giraffe to duel, spoon with them, and then have sex.

They live mostly in sex segregated communities. In the wild they have been recorded as mounting another male as much as 94% of the time. At the very least, depending on the time and giraffe community studied, you are going to have at least 30-75% same sex activities among the giraffes.

After a duel, it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other. Such interactions between males have been found to be more frequent than heterosexual coupling. In one study, up to 94 percent of observed mounting incidents took place between males. The proportion of same-sex activities varied from 30–75 percent. Only one percent of same-sex mounting incidents occurred between females.

They are gay.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,997
5,105
800
Sure but we also shouldn't give aid to countries fundamentally opposed to our views.

If Saudi Arabia can let women drive, African countries can tolerate homosexual couples without imprisonment. These are simply basic human rights that go beyond cultural differences.
I fully agree. And I hope we also agree that we shouldn't give aid out when there's an appearance of that aid possibly being returned to one US politician's kid as well.
 

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,688
2,775
1,285
USA
I'm not following your question, I think.

I interpret it to mean that all people are born as equals, and deserve the same rights. The original 'All men are created equal' is a bit outdated and open for abuse, but the intent is still good.
Were the rights enumerated? I think that there were three, I cannot remember. Life, liberty, and property?

Which one does gay-marriage fall under?
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,132
390
1,015
Were the rights enumerated? I think that there were three, I cannot remember. Life, liberty, and property?

Which one does gay-marriage fall under?
"Pursuit of happiness" is the third one. "Property" is from a different document.


Marriage would be under the liberty section; and arguably the third, as well.
Marriage doesn't hurt or impede anybody, which makes it a facet of liberty.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,682
4,311
1,640
Were the rights enumerated? I think that there were three, I cannot remember. Life, liberty, and property?

Which one does gay-marriage fall under?
Depends on where your view of rights coincides with Liberty. The basic Merriam Dictionary definition for Liberty is
the quality or state of being free. the power to do as one pleases

Jailing someone for private consensual sex acts with another adult would be against the notion of Liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,688
2,775
1,285
USA
Immortal_Daemon Immortal_Daemon and Trojita Trojita , I'll go ahead and address you both. My next item was for a definition of terms. Merriam Webster can go ahead a soak their collective heads if that is their definition of liberty. "Free to do as one pleases"? What if it pleases me to steal? Are there no limits on my pleasures? That definition will never do to make a proper case.

Let us agree that liberty, in the founders' context, juxtaposes with unwilling servitude. For example, the Jews were liberated from concentration camps at the end of World War II. Taxation against the colonies was a means to subject them to servitude to the King. A King was believed to be a mouthpiece, if not a direct line, to God himself.

Does this satisfy you both on a better definition? If not, I am willing to hear arguments.
 
Dec 22, 2007
4,132
390
1,015
Immortal_Daemon Immortal_Daemon and Trojita Trojita , I'll go ahead and address you both. My next item was for a definition of terms. Merriam Webster can go ahead a soak their collective heads if that is their definition of liberty. "Free to do as one pleases"? What if it pleases me to steal? Are there no limits on my pleasures? That definition will never do to make a proper case.

Let us agree that liberty, in the founders' context, juxtaposes with unwilling servitude. For example, the Jews were liberated from concentration camps at the end of World War II. Taxation against the colonies was a means to subject them to servitude to the King. A King was believed to be a mouthpiece, if not a direct line, to God himself.

Does this satisfy you both on a better definition? If not, I am willing to hear arguments.
As I said before, I think the current verbiage of the Declaration of Independence is open to some abusive interpretation. Using "all men" is inherently a problem; and using "created" is also a problem regarding religion.

I would hesitate to claim an authority on a definition, since I'm sure somebody could find a loophole. My general understanding of the term "liberty," though, is essentially 'Freedom to do as one pleases, provided it does not cause harm to anything else.'
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
They seek out another male giraffe to duel, spoon with them, and then have sex.

They live mostly in sex segregated communities. In the wild they have been recorded as mounting another male as much as 94% of the time. At the very least, depending on the time and giraffe community studied, you are going to have at least 30-75% same sex activities among the giraffes.


They are gay.
Same Sex activities don't mean your homosexual, that's not what homosexual means, I know there's a lot of desperation for it but there has to be an "intentional" act, if a bug for example is confused due to pheromones or a beat is impulsive, or there are certain customs that humans will perceive as sexual from our own definition, that doesn't mean the activities that allow are gay, unless you make the definition vague or change it which is what you guys like doing anyway. Even with this spin 99% of animals don't do anything that can even be confused for homosexuality so the statement is not inaccurate from the President of Zambia, just spin tactics and definition changes or vagueness.

Not to mention animals aren't the best guides to how to live human life most of the time.

You know what's even dumber? The anti-homosexuality laws are from the British Colonial era.
That is not accurate for many countries, some where non-existent than put in by the Africans, some are new, hence the backlash, but the media has convinced people like you that have poor critical thinking skills that somehow it's white peoples fault Africa is still resistant to something that provides no benefit and only worsens issues based on the few countries that actually do just let everyone do whatever.

Some of the "colonizes or protectorates "which technically aren't colonies" but the media loves semiconducting the public, didn't even have anti-lgbt laws. The thing is everyone looks at this from a media lens so they don't ever really understand why there's an issue so they blame christians despite that being their before the colonists and non-religious africans backing the same things outside some small tribes, they blame white people, they blame the Africans, never really trying to understand the source of the problem. What's funny is no one is blaming white people or christians for the other ex-colonies outside of Africa, only Africa.
 

Mohonky

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,434
984
1,285
I think the US need to stay out of other countries business especially when it comes to morality.
Yeh gonna disagree.


Human rights should be enforced. Cutting off aid or applying sanctions are just the passive way of trying to pull countries into line.

Locking people up for a crime that hurts noone is ridiculous.
 

Stiflers Mom

Member
Apr 27, 2012
3,187
857
840
Like there's a tradition for one type of racoon-like beat where as they grow older they may masturbate other males to get them ready for women, and then they go and seek out females,
ITT where I learned male raccoons jerk each other off to get horny for women.
Enough internet for today...
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,649
3,576
520
Moore Park Beach
So if you give your friend a blowjob so he can last longer when he goes back to his girl, that does not make you gay?
Sorry, but no, if you suck of your pal, regardless of reason, you are probably gay.

"You are not gay just because you give your mate a blowjob."
Thats the argument ?
 

johntown

Member
Dec 27, 2010
2,344
695
660
East Coast
Yeh gonna disagree.


Human rights should be enforced. Cutting off aid or applying sanctions are just the passive way of trying to pull countries into line.

Locking people up for a crime that hurts noone is ridiculous.
In the US I completely support people being able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes whether I agree with it or not. I do not agree with forcing controversial views on others anywhere. It is doubtful we will find any common ground here though as I disagree with the core of your argument. You believe being gay is a human right and I completely disagree.

What I do believe in is sovereignty of others nations whether I agree with them or not.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,985
16,113
855
To put this in to perspective; this aid is to help poor, hungry people and the US are wilfully allowing (potentially) people to die of starvation because Zambia stick to their own beliefs and views over homosexuality? A topic which is subjective, not objective, with no proof who is right or wrong?

Really? Accept homosexuality or starve to death?

This makes British colonial rule of Africa look like a day at Disney land.

Zambia want Aid, not Aids.
I reject the notion that if I give you a fish today, I am morally responsible if you die of starvation tommorrow. 'Willfully allowing'? You seem to treat our existing amount of aid as a standard from which we can not waiver, and anything less leaves us morally responsible for atrocity. That does not seem just. No foreign aid is the standard, and any aid for such causes is debatedly a moral good [in some cases we only line the pockets of the unjust].

Some googling found this:

The development context in Zambia is changing and aid now accounts for only about 2.9% of the 2015 budget resources, down from 15% in 2010.
I know nothing about Zambia, etc. I speak only from an ethical perspective. But a reduction in budget of 2.9% should not cause mass starvation. And that's all aid put together. While I think aid can be a moral good, i do not think aid should ever be considered an obligation.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
So if you give your friend a blowjob so he can last longer when he goes back to his girl, that does not make you gay?
I see you're too stupid to know that humans and animals that don't have critical thinking aren't the same thing. The animals are not intentionally doing stuff because they are attracted to the "Same sex" that's not how it works, the LGBT are moving from that old argument for a reason, and this is the group that usually likes making the same mistakes over and over so that should tell you something.

A dog in heat that can barely concentrate and focus ramping up a male dog does not make said dog "homosexual" if a Human did it, it would be because unless they were on mind control drugs and rapid while having their brain shut off, they did it with some intention and knew what they were doing. Conscious decisions are what you guys omit here to spread the false agenda which is already backfiring, how much do you guys want to add to the suicide bracket? You are already heading toward 60%, oh wait it's bullying right? lol.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: johntown

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
I reject the notion that if I give you a fish today, I am morally responsible if you die of starvation tommorrow. 'Willfully allowing'? You seem to treat our existing amount of aid as a standard from which we can not waiver, and anything less leaves us morally responsible for atrocity. That does not seem just. No foreign aid is the standard, and any aid for such causes is debatedly a moral good [in some cases we only line the pockets of the unjust].

Some googling found this:



I know nothing about Zambia, etc. I speak only from an ethical perspective. But a reduction in budget of 2.9% should not cause mass starvation. And that's all aid put together. While I think aid can be a moral good, i do not think aid should ever be considered an obligation.
The thing is a lot of aid is dropping because old colonial laws and UN defying is allowing many countries to remove trade barriers among themselves and make it easier to travel across the continent which currently for much of it requires getting a new visa for every country you want to visit and flying out of the continent and back in. Add China and there's basically less reason to be intimidated by aid, so the French are just going in and shooting people and causing wars now, but that's no longer working because a bunch of west African countries plan to ditch Frances currency for a new one, and move their reserves from France to Senegal,which France does not want because they get billions from controlling their currency.

Expect to see Africa in the news more as people desperately try to slow down integration and domestic trade and travel agreements. Or for the World Bank to tank countries economies.

As of now though a state like Zambia isn't really going to be hurt that badly without US aid, especially since this move would likely get them Domestic support and China or Russia can just walk right in to offer something IF they need that 2.9% which they may not.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,985
16,113
855
The thing is a lot of aid is dropping because old colonial laws and UN defying is allowing many countries to remove trade barriers among themselves and make it easier to travel across the continent which currently for much of it requires getting a new visa for every country you want to visit and flying out of the continent and back in. Add China and there's basically less reason to be intimidated by aid, so the French are just going in and shooting people and causing wars now, but that's no longer working because a bunch of west African countries plan to ditch Frances currency for a new one, and move their reserves from France to Senegal,which France does not want because they get billions from controlling their currency.

Expect to see Africa in the news more as people desperately try to slow down integration and domestic trade and travel agreements. Or for the World Bank to tank countries economies.

As of now though a state like Zambia isn't really going to be hurt that badly without US aid, especially since this move would likely get them Domestic support and China or Russia can just walk right in to offer something IF they need that 2.9% which they may not.
Not disagreement, just food for thought:

2009:


2018:


According to Chinese investment statistics, overseas ventures in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries soared from $300 million in 2009 to $3.3 billion in 2016. But these totals understate the magnitude of Chinese agricultural-focused foreign assets because the statistics exclude the acquisition of food processing and trading companies classified in manufacturing and service sectors. A more complete count issued by China’s Ministry of Agriculture said the country had over 1,300 agricultural, forestry, and fisheries enterprises with registered overseas investments of $26 billion, at the end of 2016.
Random thoughts:

1] Having the Chinese regime buying up the world's agriculture and food sources scares the ever living fuck out of me. Mao's Great Famine, anyone?

What happens if Africa experiences another drought/famine, but China exports the food? Or let's not even take it there... at what point does Africa become a colony of one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet?

2] not just agriculture


The scale of China’s expansion in Africa is just a mind blowing. In less than 10 years since Chinese authorities called for mineral resources diversification globally, the number of major mining/mineral processing assets in Africa with China-headquartered companies interest, increased from only a handful in 2006 to more than one hundred and twenty in 2015 (

3] this is above our paygrade, to some degree. We can even link Ukraine.


As overseas investments go, this one is pretty huge. China is buying up to 3 million hectares of farmland in Ukraine, an area the size of Belgium. Two state-owned firms will take over the land in the eastern Dniepropetrovsk region to grow crops and raise pigs for consumption back home.
...

So... aid to Zambia?

2018:


The respected Africa Confidential has revealed that talks are underway for a Chinese company to takeover power utility ZESCO. And Africa Confidential has warned that Zambia risks losing its sovereignty to China as that country will seize national assets once government defaults on loans.
“A major worry of the IMF and US is that China’s BRI strategy is first to encourage indebtedness, and then to take over strategic national assets when debtors default on repayments.
The state electricity company Zesco is already in talks about a takeover by a Chinese company, AC has learned. The state-owned TV and radio news channel ZNBC is already Chinese-owned. The long-term outcome could be effective Chinese ownership of the commanding heights of the economy and potentially the biggest loss of national sovereignty since independence,” the report read.

He identifies China as a major corrupting influence and peddler in Zambian politics, a view shared by others who have worked in the country in election monitoring. “The Chinese choose their candidates and support them in any way necessary,” said one South African familiar with technologically safeguarding the election process in Zambia and other African nations.
First, infrastructure. Like European colonialists before them, the Chinese are building infrastructure to support their primary aim of extracting and exporting Zambia’s rich mineral resources, particularly from the Copperbelt region.
Second, “small-scale” Chinese entrepreneurs. The local economy is being undermined, and Zambian nationals displaced, by Chinese entrepreneurs who, by the thousands, are allowed unfettered immigration into Zambia.
Third, property purchases. Uncontrolled Chinese immigration is also bringing a wave of property and farm purchases that give buyers a foothold in Zambia for generations to come.
Fourth, illegal activities. Chinese nationals have been arrested for unlicensed mining and smelting activities, and the use of children in the labor force.
Siulapwa defines Zambia’s position with China as no longer a “partnership”, but “economic slavery.”
--------------

So my question, i guess, is this: if China is taking such a dominant role in Zambia.... why are we giving Zambia aid again?

Or perhaps, maybe that isn't the question I'm asking. Maybe I'm just sitting here, screaming about the giant Red elephant in the room. It's impossible for me to be so well versed on Zambian issues that I know much about this specific instance of aid, or the ramifications in either direction. But i can look at what appears to be the bigger picture, and can't help but wonder if we're having the wrong conversation.
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,945
3,807
400
I reject the notion that if I give you a fish today, I am morally responsible if you die of starvation tommorrow. 'Willfully allowing'? You seem to treat our existing amount of aid as a standard from which we can not waiver, and anything less leaves us morally responsible for atrocity. That does not seem just. No foreign aid is the standard, and any aid for such causes is debatedly a moral good [in some cases we only line the pockets of the unjust].

Some googling found this:



I know nothing about Zambia, etc. I speak only from an ethical perspective. But a reduction in budget of 2.9% should not cause mass starvation. And that's all aid put together. While I think aid can be a moral good, i do not think aid should ever be considered an obligation.
In normal circumstances, your rejection of that notion would be correct.

In this case though, the removal of aid is because Zambians won't waiver their views and rights over homosexuality due to their religion.

In the context of a the big picture this is a very slippery slope for the right/conservatives. There is nothing separating the morals of the Zambian situation and the bakery that refused to make gay wedding cakes. Do you remember which side each political party took?

Not to go off on too much of a tangent I would just like to clear something up; This is another subject that the upper echelons are trying to get both sides of the political divide to agree on. Black face was another example, where the left saw it as wrong and the right saw it as no big deal. As soon as Trudeau wore blackface the right were all over him, now blackface is socially and politically wrong on both sides of the spectrum.

How can Trump/conservatives make a fuss over a bakery having their rights inflicted because of their religious values, while preaching to a foreign nation about the exact same situation?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,323
3,592
1,010
Not disagreement, just food for thought:

2009:


2018:




Random thoughts:

1] Having the Chinese regime buying up the world's agriculture and food sources scares the ever living fuck out of me. Mao's Great Famine, anyone?

What happens if Africa experiences another drought/famine, but China exports the food? Or let's not even take it there... at what point does Africa become a colony of one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet?

2] not just agriculture





3] this is above our paygrade, to some degree. We can even link Ukraine.




...

So... aid to Zambia?

2018:





















--------------

So my question, i guess, is this: if China is taking such a dominant role in Zambia.... why are we giving Zambia aid again?

Or perhaps, maybe that isn't the question I'm asking. Maybe I'm just sitting here, screaming about the giant Red elephant in the room. It's impossible for me to be so well versed on Zambian issues that I know much about this specific instance of aid, or the ramifications in either direction. But i can look at what appears to be the bigger picture, and can't help but wonder if we're having the wrong conversation.
A few things.

One is that this may not be as bad as you're claiming, most African countries aren't part of chinas program and some that are are leaving, and some are accusing the Chinese of screwing over deals so if they come to assets they will fight them. However, there are some countries that do import food and do have Chinese control over the nation which is pretty bad. Chinas moving to control this countries so they don't get the benefits that domestic integration is starting to give many countries on the continent.

With that said, China shouldn't be in the positions they are in on the continent and it should be dealt with because it's clearly a set-up for the countries involved into their program that don't have strong militaries or over depend on their help.

This does bring up the question as to what the US aid is actually for if Zambia can just casually deny the aid. The diplomat had to think the aid was for something significant to use it as a threat, so that means either China or neighbors, or both do enough to cover the difference based on the response by the Zambian president.
 
May 22, 2018
5,887
5,813
650
In the US I completely support people being able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes whether I agree with it or not. I do not agree with forcing controversial views on others anywhere. It is doubtful we will find any common ground here though as I disagree with the core of your argument. You believe being gay is a human right and I completely disagree.

What I do believe in is sovereignty of others nations whether I agree with them or not.
So if being gay isn't a human right in your opinion then what would you catagorize it as?
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,985
16,113
855
There is nothing separating the morals of the Zambian situation and the bakery that refused to make gay wedding cakes. Do you remember which side each political party took?
Incorrect.

In both cases, X has no right to the fruits of my labor.

Zambia has no moral right to the aid [money, labor] of American taxpayers.

A customer has no moral right to force me to bake a custom cake with a custom message I disagree with.


Not to go off on too much of a tangent I would just like to clear something up; This is another subject that the upper echelons are trying to get both sides of the political divide to agree on. Black face was another example, where the left saw it as wrong and the right saw it as no big deal. As soon as Trudeau wore blackface the right were all over him, now blackface is socially and politically wrong on both sides of the spectrum.
Also incorrect. The right has no issue with blackface specifically, they take issue with hypocrisy. Trudeau wasn't getting slammed by the right for wearing blackface, he was getting slammed by the right for being a hypocritical piece of shit. The right is sick of this endless hypocritical bullshit where the left endlessly tries to ruin [cancel] some transgressors, but gives a pass to people like Trudeau. Or the lonnnng list of other people on the left in blackface who have not been cancelled.

And calling out this hypocrisy does not mean the right want these people cancelled. That is incorrect, leftist interpretation of the argument by people incapable of understanding the right's position. The right doesn't want Trudeau cancelled, or Sarah Silverman canceled, or anyone else. They might point out the hypocrisy, or laugh when the left eats itself, but the core principle is free speech and they do not care about what you said 10 years ago, but your deeds and actions today.

The problem is, the left hears these complaints and, seemingly incapable of understanding this perspective, think the right supports cancel culture too.

How can Trump/conservatives make a fuss over a bakery having their rights inflicted because of their religious values, while preaching to a foreign nation about the exact same situation?
Because you are framing it wrong. It is not the exact same situation. A similar moral issue is involved [homosexuality], but beyond that, the situation is nothing alike. See my first paragraph. In both cases, the principle that you have no right to my labor stands tall.
 

johntown

Member
Dec 27, 2010
2,344
695
660
East Coast