D Angelo Barksdale Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Through an investigation of more than 19,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation has made over the last two decades, The Nation has uncovered close to $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies—including some of the largest businesses in the world, such as GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, and NBC Universal Media—which are tasked with developing new drugs, improving sanitation in the developing world, developing financial products for Muslim consumers, and spreading the good news about this work. Naturally, Big Philanthropy has special interest groups pushing back on the creation of such rules. The Philanthropy Roundtable defends the wealthiest Americans’ “freedom to give,” describing itself as fighting the “increasing pressures from some public officials and advocacy groups to subject private philanthropies to more uniform standards and stricter government regulation.” At a certain point, however, the Philanthropy Roundtable seems primarily to serve the private interests of billionaires like the Gateses and Koch who use charity to influence public policy, with limited oversight and substantial public subsidies. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/ 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: You f**k off, and calm down while your at it. I only asked a question. Thank you. You asked a loaded question that insinuated you knew the answer, then told someone to do your research for you when questioned on it. Stick to reading about Bigfoot, serious stuff appears a bit too difficult for you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Quote Cherry picking, when used figuratively, refers to selective extraction of points in an argument in order to refute or affirm them while ignoring others which will not support the point(s) being made. It derives from the obvious reluctance to harvest unripe, or overripe, fruit and to select only those which will make profit (or pie). Often, cherry-picked factoids or references will be over-extrapolated and oversold to give the impression that they are representative, when they are not. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cherry_picking So the defence that someone has a "creepy interest" in population levels is to cherry pick a few donations that are publicly available then insinuate that these are part of a global conspiracy for power. Loaded with all the hall marks of conspiracy theories, no clear argument. Nothing refutable, just inferences about motivation based on (again) cherry picking. It will be good to see who falls for these logical fallacies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 30 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: Google it yourself. As the one making the claim, it's up to you to provide the evidence, mate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: Sir this is the conspiracy theories thread I’m well aware my friend, he presented a conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence or even a proper description of the theory itself, even going as far as abruptly telling someone asking for some to find it themselves. Not how it works, even in this thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Logging on to defend the billionaires. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, Detournement said: It's against some but not all forms of child labour..... The article didn't just float out the ether, it's obviously part of an editorial line. Given that Gates has a creepy and longstanding obsession with the size of Africa's population it seems ominious to me. Presumably the benefit of bankrolling the media is never being asked why an unelected, white, American businessman should have any input at all into African social policy? 1 hour ago, Detournement said: It's against some but not all forms of child labour..... The article didn't just float out the ether, it's obviously part of an editorial line. Given that Gates has a creepy and longstanding obsession with the size of Africa's population it seems ominious to me. Presumably the benefit of bankrolling the media is never being asked why an unelected, white, American businessman should have any input at all into African social policy? Gates gets Africa, Soros has Europe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Then why is he so interested in the population of Africa, birth rates and apparently child labour? None of it has anything to do with him. If it’s got nothing to do with him, it’s got nothing to do with you either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said: Through an investigation of more than 19,000 charitable grants the Gates Foundation has made over the last two decades, The Nation has uncovered close to $2 billion in tax-deductible charitable donations to private companies—including some of the largest businesses in the world, such as GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever, IBM, and NBC Universal Media—which are tasked with developing new drugs, improving sanitation in the developing world, developing financial products for Muslim consumers, and spreading the good news about this work. Naturally, Big Philanthropy has special interest groups pushing back on the creation of such rules. The Philanthropy Roundtable defends the wealthiest Americans’ “freedom to give,” describing itself as fighting the “increasing pressures from some public officials and advocacy groups to subject private philanthropies to more uniform standards and stricter government regulation.” At a certain point, however, the Philanthropy Roundtable seems primarily to serve the private interests of billionaires like the Gateses and Koch who use charity to influence public policy, with limited oversight and substantial public subsidies. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/bill-gates-foundation-philanthropy/ I'm not sure what's so wrong with him giving money to drug companies to develop drugs and vaccines for markets which wouldn't otherwise be profitable, in the most tax efficient way possible. I don't think I'm cheating mankind when I tick the gift tax box when I give a tenner to Oxfam. Edited November 12, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Brother Blades said: If it’s got nothing to do with him, it’s got nothing to do with you either. My position is that I want Africans to be freed from the forces of neocolonialism so that they are able to act in their own interests and benefit from the value of their own labour and natural resources. Edited November 12, 2020 by Detournement 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Quote Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem If people have what they view as a legitimate issue with someone, then they would be best starting a thread about that rather than using it as a deflection for a completely unsupported conspiracy theory on a thread with the title "Conspiracy Theories". Gates may be a horrible human being in many aspects of his life, or he may not be. That is irrelevant. But this does not support the claim he is spending money with some kind of malevolent ambitions towards Africans. 1 minute ago, Detournement said: My position is that I want Africans to be freed from the forces neocolonialism Vaccines are not neocolonialism. Again you are not even pretending to make sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 34 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Lots of people have legitimate concerns about population. You seem to think that because he's rich, by his nature anything he does must be evil. What legitimate concerns do you think someone like Bill Gates might have about the population of Africa? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Still with the evidence free leading questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, NotThePars said: What legitimate concerns do you think someone like Bill Gates might have about the population of Africa? Well for instance the population of sub Saharan Africa is set to double by 2050, while global warming is making larger parts infertile year by year. I don't get why he would be immune to concerns about that just because he's rich. What evil plans do you think he has for the people of Africa? Edited November 12, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, dorlomin said: So the defence that someone has a "creepy interest" in population levels is to cherry pick a few donations that are publicly available then insinuate that these are part of a global conspiracy for power It's not a conspiracy because it's completely in the open. The billionaires we are discussing use their foundations and other institutions to project political power globally. Edited November 12, 2020 by Detournement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Detournement said: It's not a conspiracy because it's completely in the open. Deflection from the first argument that there is some kind of "creepy" or malevolent interest in Africas population. "Given that Gates has a creepy and longstanding obsession with the size of Africa's population it seems ominious to me." No evidence that vaccines are "neocolonialism". "My position is that I want Africans to be freed from the forces of neocolonialism" No evidence that Gate's somehow believes Africans are not part of the solution to the continents problems "Believing Gates rather than Africans has the solutions to Africa's problems is a big old giveaway to some fairly noxious politics." All you have done is thrown in some emotive off topic subjects in the hope of obfuscating the fact you are talking out your arse. A couple have been pulled in, but its the usual suspects. You are just a Pound Shop Alex Jones. Edited. I think we are done here. Unless someone has something that looks like a coherent on topic argument back by some actual evidence. Edited November 12, 2020 by dorlomin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 Saying someone is a creep is a subjective thing. I think if you are overly interested in the reproductive systems of strangers then you are a creep. You obviously think it's fine. Fair enough. I don't think white Oligarchs should be deciding the population of Africa. You do. We have very different politics. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 2 hours ago, welshbairn said: Well for instance the population of sub Saharan Africa is set to double by 2050, while global warming is making larger parts infertile year by year. I don't get why he would be immune to concerns about that just because he's rich. What evil plans do you think he has for the people of Africa? I have no idea I just find it weird that people are really defensive about why an Epstein associate and largely unaccountable billionaire is allowed an almost unfiltered ability to influence world affairs as he sees fit. Maybe it's less about him having evil plans and more "huh, this insanely wealthy westerner shouldn't be allowed to have this much influence over African birth rates or anything in fact." It reeks of a feudal or colonial mindset especially when he's pretty much on the record as saying that he doesn't want to pay more tax because he believes he can spend his money better than governments can. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, NotThePars said: I have no idea I just find it weird that people are really defensive about why an Epstein associate and largely unaccountable billionaire is allowed an almost unfiltered ability to influence world affairs as he sees fit. Maybe it's less about him having evil plans and more "huh, this insanely wealthy westerner shouldn't be allowed to have this much influence over African birth rates or anything in fact." It reeks of a feudal or colonial mindset especially when he's pretty much on the record as saying that he doesn't want to pay more tax because he believes he can spend his money better than governments can. I'm not sure Trump would have made better use of his money. Trump, in order to keep his loony right to fifers on board, has banned US AID from funding any charity that advises or assists with birth control. If Gates is able to make up for the shortfall, well and good. I don't see what's really defensive at seeing nothing wrong with that, and I don't see what's creepy about other NGO's worrying about population either. The main opponents of his charity work seem to be antivaxxers and 5G hysterics who think he's planting microchips in vaccines for purposes unknown. I get it that you distrust rich people on principle, and anyone who defends them is suspect, but that's a strange bunch to get onside with. Edited November 12, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted November 12, 2020 Share Posted November 12, 2020 If people believe someone has done something that is morally or legally wrong they need to be clear what it is and provide well sourced evidence that supports the claim. Settle for insinuations, inferences and gut feel and pretty much you are here: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.