Ordo amoris, as explained by Vance, is a concept that you prioritize the needs of people closest to you (immediate family), then the next closest, etc. Obviously this is common sense and generally describes how reasonable people live their lives, so it is completely wrong for Trump to govern the country in the same way according to libs.
A lot of the discussion has centered around a foreign aid program called PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) started by Bush in 2003, also referred to as PREP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). Basically the program distributes HIV/AIDS meds to 20M+ people for about $6.5 billion and has been estimated to save 26M lives since its inception. This program is now cut off, probably permanently, since it was administered by USAID and that agency has been deleted by DOGE.
It's a pretty interesting issue, especially regarding Christian ethics, since it's a proxy for the entire African charity movement, but I think the answer is clear.
-
Ordo amoris: we don't adequately take care of the poor and needy in our own country, so we can't justify spending money on other countries.
-
USAID is a supervillainous agency that uses aid to force countries into globohomo and who knows what other purposes. USAID is made to hurt people, not help them. We need to wipe the slate clean.
-
Any soft power we get from PEPFAR seems nonexistent given China's Belt and Road incursion into Africa, among other things.
-
Love in the Bible is a concept that encompasses just leadership as well as kindness and help. This is why the Bible firmly defines "God is love" even though He visited all kinds of disasters on the Israelites and other nations. Allowing the consequences of their wrongdoing to fall on their heads, instead of aiding and abetting it, was an act of love. In the end it was better for them.
Would it be better for Africa to distribute free anti-STD drugs in the long run? The continent's population is skyrocketing at an unbelievable rate thanks to Western intervention, and they still can't take care of themselves. Is it better for Africa to host an exponentially growing population that will be unable to obtain food by themselves, let alone anything more meaningful?
Are Africans advancing when anti-STD drugs insulate them from practices like pouring sand in vaginas before sex and raping virgins to cure AIDS?
- one of the crucial tests of love in the Bible is the Golden Rule: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12
So if I was African and I had foresight of what was going to happen to Africa when the continent spikes into the multiple billions of people, would I want that to be done to my people? Probably not.
- also, as some people have noted, the previous verses illustrate God's love as such: "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" - Matthew 9:12
One might ask, "what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will tell him he already gave the bread to the Africans?"
I compared a doctor in Africa to another doctor in Africa, which is exactly what you said.
And you’re wrong again, the average doctor makes less than they did in 1990 despite caps on the amount of doctors. This is for 2 reasons, 1. Heavy regulations forced the death of private practices and forced primary doctors under umbrella corporations/ healthcare networks and 2. Multiple other healthcare titles began filling the void of primary doctors in certain roles, primarily PAs and NPs which has reduced demand for licensed doctors. Again, don’t make up shit about an industry you clearly have no understanding of.
Oh look James Lindsay! Sorry that your magical negroes haven’t built wakanda yet.
What the fuck do you think self-sufficiency means?! Not being able to maintain current population levels without outside interference is the fucking definition of not being self sufficient….
That makes your argument even more silly. A doctor in Africa and a doctor in Africa are not going to be sufficiently different for one to be better or worse than another within the standard deviation of doctors in Africa. That's why the word "foreign" is there. It denotes a non-African doctor.
But now you're saying a Nigerian doctor and a Sudanese doctor are going to be wildly different and the one that is foreign... (no idea who that is now) is going to be better.
At least with a non-African doctor we can make a clear distinction that their training would be superior, but you've just thrown that argument away.
For the purpose of African doctors in Africa, they aren't significantly worse or better than everyone else in their category.
I seriously doubt this is the case in both nominal and relative terms.
You were saying Africans themselves could not be self-sufficient. As in no African can feed themselves. As in: they can not eat. Certainly saying that someone can't replicate is also absurd.
African countries not being self sufficient isn't really relevant. No country on Earth is self-sufficient. You're thinking of an old Socialist concept called Autarkey. Hitler was a big proponent of it, so was Stalin. The reason it's an archaic concept is because no country can actually do that. Every country needs some trade for some thing.
And if you wanted to stick with African countries, the term "replicate" doesn't make any sense either.
The autistic sperging for the first part is completely redundant. A French doctor in Africa is paid immensely more than an African doctor in Africa. They are both in Africa, the main delineation is that African doctors are less qualified than American nurses.
You can doubt all you want. I just blew out your stupid argument twice and could write an entire dissertation on why you’re to retarded to even bring up American healthcare in relation to African healthcare.
They cannot. You just admitted to that you blithering retard. Losing population when you lose foreign aid is not being self sufficient. Quit trying to play retarded semantics on something you already admitted to just because you don’t know how to concede a point.
More retarded sperging that completely negates any reality. Africa is immensely laden with natural resources that are always extracted by other countries because Africa is too inept to utilize it. Cobalt has literally zero value to Africans because they’re too stupid to do anything with it.
It makes complete sense because they can’t replicate the successes of other countries on their own, the entire point of the term. You’re again doing the retarded sperging that leftists do when they lose an argument.
You should upload it to YouTube with some sort of thumbnail with a flaming dumpster on how you DESTROYED me. You will get all of the updoots.
I'm not the one sperging out, weirdo. You're just reframing all your arguments.