I think they are actually saying "Killing one lion is completely insignificant compared to the real issues Zimbabwe faces (thanks to the disastrous policies of the Mugabe government). So much publicity and so many tears in the US, yet virtually no public concern and tears for the complete meltdown of the country over the last 15 years."
You don't need to do or interfere with anything. It's about how much public attention and coverage it's getting. One furry lion being killed trumps the misery and suffering of millions.
Imagine a world where the US economy is reduced to ashes and people are starving in the streets of New York, and the rest of the world is only outraged by somebody shooting a specific moose in Alaska.
First off, you should be ashamed at how ridiculous that analogy is. I'm going to assume you understand that it's completely and utterly inaccurate and irrelevant to this conversation.
Secondly, suffering happens everywhere every day. Are the American people supposed to maintain a constant level of outrage about every single instance of suffering?
I wrote a reply to this, but you know what? No. Just no. You are clearly incapable of taking part in this conversation so just leave me alone. Your level of discourse is more suited for Reddit. Maybe check it out sometime.
I read your original reply before you deleted it, which made it clear that you had misread my post, in particular you missed the word "economy" in "...where the US economy is reduced to ashes...". Reduced to ashes is a (rather common) reference to the Zimbabwean economy not an actual fire.
I'm too low on caffeine and sleep right now to absolutely decide if the second one is Ignoratio elenchi or Illicit major. It could be an example of both arguments at the same time. I think the illicit major argument is stronger as in more closely targetted whereas the ignoratio elenchi argument is broader so the Illicit major argument fits "tighter" which makes it more accurately descriptive. On the other hand he's clearly leading at a I.M. attack but he definitely did a I.E. attack so ... Maybe the right way to phrase it is "it is an I.E. logical fallacy attack that appears to be intended as a I.M. logical fallacy attack".
I've toyed with the idea of tags for social discussion sites that include individual logical fallacies as tags. You know, like venerable ole slashdot and "+1 informative" it would be interesting (for a startup?) to have a social media discussion tagset of the usual logical fallacy arguments, so people can +1 or -1 depending on their personal tastes. I tolerate I.E. attacks in general better than I.M. yet I.M. are so funny they show up in comedy so I'm not even certain which I'd upvote or downvote. Probably a mod like (-1 Ad Hominem) is not too controversial. I would guess the second statement would get both tags, actually the whole comment would get all three tags, most likely. Also this post was a good example of having to handle tags that are both "intended" vs "actual". This makes it hard to figure out how to deploy as a social discussion site modset, and being hard yet obviously useful would make it a good startup germ of an idea. As usual it'll all be in the execution not the mere simple idea.
Yea I love it when people quote the amount of aid these countries are given. The number that is left out is the amount basically stolen. I think for every $1 given like $1.50 is stolen.
Two problems. One, that's our fault (as a superpower) for not doing a better job of ensuring aid flows to where it needs to get. Two, that's the fault of the people. We can't do all the work.
But we did solve our own problems, that's my point. I'm from Indiana, where at one point 99% of the state was clear cut. Now if you look around there are forests and trees everywhere. Rebuilding nature wasn't easy, and it doesn't "rebuild" exactly what you had before. It is the absolute height of ignorance and idiocy to suggest that they should be allowed to destroy their country as well and be forced to expend huge resources rebuilding it instead of just NOT DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
