We're all Terrible People

[Stormz]

The world is already over populated with humans. I'd rather give my money to help animals that are suffering BECAUSE of us.

I hate human beings, so I would much rather pay for the dog to be awesome.

Also this works as well.

 

[Lexodus]

snip

Spoiler: we're not terrible people...

OT: I just don't give a shit about starving children. Humans, like many before me have said, suck. If given an inch, they want the world, and any less doesn't mean anything to them. Dogs and animals are loyal, and many a sad and lonely, chronically ugly woman has been saved from suicide by a pet. Animals love unconditionally (although they are very, very happy to recieve delicious, delicious meats) and humans just take, take, take.

Nice people, however, and charities/sponsored events with people I can trust, get money from me when I have spare. I also give straight to buskers etc., rather than the charities 'supporting them'.
The one human charity I always give to is the Big Issue. That's a nice idea, and works in practice; the guys and girls go out on the street selling the magazine, and 75p (about half) goes to food, lodging and comforts, and the other 75p goes into the pockets of the people doing the selling.

 

[Sporky111]

I don't give to charities, especially not the big religious ones (I'm Chrisian, by the way). Too large a percentage of the donations goes to their advertising and mission trips rather than actually "helping" people, which is to say providing food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine and the like.

 

[Agayek]

I don't give money to anyone.

The only time I would even consider giving money to someone is if they were a hobo with a creative/funny sign (ie, "Ninjas killed my family, need $ for karate lessons" or "Not gonna lie, need booze money"). Then I'd give em a dollar or two.

I am a firm believer in pulling your own weight. I've seen enough people work their asses off and go from quite literally dirt poor to a 6 figure income. Anyone who says it's impossible simply isn't willing to work hard enough.

 

[Lexodus]

There is a saying that comes to mind here, "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." If you give money to feed people over seas, then you only delay the problem, just sweeping it under the proverbial rug to deal with later. But something like a seeing eye dog (while a less serious issue) stays with them for their life (or at least the dogs life).

Well, there's also two popular variants:

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat all weekend getting wasted and not catch a damn thing", and "Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."

 

[Christemo]

1. i never carry money around, and i dont like those fucking fundraisers knocking on my door every damm sunday.

2. i would choose the dog, because i hate children under the age of 10 unless they show some respect or are gamers.

usually homeless kids commit thievery too, maybe they should start living on that instead of making those fundraisers come and knock on my door for several minutes because they saw there was lights on inside by stalking my windows.

 

[gim73]

If I'm gonna give, it's gonna be towards scholarships. There are plenty of poor genius level kids out there who need to pay an absurd amount of money every year to go to the top end schools to bring out their full potential. These are the people who will design the spaceships I will used to escape this planet and colonize a new one.

Remember: nobody ever thought about building a fence to save the lemmings...

 

[Dark Angel Warlord]

i dont get the idea of charity
why should poor peopel give money to help other poor people

why dont a few really rich people be nice and just drop a billion into a charity and viola problem solved they look good in the media and everyone is happy.

 

[Pegghead]

Wow, we're a bit of a flawed race because it occasionally skips peoples mind to not give all that they own to a charity that's rolling in money.

Don't hate the donators (Or the human race...Gosh how I'm sick of the whiny dipshit misognysts that seem to clutter the forums of this once great site), hate the charities themselves (Most of them, I know for a fact that alot of charities really are all about helping those in need). People give plenty of money to these charities yet half of that is spent on things like advertisement and payslips, that ten dollars you put into the box at church isn't going to feed little Ootway in Namibia any time soon.

Congratulations sir, you have just tried to make people feel bad about one more hting that they do. Perhaps you think it is cool to be all cold and aloof, seeing so much more than the rest of us mere mortals. Mayhaps you think that you are so much smarter, so much more intelligent than the rest of hte human race, so as to see our flaws. I used to htink like that, but i opened up my eyes, and now i pity you.

You have no right to judge the human race. You have no right to sit in judgement on other people, and most of all,you haven to right to tell other what thier priorities should be. Gahndi once said "Become the change you want to see in the world" so try that instead of complaining on an internet forum.

Arguing with you, however, is likely pointless, so, i will simply say that you are wrong.

I support this!

 

[Vern]

How about this, by giving money to starving African's, you are prolonging their life in the best scenario. The UN WFP is under scrutiny at the moment for wasting money, giving money straight to militants who use it to by firearms, and the fact that countless amounts of food are seized by militants and warlords, even Somalian pirates in transit. So not counting that waste or corruption, you are keeping people alive in a place where they're only alive due to donations. They haven't moved on, they haven't built up an agricultural society that can sustain their population, they've survived almost solely on food donations. By feeding them and keeping them alive, they will continue to reproduce, creating more people who need more donations to keep them alive. Does that sound like a worthwhile cause in the long run? Financing and feeding warlords, and the odd food that does get to the people only helps create more of them so that more food and monetary aid is needed? They need to fix their systems from inside their respective countries, and charity only makes matters worse because it makes them complacent. As long as you get some food at the end of the day, life is livable. Charity is almost always self-serving and self righteous, it makes the giver feel good about themselves, but look at the long term and it's the wrong way to do things. *insert old adage of giving a man a fish vs. teaching a man to fish*

 

[Biosophilogical]

Well if morals are truly relative, then me not giving a flying-shit about starving people in third world countries isn't wrong, because to me it isn't (what with me not caring and what-not). I mean, I feel bad for their situation, but it isn't my fault, and to say I'm guilty of the good I do not do would make me a horrible murdering prick no matter what I do, so I'm at least going to make my life better.

Also, I'd donate to the dog one, mainly because I'm a dog person (I've had a dog or two since I can remember (so about 12-16 years (I'm sixteen))

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

We're not Terrible People. We're just Humans.

Ever see any other member of the animal genus give away their resources to help other animals? Nope.

Ever see any other animals think they're Evil? Nope.

Humanity in general has the biggest case of guilt for being themselves in the whole animal kingdom. And it's usually that we're defending other humans, who still don't think they're Terrible either.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Giving money to prolong the suffering is not exactly a good move is it? Africa and similar places have become complacent and reliant on charity.

My opinion: there are starving children everywhere, if the families are prepared to live in an area that is incapable of supporting human life then they deserve it.

Either we leave them to die or we leave them to sort their own shit out.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

I have a habit of seeing things when it comes to donations.

$100 to donation suddenly becomes their breakfast.

giving a $20 to a homeless guy standing next to the road often has very pricey, something on them. Like one guy has a pretty damn nice watch when I looked over at him.

Really, I might be a terrible person, but the people who set up donations that take a good chunk of the money for their own needs burn me out. Hence why I don't do it. >.>

 

[Bellvedere]

Local (by which I mean within the same country) charities are much more... I don't know the right word so I'm just going to say reliable than international charities that spend their money overseas.

It's much more difficult to manage where the money goes and how it is spent if it's done in another country. Such as the band-aid thing that Bobby Gandalf organised. The money that actually went to the people suffering in Africa was hardly anything in comparison to the money that was taken by the government there. I can't remember the exact figures but it was pretty horrendous.

Plus third world poverty is a much larger and more difficult problem. It's devastating but there are deeper problems than what can be solved with the extra cash people from overseas have to throw around. Economic problems, political problems, educational problems, it's not something that just money can fix.

I think caring about something and supporting something is noble, whether you volunteer or donate regularly or even sporadically if that's all you can afford. But I don't think it's right to tell people what they should care about. Saying that what you care about is more worthy than what they care about.

Instead of complaining about people not spending money where YOU think it's deserved, complain about things like how the military budget is too high, or how churches are exempt from government tax. Imagine how much the government could spend on local problems such as healthcare, poverty, environmental conservation if they got any of the millions of dollars the churches make each year.

Also saying that someone is terrible for choosing to help train guide dogs over save starving children is wrong. People who are indifferent to any sort of philanthropy are terrible. People who can't afford too are not. People that care about problems in their own country that they see everyday are not worse than people that care about problems overseas that they see on the news or internet or hassled into supporting but volunteers on the street.

 

[Markness]

Some of you guys are really amusing. I'm going to make a rather large post.

Spoiler: large amount of quotes and stuff

So you're really criticizing people for donating to certain charities instead of other ones?

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. You should be glad that people are being charitable in the first place.

I'm not criticizing as much as asking why as It does not any sense. I am criticizing the fact that people are spending money on useless junk while there is people starving. It's not that I care about the children, (obviously none of us do), it's just that everyone is so hypocritical about it.

op: Some people give to causes that they would have a more personal vendetta with. And I really do believe that giving to random causes really doesnt constitute charity as actually believing in one.

I don't really understand

Personally, Im not paying for some fat cat guy at Oxfam to sit in a big house. Ill keep my money.

Well, I guess if you don't give to any charities. Sort of adds to my we're all terrible people argument though.

I'm a 'terrible person' because I don't want to help people I don't know. My money won't make a difference so fuck it, I'd rather get the God of War trilogy or something.

Are you saying that it is moral to let someone starve as long as you don't know them? Because thats what I'm saying, we're in agreement!

There is a saying that comes to mind here, "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." If you give money to feed people over seas, then you only delay the problem, just sweeping it under the proverbial rug to deal with later. But something like a seeing eye dog (while a less serious issue) stays with them for their life (or at least the dogs life).

Besides the fact that I'm pretty sure that many charities do use most donations for sustainable improvement. You really think training a dog is more important than feeding children? Let's just say that from now on, when I say we're all terrible people, I mean, we're all terrible people if we train dogs when we could alliviate starvation. If you disagree with that statement you could probably start some kind of rapture type city where there is a law that all blind people need seeing eye dogs but no laws against leaving your children to starve and drink parasite infested water.

So what does that make me? I give to zero charities, so by extrapolation I'm double terrible.

But were not all terrible people. Why? Because if it's normal, then it's neutral. Not terrible or good. So you're disenchanted with humanity. Deal with it. We didn't dominate this planet by being nice.

Murder, genocide, rape, torture, extinction, cannibalism. All deeds committed by humans. But double-standards regarding charity makes us terrible? Think again.

How many of the above deeds have you commited? There are not many terrible deeds commited by the average citisen as bad as this one, can you think of anything? No-one even thinks about this crime though.

Ok... I value the lives of animals far more than human lives. You're right though, we are all terrible people that do horrible things and I'm fine with that fact. We all try too hard to make ourselves believe that we are separate from nature and somehow the rules don't apply to us anymore, but thats not the case. Animals starve in nature, its how the world works, what makes you think that it should be any different for us?

If you look around a little you will see that humans are somewhat different from other animals. We do have morals beyond do what it takes to survive, and tend to help those that are suffering. This may lead some people to believe they are living loving lives, I'm trying to show them they are not.

You're blaming us for taking the time to patch up all the people with broken legs instead of putting bandaids on a patient with terminal cancer. Some problems can be more readily fixed with simple donations than others. Besides, just because a problem isn't life threatening, that doesn't mean it doesn't merit attention.

I agree that the problem can not be solved with a few dollars. However, thinking about africa as "the problem" takes away from the fact it is not one problem, it is a million small ones. You can fix small problems with simple donations. To modify your analagy a smidgen, I'm blaming you for patching up people with broken legs instead of patching up people bleeding to death. Even if you can't stop more people for getting wounded enough to be bleeding to death, does that make it better for you to ignore them and focus on the broken leggers?

In actuality most people only display sympathy because society pressures them to do so. If 5 million people in foreign island died as a result of a natural disaster, I would not care AT ALL. Unfortunately, the status quo is that I should be sympathetic towards said nation. Until I do this, society would frown upon my feelings toward this nation and force me to express sympathy.

Direct confrontation sympathy is a rare occurrence.

Interesting, it doesn't really make sense though, if sympathy is not an individual reaction to suffering, how can it be a group one? I think you make a good point though.

Spoiler: Yes there is more...

Do we really have to give to one or the other? Can't we give to both charities? I would pry pay $50.00 towards both of them because that way both of them are getting donations.

So you rather save 1 child and train 1/10th of a dog, then save 2 children?

How about the people who sunk thousands of dollars into Haiti after it was leveled by an earthquake, all while spouting facts about Haiti to their friends and family. However, if you asked them about Haiti before the quake, would any of them been able to even give you which hemisphere it belongs in? Nope. Also, did they help out by donating to it BEFORE the quake, you know, back when it was just a poor nation. Sometimes I hate the damn media.

This is probably would drove me to make this post. Millions and millions to Haiti, but why? Why is it more important than other places? People were and still are probably dying just as quickly in Africa.

People can probaly relate more to the blind man who has a similiar culture as them than the starving kids who don't. If it's easier to see yourself in their situation then it's easier to feel sympathetic.

Very good point. I don't know what else to say. This fact is why we're all terrible people.

Seriously though, what's with the OP? How is it any of YOUR business who we give OUR money to? Why do you think YOU know better what WE should spend OUR money on?

Why are we all terrible people, because we don't follow the exact same moral code that YOU do? Maybe we're the ones in the right, and you're the terrible person.

Well done on completely missing the point.

I am basing my argument upon agreed upon morals neccesary for the suvival of society. You see someone suffering, you help them. It is not revolutionary stuff. All I am doing is appling that moral code to other situations. I'm pretty sure I have the right to call you a terrible person if you would rather be a personal assistant for a blind person than save a child from a fire, and so would the justice system.

The bolded section is the part that is completely missing the point. I'm not saying buy twisties!! They are better than Cheezels, your opinion is wrong!! I am saying asking why you think you have the right to let children starve. But guess what? I have the answer.
Hint:

Spoiler: Because I know this was a toughy

It's the Title of this Thread

.

I suppose it's true, but I'm sure that if some starving people were given a life like most of ours then in time, they to would stop caring so much about the problem as it's not direct.

I agree

This thread points out exactly what's wrong with left-wing politics (what's wrong with right-wing is more obvious). We *can't* save everyone. Heck, we probably shouldn't save everyone. Until we stop the mad "OMG DONATE MONEY NAWW" rage and realize that life is life, even for humans, mankind is not going to accept that some things just are. It needs to become socially acceptable to not donate if you do not care for something.

That said, such a state of being will be a lot easier to achieve when we at least get the entire world on a somewhat equal level of wealth where not 90% of the population is completely in the service of the other 10%.

I fixed your percentages a bit, and it is in fact socially acceptable to not donate btw considering we're as terrible as each other.

If laws regarding your behaivour towards people you are face to face with, were anything like what laws are like regarding your behaivour to people overseas, everyone would be in jail. Of course that would not work and society could not function with such equality which is of course the only reason it is not law.

If you are advocating blissful ignorance, I agree, that is what humanity is all about. If you are saying we can't say everyone, so we shouldn't save anyone, you are so wrong. The thing is, we *should* be donating bucketloads of money, but we don't, and everyone likes it better that way. I know I do. That is why we are terrible people.

Well that monstrousity of a post is rebuttals to the first page. Sorry in advance for typos and spelling errors.

 

[Gigano]

We're all terrible people when the bar is set to "perfect"...

When you use "good enough", however, we're all pretty much hohum and neutral, generally neither inflicting harm onto nor improving life for our fellow man (outside the immidiate family and friends where instinct, subjective liking, and various social mechanisms allows for far greater sacrifices than mere "ethics" ever could).

We'll give a slight to a dog-shelter or a starving child foundation on occasion to feel good about ourselves (and thus it doesn't really matter which one gets the money: we're not doing it for them!), and do slight harms to others just as occasionally. That's pretty much ordinary human existance. There are of course exceptional individuals who onesidedly do great harm or great good, but on the whole, they seem fairly rare.

So I'd disagree that we're all "terrible" people: we're pretty much just "people", and do what can be expected from our species, i.e. nothing much either way outside the close proximity group we belong to.

 

[Markness]

Local (by which I mean within the same country) charities are much more... I don't know the right word so I'm just going to say reliable than international charities that spend their money overseas.

Also saying that someone is terrible for choosing to help train guide dogs over save starving children is wrong. People who are indifferent to any sort of philanthropy are terrible. People who can't afford too are not. People that care about problems in their own country that they see everyday are not worse than people that care about problems overseas that they see on the news or internet or hassled into supporting but volunteers on the street.

Just a quick note here, I think the word you were looking for was real? I very much doubt that local charities use money more wisely than internationals, probably less so. I will colour code your statements for clarity. Red=disagree, blue=agree, yellow=in a way agree.

With respect to green, what does it mean afford to? Does it mean homeless, uni student, saving for tv? Perhaps by buying no-name food products for a month you could save a life, I'm sure most people could do that. But they don't. Because they are terrible people.

Your last statement seems to imply that if the problem is in their country, it automatically elevates it up the moral scale.
"Hey Billy, lets go save some starving kids"
"Piss off Jimmy, my fingernail is hurting"
"Did I mention they are living in our country?"
"Well why didn't you say so, right away"