We're all Terrible People

[Kortney]

So in the OP's perfect world, everyone donates to starving african children.... and no one donates to seeing eye dog foundations. No one donates to helping old people have better standards of care. No one donates to cancer patients. No one donates to war veterens. No one donates to the local hospital. Because, if they did, it would automatically mean they care more about that than starving children!

Please. This is nothing but logical fallacy. "If you donate to X that must mean you value X more highly than Y". No, I'm afriad it doesn't. The world doesn't work like that. People donate because they care about the cause. I care about the proper treatment of animals, and if I had more money I would donate to foundations that work against animal cruelty and/or help to find animals a home. It doesn't mean "OH! Kortney donated to animals! Ipso facto, she cares more about animals than humans!".

Stop taking the moral high ground. People donate to where ever the hell they want. If I were to have a family member who was blind, I'm sure I'd give money to seeing eye dogs. If I were to have a family member who is in trouble from cancer, I'd probably donate heavily to cancer foundations. People can donate to whatever the hell they want, and just because they didn't donate to whatever you think is the most important doesn't mean they are a terrible person.

This kind of shit just annoys the hell out of me.

 

[rekabdarb]

i probably wouldn't donate saying i was only 17.

you see if i donate to seeing eye dogs, it means a human lives and darwin is proven wrong

but if i donate to the children thingy, it means human lives are saved and darwin was proven wrong

so either way i'm against it. Shit happens and these people were given bad hands in life

 

[SlowShootinPete]

you see if i donate to seeing eye dogs, it means a human lives and darwin is proven wrong

Because blind people just can't survive without their dogs.

Darwin knew jack shit about genes, by the way, so he's hardly the final word on human development.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Different charities appeal to different people. I think it's important that there are several charities out there for different purposes. Take your example, a person feels the need to give to the seeing eye dogs but not to starving children. I would also question their judgement, but bare with me. It's either $100 to make a blind persons life easier, or $100 to a worldy possesion that you probally don't need. I think this is a slightly better way to look at it, because we will always get worldly possesions before charity in this day and age, but that hardly makes us all evil, just misguided.

 

[rekabdarb]

you see if i donate to seeing eye dogs, it means a human lives and darwin is proven wrong

Because blind people just can't survive without their dogs.

Darwin knew jack shit about genes, by the way, so he's hardly the final word on human development.

A: that's what i said
B: technically the blind don't need dogs, they have canes and stuff
C: i believe in natural selection and weeding out the people who are stupid and stuff (like someone playing with a penny in a light socket, if he lives he knows not to do that again)

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

And it's because of you that i hate people..not only are you ignoring the fact that someone is donating to a charity which will help someone in the long run but bitching instead that they didn't give to the "right" charity. At least be grateful someone isn't being selfish you ass.

 

[likalaruku]

This reminds me of a discussion I heard about breast cancer fundraisers, where 75% of the proceedes go to paying for the event & a pittance goes to the cause.

 

[MercurySteam]

I'll give you a response to you're original statement "We're all Terrible People".

Tell me something I don't know.

 

[Schneizel]

By your (OP's) logic, anyone who doesn't spend every waking hour working then sleeps, eats and drinks only enough to keep him able to work, is a terrible person. Factor in that if he maybe spent a few years studying in university for a higher-paying job, he could donate less now but far more later, even a guy who donates all he can spare of his McDonalds paycheck is a terrible person.

Dunbar's Number is the concept you mentioned - some people can only care about what they're directly confronted with.

There's also that some of us just don't particularly care about certain (or any) causes, or if we do, not enough to part with even the cost of a can of soda. I don't believe a disinterest in large causes necessarily makes one a "terrible" person, but of course it's subjective.

I considered this myself recently. In the UK, homeless people can earn some money by selling a magazine called "the Big Issue". I considered buying one because there was a Doctor Who article advertised on the cover. Then I wondered if the particular homeless person offering me the sale was worth my money more than the guy selling the same magazine in a different street. In the end, I decided not to buy it because, not being a particularly altruistic person and being faced with "helping" (it is a transaction, after all) only one out of at least half a dozen visible homeless people selling the magazine, I didn't see the point in "helping" any.

 

[Markness]

Ehh, no, we aren't. Your reasoning is really disjointed here. We're terrible because some of us donate to animal charities, and some of us act like utter twats? That's a load of rubbish, and you know it.

Humans are weird and imperfect, but we're not all terrible. It's quite an insult to claim that we are.

I'm quite sure I never said where are terrible people because "some of us donate to animal charities, and some of us act like utter twats?" What I did say was that we are terrible people because we are indirectly killing children by focusing on unproductive charities and pure luxuries.

If we are not all terrible, I put the figure at least 99.9%.

=
This is a no brainer for me:

One day, far in the future, I could be blinded and in need of a guide dog. I will never be a starving child.

And frankly, there's enough people in the World as is.

[Edit: Given the choice I would opt for neither charity. The money would go towards research to treat blindness, progress and all that]

Your, reasoning althouth more sound than some people in this thread, has 2 problems.
1. It does nothing to dispute my argument of we're all terrible people (although that may not have been your purpose).
2. Your argument, although incredibly selfish, doesn't make sense from a selfish point of view. A much better way would be to put the charity money in a "in case I ever go blind jar", instead of giving it for other people to use.

 

[Danzaivar]

=
This is a no brainer for me:

One day, far in the future, I could be blinded and in need of a guide dog. I will never be a starving child.

And frankly, there's enough people in the World as is.

[Edit: Given the choice I would opt for neither charity. The money would go towards research to treat blindness, progress and all that]

Your, reasoning althouth more sound than some people in this thread, has 2 problems.
1. It does nothing to dispute my argument of we're all terrible people (although that may not have been your purpose).
2. Your argument, although incredibly selfish, doesn't make sense from a selfish point of view. A much better way would be to put the charity money in a "in case I ever go blind jar", instead of giving it for other people to use.

1. I readily admit we're all terrible people, most of it is without us even realising it but I'd definitely say that we are.

2. By giving it to a charity that could help you in the future you get the same 'I'm a good person' buzz that the other charity gives but with potential to help you or your immediate circle of people. It's like most famous patrons of a charity only seem to be one because they personally know a sufferer, so you can be selfish AND feel good about it.

tldr; We're terrible people, but are in denial about it.

 

[GothmogII]

Easy solution: Don't offer money, offer time.

You get something nice to put on your CV -and- get to help people and get a little work experience at the same time. It's really not that difficult to find these kind of charities or projects even in your general area, and many are looking for volunteers all the time.

 

[Battenbergcake]

Human create their morals and beliefs so you saying i'm a terrible person because i might choose to give to an animal charity over a charity like Oxfam for example is down to your concept of morality and concept of a human life being worth more than animal life.

without the humanity or our self conscious demeanor the planet would probably be better off, only thing that would be different would be life that's not concerned about documenting it's own achievement.

Personally i do feel a human life is of far greater weight than an animal's i think that if we did not identify ourselves with petty ethnicity and moral stances and were simply humans then we might of found equality in life quicker.

 

[Jedoro]

There is no fault in failing to be good, only in succeeding in being bad.

Quit crying about people not helping others, donating to charities, pulling over to help the guy on the side of the road, or all that other nice crap. It's freedom of choice, get the hell over it. Good and bad aren't the only two options, there is something called the MIDDLE GROUND of neutral.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

A: that's what i said
B: technically the blind don't need dogs, they have canes and stuff
C: i believe in natural selection and weeding out the people who are stupid and stuff (like someone playing with a penny in a light socket, if he lives he knows not to do that again)

1. Your typing is obtuse.

2. Nah, that's okay, I don't need someone with eyes to warn me of danger. I've got this stick I can wave around. But before you go, would you mind helping me cross the street?

3. Have you ever heard of Helen Keller? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_keller] She was born blind AND deaf, and behaved like an animal when she was a child. If Anne Sullivan had thought the way you do, the world would have lost a truly brilliant and inspiring human being.

By the way, did you know the man who invented cruise control was also blind? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Teetor]

 

[michiehoward]

Well this is the information age, if your worried your money isn't getting to starving children or building wells or schools, help build sustainable agriculture then research, ask questions, ask in your family or work aquaintences, schools, church group to see if anyone donates and how their donations are spent. Firstly donating to foundations that we see on tv everyday is better then our tax dollars our gov't give in aid every year, why those tax dollars go to the usually corrupt assholes who run their poor countries into the ground and don't want their populace to thrive, so yes I'd rather send my money to building wells, feeding children directly. Or even better yet donate your time!

 

[Hookman]

I came to accept the fact that mankind is fundamentally evil a looooOOOOOooooong time ago. I certainly know I am!

 

[bobknowsall]

Ehh, no, we aren't. Your reasoning is really disjointed here. We're terrible because some of us donate to animal charities, and some of us act like utter twats? That's a load of rubbish, and you know it.

Humans are weird and imperfect, but we're not all terrible. It's quite an insult to claim that we are.

I'm quite sure I never said where are terrible people because "some of us donate to animal charities, and some of us act like utter twats?" What I did say was that we are terrible people because we are indirectly killing children by focusing on unproductive charities and pure luxuries.

If we are not all terrible, I put the figure at least 99.9%.

I'm paraphrasing you, as you said something to do with drunken behaviour indirectly killing children.

Speaking of which, this "indirectly killing children" thing is bullcrap. You are saying that curbing our charity donations is basically murder or manslaughter. I say that your logic is wonky. They'd die without our assistance, sure, but they shouldn't need our assistance in the first place. A lot of this starvation and death is caused by poor leadership and war. We're not to blame for those (Except for places like Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine, where Western society was partially responsible), so it's not our fault.

"If we are not all terrible, I put the figure at least 99.9%."

Dear god, this exaggerated cynicism I'm coming across is starting to grate. Allow me to set you straight:

There are good people, alright people, and terrible people in the world. If "99.9%" of us were terrible people, society would be entirely based on violence, theft and bloodshed, and we'd probably have nuked ourselves out of existence by now. If you're going to make a bold statement, at least make sure that it makes sense.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

I say that your logic is wonky. They'd die without our assistance, sure, but they shouldn't need our assistance in the first place.

Not only that, us assisting them isn't guaranteed to make an appreciable difference, because what the money is used for is usually out of our control. It depends on what the charities use the money for and how the people being helped use whatever is given to them.