Oh ye, sorry, Hitler had nothing to do with how Germany was run prior to the war. My bad, didn’t read Wikipedia enough.
Great, you saved them from malaria, now we just have to wait before they die of AIDS or murder each other. Again, a bandaid, but it doesn’t fix the problem.
And you’re staring blindly at specific cases of charity that (in your eyes) have “helped”, while ignoring the fucktons of so called charities that don’t help anyone but their own wallets.
I’m quite surprised to see that not only do certain people not want to donate (which I guess is understandable) but some actually contempt charities and have no hope in the good human nature or philanthropy in general. : /
wat
Due to how corrupt the human agenda is, and how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, i do not think charities stay charitable for very long. At some point a person/people will learn to take advantage of the system for their own benefit.
This thread is such a clusterfuck I wasn’t going to post anything else, but I need to address a couple of things.
First, the argument “I don’t care about people’s suffering if I don’t know them.” Is there anything more juvenile than the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality? It’s like how toddlers think that nobody can see them when they close their eyes.
You’ve proven yourself to be extremely unintelligent, so yeah - Your “observations” really do have zero validity in terms of being “proof” of anything.
Think back to earlier in this thread when you said any scientific study of humans with a sample size smaller than the global population is invalid. A statement based on total ignorance, to be sure, but it’s apparently what you believe to be true.
Therefore, do you think the amount of people you’ve personally observed is anywhere close to the scale of the global population? I call that self-debunking, and it’s an inevitable occurrence when kids on forums decide to ‘debate’ things they don’t understand.
Did you miss the part where I said I studied the Third Reich for two years or something?
Yes, there are a lot of things that are more juvenile than “out of sight, out of mind” mentality.
I’m not the one sobbing on my couch when watching the news. I’m not the one that cries over each person that dies this second, and this second, and this second, and this second (and so on). I’m the one that got lucky to be born in a “wealthy” country, I’m the one that got lucky with what my parents have given me, I’m the one that got lucky to be born healthy, and above all, i’m the one that made sure that my life is good.
And to those that were unlucky enough to be born in a shitty country, with shitty parents, with 4 arms and a wonky left leg: sucks to be you.
Yes, my opinion is harsh and cold, but I don’t give a flying shit, nothing I can do will change the lives of those unlucky ones, so why should I bother? So I can feel smug with the thought that my money and my effort made sure that nothing changed at all? No thanks.
Oh, and this second, and this second, and this second.
I’ve already come to terms that you’ve studied anything I post in length over a 2 year period.
I’ve studied charity for two years, btw. I’ve come to the conclusion that charity is evil, okay? /thread
Way to answer my post, champ.
Oh, that was an answer. It answered your silly statement with a sillier statement. You should know, tbh, it’s what you’ve been doing so far, along with that spicy chick of yours.
You know, the stuff that you studied for years and that you’ve experienced for even more years and that you’ve seen all the charities in the entire world and concluded that there’s no such thing as a pointless charity. That kind of silly.
It’s like all you two are doing, replying with “oh troll” or “way to avoid”.
Didn’t see the edit.
How was my statement silly? I’ve had two years of academic study about the Third Reich. Not much silly about that.
When did I ever say there was no such thing as a pointless charity?
I’m not just accusing you of being a troll, I’m also proving you wrong.
Yes, your link is correct, have a cookie. I was merely stating how all his posts so far have been missing the point.
That point being “charity is pointless because in most cases it doesn’t actually change the situation, it merely applies a bandaid”. But mattemuse and Soup jump in posting scientific research and assumptions based on limited experience to “prove” that charity does work.
Yes, charity may work in some cases (like Sassyrobot’s bums, or so she claims), and hoozah for those cases, but in my book that doesn’t make charity “work”. Or at least not enough for me to consider supporting a charity.
I’d rather take the safe route and make sure that my life is okay and not care about the horrible situations those I don’t know are in. It’s easier. And yes I know this is ignorant, arrogant and selfish of me, you’ve already told me a bazillion times, so what?
I think you’re ignorant and arrogant for believing that charity in general is worth it and that it will make the world a better place.
So far, you haven’t proven me wrong. All you did (or your better half, I guess) was post a few examples of how your charity helped some individuals. See my signature for a reaction to that.
But you haven’t shown me anything that shows that charity actually solves problems. Does Sassyrobot’s bum-program fix the core problem (the fact that there are bums)? Did those malaria-preventions make Africa a wealthy continent? Did those hypocrites of artists make Haiti a better place? the answer to all of this is a simple “no”. So I see no point in participating in charity, since everything related to it doesn’t please me:
So what does charity do? To both the world and me? Please do tell me, because I sure as hell don’t know.
I have never seen such a simple topic turned into such a furious debate. Keep going. The dizzying intellect is intriguing.
But I stand by my original thought. I give more to make ME grow on the inside rather than to expect my donation to make a difference.
I’ve not posted any links to scientific research. Methinks you’re getting even more confused.
So, charity working doesn’t make charity work? Nice logic.
Oh, by the way, what was your point with the malaria thing? Something about it not solving the real problem?
Bolteh, Your somewhat of a s Social Darwinist, aren’t you?
Well I guess that term applies to me to some extend. With the difference that I’ll take care of the weak if they’re part of my social circle. But apart from that, yes, I’m a Social Darwinist.
And Soup: the scientific research applied to mattemuse, the assumptions applied to you.
What Bolteh is saying is basically that, because charity doesn’t solve all the problems of a certain individual or society, it’s not something worth pursuing.
Giving money or time to help reduce or even eliminate malaria in a certain region or country isn’t worth it because it doesn’t also help reduce or eliminate poverty, violence, etc., even though it has improved the lives of those living there considerably.
Which is pretty narrow-minded.
Let’s say that I invent this arrow-shooting machine that has the sole purpose of hitting a bullseye at a target 100 yards away. I have it completely figured out and feel that this machine can’t fail… So I go out for a test run.
I let that machine fire 100 shots at the target. 14 of those shots hit the bullseye. I could say that the machine works because it hit the bullseye 14 times, but to be fair, I wouldn’t consider 14 out of 100 a result worthy of calling the machine successful.
So yes, there’s a bunch of charities that do work, but they pale next to the amount of charities that change nothing at all.
Edit: Burbinator is correct. Why can he see it and you can’t, Soup?
Way to read his post, Bolteh.
See the last line?
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.