Go Help someone damn it. Let a stranger know that you are living in this world!
Not really. It’s like saying that Fred Phelps is representative of religion. You take the loudest, most annoying of charity collectors and try to say that it’s “most of the time”. It really isn’t. The great majority of charities do NOT try to collect from people walking down the street or driving down the road. The do NOT help those that don’t need it. Most charities help those that do need it.
So, what’s the difference between a street preacher shouting that everyone’s going to Hell and “some git” blocking your path? And why should either of them represent the industry they’re a part of?
That’s because the 10,000 that did NOT annoy you, you don’t see because they aren’t annoying you.
Charity is an act of basic human kindness. It can involve any number of things from giving money to the simple act of listening to someones troubles. The act should not seed from pressure or guilt at doing something for another. It should be an act that comes as natually as breathing, if not then it is a shallow act at best.
Just my two cents worth.
Well, even if all my complaints against charity and its means to get people to participate are incorrect and uninformed, there’s still the fact that I simple do not care if someone on the other side of the world may or may not die because I didn’t participate in charity. I do not see why I should give away the things that I earned to someone who didn’t earn it… To someone that got unlucky to be born in a shitty country or culture…
Yes, it’s selfish of me, and I don’t really care. All I want is for me to be happy and for my friends and family to be happy, anything or anyone outside of that close circle, can gtfo. I’ve got my problems to take care of, I don’t need to solve the problems of others as well.
Revenge of the Karma is near!
[COLOR=‘Black’]No it’s not[/SIZE]
That’s because it’s basic human nature to be selfish. You are the majority in fact and not the minority in this.
You think the good guys are majority. But when you go out you feel alone and fucked up
Nope, it’s basic human nature to use what you have to help those in need. Brain scans confirm this (the human brain rewards helping others in the same way it rewards helping yourself). People who don’t have this instinct are the exception, we usually call them sociopaths.
Because the system that allows some to be rich is by definition responsible for the existence of poverty. We could never be rich without many more being impoverished, therefore we’re to some extent responsible for alleviating their suffering.
it may be affective but i think person’s personality has more affect than the instinct
I will do anything at anytime to be charitable and make life better for other people, to an extent regardless of my circumstances, charity, self-sacrifice and giving is needed to build better world.
Again, science to decipher the nature of man. In the end, nature defies science at every turn.
That said, I choose to disagree with you. Charity is an act, it does not necessarily have to involve using something you have, that is one facet of the act of charity. And I stand by my statement, if it weren’t so, than why among all those who do not suffer, do we have so much suffering in this world if the majority of humans are charitable and selfless by nature? The world speaks for itself, and to one of great selfishness.
While that research may provide a general guideline for how the brain works, I doubt it’s a factual representation of how every “healthy” brain should work. Not everything can be confined by rules and if-then statements that result from research.
I mean, to hop topic for a minute (but don’t stray on this here), I read an article in the paper a few month/year ago about how research has shown that homosexuals may have a disorder in the brain. A bit of the brain that works differently than the “healthy” brain of heterosexuals. So that research pretty much states that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Something that can be fixed through science. But we all know that homosexuals are just like any other human being in essence.
The same goes for those brain scans to check whether helping people affects the brain. Yes, it might give your brain the signal “Good game boy! You’re happy now!”, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who isn’t the helpful type is a sociopath.
I defy you to provide an example of any charitable act that doesn’t involve "using something you have. "
Because human instinct to try to alleviate the suffering of others has less than 100% success rate? Not a difficult question.
I’l concede that we ‘use what we have’ in cases of charity even if it’s something as simple as listening to anothers problems. Even in that case we are using our time, so in essence we are using something we have.
But as for your other response; How do you know it’s not because the majority of humans are selfish by nature?
So the success rate is less than 100% so why even try, is that what yur saying? I fail to see the math in your logic. Even if the success rate was 50%, and if the majority of the world were this selfless mass as your claim, and they made attempts to be charitable and help alleviate the suffering of others. Then there would be significantly less suffering than there is now.
All your responses (and mine as well) are based in opinion as there is no concerete evidence to the contrary in either case.
We agree to disagree.
I stand corrected. Carry on…
What? When? I’ve never seen a pig fly, so science wins this round.
Nice to hear, but the hyperbole there is making me wince.
LOL! I love when people use science to attempt to compartmentalize human nature and shove it all in these neat little modules to fit into their highly ordered and logical way of thinking.
If only it were so. 
Because brain scans prove that human neurochemistry is designed to reward selfless behavior in addition to selfish behavior. We’re talking in circles now.
Incorrect, my assertion is based on scientific studies that imply human neurochemistry is wired for altruism. Your responses are based on opinion.
That’s not even close to an interpretation of what I said. Cultural bias causes less than 100% of people to act charitably, and that percentage which does act is not 100% effective in delivering that charity to those in need. And the charity which is obtained by those in need isn’t 100% effective in alleviating their suffering. Nonetheless, massive amounts of aid are in fact delivered throughout the world and alleviate a massive amount of suffering.
Taking these facts and saying “why even try” is retarded - sorry, developmentally impaired.
Hm, studies of brain scans is your argument? Not accepting that as evidence. How many people scanned? What were the details of the study? I would almost bet any amount of money the number of people scanned didn’t amount to a drop in the bucket of the world population. In which case I would hardly call it a valid and comprehensive study.
There’s an old saying; “You actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what your saying.”. So when I walk out in this world and I see more suffering and less selfless people helping those suffering than I do selfish people, I tend to go by what I see, and not what a few scientists attempt to decipher and rationalize with a few meager studies. No you have given me no concrete proof.
As I said, we agree to disagree. 
Dear lord, it’s the apocalypse…
Mattemuse… I… I agree with you, wholeheartedly.
Rabidwhatever, that’s ridiculous. You’re saying the study is invalid because it’s not the majority of the world population, and then saying you base your opinions on what you see. Unless you’re in the habit of stalking ever person you see, it’s not very likely that you’ll see even the minor facets of their lives. Hell, the guy who ignores an old lady on the floor could have just given half his life savings to charity, for all you know: yeah, actions can speak louder than words, but you only see a small fraction of people’s actions so your argument is flawed from the get-go.
Think before you post, jeez.
LOL, comparing the sample size to the global population is your metric for judging validity? In that case, there’s nothing you’d accept as evidence, since no study of anything has ever had sample sizes which amount to a drop in the bucket of the world population.
There’s no point in arguing with somebody that rejects the basic foundation of scientific study. I said earlier your argument was based on ‘opinion’ but I was clearly wrong. I’m faced with yet another faith-based argument, which is totally poitnless to try to debate with facts.