{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by DroLogic:
8/27/2016 6:49:35 PM
227
Money going to children who don't even make it to 8.... In my opinion such a waste of money i rather have that go to homeless children with no terminal disease and find them a place to live and go to school. Sounds harsh but its the truth research facilities have more than enough and those charities have more than they need since rich people donate to them for tax breaks like bungie and all the streamers will do with this donation. Not to mention St judes is probably the richest one of them all and the ones rich people pick to donate.
Edit: all I'm saying is this kids have more than enough luxuries because rich people decided to donate to get a tax cut while no one donates to those children living in the streets because their parents abandoned them or parents went broke. Sadly many of those cancer kids won't make it to 10 and all those thousands of dollars go to waste when it could of gone to children who still have a chance to make a difference in society and benefit it. To am extent I believe in all human lives are equal but if we put on a scale to spend 10k on a single child instead of helping many children to give them a chance just sounds foolish and unlogical. At this point those homeless children should get cancer on purpose so someone gives a dam. Not to mention the charity the are donating is St judes. Its only the most richest charity and administration benefits from it. Sorry if this offends you and that i don't share the same idea your Christian mother does but I believe in logic more than moral feelings.
https://paddockpost.com/2014/11/17/where-does-your-1-to-st-judes-childrens-research-hospital-go/
Proof that st jude only donates half of the money to the actual charity. And the rest to themselves. So in other words good job community you raised 250k for the children and the rest for the faculty and CEO expenses.
Glad to see how many likes this has gotten and how many people see things how they are :) its good to know not everyone is still ignorant.
I've seen many replies on "the money is going to research for a cancer cure" people...... Repeat after me we live in a capitalist country where the main goal is [b]profit[/b] you can profit more from treating cancer than curing it with a pill. Why do you think the Cuban people don't want America to invade with its capitalism? They are on the edge of discovering the cure for lung cancer and America just happened to want to make peace at the same time. If you don't believe major politicians won't exploit its citizens for profit you are the true meaning of a sheep. They'll let the CIA fill the streets of the poor with drugs to gain crowd control but god forbid they'll never hide the cure for cancer to gain more profit? Give me a break im losing brain cells just having to explain this and reply to some of the most ignorant people I ever replied to.
English
-
Ok spock with your logic I can agree to a certain point,but I disagree any way you slice it these streamers were just doing a good deed
-
Plenty millions get donated to the cause you prefer as well. Don't be close minded just because this one event happens to be one you wouldn't prefer.
-
Edited by chiefblazerbear: 8/28/2016 2:37:27 AMDamn that's brutal but I see what you are getting at. If we didn't pay political figures until they die after their term we might be able to help both sides a little bit.
-
That's the only problem I see from donations towards cancer patients/research. When you hear how someone died from cancer from a media source the majority of those cases were not from the cancer itself but from the chemotherapy and treatments towards removing it. That's right, the actual treatments towards cancer is far more lethal than the stuff itself. There are both moral rights and wrongs to be considered, but I honestly agree with your view to a degree.
-
Valid point and reason. Brutally harsh but sadly true.
-
This makes since. Only reason rich even give is cause they get more from it anyway. Think of it like population control. Try to save those who are dying and then let the homeless die also. For the government it's a pretty good ploy. Keeps civil unrest at a lower rate. No uprising.
-
Although I disagree with your opinion that we shouldn't make an 8yr old's last days much better, I'll respect your opinion, because your argument is valid.
-
Agreed but this 6 years wont gona understand
-
I agree with this.
-
Unfiltered and straightforward. I like it.
-
Life isn't infinite. Money is. Ergo life is more precious, more important than any amount of money on earth. Even if it cost 1 billion to keep 1 kid alive 1 extra day with his family it would be worth it. Your logic would only make sense if money was worth more than life as a commodity. But it isn't. So its doesn't.
-
His point is that your looking ata different picture. It's that one life for one day worth it vs. many lives for many years as their life expectancy is already longer. Not many people have the ability to look at multiple pictures, you're both right, it just depends where you're standing when you look at the picture.
-
Money isn't worth a life but it can help the life do a difference in society in which can benefit others. 1 million to keep a child alive in about as stupid as the idea of burning it. Instead give the million to families in need of housing and food to feed their young and keep them safe. 1 million can benefit so many more people than a single child. You're thinking in a moral way which is nice but sadly its not always the best choice. Maybe its because I'm a political science graduate and think politically but the way I see it is helping children who are in the streets can bring bigger change than a kid in a luxuries hospital with the latest technology bound to die no matter how much money goes into him. Sounds harsh and cruel but no one here can say im a lying or making this stuff up.
-
Save 1 child for a week? Or save multiple families (with children) for months, if not years. On paper it's easy to choose which one to go to. But if you're the guy that has to talk to the parents with the one child and have zero contact with the multiple families, the question becomes a lot harder
-
Sure its hard but only if you allow your feelings to get in the way of the right decision. At the end of the day you can go to bed knowing there are also many families you helped have the same feeling of sleeping in beds with a stomach full and clean sheets.
-
Why do people eat if they are just going to die anyways Maybe with this money some kid will live 2 days longer, 2 more days that they their family can have with them Maybe a family will be able to afford medication that they otherwise couldn't Have you ever heard of make a wish is that also a waste of money
-
That comparison is just plain stupid but nice try I guess. If you want to make an argument try at least making it somewhat smart or just stay quite. Learn from others responders how to reply to a valid argument. "Why do we eat when we are bound to die anyways" hmmm because most people that eat are not set to die next year and are working into becoming something and not laying in a hospital bed just waiting for death to come.
-
Ok well your wrong. sorry most kids don't just have 1 year to live and are not on their death bed here's a link http://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child-adolescent-cancers-fact-sheet Ya so pretty much it's about 3 in every 100,000 So just cuz you've got cancer as a kid doesn't mean you are on your deathbed. however it is very important that they receive treatment ( which costs loads of money) so this money is very badly needed especially for financial aid
-
They have that already. It's called welfare.
-
Nice combat lol welfare is another subject but I also believe welfare needs to be more strict to benefit those who truly need it like single mothers who work but can't make ends meet or military men who can't work due to injuries.
-
You have a logical point. Of course the hillary supports don't like it. Cause they see that there is good in there somewhere. But it would be smarter to put the money towards living children, to give them a chance. Then to dying kids, cause all it will benefit is the ceo bonus check at st judes. People don't see it though. Just like they don't see the clinton foundation funneling millions of dollars, tax free, into their own pockets. It's nice what they done, I hope it helps a hundred kids or more. But the reality is, humans are evil at the core and charity's and churches are the most evil. None of these people do it for free or the good of helping someone else. They all benefit from it.
-
Edited by Ness: 8/27/2016 5:14:44 PMFirst off, I don't know where you get the idea that people who have the same (or similar) mind set that I do support Hilary. I don't like any of the presidential candidates, but Hilary would be the last one I'd want as president. I consider myself more of an independent, but I also lean a little to the right. Please don't assume that someone endorses a specific party or person simply because one of their beliefs leans a little to the left. Now that that's cleared up, I'll get on with my argument. Maybe you're the one who doesn't see that not all money should be spent for the better of this nation. Giving money to children who are dying is a good thing for the most part. There are many things in this world where it seems like we spend more money than we should when it isn't always necessarily bad to spend money on something that won't really benefit society. Refusing to spend money on dying children simply because you think they can't make any contribution to society is like saying that we should've never spent money on memorials because they don't give us much societal benefit. Funerals, memorials, gifts to those we love, or even belongings that we simply buy for our own wants, are all things we spend money on that don't really help society any more than charity does. The ps4 or Xbox that most of us own probably won't make a difference in society, with the exception of the streamers who donate. The Corvette that someone bought because they wanted a cool car won't really help anyone any more than the person who donated to a cancer treatment center. So before you say that paying money for dying children is useless since it won't benefit society, consider the fact that there are more important things in this world than striving for maximum economic efficiency at all costs.
-
I'm pretty sure you don't have children
-
Why would I do such a horrible thing like that to myself?
-
Probably never gonna happen anyway, our you must adopt. But I don't know if that's allowed for gay couples in your country.
