{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${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
-
You bring up some valid points, but your presentation leaves something to be desired.
-
This will be good, go forth brave little post
-
This is deliciously controversal. I understand op's point. But i also doubt that the op would look a mother in the eyes and tell her he took her sons sick sons money and gave it to someone who might live longer.
-
I would because people need to understand not everyone revolves around her sick child. The homeless kid I help might grow to be a congressman or senator who will make a change in society impacting many lifes while little Billy died at 8 and homeless kid got kidnapped because he lived in the street.
-
Well that swings both ways, he could also grow up to be a mass murderer and kill babies for fun.
-
When you offer someone a second chance in life and show them what real humanity is they are most likely to thank you and go out and try to help others like he was helped. Saving homeless children not only benefits them but society since those kids won't end up in bad paths robbing and joining gangs. Like I said I think logical over morality and logically it benefits everyone helping 10 homeless kids with 10k instead of a single child who is most likely not gonna make it to 10. Sounds harsh but no one said the truth was pretty.
-
Edited by Radiicola: 8/26/2016 2:58:30 PM[quote]This is deliciously controversal. I understand [b]your[/b] point. But i also doubt that [b]you[/b] would look a [b]poor homeless kid on the street[/b] in the eyes and tell him you took the money from him and gave it to someone who "needs it more right now"[/quote]
-
Still a little groggy lol
-
Thank you lol
-
Edited by ZetaScorpii: 8/26/2016 2:25:03 PMI see your point, but if your kid ever gets cancer I'm sure you'd appreciate what St. Judes does. If you wanna get pissed at wasted money get pissed at our government. They piss away billions and billions on military tech that doesn't do shit against savages on horses and AK's.
-
True. Shit why don't they use any of their new "toys" on isis? Like seriously what's the fúking point of wasting millions of dollars for the military if you're not even going to use it. And they'll make some bullshit excuse what if russia/china/north korea attacks? They won't they said they'll attack when they are threatened. I know some shit is happening with N. Korea with they're missile tests, china with expansion to islands and making their own. And Russia showing their fighter jets against US Naval ships. It's because they want to show power and the US wants to be the only global superpower. Is the US scared? Even veterans are praised. Look I know WW2, Korea, and Vietnam Veterans are a big deal because they fought in wars to stop a GREAT threat. The Nází Party, Communist Expansion. We may have lost the Vietnam war because we didn't know what to expect. But now it's about isis. Now just think. The reason isis was created is because after WW1 when the Ottoman Empire Europeans had to deal with what remains of it. They didn't know about religious differences and put people in wrong spots. And those people didn't like that. After WW2 when the Soviet Union wanted communist expansion and we're going into Afghanistan, so the US supplied them with weapons and other supplies. Now they have weapons and can carry them easily into other countries because their borders are weak. They had cultural differences and believed they were right and I am already making this too long. And Al- Qaeda was created some years later and Isis is created. Ok now what if the europeans knew about the religious tensions going on in the Middle East after WW1 ended? Could Al-Qaeda and eventually isis been stopped. If so that would mean Isis and Al- Qaeda could have been stopped? I know there are ways many wars could have been prevented. But seriously what if terrorist groups didn't exist. This also involves that 9/11 would have never happened which also means that the gulf war would have never happen either. If so then what would the point of our military be? Just see if one of the countries I pointed out would "[b][i][u]WANT[/u][/i][/b] to go to war", NO! Have a good one John Green...
-
Vietnam was a war ultimately dictated by financial gains rather than defense/counteraction against a direct or truly salient threat to the U.S. and mismanaged due to bureaucratic handling/interference. The borders being established by the victors of the World Wars were done with deliberate intent to prevent unification/centralization, not out of geographical/sociological ignorance. Rather than see powerful religious states form highly organized militaries and become potential threats to European/Russian/American interests they were set up for internal struggle. When American/British and Russian interests were no longer aligned by a more belligerent and overtly threatening state the race to have the better deterrent began. It also involved sabotage on both sides, including the incitement/interference of/with other states that were potential assets or weakpoints based on geographic or economic ties to both sides. At various times 'Western' states have taken actions meant to be proactive or preemptive in the mean of 'policing' the world. In many cases those actions were as much or moreso to counteract (indirectly) the progress/success of the Soviet development of deterrents or resources. History repeats itself and the centers of power shift but there has always been calculated pragmatism behind (and maybe even conflicting with) the moral reasons given (or not given) for direct, forceful actions taken.
-
Logical, if harshly so. Made some valid points.
-
You're not wrong, but that's a strong opinion
-
Edited by Rhulkamania: 8/26/2016 8:13:55 PMThis was a comment replying to a horrible comment but that post seems to have been taken down.
-
Its a catch phrase to catch the readers attention. Try going to school once in while.
-
Explain to me what it is you are blabbering about? This is a reply to a post (which seems to have been removed)from somebody who had a twisted opinion on who this fantastic donation should go towards,this is in no way disrespecting the community or any of that nonsense. So would you like to elaborate plebian?
-
I don't necessarily disagree with your post, but I do think you should be careful making a statement like "I base things on logic not moral reasoning". You still have to apply your own arbitrary moral code/value set when talking about what to put capital towards. No monetary decision is exempt from this. Why are children's lives more valuable than elderly people lives, or the lives of white rhinos, or the lives of the productive and healthy members of society? Any answer to that question will be at least partially arbitrary.
-
Also, cancer isn't a terminal illness.
-
Yes it is... [quote]Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time. This term is more commonly used for progressive diseases such as cancer or advanced heart disease than for trauma[/quote] Quoted from Google
-
It can be terminal, but not always...how about you google "remission"
-
10 points to your mate
-
The guy who I replied to said it isn't a terminal illness. As in it is never terminal.
-
A good reason why not to argue with strangers online.
-
Edited by Artimise Flare: 8/26/2016 1:45:16 PMI will respectfully disagree with you sir. While, yes, there are millions of other less fortunate children who live in poverty and destitution, there is a great deal of good that happens with these donations. With these funds, for every treatment performed, a child is granted the chance to live. With every successful treatment, doctors have a larger pool of data to pull from to try and improve their techniques, medication and equipment. You see, while your cynicism can be understood, I must say it is an extremely depressing way to look at things. Even if only 250 thousand dollars makes it to these children and the respective research facilities, that's 250 thousand dollars they did not have before this even happened. Whether there is foul play and some people get tax breaks and/or donated for selfish reasons, some good STILL came out of this event. We are given many choices in this world, and it is up to you whether or not you want to see the glass half full or half empty. Peace be with you my friend, I wish you well. I dearly hope you never have to go through the pain that the parents of these children must go through. Please take care.
