donate
Sunday, January 09, 2005
i came across this in a forum yesterday...
I'm really sorry for the peepz in asia ... but they're not getting my money. My money goes to ANIMALS - NOT PEOPLE. The human race will survive.. I can't say the same for panda's and some other threatened species. Only about 1500 pandas left, they need my money a lot harder. besides, by now there has already been so much money donated, it doesn't make a difference anymore.
i shouldn't waste my time even entertaining this shallow, narrow-minded, offensive drivel, but this sicko needs to be told.
firstly, he's wrong.
secondly, this was a natural disaster. panda's don't come into it. their problem can be laid at the feet of humans - that's a problem we have created. it is not money thats needed to stop the plight of the panda, it's a change of attitude. a change of attitude in this case will do nothing to stop people dying; in this case, they need money.
thirdly, it's utterly impossible to begin to imagine the destruction. tv pictures do nothing. one of the first death toll's was 11,000. eleven thousand people. that's so horrifying because it's actually comprensible. most of us can picture 11,000 people - it would be eleven times the size of my former school. however, as the death toll rises it becomes more and more impossible to imagine just how many people that is. it becomes a figure; an estimated, approximated, horrendous number.
one hundred and fifty thousand people are just completely inconceivable.
fourthly, and most tragically, 150,000 dead isn't even remotely the half of it.
fifthly, no manmade problem could ever unite the world in such a common cause. this goes beyond politics. this is human's looking out for human's. this is instinct, helping others who have nothing, to survive. the global population has given, IS giving, what they can, along with government donations, which is entirely made up of their taxes anyway. it is the responsibility of people to take responsibilty for their fellow human beings and not to ignore them. uniting the world in a similar way for the cause of the panda will never happen, as it is a minority of human beings that are the problem. in this disaster, no-one can be blamed.
finally, saying no to charity is difficult; prioritising causes is something i don't believe is easy, or a particularly moral argument. in his mind, pandas may indeed be more important than humans, fair enough. however, the world's governments could solve the plight of the panda, as well as help the tramp on the street and end third world debt, no matter which order they appear on any 'list'. these are problems mankind has created himself, and most importantly, mankind can solve. natural disasters, the world's governments cannot control, they can merely react to them when they occur, as can the people of the world.
there is no choice in THIS matter...
I'm really sorry for the peepz in asia ... but they're not getting my money. My money goes to ANIMALS - NOT PEOPLE. The human race will survive.. I can't say the same for panda's and some other threatened species. Only about 1500 pandas left, they need my money a lot harder. besides, by now there has already been so much money donated, it doesn't make a difference anymore.
i shouldn't waste my time even entertaining this shallow, narrow-minded, offensive drivel, but this sicko needs to be told.
firstly, he's wrong.
secondly, this was a natural disaster. panda's don't come into it. their problem can be laid at the feet of humans - that's a problem we have created. it is not money thats needed to stop the plight of the panda, it's a change of attitude. a change of attitude in this case will do nothing to stop people dying; in this case, they need money.
thirdly, it's utterly impossible to begin to imagine the destruction. tv pictures do nothing. one of the first death toll's was 11,000. eleven thousand people. that's so horrifying because it's actually comprensible. most of us can picture 11,000 people - it would be eleven times the size of my former school. however, as the death toll rises it becomes more and more impossible to imagine just how many people that is. it becomes a figure; an estimated, approximated, horrendous number.
one hundred and fifty thousand people are just completely inconceivable.
fourthly, and most tragically, 150,000 dead isn't even remotely the half of it.
fifthly, no manmade problem could ever unite the world in such a common cause. this goes beyond politics. this is human's looking out for human's. this is instinct, helping others who have nothing, to survive. the global population has given, IS giving, what they can, along with government donations, which is entirely made up of their taxes anyway. it is the responsibility of people to take responsibilty for their fellow human beings and not to ignore them. uniting the world in a similar way for the cause of the panda will never happen, as it is a minority of human beings that are the problem. in this disaster, no-one can be blamed.
finally, saying no to charity is difficult; prioritising causes is something i don't believe is easy, or a particularly moral argument. in his mind, pandas may indeed be more important than humans, fair enough. however, the world's governments could solve the plight of the panda, as well as help the tramp on the street and end third world debt, no matter which order they appear on any 'list'. these are problems mankind has created himself, and most importantly, mankind can solve. natural disasters, the world's governments cannot control, they can merely react to them when they occur, as can the people of the world.
there is no choice in THIS matter...
Labels: news
» Post a Comment