Are you suggesting that we fought World War II to prevent the gassing of Jews? The United States didn't have concern for the Jews, we just lucked out and stopped it from continuing. If we were truly concerned, we wouldn't have prevented Jews from emigrating and would've entered the war sooner.
A family member of a close friend is drastically different than a tsunami victim.
Maybe I'm a cynic but at least I'm not a bleeding-heart with no logic center. Do you suggest that throwing $300 million at a problem will make a difference? How much of that money will even get to the people who need it? I could maybe see the United States offering Americans a Peace Corps type of job to go to the tsunami-affected areas to help rebuilding (this would help out-of-work Americans and impoverished tsunami victims), but blindly pledging money? Where is it going?
It's easy to feign compassion, but do you actually care about this tragedy? I mean, what are you doing to help? When I heard about it, it blew my mind, I felt bad, but that's it. I can continue to proclaim how horrible it is (I can't even imagine the damage) but that's not going to change anything and it would only make me look like an asshole who is using a tragedy to show what a concerned citizen I am (which I believe is Daniel's point of contention).
There are so many other tragedies taking place in this world that we do nothing about; the only difference with the tsunami is that it is a natural tragedy. Why does it deserve special treatment?
it is clearly none of your business or concern what i personally have done to help. just as it is none of mine what you have or have not. it is also clearly a pointless discussion which can only disintegrate into a petty arguement which will prove no one right or wrong and only serve to enhance already inflated egos and self-assuredness.
i do not know you. i dont care to know you or to justify what i have donated or otherwise done to help. i am quite sure you can continue having a thrilling discussion as to why bleeding-hearts suck with daniel. do have a lovely day.
Whatever. I love it when internet arguments devolve into one person condescending to the other.
I don't even know why I personally argue on the internet. You (and most people on the internet) are obviously close-minded and your views cannot be changed by my feeble words.
I don't think bleeding hearts necessarily suck. I just wish they'd mix their care with a little bit of logic.
You don't care to know me? Well that just hurts. Maybe you would if I lived halfway across the ocean and was impaled by driftwood.
Ok, I'm done.
P.S. You need to lighten up. I don't know you, but from my limited exposure you seem to take things way too seriously. It is hard to read tone through an internet posting though.
A family member of a close friend is drastically different than a tsunami victim.
Maybe I'm a cynic but at least I'm not a bleeding-heart with no logic center. Do you suggest that throwing $300 million at a problem will make a difference? How much of that money will even get to the people who need it? I could maybe see the United States offering Americans a Peace Corps type of job to go to the tsunami-affected areas to help rebuilding (this would help out-of-work Americans and impoverished tsunami victims), but blindly pledging money? Where is it going?
It's easy to feign compassion, but do you actually care about this tragedy? I mean, what are you doing to help? When I heard about it, it blew my mind, I felt bad, but that's it. I can continue to proclaim how horrible it is (I can't even imagine the damage) but that's not going to change anything and it would only make me look like an asshole who is using a tragedy to show what a concerned citizen I am (which I believe is Daniel's point of contention).
There are so many other tragedies taking place in this world that we do nothing about; the only difference with the tsunami is that it is a natural tragedy. Why does it deserve special treatment?
Reply
i do not know you. i dont care to know you or to justify what i have donated or otherwise done to help. i am quite sure you can continue having a thrilling discussion as to why bleeding-hearts suck with daniel. do have a lovely day.
Reply
I don't even know why I personally argue on the internet. You (and most people on the internet) are obviously close-minded and your views cannot be changed by my feeble words.
I don't think bleeding hearts necessarily suck. I just wish they'd mix their care with a little bit of logic.
You don't care to know me? Well that just hurts. Maybe you would if I lived halfway across the ocean and was impaled by driftwood.
Ok, I'm done.
P.S. You need to lighten up. I don't know you, but from my limited exposure you seem to take things way too seriously. It is hard to read tone through an internet posting though.
Reply
Leave a comment