View Single Post
  #61  
Old 09-27-2005, 01:34 PM
doubleplus doubleplus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3
Default Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

This is probably the most disturbing of your posts.

You posit that it would likely cost $20/month to preserve a life. Then you say that amounts to a "one time donation" of $1000 - but wouldn't that cover only two years?

Then you say what if it only costed $1 to "save a life"? Certainly we could come up with $20 to "save 20 lives"... What happened to the per-month? That's still $480/year, a more imposing figure than your twenty dollar bill.

Also, "...$20 a month. Pure guess. But almost certainly reasonably accurate..."?? Where did that come from? What happened to proof and sound logic?

But that's neither here nor there. Let's say that it costs a cent per month to preserve a life. Then you could preserve 2,000 lives for $20 a month, when you might not preserve the one life for the same amount. Fine. I still don't agree with what you're saying. Your argument applies only to those who would agree to pay out a certain amount per month if the number of lives affected is significantly greater than one. And of the people who agree with those rules, your conclusion, "YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES," only applies to those who can actually afford to send $20 without depriving themselves of basic necessities. That's a very specific set or criteria, and, on the contrary, I think the majority of people would either donate the $20 anyway, or not donate at all regardless of the "consequences" for the non-recipients. I'm not referring to these groups by their philosophies, by the way, but by their behaviors - that's just how people are imho, regardless of the why.

I'm figuring that your point is that "other people's welfare is not our responsibility," and that your situation is supposed to prove that axiom in some way. As it only applies to a (small) subset of the population, and doesn't at all pose a problem to those who agree with the converse of your statement, "other people's welfare is absolutely and in all cases our responsibility," your goal hasn't been achieved.
Reply With Quote