Originally Posted by lawleypop

I'm not laughing.
I just don't care.

What the hell did people do -insert x number of years- ago when earthquakes, tsunamis, etc happened? If they could survive back then, they can survive now.

the thing is, a lot people DON'T survive. i'd like to see someone rescue themselves from a collapsed building, set their own broken bone, or treat a horrible infected cut without even clean water. the reason why people respond so much to natural disasters, is because a quick, effective response can save a lot of lives. compared that to corruption, violence, war, and poverty, disaster relief is an easy way to save lives. i'm not saying ignore the other issues, just that people can spend money and work on them for years with no result.

Originally Posted by brendanp

the thing is, a lot people DON'T survive. i'd like to see someone rescue themselves from a collapsed building, set their own broken bone, or treat a horrible infected cut without even clean water. the reason why people respond so much to natural disasters, is because a quick, effective response can save a lot of lives. compared that to corruption, violence, war, and poverty, disaster relief is an easy way to save lives. i'm not saying ignore the other issues, just that people can spend money and work on them for years with no result.

So, if something has a quick-fix, then everyone should jump on the bandwagon because it's easier to say that you've helped contribute to something?

That's not very altruistic.

Comments like these are basically rating all these misfortunes on some sort of scale. If it's just kinda-horrible-but not-too-horrible-that-you-don't-look-like-a-bad-person-if-you-don't-donate, then people should just give it a prayer and move on with their lives? Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but a very similar thing was said on page 1 (I think by Infinity, IIRC).

What if only 2,000 people died? Wouldn't be that big a deal. And that's not from me. Do you think it would have gotten nearly as much media coverage?

People start "caring" when it happens in mass numbers. Makes you think about your own mortality, I guess.

What your post said to me was: "I wouldn't just sitting around waiting for help like the Haitians, I would actually do something"

Which, in my mind, sounds like you think you're better than them.

If I misinterpreted, then that's my bad.

I'm not saying they're helpless because they're Haitians, I'm saying they're helpless because they're acting helpless.

This could have happened anywhere and I'd say the same thing. It's not because they're Haitian.

And if that seems mightier-than-thou, that's the luck of the draw. I'm not gonna apologize for my personality. I don't care, I don't pretend to care, I don't pretend to care even if I know it'll make me look like a saint, and I'll certainly voice my opinion. I just don't udnerstand how some people (ITT) can turn on this switch and they start caring when something "media-terrible" happens and then act mighter-than-thou towards people who are consistent with their attitudes (me!)

Originally Posted by lawleypop

So, if something has a quick-fix, then everyone should jump on the bandwagon because it's easier to say that you've helped contribute to something?

That's not very altruistic.

Comments like these are basically rating all these misfortunes on some sort of scale. If it's just kinda-horrible-but not-too-horrible-that-you-don't-look-like-a-bad-person-if-you-don't-donate, then people should just give it a prayer and move on with their lives? Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but a very similar thing was said on page 1 (I think by Infinity, IIRC).

What if only 2,000 people died? Wouldn't be that big a deal. And that's not from me. Do you think it would have gotten nearly as much media coverage?

People start "caring" when it happens in mass numbers. Makes you think about your own mortality, I guess.

not what i was getting at. i was trying to say that these kind of situations NEED a fast response, otherwise it will be of no use. i'm not talking about myself personally, but a lot of people will only give if they see something terrible(out of sight, out of mind). it is somewhat hypocritical to only give if it looks really bad on tv, but its better than never donating to anything.

if 2000 people died, they wouldn't need this amount of assistance, and the Haitian government could probably deal with that on its own. the thing i'm trying to emphasize is that people donate on a perceived need, and in Haiti there is a huge need(probably greater than anywhere else in the short term).

it's not only the numbers, but the time. i'm sure more people die from heart disease every year than died in the earthquake, but the earthquake all those people died over the course of a couple of weeks(and are still dying).

Originally Posted by brendanp

not what i was getting at. i was trying to say that these kind of situations NEED a fast response, otherwise it will be of no use. i'm not talking about myself personally, but a lot of people will only give if they see something terrible(out of sight, out of mind). it is somewhat hypocritical to only give if it looks really bad on tv, but its better than never donating to anything.

if 2000 people died, they wouldn't need this amount of assistance, and the Haitian government could probably deal with that on its own. the thing i'm trying to emphasize is that people donate on a perceived need, and in Haiti there is a huge need(probably greater than anywhere else in the short term).

it's not only the numbers, but the time. i'm sure more people die from heart disease every year than died in the earthquake, but the earthquake all those people died over the course of a couple of weeks(and are still dying).

Finally the nail has been hit on the head. Well done.