Notre Dame- an example of altruism at its worst

[Jebus]

Here is the question I want to ask all the benevolent people who are donating all that money to the restoration of Notre Dame:

Over a million people died last year from mosquito bites because they couldn't afford nets and other protections. Were you not aware of this or did you not think this was important enough?

Over a hundred thousand people died last year because they could not afford a simple measles vaccination. Were you not aware of this or did you not think this was important enough?

Who benefits from the beauty of old, architectural marvels like the Notre Dame? Perhaps the top 3% wealthiest people in the world. The other 97% have far more important things to worry about.

[teo123]

Hey, listen, donating money to poor people doesn't help as much as you probably think it does. Most of the poor live under tyrannical governments, and to really help them... Well, we need to raise the awareness of the corruption and fight it. And we need to fight the common misconception that poverty is caused by economic freedom, since people in developed countries believing those things hurts poor people perhaps even more than the tyrannical governments hurt them. And, of course, we need to make sure that it isn't profitable to give food to animals instead of to people.
Altruism at its worst is probably donating money to Fair Trade movements and GreenPeace, since they actually hurt poor people in the name of helping them.
Now, that investing in culture is often a waste of money, I agree with you. It's especially bad when it's done with tax money, but even when private charities do that, that can still be considered a fraud (They promise that will lead to tourism significantly increasing, even though they know it probably won't.).

[Jebus]

Most of the poor live under tyrannical governments,

360 million people live under the poverty line in India. Would you call this a tyrannical government?

Regardless of corruption, why is it that you think that someone living under a tyrannical government would benefit less from a measles vaccination than someone who does not?

Or are you referring to the possibility that the measles vaccination will be much more costly under a corrupted government?

[teo123]

@Jebus, I don't really know what's going on in India, but I know Venezuelan government prevents the charities from giving money to the poor people there.

[Jebus]

@Jebus, I don't really know what's going on in India, but I know Venezuelan government prevents the charities from giving money to the poor people there.

Please answer this first: Are you saying you wrote the following comment based on your knowledge of a country that represents less than .3 percent of the world's poor?

Hey, listen, donating money to poor people doesn't help as much as you probably think it does. Most of the poor live under tyrannical governments,

Then answer this: If you agree that there are poor people who live in countries with both tyrannical and non tyrannical governments, why not choose to allocate the available funds to poor people in the countries that do not prevent charities?

[teo123]

OK, @Jebus[/mention, I didn't say charities are completely useless. I am just saying they usually don't address the root of the problem, and sometimes (as in the case of Venezuela, and my guess is many other countries, but that it's not so well-known) they don't address the problem at all.

[Jebus]

@teo123 Since you didn't really answer my questions.

Do you agree with this summation:

Teo123 thinks that the number of poor people who live in countries with non corrupt governments is not significant.

Teo123 thinks that the fact that many poor people live in countries with corrupt governments negates the general idea of charity for the poor.

Teo123 thinks the root of all (or almost all) poverty is corrupt governments.

Teo, I sense you are trying a bit too hard to think outside the box.

[teo123]

Look, @Jebus, do we agree that, when we donate money to charity, we could be doing a cruel job thinking we are helping somebody?
1. The person you are giving money to may be fraudulent (and, for instance, buy illegal drugs with that money).
2. The person you are giving money to may be honest but mistaken, and the organization is fraudulent, and doesn't even intend to send money and/or stuff to the poor people in far-away lands.
3. The organization may have good intentions, but is actually very ineffective (money and stuff people sent often didn't even cross Venezuela's borders).
4. The money may end up intercepted by people in far-away lands who aren't actually that poor (as is usually happening with the fair-trade movements).
5. The money may go to the alcoholics or drug-abusers in far-away lands, and you just end up encouraging the lifestyle that keeps them poor.
...
So, why do you think you are actually doing a good job by giving money to charity? Is there some study that confirms that you are more likely to do good than harm if you give money to charity?

[Jebus]

Look, @Jebus, do we agree that, when we donate money to charity, we could be doing a cruel job thinking we are helping somebody?
1. The person you are giving money to may be fraudulent (and, for instance, buy illegal drugs with that money).
2. The person you are giving money to may be honest but mistaken, and the organization is fraudulent, and doesn't even intend to send money and/or stuff to the poor people in far-away lands.
3. The organization may have good intentions, but is actually very ineffective (money and stuff people sent often didn't even cross Venezuela's borders).
4. The money may end up intercepted by people in far-away lands who aren't actually that poor (as is usually happening with the fair-trade movements).
5. The money may go to the alcoholics or drug-abusers in far-away lands, and you just end up encouraging the lifestyle that keeps them poor.

All of the above are possible. The more stupid the donor, the bigger the possibility.

...

So, why do you think you are actually doing a good job by giving money to charity?

Because I am not an idiot.

Is there some study that confirms that you are more likely to do good than harm if you give money to charity?

When, in the lack of knowledge of a study, I like to use something called common sense.

@teo123 I noticed that you like to avoid answering questions by instead posing your own. Don't you think it would be fair, as I answered all your questions, that you answer the ones I posed to you?

[brimstoneSalad]

@teo123 since @Jebus answered your questions, you should answer his.