I'm not surprised you find it crass.  People who can't agree on something always think the other person is. 

And that being said; I think you're arguing the wrong argument with me.  We're technically on the same side here.  Saying that there are other things that are a bit more vital in the world which could use such large donations.  BUT I'm adding that it's not our place to decide what and when it's right or wrong in addition to that.

Double post  >.>       

I get it -- you're saying no conversation is needed as it's all a moot point. 

Yeah it kind of is a moot point.  We're two people debating something we actually have an agreement on.  However one of us (myself) also thinks it's not the place for us to determine whether the actions of those doing what they think is right - is right or not.

You and I have nothing to debate.

Yeah it kind of is a moot point.  We're two people debating something we actually have an agreement on.  However one of us (myself) also thinks it's not the place for us to determine whether the actions of those doing what they think is right - is right or not.

You and I have nothing to debate.

This topic is to create discussion in regards to exactly what I've been talking about (and what the OP intended, I'm sure). (The fact that people have strange priorities with money)

You're being too literal here. You're literally telling me that my opinions are invalid because we shouldn't tell people how to spend money lol.

You've just dismantled compassion for ego and arguing that we shouldn't feel this way. Again, what??

This isn't programming logic, Joe. This isn't 1's and 0's.

Other than one not necessarily important view of mine, what are we not in agreement on?  We agreed other things are more important.  We agreed that ultimately it isn't our place to dictate other's spending choices but it's OK to still have an opinion about it. 


Why is this still continuing?  You lost me at programming logic too btw.

EDIT:  That's not to say the programming statement doesn't make sense.  I'm just not personally grasping what you mean by it is all. 

Other than one not necessarily important view of mine, what are we not in agreement on?  We agreed other things are more important.  We agreed that ultimately it isn't our place to dictate other's spending choices but it's OK to still have an opinion about it. 


Why is this still continuing?  You lost me at programming logic too btw.

This will be my last post, I don't wish to derail this any further and I regret it getting this far.

We do not agree. I said that we don't have the right to tell people what to do with their money; but I personally believe people of that stature SHOULD be using their money in ways to change the social landscapes of this world. (Look at people like Elon, a mainstream example but a plethora exist)

I DO hold people/organizations/groups of that nature to higher standards, as should all. This "they don't have to do anything, it's their money" concept is the meat here.

We can agree to disagree.

Please don't pick at sentences and assume we have the same ideals.

The programming/binary kick was an analogy that this isn't black and white. There are more layers at play than just to say "pfft, well you can't tell them what to spend their money on".

I agree.  I've gotten too into this as well. 

But I also disagree, I do think we have the same ideals.  But we were arguing what I felt like was two different things.  We both want what's best and care about the world we live in.  And I feel bad that I couldn't make that more clear earlier in the discussion. 

But it is what it is. 

EDIT: 

The programming/binary kick was an analogy that this isn't black and white. There are more layers at play than just to say "pfft, well you can't tell them what to spend their money on".

Ahh.  Gotcha.

I find these images very accurate.

I saw that.  It speaks volumes but unfortunately not enough people care.  Many people (including a few in my family) live with this mentality of "well I won't be around when it becomes a problem, so I really don't care."  Which is a horrible attitude to have and is likely how we got to where we are now.  Apparently they have no issue letting their grandchildren suffer through the consequences of their laziness and lack to do what is right.  Steve Irwin said it best with, "We don't own planet Earth, we belong to it.  And we must share it with our wildlife."

Relevance

Their money, nothing we can do about it.