Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
My argument is purely rational.
If that is the case then it might be a possibility that many Americans share that same rationale so I don't think I'm off base (@Ryozorian). In fact it seems you might be if we are going to use stats to give credibility to our rationale (which I don't believe in)
Also Haiti was just an example of a country that NEEDS financial assistance.
But come to think of it that's 35 million dollars that could have gone to a country that actually needed it.
|
You are very good at pushing people away from agreeing with you. I have seen it happen on this thread alone. How many times have you felt the need to say your argument is purely rational.
I understand the rationality of helping Haiti. No one would disagree. However, Haiti doesn't need financial assistance. It needs ORGANIZED and TRUSTWORTHY financial assistance. With the money the world has put into Haiti, they should be living large. They aren't. You have the problem of diminishing returns. Is it better to put money in a safe, or a furnace. Maybe the furnace needs it more, but what is the furnace going to do with it?
Regardless of Haiti's needs, your argument that Japan "doesn't need the money" falls flat, as ANY country that experiences a disaster requires money to get rescue and relief efforts on the move. You still don't seem able to accept that much of that money doesn't go into the pockets of people without homes, but goes into buying food, water, supplies, airplane fuel, etc. to get relief workers from all over the world into the disaster zone. I am repeating arguments that you don't seem to want to respond to, so I am stopping here.