zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to Captain SNES. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 To save lives or improve them?, A question of priority
Posted: Sep 23 2008, 09:55 AM


Group: Members
Posts: 7,442
Member No.: 40
Joined: 10-October 04

Because me and my friends have long held discussions on charity work and humanitarian work. I argue that it's important that we as assist the truly starving and dying overseas, they argue that we have to make ourselves stable before anyone else, I argue back that thinking like that leads nowhere in the end, because quality of life can always be improved and there's always something that could be done further arguing that most people at least have a real chance at surviving here unless some places.

That's when I realize the seperation, because of finite resources we can either use those resources to save people who would otherwise starve or die of common diseases bring their standard of living up to around our poverty level but still stable and ultimately live or we can find ose at that living now and raise them to a more middle class standard of living. So that begs the question, what's better to save lives or improve them?


I dare you to look at this and not smile at least a little.
Grandmaster Jogurt
Posted: Sep 23 2008, 01:37 PM

Too few posts for a custom title

Group: Group: Group: Group
Posts: -1,253
Member No.: 2
Joined: 6-August 04

Well, in general, the answer is to save lives. I'm pretty sure all metrics of morality find it preferable to have two people with passable lives versus one person in luxury and one person dying.

user posted image user posted image -- Let us all study the Panzer and grow into beautiful, healthy women! --
-- 100+7 --

Arc: Can I ship you and FZ?
Forever Zero: I should never talk while I wank.

Arc: Are your panties still hazardous?

You awake in a 10x10 room.
CHAPTER 2.05 2010 10 12

hyenas, like bears, are dogs
Posted: Sep 23 2008, 02:11 PM


Group: Members
Posts: 7,442
Member No.: 40
Joined: 10-October 04

I would agree, but I'm trying t to see the other sides and consider additional things. Like lets say that the saving lives side is saving lives but in the end while saving them but not able to bring them up enough to make it so they are not dependent upon the system for survival, while at the same time if you bring up someone whose quality of life is higher but still dependent upon the system, you can bring them up, they'll no longer be dependent upon the system freeing up resources to help additional people or even by making them independent freeing up additional resources.

Sorry if that sounds confusing since I know I'm bad at articulating thoughts but lets put a povery range score here of 1-10

1-2=Starving to death and dying of basic diseases basically people from third world countries, basically they will die sooner rather then later maybe not every year but in 10 years they'll be dead, not many of these types in the United States due to some sort of welfare and private organizations.

3-4=People who are living on extreme welfare and barely pass by but ultimately will live. Basically a huge amount of welfare people in our country

5-6=Lower middle class in our country, basically are fed and housed and somewhat self-sufficient but live paycheck to paycheck, but ultimately at the end of the day add to the economy.

7-Middle class majority of our country, able to work and survive even in times of lay offs.

8- Upper middle class on the lower end of the 6 figure range

9-Rich basically millionaires can retire now.

10-Super ultra rich, the people you work for, probably work for them.

Now what I'm asking is lets say we have 1 million unemployed of the 3-4, and 10 million of the 1-2. Now we have 50 million dollars to put the 10 million on the 3-4 level, but they'll be with the amount given, they'll always be at that level. Now for the same amount we can put the 3-4 to the 5-6 level and in rare cases even the 7th level and in 10-20 years those people who started it, will forever be apart of 5-7 level even without the help. Now because of new people being born and all that junk over new people have come into the 3-4 range but now it's only 800,000 but because of the increase activity of the new 5-7's we have around 70 million to help now. Basically enough to help current 3-4 level and around 40-60% of the 1-2.

Would it also help to put into the scenario that the people who are providing relief for the system would have no connection to the 1-2 people and have no obligation to give them the system other then the belief their both human, while the 3-4's are people that the people are providing the system live with them, work with them, sometimes are given their jobs by them and the idea that if they ever fall to the 3-4 position they will have someone to help them.

So yes in the short term people die, but it's arguable that in the long term far more people benefit.

Yeah long posts, sorry also note: I'm not arguing for the latter theory, I'm merely trying to suggest what the other side might say.

This post has been edited by Alphawolf55 on Sep 23 2008, 02:14 PM


I dare you to look at this and not smile at least a little.
« Next Oldest | Serious Discussion | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic Options

Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0662 seconds | Archive