[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, </font>

Ah, but he said nothing about world hunger. He said Quote: <font color="blue"> 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, </font>

The sheer fact that when someone loses a wedding ring it will occupy their mind at least for that day considerably more than a starving child is proof enough of this statement.


Again, we're not talking about "world hunger" or giving up "all one's wealth". Is your car more important than a starving child? How about the next concert you attend? Why not forego these things and stop a child from starving today?

Answer: Right now, at least right for this very moment these material things are worth more to you than saving a starving child. Otherwise, you'd be making the arrangements.

I am NOT questioning your charity! I don't even know what you give to charitable causes. What I'm saying is that few of us give "til it hurts". We don't need to go broke doing so, but most of us could easily give more AND think more about charitable causes if we wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]
but few claim to care enough to give till it hurts. The problem here is confusing premises

1) many people claim to care enough to give up some non-essentials often with greater money value than the ring.

2) most of those people don't claim to care enough to donate till it hurts

these are consistant with not caring enough to give up the wedding ring.

the double standard is an illusion (not always but often)

BTW this is not about my charity but I'll brag to giving infinitely more to charity then I've spent on wedding rings.

chez