I usually don’t allow comments by people who don’t sign their names to their posts (FYI emails are safe, and are only used for future validation and fighting content spam, so no need for your bogus email). I am allowing yours because I have a few comments to make to it. (And the fact I can look on your Res door this weekend when I come to Waterloo and see your name in Village 1, South 2, [I won't post your room number])

I’m not sure exactly what you find so “interesting”. Maybe it’s hard for you to make judgements towards people, but for me it was quite easy, and not interesting in the least.

I don’t imply anything. I EXPLICITLY express my view that that people should support human charities before animal charities. I’m not sure where you pull your data for your environmental extrapolation, but to clarify my stance for you, as I doubt you’ve read all my previous blog entries, is that yes, I support human charities over environmental charities as well.

In regards to Women’s Shelters, I am in great support of them. They are human charities, are they not? Further extrapolation on your part; flawed I might add. And I support local charities over international charities. I believe we should help our own before others (which I expressed in my blog entry). You are only an idiot if you blindly support a human charity without understanding their full purpose.

My “apparent logic”? I made no such logical arguments. I made an opinion, so I’m not sure what logic you are basing your statement on, though I agree with it. I believe though you were implying that I just rant and don’t go out personally and make a difference. You are quite mistaken. I am a strong supporter of Cancer and AIDS charities, and have committed over 600 hours to community service over the past few years. I have been involved in many organizations, such as one that worked with disadvantaged children. I was awarded the Millennium Excellence Award for my community involvement and leadership (as well as many other distinctions). Few people I know personally have done as much as I have, so I believe your implication is unwarented. Investigate the topic before commenting, and validate your assumptions. I see no whole in my opinion. Which is now an argument. Please choose your terminology better next time.

To conclude, your hopes will go unfullfilled, as I stand by every comment I’ve made, with signing my name to it. More than you have done. My opinions are just as credible as they were before. Thank you for showing interest in my blog entry.

Does that imply that we should support only charities dedicated to helping humans? Would someone who supports an environmental charity also be an idiot?

Furthermore, am I an idiot if I choose to support a local women’s shelter? Surely starving children in developing countries need my money more desperately than abused women in my community. If I’m an idiot because I choose to help animals despite a greater human need, am I also an idiot if I choose to help certain humans, despite a greater human need?

By your apparent logic, I would propose that anyone who posts rants on his blog about the charities others support, instead of going out and personally making a difference, is himself an an idiot. It should be pretty easy to see the hole in that argument.

I hope you think things through a bit more carefully next time, before labelling supporters of a particular charity “idiots”. It certainly doesn’t help lend credibility to your other points in your post.

And I don’t think that getting rid of the wristbands would really do as much as you would like to eliminate charities that you disagree with. And it would do nothing to eliminate donations given because people want to make themselves feel better.

However, I do agree with your general sentiment on that. While the wristbands might be a way for charities to eke out money (and I’m not just talking the Make Poverty History campaign), I don’t think that’s a good thing, more from the donor end of it than the charity end, but the charities are guilty of enabling and encouraging it. I have a somewhat Emersonian view on this – if you can’t support the charity in the main then you oughtn’t be donating to them. It’s hard to find something that you can agree with completely, but you should at least have an idea of the general mission of the charity before you donate to them.

And I agree, charitable donations ought to be because you want to make a difference. I go with that largely because it’s far too difficult to give enough to stop feeling guilty, but giving without considering what you’re giving and why is an insult, it’s saying that you’re above the problems and concerns that others have. And it’s patronizing, instead of sharing their problems.

Oh, and I hate PETA. Anyone who supports a charity for animals over human aid charities is an idiot.