Imgflip Logo Icon

The future world if

The future world if | Society if 95% of charities disappeared | image tagged in the future world if | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
77 views 2 upvotes Made by TheHugePig 9 months ago in MS_memer_group
The future world if memeCaption this Meme
13 Comments
1 up, 9mo,
2 replies
1. Most of them are flat out pointless.
Why would I donate $1 to Latinx in Gaming when I can donate that to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital and kids with cancer?

2. They don’t fix problems.
Homeless people aren’t homeless because they’re poor, it’s because they blew what money they did have on gambling, drugs, and other vices. Giving them money or homes won’t fix it. And soup kitchens just encourage their current lifestyle.

3. You’re not saving the world.
Have they cured breast cancer yet? Is type 1 diabetes gone yet? No?? What makes you think a donation will fix it this time?
1 up, 9mo,
1 reply
made w/ Imgflip meme maker
That’s a real charity by the way. Can’t make this up.
[deleted]
0 ups, 9mo,
1 reply
ngl i fell like pharmaceutical companies have cures to diseases but just never release them so they can provide treatments that people come back to and buy more of

and holy shit i spelled pharmaceutical correctly with no red lines
[deleted]
0 ups, 9mo
and yet i misspelled 'feel'
1 up, 9mo,
1 reply
1. The benefits of the few that do have a point (st Jude's) outweigh the drawbacks of the many that just have no impact.

2. Some of that money goes into giving them a safe place to sleep. The local shelter where I live has a program where they can live in the apartments there rent free as long as they help serve food or clean dishes in the soup kitchen. And soup kitchens give lots of families/people a way to stay alive until they're able to get the mental help that charity also provides.

3. No, but do you think we'd be as far with developments like chemo and such without charity? Donations help advance.
1 up, 9mo,
1 reply
1. Hence why I said 95%. I bring up St. Jude’s because those are completely defenseless people. There’s no irresponsibility.

2. Again that just encourages the lifestyle and softens the impact of homelessness. I’d even argue it incentivizes being homeless.

3. Yes I do. Chemotherapy was invented in 1943. We’ve had ample time.
0 ups, 9mo,
1 reply
1. I feel like out of all the charities I've seen, about 5% only have been pure stupid. Donating to Wikipedia for example I think is pretty cool even though the people there are not defenseless. But also I've probably not been exposed to the same number and types of charities as you so agree to disagree ((:

2. You might be assuming that they chose that lifestyle? People don't choose homelessness. Even their choosing of doing drugs usually comes from outside pressure and bad environment which is really hard to control, and would happen regardless of what the impacts of it were. Just like death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime, worse conditions for homeless wouldn't reduce homelessness. Charities on the other hand reduce the homeless by helping them and getting them out of that situation.

3. Did they not have donations before 1943 😢

4. You're literally the best for taking the time to reply to all that thank you
1 up, 9mo,
1 reply
1. I view sites like Wikipedia in the same way as Patreon for YouTubers. It’s not really a “charity” where you’re helping someone in need (or someone who thinks they’re in need)

2. It’s more than you think. There’s a reason why being homeless is a lifestyle. Plus, to play ball with the drugs argument, it’s still the fault of that person for giving into peer pressure.

3. Chemotherapy didn’t come from charity and it’s had 80+ years to develop. Charity isn’t the only form of funding.

I’m always happy to discuss these things. I’m just putting it out there that you shouldn’t be shamed into wasting your hard-earned cash on these things.
0 ups, 9mo,
1 reply
1. Okie that's fair enough

2. The reason is mainly just spiraling down from a starting point tho right? And about it being their fault, the reason they were mentally weak to the point where they gave into it is also not their fault, but comes from environmental factors and experiences that made them think and feel yadaya I'm sure you know where I'm going with this, and if you go back and back it's nobody's fault for anything. It's a stupid argument ik but I get stuck on it.

3. But if charity had been involved, wouldn't it have increased funding and therefore decreased the time it took to develop?

Ok (: and yeah you're right, I just feel that it's not a waste supposing it comes from compassion and a cause, not shame, and brings something to the world that you believe is worth that hard worked cash.
0 ups, 9mo,
1 reply
0 ups, 9mo,
1 reply
Nobody was asking you to lol
It wasn't addressed to you
It wasn't about you
It isn't your business
It's only out here for you to read if you want to
If you don't want to, there's no point in commenting on it
That was really stupid
[deleted]
0 ups, 9mo,
1 reply
0 ups, 9mo
Respectfully, I did not join in 2024, and even if I had, this spamming is very annoying and undeserved. I was not talking to you lil bro.
The future world if memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
Society if 95% of charities disappeared