Irrelevant. Charity always has been a good method to gain social acknowledgment.
Now here's where your entire argument falls apart:
Why gain social acknowledgment?
Don't quip the same stuff you've been saying already:
Nuclear, [...] you still don't seem to get it.
This is your own failure of perception. Nuclear gets your point and you get his point. Who gets what point is beside the point. People are going to fabricate their own point anyway. I'd say you're talking past each other but you're not. Nuclear is talking past you and you're just sort of brushing off everything anyone says because you fathom that the average person is somehow not very intelligent.
That will also make your product sell better, since people won't only avoid turning away with disgust, they will feel involved with your charitable activities.
As I said, just marketing.
Investing billions in that foundation would never even remotely pay back.
Simple basic economics. But if I call it that it sounds complex. Economics in my experience is common sense "formalized" badly. After a certain amount, there is
no way in physical reality donating to charity will give you
any kind of monetary return, through any path or logic. Yes, being charitable does indeed do what you say, but the
scale at which it does so makes it entirely unprofitable on both short and long term basis. You would make more money investing in lottery tickets and raffles. You could have a better monetary return on your investment by
physically burning half your cash than donating in absurd figures to charities of any formulation.
After a certain point the return your seek on your investment cannot in all reason be monetary at all.
So, again, why, seek, social, acknowledgment?
Knowing that they buy what they need from nice people.
>implying there are people that exist that buy based on valor and not budget
You speak as if things that are obvious to you should be obvious to everyone else. Well I have news for you. They aren't obvious to you either. They aren't obvious at all. Nothing is truly obvious except for
maybe sheer Boolean of existence itself. You have to
actually think about things before you begin to understand them. Otherwise your brain is entirely lacking in the neural patterns necessary to have that set of thoughts. You are doing a piss-poor job of getting anyone to
think. Either for themselves or as a debate partner to you, honestly.
If you want to show results, you have to reach deep into your pocket.
It's funny. In all the documentaries I watch, it doesn't occur to me how incredibly fallacious it is to believe "more money" solves problems instead of creates them until I see you say this.
Giving out food, medicine, etc does not work.
It works, it just doesn't solve the root issue; bandaids.
Poor countries need education.
Yes, they need modern education, because life as we know it is only able to exist due to the presence of guiding intelligence. Let us teach them to use the tools we use.
The tools they don't have and can't afford. -.-
If they had a brain to not have so many kids and overpopulate.
They absolutely positively do have that. You're deluded if you think that there's a single parent on Earth, human or animal, that doesn't grasp the concept that
their children need to eat too.
If they had a brain to do anything, they could slowly pull themselves out of their mess.
They have a brain, they just don't have the will, the tools, or the knowledge of how to make the tools on the scale they need to really...
Thrive.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll eat for life...
Teach a man to use a system of livelihood that makes him beholden to you and your way of doing things...
Third world countries are locked in a cycle of toxic debt slavery to Europe. This age old recipe for disaster and oppression is what the American revolution prevented from happening to America.
That said, free food isn't necessarily good for the economy
"Free" is never "economic."
Get real people, just because some of you are greedy doesn't mean Bill Gates is greedy.
+100
Doing the opposite would be like evaluating nazism without Hitler.
Is this not a worthwhile endeavor?
