NationStates Jolt Archive

This is for my amusement sake.

What's your opinion?

1) A man worth over 56 billion dollars donates a total of 23 Million dollars to a charity.

or

2) A woman with only 5 dollars to her name donates it all to the same charity.

This is for my amusement sake.

What's your opinion?

1) A man worth over 56 billion dollars donates a total of 23 Million dollars to a charity.

or

2) A woman with only 5 dollars to her name donates it all to the same charity.

This depends. On the surface, the woman. However, if the man knows that by not donating all his money at once, but instead reinvesting it etcetera, he can give more than if he just donated it all at once, then he could be just as generous.

This is from the bible. Dunno where, but somewhere in Mark's gospel. Go figure. :P

The man is more generous. The woman has only made herself a bigger drain on the welfare system.

Is this also related to the whole "USA not donating enough of it's GDP for international aid" thingy?

I think it is. ;-)

I had this question posed by my high school history teacher many moons ago. He argued the woman, because she gave all she had and at a higher personal cost than the man. As a teen, I didn't believe him, but as time progressed, I saw his point.

In other words, it's not how much you give, but how much it will hurt you when you do. What's $23 million to the guy? Chump change he can write off at tax time. He can get good publicity for it, too. He'll never hurt for it. His donation can never be truly genuine.

There's a reason why when we say "he'd give you the shirt off his back," it means that someone will give you something, even if it inconveniences him.

The woman is more generous. She has more to lose the the guy, and nothing to gain.

5{\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0dra]This is for my amusement sake.

What's your opinion?

1) A man worth over 56 billion dollars donates a total of 23 Million dollars to a charity.

or

2) A woman with only 5 dollars to her name donates it all to the same charity.

I had this question posed by my high school history teacher many moons ago. He argued the woman, because she gave all she had and at a higher personal cost than the man. As a teen, I didn't believe him, but as time progressed, I saw his point.

In other words, it's not how much you give, but how much it will hurt you when you do. What's $23 million to the guy? Chump change he can write off at tax time. He can get good publicity for it, too. He'll never hurt for it. His donation can never be truly genuine.

There's a reason why when we say "he'd give you the shirt off his back," it means that someone will give you something, even if it inconveniences him.

The woman is more generous. She has more to lose the the guy, and nothing to gain.[/QUOTE]
The woman was irresponsible and dumb. By giving away all she had now she is in need of more charity which means she has alleviated exactly zero poverty. Just shifted a little bit of it. Also considering the nature of organizations that handle donated money, only a fraction (Although probably a large fraction) of her $5 went to someone who was destitute. The rest was spent on bureacracy. This means that a needy person with $5 now gets to be a needy person with nothing, and a needy person with nothing becomes perhaps a needy person with $3.

The woman was irresponsible and dumb. By giving away all she had now she is in need of more charity which means she has alleviated exactly zero poverty. Just shifted a little bit of it. Also considering the nature of organizations that handle donated money, only a fraction (Although probably a large fraction) of her $5 went to someone who was destitute. The rest was spent on bureacracy. This means that a needy person with $5 now gets to be a needy person with nothing, and a needy person with nothing becomes perhaps a needy person with $3.

That wasn't the question. Who was more generous: someone who gave a fraction of their wealth, or someone who gave 100% of their wealth.

And the rich guy might have given his fortune to a sham charity, and then the IRS came after him because they declined his fraudulant deduction. He could be just as irresponsible and dumb as the poor woman.

Gimme a break!

If the rich guy got fooled it's not as dumb as a poor woman who gives away everything she has.

the woman because she gave everything she had to the charity.

I can actually kind of see Drunk commies' point, but I'd like to modify the question a little. Suppose that, as before, the billionaire gives $23 million. Now, the woman has enough money to pay for minimal food, clothing, and housing, and $1000 extra. Suppose she gives all the extra to charity. Who's more generous then?

I can actually kind of see Drunk commies' point, but I'd like to modify the question a little. Suppose that, as before, the billionaire gives $23 million. Now, the woman has enough money to pay for minimal food, clothing, and housing, and $1000 extra, all of which she gives to charity. Who's more generous then?
Then it's possibly the woman.

Can generousity be quantified? Who's more generous?

People are generous if they give. Their not if they don't give.

Percentage or amount of Money doesn't matter. Because you can never be too generous or not generous enough. As long as you give what is easily available to you.

I agree with Druken Commies, the lady giving everything is stupid. If she's financially stable and has extra, I still would say both are equally generous.

Because she's giving what is easily available to her.

The man with his other millions, may do something better with the money that can generate more money to give to the poor.

Generousity, can be shown by how much you're willing to give, physically, and by the nesecity of the amount, and since the woman, who needs that money more, is giving it over, shows she is more generous.

It's not a morals question, it's a question of mathematics and a one of personality types.

Who was more generous: the guy who gave a few million out of his billions, with billions left over, or the woman who gave her entire fortune.

The woman is more generous. She may be less intelligent, but that's not what the questions asked.

The intelligence of the man and woman is irrelevant. So is the amount of money. It boils down to their personality types: it is whether someone who gave less than 1% of his fortune is more generous than the one who gave 100%.

Again, it's the woman who's more generous. The man will give you a scrap he'll never miss. He'd never give you everything he has, while the woman will, no matter if she doesn't know where her next meal is coming from. The woman will take the last bite out of her mouth if she thinks you need it more than she does. The man won't.

Their economic status is a red herring. Let's say the woman wins the lottery and now has 56 billion. Who would you rather have on your side helping you?

What if he loses his fortune? He might part with less 1% of his money. We already know the woman will give all of it.

If I was in serious trouble, my money is on the woman who'll help me even if it costs her. The man won't help me if it will burden him.

this is an old question, the answer, without wasting any time working at explaining it, is the woman.

She gives everything, which compared to the pittance given by the rich man, would be more than just water off a ducks back. It takes a lot of heart to give when you have nothing.

Not to berate the man, kudos to him for donating, it should still be held in high accord, but metaphysically speaking (which is the language i propose this question be answered in) the woman gives so much more, and as such deserves the highest praise!

:)

Easy. The woman.