And who is to say where the money is actually needed? Just because you may believe abuse charities should have more money than helping abused donkeys and other wildlife doesn't mean others do.
As an example I donate a reasonable amount to charity every month, none of it goes to human oriented charities, all to environmental charities/organisations. If I could I would ask for more of my taxes to be diverted to initiatives like that as well.
A choice between "saving" another few people I will never know or meet, out of the seven billion of the species on the planet, or helping save some rainforest meaning the a highly endangered species may survive into the future? I'll take the latter thanks.
Your post is a prime example of politics at play, except it's the opposite to the point you are trying to make.
That's not mentioning the emotiveness of government policy either. Much of the aid we give (and policies we follow) are heavily related to emotive subjects.
Last edited:
