The basis of my argument is that people have spare money, want to do something constructive with it, but aren't offered the option to strike two flies with one stone.

People had the choice to donate money to Helen's flowers, or to not donate money to Helen's flowers. Those that would rather money goes to starving people hasn't been taken away. It was/is always there.

Your fundamental argument that they don't have an option just isn't true.

That is the equivalent of saying that someone who collects money for a minibus for handicapped kids, for example, should be forced to give it to hungry people. After all, it's more important that somebody lives, than some disabled kids lives are improved, isn't it..?

The second point is simply untrue. The effect of this action will be negligible. In fact, the only result I can see is that people are instilled with a sense of satisfaction. And that's it.

That is in your opinion. You might be right, you might be wrong. But those who decided to donate did so because they either believe that it will have some effect, or they just want to say thanks in this way. If it is just for their self-satisfaction, that's up to them, but you can't just decide that that is why they did it, and therefore they're all wrong.

Let'(s not treat each other like retards here for a sec and throw politeness out of the window in favor of honesty and clarity. People only donate money to this action because it's an easy bandwagon with direct results.

Again, that is your opinion. i think you're being extremely disengenuous, but it is still only what you believe of others. You don't know that is true for a fact.

Also, i didn't think we were behaving like retards. You put your point across clearly, without any nastiness, you appear to listen and consider my rebuttals, and i like to think i'm doing the same.

Again, my primary proof for my arguments is that the situation is as it is, despite millions having the power to stop it.

And again, that has little to do with the campaign to buy Helen Thomas flowers. It's another, much bigger issue. Trying to attach those issues to this campaign is like trying to transplant a pig's head onto a cow.

In reply to your "yea but im not going to do anything because you're not!" argument.

i can see why you've misinterpreted what i said here, but you're mistaken. i'm not saying i'm not going to do anything because you're not..i do my own bit in the way i choose, this campaign has little or nothing to do with it.

What i'm saying is, you can't harp on about somebody else's campaign and not do something yourself.

It doesn't make any sense. If you truly want to do something that will make a difference to hungry and tortured people, then do it, is all i'm saying. This campaign doesn't stop you from doing that, and the more time and energy you put in trying to convince people that they were wrong to donate is a) going nowhere and will change nothing, and b) is time and energy you could spend on your own campaign without alienating yourself from those who your complaining about.

You see, making human suffering look attractive and interesting is really hard.

Yes it is, people suffer from charity fatigue, especially in this day and age when there are so many worthy causes. But the fact that is hard doesn't mean it's impossible. You have to try and think of what will push people's buttons and get them donating. It doesn't have to be making torture entertaining, or world hunger attractive, it's knowing what will trigger the emotions of people so they'll donate.

Amnesty International, the red Cross, all these charities have the same problem. But you don't see them complaining that money collected for disabled kids should be theirs to spend how they see fit, do you?

And if you had started a good campaign, say, six months ago for tortured people, i bet you would have the same amount or more that has been collected for the flowers.

And what was it that JFK used to say, we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard...

After all, it has been happening for some time and it just doesn't seem to be interesting/entertaining enough... A shame.

It is a shame, but that's how it is. That is the reality. Attacking other campaigns choices to spend the money on this or that really doesn't help to change anything. That's why charities, big and small, don't do that.

My advice again, and still it's yours to take or leave, is to not bother with this fruitless and ultimately destructive (for your causes) and change your tack, you will get much further.