akitchin Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Well, people who have little money can contribute little. SO their contribution has very little impact on the world. ... Many can give money, But being what he is and than giving such huge proportion of money is not easy. i would argue that given how much money he has waiting in the wings, giving "such a huge proportion" (proportion of what? if you mean proportion of his actual funds, it's a small ratio) is actually rather easy. and whether people who have little and donate little actually have a great impact on the world is irrelevant - neal's point was that it reflects far greater generosity and philanthropy. it's easy to give when you have much, but takes a great deal of selflessness to do so when you have little. i'm not arguing that what he's done and is doing isn't great for the world, all i'm saying is that i think you're overrating just how amazing he is (and missing neal's point). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stopofeger Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Im not saying he is the greatest philanthropist in the world when counting ones generosity. Im not comparing his generosity. We can never judge that. im counting his impact on the world. What impact he has on the world as whole and what influence he had on other rich people. Im obviously not saying he is the greatest person. Im saying he is the greatest person when it comes to changing the way philanthrpy has worked before and how people are being helped. Its not the race of who is the greatest man. its the race of who can make this world better than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.