What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bill Gates vs. Mother Teresa (1 Viewer)

Which of these two has helped society the most?

  • Bill Gates

    Votes: 15 75.0%
  • Mother Teresa

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20
What's most frustrating here is the characterization of Gates as a guy "who threw money around" to charity indiscrimitately. We've certainly had plenty of philanthropists who can be called guilty of that. Andrew Carnegie exploiting workers while he built libraries and what not.

But Gates isn't like that. The Bill Gates Foundation is probably the most successful charitable organization in the world. He took the time to exhaustively research issues in world health and figured out novel ways to make a real impact. No, he hasn't cured Aids in Africa, but he's done an awful lot to make AZT, malaria vaccines, and other medicines more prevalent there. More than our government has (and I actually think Bush's funding for African AIDS relief has a been a pleasant surprise).

I have no doubt that Bill Gates has done more good than Mother Theresa. I also have no doubt that Mother Theresa's intentions were noble, at least as she understood them, but I place a higher value on efforts to eliminate suffering than on efforts to empathize with it.

 
I believe that Mother Teresa probably accomplished more relative to the resources with which she ultimately started her mission.
What did she accomplish? She took in over $100 million a year by some estimates. Where did it go? It seems to have gone to the Vatican's general account even though the donors were told that their money would be going to help the poor. Mother Theresa's group never built a single hospital. Mostly what she did was gather sick people all in one place, have them share blankets that were not machine washed since she didn't believe in that (thus spreading bacterial and viral infections), and baptize them before they died. Maybe she saved their souls by baptizing them, but she didn't do much to save their bodies. She even refused to give anyone pain medication since their suffering was "beautiful."
:goodposting: And all Gates does is try to improve the lives of impoverished children....what a loser.

 
Donating to charities is tax deductible and there's no way Gates is giving it to the government. A large sum of his money he donated could have been used by our government to help our own poor. Would it? Who knows.

That said, his money (I don't know of him personally doing anything) has done wonderful things as stated in this thread.

 
Here was the original quote from the other thread:

I certainly wasn't trying to make a blanket statement that teachers suck, simply saying that as a profession it typically doesn't attract our best and brightest.  Do you disagree?
Please define "best and brightest".I think it depends on what you value. I believe that giving and helping others is more important than earning and taking. Who's better and brighter? Bill Gates or Mother Teresa? Yeah, that's an over the top example, but i think you get what I mean.
I obviously picked a poor example. Thanks for the heads up. Learn something new every day.I think AnonymousBob chose not to understand my meaning and opted to point out my error.

Another side note. Did I say this above?

A sidenote Shick! made where he compared these very two I'm now bringing to this poll.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here was the original quote from the other thread:

I certainly wasn't trying to make a blanket statement that teachers suck, simply saying that as a profession it typically doesn't attract our best and brightest.  Do you disagree?
Please define "best and brightest".I think it depends on what you value. I believe that giving and helping others is more important than earning and taking. Who's better and brighter? Bill Gates or Mother Teresa? Yeah, that's an over the top example, but i think you get what I mean.
I obviously picked a poor example. Thanks for the heads up. Learn something new every day.I think AnonymousBob chose not to understand my meaning and opted to point out my error.

Another side note. Did I say this above?

A sidenote Shick! made where he compared these very two I'm now bringing to this poll.
Matters not. This has been an interesting discussion. If you take all the benefits to the population of Gates' products plus the benefits from his charitable contributions, it is hard to argue that anyone has ever done as much for mankind as he has. In different eras, one could have said the same thing for Carnegie, Ford, etc.
 
I believe that Mother Teresa probably accomplished more relative to the resources with which she ultimately started her mission.
What did she accomplish? She took in over $100 million a year by some estimates. Where did it go? It seems to have gone to the Vatican's general account even though the donors were told that their money would be going to help the poor. Mother Theresa's group never built a single hospital. Mostly what she did was gather sick people all in one place, have them share blankets that were not machine washed since she didn't believe in that (thus spreading bacterial and viral infections), and baptize them before they died. Maybe she saved their souls by baptizing them, but she didn't do much to save their bodies. She even refused to give anyone pain medication since their suffering was "beautiful."
:goodposting: She's the biggest con job of the 20th century.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/

http://www.salon.com/sept97/news/news3.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Donating to charities is tax deductible and there's no way Gates is giving it to the government. A large sum of his money he donated could have been used by our government to help our own poor. Would it? Who knows.

That said, his money (I don't know of him personally doing anything) has done wonderful things as stated in this thread.
I've seen interviews with him and he justifies helping people in other countries over those in America since they are dying and Americans (for the most part) are not.
 
Here was the original quote from the other thread:

I certainly wasn't trying to make a blanket statement that teachers suck, simply saying that as a profession it typically doesn't attract our best and brightest.  Do you disagree?
Please define "best and brightest".I think it depends on what you value. I believe that giving and helping others is more important than earning and taking. Who's better and brighter? Bill Gates or Mother Teresa? Yeah, that's an over the top example, but i think you get what I mean.
I obviously picked a poor example. Thanks for the heads up. Learn something new every day.I think AnonymousBob chose not to understand my meaning and opted to point out my error.

Another side note. Did I say this above?

A sidenote Shick! made where he compared these very two I'm now bringing to this poll.
Sensitive much? Sheesh, I wasn't meaning to call you out and I understood what you meant 100%. It just happened to spawn an idea-one I thought might lead to an interesting discussion. I simply meant to point to your comment as the source of my somewhat abstract thought. Just because you think people who love money are aren't as noble as those who pursue other things is no reason you couldn't have participated in this thread.

For what it's worth, I don't believe Mother Teresa to be some evil terror. I can't imagine anybody here doesn't believe for one second she wasn't a good person and didn't mean well. Comparing Gates and Teresa was IMO a way to compare intent with results.

Starting out, Teresa clearly had an intent that likely never crossed Bill's mind. Does that make her better? :shrug:

 
And those who say we can learn from Teresa but not Bill, why is that? Certainly none of us are capable of donating billions to charities but how many of us are going to give up all our possesions and travel around the world washing the feet of lepers? There's something that can be (and should be) learned from both.

They both have their flaws and their traits to be admired for.

 
I wasn't meaning to call you out and I understood what you meant 100%.
A preference to not being misquoted makes me over-sensitive? Okay.
You are being a bit sensitive about this - I didn't take anything AB said poorly at all.
Welcome to Internet. A magical place where readers will attach random emotions to whatever they happen to be reading. Readers often choose the emotion that they feel will portray the writer in the worst light. Its a "I feel better about me" sort of thing. :mellow:

Edit: When in doubt, playing the "you care too much" card is always a good choice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wasn't meaning to call you out and I understood what you meant 100%.
A preference to not being misquoted makes me over-sensitive? Okay.
You are being a bit sensitive about this - I didn't take anything AB said poorly at all.
Welcome to Internet. A magical place where readers will attach random emotions to whatever they happen to be reading. Readers often choose the emotion that they feel will portray the writer in the worst light. Its a "I feel better about me" sort of thing. :mellow:

Edit: When in doubt, playing the "you care too much" card is always a good choice.
This is your response to being called overly sensitive?Good plan. :thumbup:

 
I did and I told you, I don't believe them.  That's my assessment.  Just because you don't like my conclusion doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing it.
:rolleyes: I'm convinced that many debates in society come down to this. Two sides can't agree on facts, therefore they can't agree on related viewpoints either.

Read the Hitchens book on Mother T. He has a plethora of sources to back up his assertions about MT. Yes, he has an agenda. But he also has well-researched evidence to back up his claims.

But if you'd rather keep deluding yourself, hey, it's your right as an American to remain mis-informed.
Is this where I'm supposed to point you to similar books about how good MT was and tell you that YOU have the right to remain mis-informed if you want?
Feel free. It'd be pointless, given that I've already read plenty of pro-MT articles. So I feel quite comfortable that I've digested info from both sides.It's an interesting book, even if you end up disagreeing with 100% of it. I have no idea why someone would willingly close their mind to an opposing viewpoint. Afraid to be wrong?
We already went through this. I read the stuff in this thread. I did a google search about the controversies surrounding Mother Teresa. Most of the criticism comes from a few people all of whom have an axe to grind.I don't buy it. Any of it. I read both sides and came up with the exact opposite conclusion that you did. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me close-minded.

I respect your opinion. Please respect mine.

 
And those who say we can learn from Teresa but not Bill, why is that?
Who said that?
Good call saintsfan.

Drpill, the question was who has helped society - not the most people, and definately NOT who has had the greater impact - these are very different questions. Hitler had a greater impact than Mother Theresa.

Has Bill Gates helped society? - yep. But Mothera Theresa has helped society (and please note: I would define society as more than just total number of people helped) far more, by providing a viable example. Can we all (as saintsfan put it) write a crappy OS, screw our competitors, use strong arm business tactics then donate millions of dollars - probably not. Most of us can, at least to some extent, give up some things (money, time, etc.) to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Society is not in need of more money. Being a living example of kindness compassion and charity helps society more than throwing ill-gotten gain at the problem, then exclaiming "There, I did my part"
Perhaps I misinterpreted yet another post but it appeared to me he was saying Mother Teresa set an example we can all learn by. It also appeared to me he was knocking Bill Gates and his software while saying we can't all be rich and donate billions. As I already said, I don't think anybody can donate billions to a charity they create as Gates has done but why can't people donate parts of their salary? Surely he has done something good to win Time's person of the year award.

Likewise, as I also stated, I don't think people are going to give up all their possesions and start washing the feet of lepers. Doesn't mean people can't learn a few things from Mother Teresa.

If you need me to I can always quote the post in which I originally said these things but there are both lessons good and bad to be learned from both.

 
Here was the original quote from the other thread:

I certainly wasn't trying to make a blanket statement that teachers suck, simply saying that as a profession it typically doesn't attract our best and brightest.  Do you disagree?
Please define "best and brightest".I think it depends on what you value. I believe that giving and helping others is more important than earning and taking. Who's better and brighter? Bill Gates or Mother Teresa? Yeah, that's an over the top example, but i think you get what I mean.
I obviously picked a poor example. Thanks for the heads up. Learn something new every day.I think AnonymousBob chose not to understand my meaning and opted to point out my error.

Another side note. Did I say this above?

A sidenote Shick! made where he compared these very two I'm now bringing to this poll.
This is a spinoff from MoP's teacher thread. A sidenote Shick! made where he compared these very two I'm now bringing to this poll.
ALL I said was that you compared those two. That's it. As the quote YOU pulled shows, you did exactly that. As I already said, I understood your original meaning completely. Yes your point was over the top as you yourself noted but I thought it was an interesting comparision nonetheless. Can't imagine this is the first time somebody has spawned an idea from the vaguest post of another person. I didn't think you were making an error, nor did I feel I was calling you out on anything. I apologize if you feel that way but it certainly was in no way, shape or form my intent.
I wasn't meaning to call you out and I understood what you meant 100%.
A preference to not being misquoted makes me over-sensitive? Okay.
As I just explained, I don't see how I was misquoting you. I simply said you compared the two. You did exactly that. Perhaps I should have qualified it better by putting in your original quote or by saying your example was over the top but I honestly didn't think it was a big deal-I was simply crediting the source of my idea. Again, my intent was not to offend you here and I apologize if I did just that but I still believe you were too sensitive in your response. One, if not both of us, seriously misunderstood the others intent.
 
As I just explained, I don't see how I was misquoting you. I simply said you compared the two. You did exactly that. Perhaps I should have qualified it better by putting in your original quote or by saying your example was over the top but I honestly didn't think it was a big deal-I was simply crediting the source of my idea. Again, my intent was not to offend you here and I apologize if I did just that but I still believe you were too sensitive in your response. One, if not both of us, seriously misunderstood the others intent.
Fair enough. :thumbup:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top