That's not even remotely selfishness unless you make like 150k+ a year simply because the vast majority of people can't afford to do that and the effects on you would be far worse than the benefits on the people you're donating to
Not letting in refugees isn't really selfish either. You don't seem to understand the difference between
amoral and
immoral. It's not good or bad, it's neutral. I don't go around hurting people, but I'm also not about to vote for policies that I think will negatively effect me and my family because there's a chance it might help some people thousands of miles away from me I'll never meet.
But in general, even if you were right (you're not),
Right about what? This is a discussion about morality, which is subjective. There's no objective facts being debated here.
this is the "Tu quoque"/"You too" fallacy. What's with all the "Get off your high horse" arguments here lately? They aren't remotely valid.
Because I don't really feel like you have the right to demand I vote for something else. If you are justified in doing that, why even have a democracy? Why not just make you dictator if your personal sense of morality Annoying Oranges
pun all others? I and many others are voting for what benefits us. I really don't care if you think its selfish.
You're trying to justify letting potentially hundreds of thousands of people that could otherwise be saved, die, just because you're selfish.
They're not all going to die, Jesus Christ. If they were all in imminent danger of dying they'd go to Turkey or Jordan, not half way across the world to America. Christ's sake mate. Besides, have you seen the crime rates of places with a large density of migrants?
