+555

There are so many pictures of children starving, just so we can donate money. Some are even close to death. What I'm wondering is why the photographer didn't give them any food. amirite?

98%Yeah You Are2%No Way
Share
6 24
The voters have decided that this post is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Even if the photographer gave the starving child food that would be just one day, you're not taking into account the rest of its life.

Anonymous +12Reply
@TalkingRice it?!?!?!?! ooh hell no

well, you can't say "he or she" because that sounds weird, and you can't say he because the statement also refers to girls, so they decided to go with "it". chill.

Anonymous 0Reply
@well, you can't say "he or she" because that sounds weird, and you can't say he because the statement also refers...

"it" refers to an animal, so they are basically dehumanizing them
a "they" or "them" would have been fine

TalkingRices avatar TalkingRice Yeah You Are 0Reply
@TalkingRice "it" refers to an animal, so they are basically dehumanizing them a "they" or "them" would have been fine

"it" can refer to many things, animals, inanimate objects, or, in this case, a group of mix gendered humans. "they" would be grammatically incorrect when referring to a singular person that may be male or female, when it's not specified, according to my English teacher.

@Bigblue "it" can refer to many things, animals, inanimate objects, or, in this case, a group of mix gendered humans. "they"...

It- refers to a nonhuman, animal, plant, or inanimate thing, example : it looks dangerous ; give it a bone. so yeah like I stated above dehumanization and saying that these poor people are not people just because they didn't have the same privileges we have.

TalkingRices avatar TalkingRice Yeah You Are 0Reply

Because surely once you eat a hamburger or two you revive suddenly to the average weight with no ribs showing and a healthy smile on your face.

Or they could at least give them the camera, it's gotta have some kind of nutrients in it.

They probably say
"If you let us take a picture of you looking miserable, you can have this hamburger." D:

Anonymous +7Reply

They aren't allowed to interfere with what they photograph. Its not that they're heartless or anything. One man committed suicide after taking a photo of a starving child because he couldn't have saved him...

Anonymous +4Reply

How do you know they don't feed the starving? What are they suppose to do? Take a picture of themselves giving food to them? Moron.

Anonymous +4Reply

They probably do help...

I've always wondered that exact same thing!

How do you know they don't feed him/her? I think they probably bring food along with them.

I read once that when the photographers visit a third-world country, they have promise not to interfere with the lives of anyone, whether they are starving or not. And in some cases, if you give an extremely malnourished person the wrong food, you can make their condition worse.
But I do agree they could help, by donating the money that goes towards the trip to go photograph these people, or help them get to one of those places (I forget what they're called) so they can get back on their proper diet.

Anonymous 0Reply

''Stand there, look sad and depressing, and let me take pictures and videos of you, so maybe someone will give you food''

Image in content

This image by Kevin Carter is infamous for asking the same question about why the photographer doesn't feed the children. Like anonymous said, photographers in places with war, poverty, and disease are not allowed to interfere on anyone's lives there.

Anonymous 0Reply

Without those pictures no one who isn't living around situations like that would have a clue what is going on.

Wow, it's getting really hard to find something on the internet that DOESN'T offend someone.

Also, you're all right, in your own twisted little imaginations.

Pyromanic519s avatar Pyromanic519 Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.