system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I do not think that non-essential charities should exist until every person on earth has their basic needs met. CMV.

When I say non-essential, I mean things that are not providing food, water, shelter, or health-related services to the less fortunate. While I think that the desire to help people in non-essential ways is great and should be encouraged through specific volunteer work, I simply cannot see a justification for charities that provide toys to children in Africa when there are children in the next village over who will die from malnutrition or dehydration. I believe that all the money that goes to such charities should be repurposed for meeting the basic needs of all people before it can enrich the lives of those who are already, by definition, more fortunate.

I recognize that this is an unpopular view. I am friends with many who monetarily support charities such as Operation Christmas Child but no charities meeting the basic needs of the impoverished, and I have been met with anger and opposition when trying to express my views and to understand why they ought to be changed. Reddit, please help CMV.
gpt
Do you, therefore, give all of your money, save only that amount that is absolutely necessary for you to live in poverty, to help those who need it in order to live?

Because you are the smallest non-essential charity there is, or that there can possibly be. If you're giving yourself a nice meal or a haircut, you're literally taking money away from those who need it in order to simply survive, for "non-essential" reasons.

Or not... you see, it's ok for people to have different priorities and to please themselves with the fruits of their labor. If someone is pleased by giving gifts to less-disadvantaged children than those starving in Africa, praise them for prioritizing *anyone* above themselves.