ESPN did not to increase its bid to televise the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and an ESPN.com reader opined:

How disheartening to know that this kind of money is being thrown around for viewing rights to a game. Meanwhile, millions of people continue to die because adequate drinking water through properly constructed drinking wells isn't financially available. [source]

I see variations of that comment frequently on the Internet and wonder if the people behind them truly care about human suffering in developing countries.

If adequate drinking water is so important to you that you even raise the issue in your comments on an ESPN.com article on college basketball telecast rights, then why are you commenting on an ESPN.com article on college basketball telecast rights while millions of people continue to die?

How can you comment on ESPN.com articles when millions of people are suffering in developing countries?

Methinks you're just exploiting them for a cheap talking point.

Human suffering can undercut any issue, good or bad, because all possible rebuttals reflect poorly on the rebutter.

"How can you spend money on heating in winter when millions of people are suffering in developing countries?"
"But I'm freezing!"
"Selfish…"

• 'Obama' nightclub opens its doors in Shanghai
• Dunkin Donuts Reveals Top 12 Fan-Created Donuts
• MLB All Fat Guy Team for 2010