M.J.'s death: the medias' hypocrisy

[eric42434224 1]

Charity is generosity or helpfulness, usually in the form of acts or gifts, given to those in need. Motives or anonymity really arent factors.

eg. Easton Toy Drive?

I dont know what that means. So I also dont get the OH SNAP either.

I wont bother looking up the Easton Toy Drive, as it doesnt have anything to do with what I said....you mis-interpreted my post.

I meant that motives and anonimity arent factors in determining if it is or isnt charity....not that they arent factors in a persons, or organizations, decision to do a charitable act. In many or most cases there are ulterior motives when doing charity....I meant that it doesnt diminish the fact that it is indeed charity.

[Drewhunz 3]

The Easton Toy Drive regards exactly your post. Your unwillingness to understand others or research their explanations is partly what the problem is. Most people perform charitable acts either to stroke their own ego of helping others or for pesronal gain.

[eric42434224 1]

The Easton Toy Drive regards exactly your post. Your unwillingness to understand others or research their explanations is partly what the problem is. Most people perform charitable acts either to stroke their own ego of helping others or for pesronal gain.

No. If you would read my posts, it clearly states that I understand that people and organizations usually do have motives other than pure charity, which includes but not limited to ego stroking and personal gain. My posts refer to the fact that motives or anonimity are not factors in determining if it is charity. It is by definition still charity, regardless of motive or anonimity. The person in need still recieves their help wether or not the organization is using it for publicity or not. Look at the results.....not the motives. The end result...all things being equal...is charity.

And there is no reason to get personal and tell me what you think my problems are....especially when you are the one who is unwilling to understand here. I actually agree with you that there are usually ulterior motives....that is why the Easton reference isnt related to my point. Not looking for any type of fight here....just trying to show that you mis-interpreted my post.

[lee92 2]

Does it really matter if someone is volunteering to help or volunteering for personal gain? In the end, the charity is still benefiting, regardless of the person's motives.

I do think it makes a big difference. If celebrities really wanted to make a difference in the world than instead of pouring through millions of dollars on extreme excess they could actually use the money to help other people. I'm not in any way saying they should have to do anything for anyone, and I fully support their right to use the money they earn any way that pleases them. However, if they were really interested in helping others out they could live in luxury on a fraction of what they bring in and donate millions upon millions to actually helping people out. But they don't do that. They show up, get the PR pictures, and get out. It's not charity, it's advertising.

I still don't think you're quite grasping the concept. Charities don't distinguish the money they receive between those who donated to really help or those who donated for the publicity. All they care about is that their cause is receiving attention and support. I've worked for a not-for-profit organization that aims at reducing hunger and poverty. My motives were to earn as much money as possible to pay off schooling. Being able to help those less fortunate than myself was just a perk to the job that made myself feel good.

True, celebrities don't need to spend all their millions of dollars on themselves, and instead give some off to those in need. The same thing can be said about anyone though. I mean no offense, but I doubt any of us are living from paycheck to paycheck (in all seriousness) and just scraping to get by. We all have computers and internet service, unless you're that committed and go to your local library. Therefore, we all have extra income, that we don't technically need to survive or live on, that could be donated to charities, but the majority don't give it away. If someone makes $10 million a year, someone criticizes them, saying they should donate perhaps a million, but the principle is hardly ever applied to regular folk. Someone brings home $30k a year, yet they aren't criticized for not donating $3k.

Charities are all about support, recognition, and results. They don't care whether the people helping them are doing it because of punishment, publicity, tax breaks, or plain generosity. As long as the message is spreading and they're making a difference to those in need, they probably don't give two shits on what someones motives are for helping.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

I still don't think you're quite grasping the concept. Charities don't distinguish the money they receive between those who donated to really help or those who donated for the publicity. All they care about is that their cause is receiving attention and support. I've worked for a not-for-profit organization that aims at reducing hunger and poverty. My motives were to earn as much money as possible to pay off schooling. Being able to help those less fortunate than myself was just a perk to the job that made myself feel good.

I grasp the concept very well, it's just terrible logic and bad thinking. If we only weigh things by results, and the motives/means are not weighed we're opening up Pandora's box.

True, celebrities don't need to spend all their millions of dollars on themselves, and instead give some off to those in need. The same thing can be said about anyone though. I mean no offense, but I doubt any of us are living from paycheck to paycheck (in all seriousness) and just scraping to get by. We all have computers and internet service, unless you're that committed and go to your local library. Therefore, we all have extra income, that we don't technically need to survive or live on, that could be donated to charities, but the majority don't give it away. If someone makes $10 million a year, someone criticizes them, saying they should donate perhaps a million, but the principle is hardly ever applied to regular folk. Someone brings home $30k a year, yet they aren't criticized for not donating $3k.

Celebrities have every right to all the excess in which they indulge themselves. But what you're trying to say is that a luxury like internet service is the same as shopping trips that total up more than the middle class is earning in a year. My point wasn't that we should all live on subsistance levels to donate to charity. Merely that a celebrity could still live a life of luxury and donate millions of dollars. Which is what someone who really was interested in the common man would do. No doubt we could probably all learn to do with a little less and give a little more. But there's a big difference between asking someone to give up an average car to drive an unsafe beater in order to give more away and suggesting that a celebrity could make due without that fourth Bently to donate the extra cash. As for your example, when someone brings home $30 million a year it's nothing to give away $3 million. For someone bringing in $30k, a three thousand dollar loss makes an impact.

[JR Boucicaut 3802]

The Easton Toy Drive regards exactly your post. Your unwillingness to understand others or research their explanations is partly what the problem is. Most people perform charitable acts either to stroke their own ego of helping others or for pesronal gain.

No. If you would read my posts, it clearly states that I understand that people and organizations usually do have motives other than pure charity, which includes but not limited to ego stroking and personal gain. My posts refer to the fact that motives or anonimity are not factors in determining if it is charity. It is by definition still charity, regardless of motive or anonimity. The person in need still recieves their help wether or not the organization is using it for publicity or not. Look at the results.....not the motives. The end result...all things being equal...is charity.

And there is no reason to get personal and tell me what you think my problems are....especially when you are the one who is unwilling to understand here. I actually agree with you that there are usually ulterior motives....that is why the Easton reference isnt related to my point. Not looking for any type of fight here....just trying to show that you mis-interpreted my post.

And the reason I quoted you was because I fucking agreed with you.

Son of a bitch, it isn't all about you. Nobody is out to "get you."

You're at 80%. I'll probably regret it but you're on Mod Approval posting. I'm pissed off, and I normally don't get pissed, but your actions over the past two weeks certainly warrant it. And the reason why this is public is because I don't want you thinking that it's one of those Mods who "hates" you that did it.