Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm actually against this anonymous donating.
Well we are 180 degrees apart on this one! I really think it would be best to require anonymous donations, doing the right thing shouldn't be a public spectacle.
I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example.
We already have to many celebrities trying to sway public opinion to their perverse realities. This often leads to draining of funds that would often go to more worthwhile charities.
I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time.
It is one thing to encourage people to donate to charity it is another thing to bias them in selecting a charity. It is far better for people to support things they have a personal interest in than to piss away money on somebody else's pet project.
Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.
That is plain old baloney. If you make a donation to build a hospital how can that be muted? Your position here is very strange to say the least. The result of your donation speaks for itself, you don't need to engage in self promotion.
Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades.
Maybe in some cases that might be true. But look at it from the standpoint of somebody with a lot of money that wants to avoid the circus mentality that often comes with these public offerings. That and the preference to avoid every Tom, Dick and Harry knocking on your door looking for a hand out.
The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.
Well that is certainly true. So if you believe that why object to private donations?