or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades - Page 3

post #81 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think you could say it's more humble to give $1 in private than to give $1 million for the sake of publicity, but surely you can't say that $1 privately donated to a charity will help as much as $1 million donated to that same charity.

That is a given, I was discussing humility and avoiding ego...
post #82 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That's not true. Without technology advances we would all still be stuck in the caves and dying at age 20 and lots of horrible diseases. "All the technology innovations in history" help a lot.

You're missing my point, but never mind. :-)
post #83 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I think that learning what does *and doesn't* work does indeed strengthen mankind. But when I hear the word "tragedy" I think of some random event (like a natural disaster) not really caused by anything we did or didn't do, but just an out of the blue thing. And you don't really learn anything or get strengthened by that, you just pick yourself up because that's life, and you've got no choice.

I'm going with the "an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe" definition. Natural disaster is also in there but even that can lead to understanding and learning. You can look at Titanic to see an event that created a lot of scrutiny going forward on construction, safety, contingencies and laws after that fateful event. With this most recent Carnival Cruise issue there are likely changes that have been made to help prevent and deal with such issues if they arise despite the rarity of the event.

I'd think that Weatherology, seismology, etc. have been improved after a tragedy event. As well as science in construction to allow structures to tolerate any of those random unforeseen events if they should arise. We've also changed laws to require better construction as well put in place methods for dealing with a disaster once it does arise, like disaster relief.

Then you have wars. It's simply amazing the amount of technology that gets created during a war. That is in no way me saying that we need war to progress but it's interesting. It's like we're more reactive than proactive as a species, or at least as a community.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #84 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

That is a given, I was discussing humility and avoiding ego...

But if you want to give anonymously because it make you feel more humble or makes you look more humble to the few people in your inner circle that know you're donating and/or you're afraid of what people might think if you gave sans anonymity isn't that letting your ego dictate your decision?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #85 of 147

Giving is rewarding ourselves, taking is punishing others.

Giving while blowing a horn could be humilhating, to those in need.

 

 

Giving is also beliving in those in need.

Apple was created because someone believed in the duo. So they were able to afford the needed money.

 

 

Clearly Mr. Jobs maight have actually liked the image of bad ass his detractors pinned on him.


Edited by Ochyming - 5/24/13 at 10:13am
post #86 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


But if you want to give anonymously because it make you feel more humble or makes you look more humble to the few people in your inner circle that know you're donating and/or you're afraid of what people might think if you gave sans anonymity isn't that letting your ego dictate your decision?

 

Is humble a state of mind or a way of being_?

Wasn´t the giver by giving thanking those who believed in him_?

post #87 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That's the problem I have with this concept that anonymity is in itself noble. If you are truly aren't thinking of yourself when you give then you won't care how others perceive you for giving, This don't preclude giving anonymously but it doesn't mean that the only reasonable or good method for giving should be anonymous.

Your comments very clearly indicate that you think that any celebrities who are recognized for their donations are doing it for perverse reasons. Since this donation by Jobs of $50 million to Stanford is no longer anonymous does that mean it's now perverse? How did this leak? Did their accountant tell the press? Who else would have known if it was truly anonymous? Your comments open all this up because who's to say it wasn't done under the guise of anonymity so it could be leaked at a later time. In no way do I think that's the case here, but since you think celebrities have perverse realities you can't ignore this tactic as a possibility.

Geez Soli! You're digging yourself a very nice cozy and deep hole for yourself.

I do believe you mean well... but your very first phrase into your ideological reasoning, just came off your keyboard wrong.

In this very specific instance as it pertains to a very controversial and now historical figure, his choice to anonymously donate was clearly the better choice FOR HIM, his personal beliefs, his family, and for Apple.

And because there are a lot of people that only want to see the bad side of SJ, I'm going to say it first: that his decision very well could have been self-preservation... because we all know too well what surely would've happened if the leak came out. Media exposure, justifying your decision... and worst of all... having to say "no" to others. That can definitely play a mighty mind-trip on you(!)... taken from experience.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #88 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

But if you want to give anonymously because it make you feel more humble or makes you look more humble to the few people in your inner circle that know you're donating and/or you're afraid of what people might think if you gave sans anonymity isn't that letting your ego dictate your decision?

No. Giving is itself the reward. Has nothing to do with ego, it's just the right thing to do. Fear, admiration, etc just muddy the waters so to speak
post #89 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

I do believe you mean well... but your very first phrase into your ideological reasoning, just came off your keyboard wrong..

If you mean my first sentence in my original comment, then I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

No. Giving is itself the reward. Has nothing to do with ego, it's just the right thing to do. Fear, admiration, etc just muddy the waters so to speak

If it's a reward then that person is receiving something positive for that effort. Wouldn't it more altruistic if what they gave didn't reward in some way in return? For instance, I'd say that risking your life to save another shows more than compassion and kindness than a wealthy person donating some cash, but even then is that person not being reward if we consider that one might feel the need because they couldn't live with themselves if they did nothing.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #90 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm going with the "an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe" definition. Natural disaster is also in there but even that can lead to understanding and learning. You can look at Titanic to see an event that created a lot of scrutiny going forward on construction, safety, contingencies and laws after that fateful event. With this most recent Carnival Cruise issue there are likely changes that have been made to help prevent and deal with such issues if they arise despite the rarity of the event.

I'd think that Weatherology, seismology, etc. have been improved after a tragedy event. As well as science in construction to allow structures to tolerate any of those random unforeseen events if they should arise. We've also changed laws to require better construction as well put in place methods for dealing with a disaster once it does arise, like disaster relief.

Then you have wars. It's simply amazing the amount of technology that gets created during a war. That is in no way me saying that we need war to progress but it's interesting. It's like we're more reactive than proactive as a species, or at least as a community.

I guess if you regard man-made things (e.g. Titantic) as tragedies then certainly we learn something from them. And yes scientists learn something from natural disasters, and in that sense society in stronger, but I'm not sure the poor schlubs who had their houses blown away learned much or were made stronger (unless they built them on a flood plain and learned not to do that). 

 

New tech comes from thinking hard. I guess being threatened makes people think, but it's still not the war that is causing good things but the thinking. If only more people would think hard even in peacetime (such as Steve Jobs did).

post #91 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I guess if you regard man-made things (e.g. Titantic) as tragedies then certainly we learn something from them. And yes scientists learn something from natural disasters, and in that sense society in stronger, but I'm not sure the poor schlubs who had their houses blown away learned much or were made stronger (unless they built them on a flood plain and learned not to do that). 

New tech comes from thinking hard. I guess being threatened makes people think, but it's still not the war that is causing good things but the thinking. If only more people would think hard even in peacetime (such as Steve Jobs did).

I think it comes down to conflict. Whether this is man v nature, man v man, society v society we learn and grow from these and hope we're successful at it. I seem to recall the movie Lorenzo's Oil was based on a true story about parents that looked for a cure for their son's ALD.

Even here on this website I find that my discussions with the forum members have helped me tremendously to become a better debater. I certainly couldn't have done that if everyone just agreed with everything I said. I worked and struggled to see my opponent's point of view. To conceive of my opponent's counterarguments before he even knew he'd make them. Sometimes I'm successful and sometimes I fail, but I don't think I could have learned as well without it.


"Necessity is the mother of invention." ~ Ralph Macchio

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #92 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. 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. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.

Wrong.

 

Donating is NOT a moral obligation, which it would become if it became a matter of publicity for celebrities or prominent social figures.

 

It's a point of HONOR and a personal and private action which should rightly be motivated by generosity and a sincere desire to be of help and service to the beneficiaries. This also ensures that the donation is NOT for self-agrandizement or ego or anything selfish and disrelated to the beneficiaries.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #93 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Absolutely! But that makes that aspect of it about their needs and desires if their reason for anonymity is retain a certain level of seclusion. There is nothing wrong with it, as I clearly stated already, and if that anonymity allows for the greater good to be accomplished then so be it, but don't it's foolish to claim that someone held on high in a society giving anonymously would bring in just as much as if they openly donated and encouraged others to follow suit.

Me, being the owner of a business who gives back by donating and sponsoring local youth sports leagues and PTOs, would rather do so more under the radar rather than having my name or business connected to the donation because then other people and organizations come out of the woodwork with their hands out. It puts me in an uncomfortable position, almost making me feel obligated to donate. I want to do what I want with my donation money, and just because I have a reputation for giving doesn't mean that it should be expected of me. To me, that's the primary reason for being a silent donor. That is also the reason why I get so much out of donating my blood and platelets. I am O negative, the universal donor (7% of the U.S. population) and I am CMV negative (which means I don't carry the Cytomegalovirus

http://blog.inceptsaves.com/blog/2011/05/04/what-does-it-mean-to-have-cmv-negative-blood/ ) This factored in, my blood makes me .8% of the U.S. population. My blood and platelet donations go directly to preemies and babies with cancer because of how clean it is. The recipient(s) have no idea who they are getting the gift of life from...but I know deep in my heart how much of a difference I am making to their life.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #94 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

It's a point of HONOR and a personal and private action [...] This also ensures that the donation is NOT for self-agrandizement or ego or anything selfish and disrelated to the beneficiaries.

That's where I'm scratching my head. If you're doing it for the honor, even if it private, you're doing it for your own respect, your own esteem, your own thing to bring credit to yourself. You should do it because it needs to be done, not because of how it will make you feel.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/24/13 at 11:17am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #95 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Me, being the owner of a business who gives back by donating and sponsoring local youth sports leagues and PTOs, would rather do so more under the radar rather than having my name or business connected to the donation because then other people and organizations come out of the woodwork with their hands out. It puts me in an uncomfortable position, almost making me feel obligated to donate. I want to do what I want with my donation money, and just because I have a reputation for giving doesn't mean that it should be expected of me. To me, that's the primary reason for being a silent donor. That is also the reason why I get so much out of donating my blood and platelets. I am O negative, the universal donor (7% of the U.S. population) and I am CMV negative (which means I don't carry the Cytomegalovirus
http://blog.inceptsaves.com/blog/2011/05/04/what-does-it-mean-to-have-cmv-negative-blood/ ) This factored in, my blood makes me .8% of the U.S. population. My blood and platelet donations go directly to preemies and babies with cancer because of how clean it is. The recipient(s) have no idea who they are getting the gift of life from...but I know deep in my heart how much of a difference I am making to their life.

Hey', I'm CMV negative, too! I'm a universal donor for platelets (I think A, B and AB are), not for whole blood. Depending on the area I think you can give platelets every 3 days to 14 days with a max year limit around 25 or 30 times, from what I've seen, but I usually do it about every 6 weeks as my platelet count takes a longer time to build up. his takes about 2 hours as they stick both arms, pull the blood out, spin it in a machine, than put the blood and plasma(?) back in you once the heavier(?) platelets are removed. I don't consider this a big deal since I'm usually well occupied but if I had to travel, say, 20 miles to do it, I think it would be too inconvenient for me to bother. I feel good for thinking I'm helping others but that's me feeling good so I don't think that's noble of me. I don't think I've ever had to anything that was truly a noble sacrifice where I didn't benefit in any way from the effort.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #96 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think it comes down to conflict. Whether this is man v nature, man v man, society v society we learn and grow from these and hope we're successful at it. I seem to recall the movie Lorenzo's Oil was based on a true story about parents that looked for a cure for their son's ALD.

Even here on this website I find that my discussions with the forum members have helped me tremendously to become a better debater. I certainly couldn't have done that if everyone just agreed with everything I said. I worked and struggled to see my opponent's point of view. To conceive of my opponent's counterarguments before he even knew he'd make them. Sometimes I'm successful and sometimes I fail, but I don't think I could have learned as well without it.


"Necessity is the mother of invention." ~ Ralph Macchio

Yes, conflict is a better term, since it's more general than just war. But once again I'd say it's only conflict that makes you think (such as debating) that is useful. A surprise attack by an enemy that completely wipes your side out is still conflict but not beneficial. Ralph Macchio, LoL!

post #97 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's where I'm scratching my head. If you're doing it for the honor, even if it private, you're doing it for your own respect, your own esteem, your thing to bring credit to yourself. You should do it because it needs to be done, not because of how it will make you feel.

 

 

But to give is a very personal thing. You give because you want to, not because you want people to look at you as a hero.

Why super heroes use mask_?

 

It could be the same thing.

You should do it because it needs to be done, not because of how it will make you feel.

You give because it makes you gain some space/time from the monkey on yr back.

No?

post #98 of 147

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/25/13 at 2:06pm
post #99 of 147
I applaud Apple, Jobs and family for anonymous giving. Most celebrity giving seems like cheap advertising for personal gain, since getting their pictures in EW and People and like are a way to keep themselves in the public eye -- their bread and butter.

Donald Trump is a great example of a pathological liar and self-promoter acting differently from the sociopath he really is -- the Birther issues, demanding to see Obama's Harvard grades -- you know -- "Black's are generally inferior so it couldn't be that Obama is actually smart." He is certainly up near the top of my list of despicable human beings.
post #100 of 147

I'm not one for giving to charity. Too much corruption and stealing and ineffective use of my hard-earned dough. Give someone your time, help, money or care and watch them light up. It's more direct.

 

Since I've graduated from college, I've received thousands of letters and solicitations to give. I just don't. Something doesn't calculate. All the money that goes to help students in need add up to billions. Yet tuition continues to skyrocket, leaving the vast majority of students in a deep hole of debt. I'm not convinced of the purpose of those letters being met by the sincere donations.

 

I saw a guy on a talk show that goes around helping individuals with college, house payments, medical costs, etc. There is no corruption in that exchange. It is good karma. And it seems like it'd be a fun thing to do.

 

Jobs' greatest contribution to the world will be the creation of Apple. Everything else springs from that.

post #101 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming View Post

You give because it makes you gain some space/time from the monkey on yr back.

No?

Not necessarily. It's possible to not care a whit about your fellow human beings and still want to give to charity.

 

For example: you donate to a homeless shelter so you, selfishly, don't have to see homeless people on the streets. You might not know them or care about them, you just know that *you* don't want to live in a place where you have to walk around them every day.

post #102 of 147
The real reason Jobs kept his charitable works private was to stop creepy Eric from targeting donation ads at him and Samsung from just plain copying.
post #103 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Not necessarily. It's possible to not care a whit about your fellow human beings and still want to give to charity.

For example: you donate to a homeless shelter so you, selfishly, don't have to see homeless people on the streets. You might not know them or care about them, you just know that *you* don't want to live in a place where you have to walk around them every day.

Earlier this year I lost a bet to someone. They wouldn't take the money but I still felt an obligation. I instead donated that amount to charity. i can't say I did it for charity sake, but from what I say was an ethical obligation under the spirit of the bet. This is clearly all an invention in my mind. I didn't do it for the other person; they may think I'm honorable for it but i don't think they thought otherwise before I did it, and I care not what they think about my actions. In the end I did it for myself because I felt it was what I should do. I can't say it made me feel good, but I do think it would have made me feel a little bad to not do something with funds I legitimately lost in the bet. I don't even recall if I did under their name or anonymously. I would say I did the right thing but I'd also say it wasn't a selfless thing.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/24/13 at 12:50pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #104 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Not necessarily. It's possible to not care a whit about your fellow human beings and still want to give to charity.

 

For example: you donate to a homeless shelter so you, selfishly, don't have to see homeless people on the streets. You might not know them or care about them, you just know that *you* don't want to live in a place where you have to walk around them every day.

 

 

That is not a bad thing.

Is it?

And it is not selfish.

post #105 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post

I applaud Apple, Jobs and family for anonymous giving. Most celebrity giving seems like cheap advertising for personal gain, since getting their pictures in EW and People and like are a way to keep themselves in the public eye -- their bread and butter.

Donald Trump is a great example of a pathological liar and self-promoter acting differently from the sociopath he really is -- the Birther issues, demanding to see Obama's Harvard grades -- you know -- "Black's are generally inferior so it couldn't be that Obama is actually smart." He is certainly up near the top of my list of despicable human beings.

 

 

Indeed!

Giving owrselfs is already selfish ( you work hard for yr loved one to reach climax in bed, and it is to make you look great at her eyes, and for her not to dump you. It is selfish. NO?, But at least you gave yourself ), to trumpet it is shameful, at least.

post #106 of 147
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted

 

Interesting.  Good point.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #107 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

But instead you want to tell people what to do with themselves and their time?

What are you talking about?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #108 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Code:
Telling people what to do and where to go = O.K.
Suggesting a way super wealthy people should help those less fortunate= You monster!

Learn how to read. I said nothing of the sort. I merely suggested giving of yourself is the hardest thing.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #109 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

I'm not one for giving to charity. Too much corruption and stealing and ineffective use of my hard-earned dough. Give someone your time, help, money or care and watch them light up. It's more direct.

Careful, I was called a witch for suggesting such things.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #110 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. 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. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.

Wow, it's a tough call on this for me. Personally I find naming a foundation after yourself is pretty irksome. I hope that particular one doesn't become a dynasty. I can see some merit in SJ' approach plus it fits with his spiritual beliefs it seems to me.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #111 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Hey', I'm CMV negative, too!

I had a feeling you were special....too! 1wink.gif Kudos to you.

 

Clean living and being selective (or lucky) with the partners we've chosen over the years was certainly not for nothing and quite virtuous, IMHO.  Like my phlebotomist/hematologist told me on numerous donating occasions, being CMV free says a lot about someone. Although, that's not to say that those who carry the virus are necessarily 'dirty' people, so to speak. I'm not saying that at all.

 

I have a high platelet count so they have me on a schedule. NJ Blood Services wants me in as often as possible. I even have my local hospital call me up (basically on-call) to donate for special immuno-suppressed infant cases like HIV and cancer patients. While the nationwide rate for CMV positive is 80-85%, the NY/NJ Metro area has a rate closer to 95% so the clean blood pool is much smaller here, which makes me high in demand. NOTHING makes me feel better than having such an ability to help infants in desperate need for life-giving "clean" blood. I know for a fact that I have directly saved and/or prolonged the lives of many children.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #112 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

NOTHING makes me feel better than having such an ability to help infants in desperate need for life-giving "clean" blood. I know for a fact that I have directly saved and/or prolonged the lives of many children.

On a couple occasions they've called me up or I've gone in to give platelets and they wanted me to give whole blood instead for a need they expressed was likely for infants. Not sure if they just say that because it would make the average person feel better over someone with AIDS or some other auto-immune issues, but it does feel good to know your blood is needed and uncommon.

For those not familiar with CMV: http://blog.inceptsaves.com/blog/2011/05/04/what-does-it-mean-to-have-cmv-negative-blood/
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/24/13 at 1:17pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #113 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. 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. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.


Open giving will never accomplish as much good as anonymous giving because open giving is only good for the recipient, but never good for the giver.

Anonymous giving is good for the giver and receiver. Both become better off.

Open giving is narcissistic, it glorifies the giver. It teaches society narcissism, that you are only important if you are rich and powerful.

Anonymous giving teaches society that the plight of the troubled and needy is what is important (not the giver).

Open giving to coerce others into giving - teaches society that bullying others is proper (it is not).

Anonymous giving teaches society that bullies should be ignored.

I could go on. But I hope you get the idea.

post #114 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

But if you want to give anonymously because it make you feel more humble or makes you look more humble to the few people in your inner circle that know you're donating and/or you're afraid of what people might think if you gave sans anonymity isn't that letting your ego dictate your decision?

I think you're perhaps trying to put too fine a point on it.

 

Speaking for myself, what defines character is what you do (and who you are) when people are not looking -- not when they're looking.

post #115 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I think you're perhaps trying to put too fine a point on it.

 

Speaking for myself, what defines character is what you do (and who you are) when people are not looking -- not when they're looking.


Another excellent example: Open giving promotes a superficial facade of good character, while anonymous giving improves the givers true character. And society learns from watching both, do we want to teach superficiality or true good character? I say we want folks to develop true good character, not a lie.

post #116 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet View Post

Another excellent example: Open giving promotes a superficial facade of good character, while anonymous giving improves the givers true character. And society learns from watching both, do we want to teach superficiality or true good character? I say we want folks to develop true good character, not a lie.

In the end, it all amounts to the same: people find out. Like people did, in this instance.

post #117 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In the end, it all amounts to the same: people find out. Like people did, in this instance.

 

 

Not the same.

SJ is no longer.

post #118 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm actually against this anonymous donating. 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....

 

One small caveat I'd like to add.

 

Without going into too much detail, those of us who are of a Christian persuasion subscribe to anonymous giving as being the preferred method, so that the giving does not confer either status or glory onto the person donating. Even if you're filthy rich, you give because you should, not because you'll get your name in the paper.

 

The anonymous aspect is why I admire Jobs a lot more than Gates when it comes to the subject (that and the nasty way in which Gates uses his foundation as a down-low marketing machine for Microsoft, but that's another discussion...)

post #119 of 147

It is their money.  What the Jobs family or what anyone else does with their money is their business.  

post #120 of 147
Sounds like you have the definition of honor mixed up with "praise" or some such. Honorable deeds are NOT done so that one can feel good about himself. They are done because they're the right thing to do, plain and simple.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades