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.
I disagree. The wealthy have every bit as much right to privacy as you or I do. It's no one's business what the Jobs family chooses to do with their money - just as it's no one's business what brand of toilet paper they use or what kind of fruit they put on their cereal.
This infatuation with sticking their noses into people's private lives is part of the reason the press is only a shadow of what it once was.
If the family wants to publicize their donations, they're free to do so. But EXPECTING them to is unreasonable.
I have no problem with anonymous donation - we still have some freedom in this country.
Speculation on my part here but it could have been in part due to a feeling that he wanted to be celebrated for the things he was directly involved in and not the efforts of other which he simply helped to fund. And actually, if you think about it, it was all of us who bought Apple products an made the company profitable who donated all that money, indirectly of course.
But perhaps one of the reasons was so that he would not be inundated with people asking for money. Imagine how much of your day would be taken up with turning people away and how difficult it might be to turn people down who are supporting a worthy cause.
Beside it would be very un-Steve-like to follow someone else's agenda when it comes to philanthropic areas of his life just as it was in all others.
The wealthy have every bit as much right to privacy as you or I do.
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.
When did it become required to give? I say that, since the method of giving is now under discussion, like we in the community have some sort of say or requirement on how that happens.
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.
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government. And I think he was probably right that diminishing Apple's positive effect on the world by being public in his giving would hurt more than being an example would have helped. Moreover, he wanted to live as normal a private life as possible, in a normal house in a normal neighborhood without drawing more attention to his family than necessary.
Well, I see you have edited to clarify your post. Glad to see you expand on your thoughts because your previous words made it sound like it somehow neutered the actual donation. I get your desire to have celebrities lead by example but I really wonder how many times people actually donate to a cause because a celebrity does. I know in my case I have charities I donate to and I can't think of a time that I have donated to a cause because a celebrity did (unless you somehow count Product (RED)).
It would be nice if this were really true. I am one who believes that if the govt. did not rip us off to pay for all the entitlement programs that charitable contributions in general would go up. Maybe that is utopian thinking. I know as long as we are forced to pay into SS, MediCare/MediCade, housing for the poor, clinics, ObamaCare, FEMA, billions for foreign aid for refugees, or to fight other peoples wars, investing in ethanol refineries, etc. It limits the disposable cash I have available to donate to the things I feel are important. Where is our freedom to support the charities/non-profits we want to? I think we have been stripped of a major portion of our right to support what we (as individuals) want to support.
Just my two scentssense cents. :\ ;)
If everybody was created equally we would not need the so called entitlement programs you refer to. As it is, however, one percent of the people own over 90 percent of the wealth. Further, those folks control the political system making it ever more difficult for people to go out and be the next Steve Jobs.
I for one think the foundation of a successful democracy requires people not to worry about health care, education, or homelessness. That helps level the playing field for those not born into entitlement. Further, elderly, disabled, or people who can't get a job through no fault of their own should be provided for. That should be a function of government.
People who get upset over safety net programs rarely mind the obscene amount spent supporting other governments, and through our military.
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government.
The word for why this is just totally wrong escapes me right now. It's something to do with false logic…
Moreover, he wanted to live as normal a private life as possible, in a normal house in a normal neighborhood without drawing more attention to his family than necessary.
You state that he wanted a certain life, which is perfectly reasonable, but it's a choice for his own comfort not the comfort for the recipients of the funds. I have no idea why but it should be crystal clear that anonymity is not be a noble act in and of itself. It's the reasons for it that determine if it falls under the purview of selfish or selfless, noble or ignoble.
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government. And I think he was probably right that diminishing Apple's positive effect on the world by being public in his giving would hurt more than being an example would have helped.
Yes, because so many conservatives are such cold-hearted evil bastards that they would hate Steve and Apple because he donated to things like hospitals (including a children's hospital) and helping people get medical tests and treatment for HIV and AIDS.
If the Huffington Post told you that, maybe you need to stop reading it.
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.
So in your view, societal needs take precedence over personal decision making?
OK. Let's start with the following:
1. Society benefits from less pollution and global warming. In the future, society will dictate what car you should buy - and it will be the smallest, most fuel-efficient car available.
2. Society benefits from educating its kids. So in the future, society will insist that you donate 20% of your income to education.
3. For that matter, society benefits when people are fed and clothed. So, in the future, society will allow you to keep just enough money to live on and you must give the rest to people who are struggling.
Sorry, but I don't buy the principle that society should dictate individual actions.
It's the creation of Apple that makes Steve Jobs a hero, the simple giving away of money is nothing compared to that, no matter how much.
I mean, think how much thought and effort was needed to create Apple: strategic decision making and product instincts, etc vs. just signing a check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Which one is more important?
Apple is more important, without question. The existence of Apple made the philanthropy possible. Add to that the jobs created, both within the company and the companies surrounding Apple as suppliers, marketers, financiers, etc. Then there's the technology aspect which made it possible to actually DO something with the money given, such as medical research and the like using technology invented or simplified by Apple.
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.
I understand and appreciate what you say here, but I think you are likely incorrect on this. You seem to be predicating this on the belief that "leading by example" will shame others into donating but I just don't see that working. It's my experience that people are either charitable or they are not, that (to use a cliche) "it comes from the heart," and that rarely if ever does someone leave one group and join the other.
I understand and appreciate what you say here, but I think you are likely incorrect on this. You seem to be predicating this on the belief that "leading by example" will shame others into donating but I just don't see that working. It's my experience that people are either charitable or they are not, that (to use a cliche) "it comes from the heart," and that rarely if ever does someone leave one group and join the other.
In no way did I state or suggest shame. I thought I clearly implied it would inspire others.
Do you think most that supported Ghandi were inspired or did so out of shame? I'd like to think they believed in what he was doing.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." ~ Edmund Blackadder
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Any mention of Boo-Boo Bear or Ranger Smith in the book?
I smell some burning
I disagree. The wealthy have every bit as much right to privacy as you or I do. It's no one's business what the Jobs family chooses to do with their money - just as it's no one's business what brand of toilet paper they use or what kind of fruit they put on their cereal.
This infatuation with sticking their noses into people's private lives is part of the reason the press is only a shadow of what it once was.
If the family wants to publicize their donations, they're free to do so. But EXPECTING them to is unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
She really is a beautiful woman.
Agreed but WTF does that have to do with this thread?
Hopefully Boo-Boo got some donated picanee baskets.
Speculation on my part here but it could have been in part due to a feeling that he wanted to be celebrated for the things he was directly involved in and not the efforts of other which he simply helped to fund. And actually, if you think about it, it was all of us who bought Apple products an made the company profitable who donated all that money, indirectly of course.
But perhaps one of the reasons was so that he would not be inundated with people asking for money. Imagine how much of your day would be taken up with turning people away and how difficult it might be to turn people down who are supporting a worthy cause.
Beside it would be very un-Steve-like to follow someone else's agenda when it comes to philanthropic areas of his life just as it was in all others.
Beautiful women have to do with everything
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.
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government. And I think he was probably right that diminishing Apple's positive effect on the world by being public in his giving would hurt more than being an example would have helped. Moreover, he wanted to live as normal a private life as possible, in a normal house in a normal neighborhood without drawing more attention to his family than necessary.
If everybody was created equally we would not need the so called entitlement programs you refer to. As it is, however, one percent of the people own over 90 percent of the wealth. Further, those folks control the political system making it ever more difficult for people to go out and be the next Steve Jobs.
I for one think the foundation of a successful democracy requires people not to worry about health care, education, or homelessness. That helps level the playing field for those not born into entitlement. Further, elderly, disabled, or people who can't get a job through no fault of their own should be provided for. That should be a function of government.
People who get upset over safety net programs rarely mind the obscene amount spent supporting other governments, and through our military.
Originally Posted by NormM
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government.
The word for why this is just totally wrong escapes me right now. It's something to do with false logic…
You state that he wanted a certain life, which is perfectly reasonable, but it's a choice for his own comfort not the comfort for the recipients of the funds. I have no idea why but it should be crystal clear that anonymity is not be a noble act in and of itself. It's the reasons for it that determine if it falls under the purview of selfish or selfless, noble or ignoble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government. And I think he was probably right that diminishing Apple's positive effect on the world by being public in his giving would hurt more than being an example would have helped.
Yes, because so many conservatives are such cold-hearted evil bastards that they would hate Steve and Apple because he donated to things like hospitals (including a children's hospital) and helping people get medical tests and treatment for HIV and AIDS.
If the Huffington Post told you that, maybe you need to stop reading it.
So in your view, societal needs take precedence over personal decision making?
OK. Let's start with the following:
1. Society benefits from less pollution and global warming. In the future, society will dictate what car you should buy - and it will be the smallest, most fuel-efficient car available.
2. Society benefits from educating its kids. So in the future, society will insist that you donate 20% of your income to education.
3. For that matter, society benefits when people are fed and clothed. So, in the future, society will allow you to keep just enough money to live on and you must give the rest to people who are struggling.
Sorry, but I don't buy the principle that society should dictate individual actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
It's the creation of Apple that makes Steve Jobs a hero, the simple giving away of money is nothing compared to that, no matter how much.
I mean, think how much thought and effort was needed to create Apple: strategic decision making and product instincts, etc vs. just signing a check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Which one is more important?
Apple is more important, without question. The existence of Apple made the philanthropy possible. Add to that the jobs created, both within the company and the companies surrounding Apple as suppliers, marketers, financiers, etc. Then there's the technology aspect which made it possible to actually DO something with the money given, such as medical research and the like using technology invented or simplified by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
I understand and appreciate what you say here, but I think you are likely incorrect on this. You seem to be predicating this on the belief that "leading by example" will shame others into donating but I just don't see that working. It's my experience that people are either charitable or they are not, that (to use a cliche) "it comes from the heart," and that rarely if ever does someone leave one group and join the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngexec
The greater good is that individual freedom is more important than a collectivism.
Wahat? Where did you get this? It would seem to directly argue against almost all civilisation. A recipe for anarchy if you will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It would seem to directly argue against almost all civilisation. A recipe for anarchy if you will.
No it doesn't. No it isn't.
Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Any mention of Boo-Boo Bear or Ranger Smith in the book?
I was always a follower of the Boo-Boo philosophy rather than the Yogi.
Yogi was always about the "freedom" to steal picnic baskets. What a jerk!
Boo-Boo was a collectivist and a sweetheart.
In no way did I state or suggest shame. I thought I clearly implied it would inspire others.
Do you think most that supported Ghandi were inspired or did so out of shame? I'd like to think they believed in what he was doing.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." ~ Edmund Blackadder