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.
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.
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?
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_?
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
You're missing my point, but never mind. :-)
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
randomunforeseen 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.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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_?
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.
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 you mean my first sentence in my original comment, then I agree.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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).
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
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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?
deleted
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
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.