So you still contend that all anonymity is noble and all that results in publicity is self-seeking?
I never said any such thing.
I said that someone donating money should be able to decide whether it's anonymous or not - which is the way things are now.
You claim that the greater good should overrule an individual's preference.
Since you're the one suggesting a change, you have the burden of proof. I pointed out the logical flaws in your argument and you simply buried your head in the sand and tried to change the subject.
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.
There are many wealthy, famour people donating and otherwise giving openly. If what Gates, Buffett, Kevin Durant, Bono, Turner, Clooney and Jolie do doesn't inspire someone. Having more open donors will not sway them.
Come to think of it, I don't understand what you are against. Surely you're ok with some people giving money anonymously?
The point in giving is not to draw attention to the fact that you gave something but to help someone or some cause in need. If you are giving only to draw attention to yourself, you are doing it for the wrong reasons.
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 know I am late to this discussion, however, why in hell do you need to know what someone does with their money, this is the problem with the country, everything thinks it is their business to know what other people are doing.
It is not the responsibilities of celeb or anyone else to do thing to motivate others to do things, Either people help because they want to or they do not.
I always wonder why Steve never gave back, I originally thought he might do something later in life like may of his contemporaries did, such as set up a foundation which used the money they had to keep give for decade after their gone. However, It was nice to hear he was doing it quietly behind the scenes. It also sounds like the Job's we not using for tax purposes like most Celeb do.
So you still contend that all anonymity is noble and all that results in publicity is self-seeking?
I'm surprised no one mentioned anything about Ted Turner. He pledged billions along with a call-out to other "rich" CEOs and celebrities to donate to their preferred charities and causes before they die. I don't think he did that for self publicity, I think he was trying to light a fire under the butts of those who continue to think "whoever dies with the most toys wins" and that they, or their heirs, won't miss a billion when they're dead and buried. When we're talking BILLIONS of dollars, enough can be enough to live..... *quite comfortably*........ and most would not miss a billion from their accounts.....holding 10's of billions of dollars.
Comments
I never said any such thing.
I said that someone donating money should be able to decide whether it's anonymous or not - which is the way things are now.
You claim that the greater good should overrule an individual's preference.
Since you're the one suggesting a change, you have the burden of proof. I pointed out the logical flaws in your argument and you simply buried your head in the sand and tried to change the subject.
Not true. You specifically suggested that the 'greater good' should overrule an individual's preference.
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.
There are many wealthy, famour people donating and otherwise giving openly. If what Gates, Buffett, Kevin Durant, Bono, Turner, Clooney and Jolie do doesn't inspire someone. Having more open donors will not sway them.
Come to think of it, I don't understand what you are against. Surely you're ok with some people giving money anonymously?
The point in giving is not to draw attention to the fact that you gave something but to help someone or some cause in need. If you are giving only to draw attention to yourself, you are doing it for the wrong reasons.
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 know I am late to this discussion, however, why in hell do you need to know what someone does with their money, this is the problem with the country, everything thinks it is their business to know what other people are doing.
It is not the responsibilities of celeb or anyone else to do thing to motivate others to do things, Either people help because they want to or they do not.
I always wonder why Steve never gave back, I originally thought he might do something later in life like may of his contemporaries did, such as set up a foundation which used the money they had to keep give for decade after their gone. However, It was nice to hear he was doing it quietly behind the scenes. It also sounds like the Job's we not using for tax purposes like most Celeb do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you still contend that all anonymity is noble and all that results in publicity is self-seeking?
I'm surprised no one mentioned anything about Ted Turner. He pledged billions along with a call-out to other "rich" CEOs and celebrities to donate to their preferred charities and causes before they die. I don't think he did that for self publicity, I think he was trying to light a fire under the butts of those who continue to think "whoever dies with the most toys wins" and that they, or their heirs, won't miss a billion when they're dead and buried. When we're talking BILLIONS of dollars, enough can be enough to live..... *quite comfortably*........ and most would not miss a billion from their accounts.....holding 10's of billions of dollars.
Just my 2 cents...