PS: An interesting example is Celebrity Apprentice. Regardless of how you feel about the show, the celebrities, or Donald Trump it's simply amazing how much money that show has raised for charity. From what I've seen none of the proceeds from the tasks to raise money go to the show, but straight to the charities of the winning project manager's choice.
Trump loves to donate others' efforts like he has others pay off his bankruptcies. His philanthropic efforts are as ludicrous as his rhetoric on China.This from a man who his clothing line is labelled, "Made in China"
You also might want to consider the obvious fact that collectivism is the very basis of society and civilisation, and basically the way the entire universe operates. Any society that eschews it is basically a society of all men, living in the hills with guns and waiting for the "end times."
You also might want to consider the obvious fact that collectivism is the very basis of society and civilisation, and basically the way the entire universe operates. Any society that eschews it is basically a society of all men, living in the hills with guns and waiting for the "end times."
You might want to consider that the poster was almost certainly referring to collectivism in the political (socialist/communist/Marxist) sense of that term. I seriously doubt he was using it in the far more generic sense you're thinking.
Don't expect to hear any appologies from those critics who have been viciously savaging Steve for not being charitable. I, unlike some in here, feel that that anonymous giving is an act of true charity and I applaud Steve for that.
True charity comes from the heart and not from a desire for publicity or because your favorite celeb donates to a cause. Charity under those reasons is given with the expectation of some thing in return. True charity is that given with no expectation of anything in return.
Yes, you can shame people into giving but that is just as wrong as ignoring those in need. Just because you believe something is the right thing to do does not make it right to try and force others to support it. If you read your history you will find much of human suffering has happened because of people with the best of intentions.
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.
Now that some of the donations by the Jobs family and Apple are less anonymous maybe it will encourage giving by others. I certainly agree it can and does have that effect. But I also hope people see the value in not splashing your name or corporate logo on every good deed. The middle class father that donates a weekend to fix a playground or put in a wheelchair ramp doesn't get a lot of credit but does quite a bit of good, but gets just a few atta-boys as reward. Unless you count the personal satisfaction, and I think we should. Just my 2 cents worth here.
P.S. I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it. Any way that a person wants to help another is good with me. The gates foundation puts their name out there pretty prominantly and I have no complaints and I've never really liked Microsoft. Hell I'll stand up and cheer.
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.
Where's a bucket so I can vomit in it. The best way to give is of yourself and your time, not your money. I detest people telling other people what they should do with their money.
I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention.
Showing any standpoint in business is a bad idea. If you believe in giving money to AIDs charities then that's fine but there will always be people who take exception and will either be against your choice or would prefer you had helped another charity instead (cancer, heart disease, children).
This exception to your beliefs can cause people to stop buying your product.
For example, Laurene Powell Jobs is now using money made through Apple to help immigration into America. I dare say that's not going down too well with everyone. If I lived in America I'd be pissed that my money was helping that.
IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI". HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM. I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES. IT CAME.
How do you know he practiced zen? And what does that have to do with anything.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
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.
Or, you know, a happy medium between individual freedom and collectivism, which I believe is what our civilization is all about. One side argues for a little more collectivism while the other argues for a little more individual freedom. We need both.
I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention. There are so many charities out there and most, if not all, deserve attention.
This is the general thrust behind the Buddhist teachings against 'public' charity. When you draw attention to what you are doing it becomes about the attention and praise for you, not the act of giving with no reward.
I've given tens of thousands to a variety of charities and causes, and not a single person that knows me is aware of it, nor should they be. I don't judge anyone who publicizes their giving, but personally its not something I like to do. However, the assumption that someone isnt giving because theyre not publicizing it is pretty disgusting to me.
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.
You apparently missed the late '80s and '90s when Christian conservatives blamed the millions of people dying of AIDS on their choice of lifestyle and that it was God's will.
Now that some of the donations by the Jobs family and Apple are less anonymous maybe it will encourage giving by others. I certainly agree it can and does have that effect. But I also hope people see the value in not splashing your name or corporate logo on every good deed. The middle class father that donates a weekend to fix a playground or put in a wheelchair ramp doesn't get a lot of credit but does quite a bit of good, but gets just a few atta-boys as reward. Unless you count the personal satisfaction, and I think we should. Just my 2 cents worth here.
P.S. I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it. Any way that a person wants to help another is good with me. The gates foundation puts their name out there pretty prominantly and I have no complaints and I've never really liked Microsoft. Hell I'll stand up and cheer.
That's the rub. Those have done it for glory can ruin the cause for others which can create artificial restrictions so they don't erroneously get lumped in with the others. The Gates Foundation is a prime example. That charity has done amazing things but there will always be those that question the sincerity of it or question if he did it because he felt guilty for earlier, less ethical business actions. That later really makes no sense as once can donate anonymously to counter the same personal hurdles. Overall I don't care about Gates reasons because the end result helps others so I'm quite glad that Gates didn't just donate anonymously to existing charities as I think his is doing things others weren't doing or doing as effectively.
Whilst a father who donates a weekend to fix a playground isn't as epic as someone like Gates that donates billions of dollars and works at it daily for years, that doesn't mean the cost to his time or finances are insignificant. There's that old saying, "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." but I think it goes beyond that as you can also look at the cost for that individual to help another, which can go as far as giving your life.
Donating anonymously allowed Jobs to support liberal causes without hurting Apple's sales to conservatives, or making Apple a partisan issue in government.
The issue of Apple donating is more in this bent, as Steve felt he and the Board didn't have the right to make such decisions with what is basically other people's money
But yes there was also this false notion that Steve and Apple were the same so whatever he did, including getting sick, was an Apple thing. Add that the press pushed this notion for page hits and you can see the potential cock up.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: An interesting example is Celebrity Apprentice. Regardless of how you feel about the show, the celebrities, or Donald Trump it's simply amazing how much money that show has raised for charity. From what I've seen none of the proceeds from the tasks to raise money go to the show, but straight to the charities of the winning project manager's choice.
Trump loves to donate others' efforts like he has others pay off his bankruptcies. His philanthropic efforts are as ludicrous as his rhetoric on China.This from a man who his clothing line is labelled, "Made in China"
As published elsewhere, Trump: The Least Charitable Billionaire The Donald is a miser, not an “ardent philanthropist.”
He is in a same league by himself, i.e., The Bush League.
P.S., As reported, over the last 2 years "…Trump will personally pocket $65 million per year…."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
No it doesn't. No it isn't.
Try again.
Wow, good comeback.
I'm gonna go with … "Is too!"
You also might want to consider the obvious fact that collectivism is the very basis of society and civilisation, and basically the way the entire universe operates. Any society that eschews it is basically a society of all men, living in the hills with guns and waiting for the "end times."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You also might want to consider the obvious fact that collectivism is the very basis of society and civilisation, and basically the way the entire universe operates. Any society that eschews it is basically a society of all men, living in the hills with guns and waiting for the "end times."
You might want to consider that the poster was almost certainly referring to collectivism in the political (socialist/communist/Marxist) sense of that term. I seriously doubt he was using it in the far more generic sense you're thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Wow, good comeback.
I'm gonna go with … "Is too!"
Well, when you start with such lame leftist talking points, what do you expect?
True charity comes from the heart and not from a desire for publicity or because your favorite celeb donates to a cause. Charity under those reasons is given with the expectation of some thing in return. True charity is that given with no expectation of anything in return.
Yes, you can shame people into giving but that is just as wrong as ignoring those in need. Just because you believe something is the right thing to do does not make it right to try and force others to support it. If you read your history you will find much of human suffering has happened because of people with the best of intentions.
Now that some of the donations by the Jobs family and Apple are less anonymous maybe it will encourage giving by others. I certainly agree it can and does have that effect. But I also hope people see the value in not splashing your name or corporate logo on every good deed. The middle class father that donates a weekend to fix a playground or put in a wheelchair ramp doesn't get a lot of credit but does quite a bit of good, but gets just a few atta-boys as reward. Unless you count the personal satisfaction, and I think we should. Just my 2 cents worth here.
P.S. I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on it. Any way that a person wants to help another is good with me. The gates foundation puts their name out there pretty prominantly and I have no complaints and I've never really liked Microsoft. Hell I'll stand up and cheer.
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.
Where's a bucket so I can vomit in it. The best way to give is of yourself and your time, not your money. I detest people telling other people what they should do with their money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I disagree. To be cynical, people should donate in what they believe in and not because some celebrity is doing it. Personally I think some celebs do it for attention.
Some?
This exception to your beliefs can cause people to stop buying your product.
For example, Laurene Powell Jobs is now using money made through Apple to help immigration into America. I dare say that's not going down too well with everyone. If I lived in America I'd be pissed that my money was helping that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69
IT IS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. JOBS HAD BELIEF IN HINDUISM AND EVERYONE KNOWS HE IS AVID READER OF THE BOOK "AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI". HINDUISM ASKS TO DO ANONYMOUS DONATIONS. HE PRACTICED ZEN BUDDHISM. I KNEW THAT THIS NEWS WOULD BE COMING AFTER HE DIES. IT CAME.
How do you know he practiced zen? And what does that have to do with anything.
But instead you want to tell people what to do with themselves and their time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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 MJ1970
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.
Or, you know, a happy medium between individual freedom and collectivism, which I believe is what our civilization is all about. One side argues for a little more collectivism while the other argues for a little more individual freedom. We need both.
This is the general thrust behind the Buddhist teachings against 'public' charity. When you draw attention to what you are doing it becomes about the attention and praise for you, not the act of giving with no reward.
And as Jobs was Buddhist . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
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.
You apparently missed the late '80s and '90s when Christian conservatives blamed the millions of people dying of AIDS on their choice of lifestyle and that it was God's will.
Telling people what to do and where to go = O.K.
Suggesting a way super wealthy people should help those less fortunate= You monster!
That's the rub. Those have done it for glory can ruin the cause for others which can create artificial restrictions so they don't erroneously get lumped in with the others. The Gates Foundation is a prime example. That charity has done amazing things but there will always be those that question the sincerity of it or question if he did it because he felt guilty for earlier, less ethical business actions. That later really makes no sense as once can donate anonymously to counter the same personal hurdles. Overall I don't care about Gates reasons because the end result helps others so I'm quite glad that Gates didn't just donate anonymously to existing charities as I think his is doing things others weren't doing or doing as effectively.
Whilst a father who donates a weekend to fix a playground isn't as epic as someone like Gates that donates billions of dollars and works at it daily for years, that doesn't mean the cost to his time or finances are insignificant. There's that old saying, "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." but I think it goes beyond that as you can also look at the cost for that individual to help another, which can go as far as giving your life.
The issue of Apple donating is more in this bent, as Steve felt he and the Board didn't have the right to make such decisions with what is basically other people's money
But yes there was also this false notion that Steve and Apple were the same so whatever he did, including getting sick, was an Apple thing. Add that the press pushed this notion for page hits and you can see the potential cock up.