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.
1. He had a right to privacy given that he was a human being
2. He was Buddhist and it is against the teachings
To every clear reasons. Don't like them, don't live like that. Tweet, Facebook, buy ads and billboards to announce all your awesome charity work.
But you have no more right to demand that someone 'come out of the closet' and go public with their charity work than you have over their politics, sexuality etc. don't like that, get over it.
1. He had a right to privacy given that he was a human being
2. He was Buddhist and it is against the teachings
To every clear reasons. Don't like them, don't live like that. Tweet, Facebook, buy ads and billboards to announce all your awesome charity work.
But you have no more right to demand that someone 'come out of the closet' and go public with their charity work than you have over their politics, sexuality etc. don't like that, get over it.
Seriously?! Where did I state anything that would lead you to believe that he wasn't allowed to be private or that I demand to know everything he spent money on? I very, very, very clearly and repeatedly stated he has the right to be private, but being private is not in itself altruism. Stop being emotional and start being rational. I can't make my words any more clear.
I learned a big lesson years ago when I worked with a huge rock star at the very peak of his career. I was approached by a nationally recognized non profit that a young girl stricken with leukemia wanted an autograph photo from my artist. I went 10 steps further and made arrangements to take my artist to the hospital when he was scheduled to play in town. He loved the idea and just before I took him over, I asked if I could make calls to the media to publicize. He said no right away. The reason - KARMA. Even though this was the first time he was presented with donating his time and presence, he made a decision to be anonymous. I admired his decision and as a marketing person, learned a big lesson. My point is, you have to believe in karma to respect a "public" person's desire to remain behind the headlines of the media.
Well we are 180 degrees apart on this one! I really think it would be best to require anonymous donations, doing the right thing shouldn't be a public spectacle.
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.
We already have to many celebrities trying to sway public opinion to their perverse realities. This often leads to draining of funds that would often go to more worthwhile charities.
I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time.
It is one thing to encourage people to donate to charity it is another thing to bias them in selecting a charity. It is far better for people to support things they have a personal interest in than to piss away money on somebody else's pet project.
Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted.
That is plain old baloney. If you make a donation to build a hospital how can that be muted? Your position here is very strange to say the least. The result of your donation speaks for itself, you don't need to engage in self promotion.
Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades.
Maybe in some cases that might be true. But look at it from the standpoint of somebody with a lot of money that wants to avoid the circus mentality that often comes with these public offerings. That and the preference to avoid every Tom, Dick and Harry knocking on your door looking for a hand out.
The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.
Well that is certainly true. So if you believe that why object to private donations?
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.
80s and 90s? Where have you been the last 13 years - that is still going on.
It's also not limited to conservatives. Examples:
- People who refuse to eat at Chick Fil-A because of their views
- People who picket funerals of fallen soldiers saying it's God's punishment for homosexuality
There are plenty more examples on both sides. That's why so many people choose not to discuss any political matters in a business context.
I really think it would be best to require anonymous donations, doing the right thing shouldn't be a public spectacle.
We already have to many celebrities trying to sway public opinion to their perverse realities.
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.
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 . . .
I don't offer this in order to appear an expert, but I'm Buddhist. The reasons for not publicly giving are fairly obvious, it creates a spectacle and promotes ego. Better to give $1 in private than millions publicly.
And to the posters above saying Apple is more important than charity work, that's just sad. Not to judge but your priorities are quite skewed. All the tech innovations in history aren't equal to helping one single person in need. I love tech, wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, but all of these things are material. You can't put a price on helping someone out through charity work.
Better to give $1 in private than millions publicly.
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.
And to the posters above saying Apple is more important than charity work, that's just sad. Not to judge but your priorities are quite skewed. All the tech innovations in history aren't equal to helping one single person in need. I love tech, wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, but all of these things are material. You can't put a price on helping someone out through charity work.
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 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.
So because a small group does it, we can blame the entire group of people? Isn't that stereotyping and we know ALL generalization is wrong.
A quick funny 'anonymous' story. Derek Jeter was photographed coming out of a Starbucks in Greenwich Village with the name Philip written on it. C'mon man we know who you are.
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.
The sad truth is that tragedy is also a strengthener of man, both individual and societal.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top "And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train
80s and 90s? Where have you been the last 13 years - that is still going on.
It's also not limited to conservatives. Examples:
- People who refuse to eat at Chick Fil-A because of their views
- People who picket funerals of fallen soldiers saying it's God's punishment for homosexuality
There are plenty more examples on both sides. That's why so many people choose not to discuss any political matters in a business context.
I was specifically countering the original poster's statement that helping those with AIDS was NOT controversial and I was pointing out that it can be.
I also left out any reference to gays because those afflicted were a broader scope than that, i.e., IV drug users, non-monogamous, sex before marriage, etc.
The examples you cite, are not charities and I don't see the relevance specifically to charitable giving and why one would choose to keep one's donations private.
The sad truth is that tragedy is also a strengthener of man, both individual and societal.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train
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.
So because a small group does it, we can blame the entire group of people? Isn't that stereotyping and we know ALL generalization is wrong.
When the small group are the leaders of the larger group, you have a perception problem.
My remembrance of that time, is when the film critic for KGO-TV came out of the closet and admitted that he was dying of AIDS. He expected to be condemned and vilified by Christians. He was not. He was greeted with love and support in his last days and he was happy to report that.
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.
What if he wanted to support Planned Parenthood or Gun Control. There could easily be a backlash from conservatives over those types of donations.
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...
Comments
1. He had a right to privacy given that he was a human being
2. He was Buddhist and it is against the teachings
To every clear reasons. Don't like them, don't live like that. Tweet, Facebook, buy ads and billboards to announce all your awesome charity work.
But you have no more right to demand that someone 'come out of the closet' and go public with their charity work than you have over their politics, sexuality etc. don't like that, get over it.
Seriously?! Where did I state anything that would lead you to believe that he wasn't allowed to be private or that I demand to know everything he spent money on? I very, very, very clearly and repeatedly stated he has the right to be private, but being private is not in itself altruism. Stop being emotional and start being rational. I can't make my words any more clear.
My point is, you have to believe in karma to respect a "public" person's desire to remain behind the headlines of the media.
It is one thing to encourage people to donate to charity it is another thing to bias them in selecting a charity. It is far better for people to support things they have a personal interest in than to piss away money on somebody else's pet project. That is plain old baloney. If you make a donation to build a hospital how can that be muted? Your position here is very strange to say the least. The result of your donation speaks for itself, you don't need to engage in self promotion. Maybe in some cases that might be true. But look at it from the standpoint of somebody with a lot of money that wants to avoid the circus mentality that often comes with these public offerings. That and the preference to avoid every Tom, Dick and Harry knocking on your door looking for a hand out.
Well that is certainly true. So if you believe that why object to private donations?
80s and 90s? Where have you been the last 13 years - that is still going on.
It's also not limited to conservatives. Examples:
- People who refuse to eat at Chick Fil-A because of their views
- People who picket funerals of fallen soldiers saying it's God's punishment for homosexuality
There are plenty more examples on both sides. That's why so many people choose not to discuss any political matters in a business context.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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 . . .
I don't offer this in order to appear an expert, but I'm Buddhist. The reasons for not publicly giving are fairly obvious, it creates a spectacle and promotes ego. Better to give $1 in private than millions publicly.
And to the posters above saying Apple is more important than charity work, that's just sad. Not to judge but your priorities are quite skewed. All the tech innovations in history aren't equal to helping one single person in need. I love tech, wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, but all of these things are material. You can't put a price on helping someone out through charity work.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
And to the posters above saying Apple is more important than charity work, that's just sad. Not to judge but your priorities are quite skewed. All the tech innovations in history aren't equal to helping one single person in need. I love tech, wouldn't be here on this forum otherwise, but all of these things are material. You can't put a price on helping someone out through charity work.
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'm not that cynical.
So because a small group does it, we can blame the entire group of people? Isn't that stereotyping and we know ALL generalization is wrong.
The sad truth is that tragedy is also a strengthener of man, both individual and societal.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
80s and 90s? Where have you been the last 13 years - that is still going on.
It's also not limited to conservatives. Examples:
- People who refuse to eat at Chick Fil-A because of their views
- People who picket funerals of fallen soldiers saying it's God's punishment for homosexuality
There are plenty more examples on both sides. That's why so many people choose not to discuss any political matters in a business context.
I was specifically countering the original poster's statement that helping those with AIDS was NOT controversial and I was pointing out that it can be.
I also left out any reference to gays because those afflicted were a broader scope than that, i.e., IV drug users, non-monogamous, sex before marriage, etc.
The examples you cite, are not charities and I don't see the relevance specifically to charitable giving and why one would choose to keep one's donations private.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The sad truth is that tragedy is also a strengthener of man, both individual and societal.
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." ~ Carrot Top
"And why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up." ~ Thomas the Train
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.
Originally Posted by jungmark
I like the one with Picard labeled as Gandalf with "Harry, May the force be with you" better.
I'll agree to that. It's a cleaner representation of the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I'm not that cynical.
So because a small group does it, we can blame the entire group of people? Isn't that stereotyping and we know ALL generalization is wrong.
When the small group are the leaders of the larger group, you have a perception problem.
My remembrance of that time, is when the film critic for KGO-TV came out of the closet and admitted that he was dying of AIDS. He expected to be condemned and vilified by Christians. He was not. He was greeted with love and support in his last days and he was happy to report that.
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.
What if he wanted to support Planned Parenthood or Gun Control. There could easily be a backlash from conservatives over those types of donations.
That is a given, I was discussing humility and avoiding ego...