Views on Charity?

MULTIPLE CHOICE: The following come closest to my view on charity:


  • Total voters
    48

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered


I consider myself to be an empathetic person but every time I see one of these animal charity commercials, I automatically think of charities that help impoverished people and can't help but think that every dollar that goes to these abused dogs is a dollar not going to an innocent kid who is going to die. Their priorities seem fucked up.

On the other hand, plenty of people don't give money to charity at all, so you could argue it is wrong to be scornful of people giving to anything they consider to be a good cause.

Also, while I don't consider animal charities to be a worthy cause, there are other causes I do care about. Literacy leaps instantly to mind-- making sure poor kids everywhere have access to books. How do you strike a balance? I don't just want to say fuck the kids in this country but I am sympathetic to the view that if you're born in America, you've won the lottery of life. The payouts vary but the struggles aren't comparable to those of the poorest people outside of this country.

I used to feel bad about wasting money on certain things and I'd think of how many people could be helped with that money. That new Madden video game means I value my entertainment over two kids living through next month. I finally started giving to UNICEF a few months back and I plan to continuously up the amount but I know I could do more.

Pretty much everyone could do more. Your BGOL donation could support a kid for 2-3 weeks. I don't know where to draw the line and I'm not sure it should be drawn. But I damn sure won't intentionally help dogs before I help kids and, since the poor will always be with us, I'm not giving to any animal charity.

I do feel like everyone who is able to support themselves should be making a real effort to give something, though, and need to think seriously about their priorities. I think children born into poverty who are likely to die in poverty through no fault of their own is clearly the most important issue on the planet.

 
if i have it i am going to share it. i'm more concerned with helping my young brothers and sisters through my giving than i am with helping other causes. I'm getting ready to purchase my yearly supply of backpacks and school supplies to help get a few kids off to the right start this school year.


I could give two fucks about helping animals. I dont own any animals and i dont even like going in peoples houses who have animals. dont want your dogs and cats touching me dont like hairy women or hairy animals
 
if i have it i am going to share it. i'm more concerned with helping my young brothers and sisters through my giving than i am with helping other causes. I'm getting ready to purchase my yearly supply of backpacks and school supplies to help get a few kids off to the right start this school year.


I could give two fucks about helping animals. I dont own any animals and i dont even like going in peoples houses who have animals. dont want your dogs and cats touching me dont like hairy women or hairy animals

:cool: :yes:
 
View Poll Results:
MULTIPLE CHOICE: The following come closest to my view on charity:
Minimalism is the only morally acceptable approach
Costanza
1, 12.50%
People fortunate enough to have even a little are obligated to help those with nothing
90s Baby, BLESS, Costanza, doggish_098
4, 50.00%
If you’re comfortable, you should give a little
marcusfenix
1, 12.50%
It’s wrong to support animals over children
Costanza
1, 12.50%
Charity begins at home
0 0%
People can do whatever they like with their own money
334datdude, couvaredman, SLY
3, 37.50%
“My presence is charity”
0, 0%
Fuck charity
0, 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 8.

Interesting that none of the "People can do whatever they like with their own money" crowd has a word to offer in favor of their position.
 
View Poll Results:
MULTIPLE CHOICE: The following come closest to my view on charity:
Minimalism is the only morally acceptable approach
Costanza
1, 12.50%
People fortunate enough to have even a little are obligated to help those with nothing
90s Baby, BLESS, Costanza, doggish_098
4, 50.00%
If you’re comfortable, you should give a little
marcusfenix
1, 12.50%
It’s wrong to support animals over children
Costanza
1, 12.50%
Charity begins at home
0 0%
People can do whatever they like with their own money
334datdude, couvaredman, SLY
3, 37.50%
“My presence is charity”
0, 0%
Fuck charity
0, 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 8.

Interesting that none of the "People can do whatever they like with their own money" crowd has a word to offer in favor of their position.

I believe in Charity but I believe in freedom more. Personally I feel charity is the morally responsible thing to do I believe without it you live a life of selfishness which is not reality. We all benefit from society as a whole it is our responsibility to give back.

On the flip side I don't believe I have the right to impose my view on charity to others. I feel that anyone who works for their money has the right to do with it whatever they desire (assuming their desires don't encroach on my freedoms). So yes I believe in charity but no I don't believe it should be mandated.
 
I believe in Charity but I believe in freedom more. Personally I feel charity is the morally responsible thing to do I believe without it you live a life of selfishness which is not reality. We all benefit from society as a whole it is our responsibility to give back.

On the flip side I don't believe I have the right to impose my view on charity to others. I feel that anyone who works for their money has the right to do with it whatever they desire (assuming their desires don't encroach on my freedoms). So yes I believe in charity but no I don't believe it should be mandated.

Hmmm... very interesting take.

My reflexive response was to say that I wasn't arguing it should be mandated and that obligation does not equal a mandate. When I created the poll, my intent on the obligation question was basically "Are you obligated to give freely because it's the right thing to do?" That's what I was getting at.

But the more I think about it, as a social liberal, I do believe a certain degree of charity should be mandated. Like "making sure poor kids everywhere have access to books"-- That's something where I do do my part of my own free will, but I'll always advocate for more money for public education, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and such. So, to an extent, I do advocate forcing my views on others-- I'm more of a have-not than a have and the haves aren't going to do their fair share any other way.

The freedom of a little kid not to go hungry supercedes Donald Trump's freedom to spend his millions however he sees fit. It's not that kid's fault he or she has to be hungry so my justification is that absolute freedom is a myth and we as a society can only hope to balance the scales in a fair and just way,

There's a mythology in this country that everyone who has money earned it and it is so far from the truth. Even many people who sincerely believe they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps don't acknowledge, through ignorance, ego and self-delusion, that they had a lot of help and advantages along the way.

 
It so many rich people in the world for ppl to be poor

There's so much wealth in the world for people to be poor, I'd say.

But that wealth is concentrated in a relatively few hands.

According to the new provisional estimates, the proportion of people in the developing world living on less than $1.25 a day was 20.6 percent in 2010, down from 43.1 percent in 1990 and 52.2 percent in 1981. That is, 1.22 billion people lived on less than $1.25 a day in 2010, compared with 1.91 billion in 1990, and 1.94 billion in 1981. Notwithstanding this achievement, even if the current rate of progress is to be maintained, about 1 billion people will still live in extreme poverty in 2015.

The international line of $1.25 a day is the average of the national poverty lines in the poorest 10-20 countries.​

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367~isCURL:Y,00.html

That's one out of every five people in the world living in extreme poverty.

Not "American poverty," but extreme poverty.

As for American poverty:

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2013 05:57 AM PDT
Half of Americans below or near poverty line
The Census Bureau says 15 percent of the country is living in poverty, but the reality is much worse
BY PAUL BUCHHEIT


The Census Bureau has reported that 15% of Americans live in poverty. A shocking figure. But it’s actually much worse. Inequality is spreading like a shadowy disease through our country, infecting more and more households, and leaving a shrinking number of financially secure families to maintain the charade of prosperity.

1. Almost half of Americans had NO assets in 2009

Analysis of Economic Policy Institute data shows that Mitt Romney’s famous 47 percent, the alleged ‘takers,’ have taken nothing. Their debt exceeded their assets in 2009.

2. It’s Even Worse 3 Years Later

Since the recession, the disparities have continued to grow. An OECD report states that “inequality has increased by more over the past three years to the end of 2010 than in the previous twelve,” with the U.S. experiencing one of the widest gaps among OECD countries. The 30-year decline in wages has worsened since the recession, as low-wage jobs have replaced formerly secure middle-income positions.

3. Based on wage figures, half of Americans are in or near poverty.

The IRS reports that the highest wage in the bottom half of earners is about $34,000. To be eligible for food assistance, a family can earn up to 130% of the federal poverty line, or about $30,000 for a family of four.

Even the Census Bureau recognizes that its own figures under-represent the number of people in poverty. Its Supplemental Poverty Measure increases, by 50%, the number of Americans who earn between one-half and two times the poverty threshold.

4. Based on household expense totals, poverty is creeping into the top half of America.

A family in the top half, making $60,000 per year, will have their income reduced by a total tax bill of about $15,000 ($3,000 for federal income tax and $12,000 for payroll, state, and local taxes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau agree that food, housing, and transportation expenses will deduct another $30,000, and that total household expenditures will be about $50,000. That leaves nothing.

Nothing, that is, except debt. The median debt level rose to $75,600 in 2009, while the median family net worth, according to the Federal Reserve, dropped from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010.

5. Putting it in Perspective

Inequality is at its ugliest for the hungriest people. While food support was being targeted for cuts, just 20 rich Americans made as much from their 2012 investments as the entire 2012 SNAP (food assistance) budget, which serves 47 million people.

And as Congress continues to cut life-sustaining programs, its members should note that their 400 friends on the Forbes list made more from their stock market gains last year than the total amount of the food, housing, and education budgets combined.

Arguments about poverty won’t end. Neither should our efforts to uncover the awful truth.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/30/half_of_americans_living_below_or_near_poverty_line_partner/

Meanwhile, the U.S. is home to 442 billionaires and there are 1,426 in the world (according to the 2013 Forbes list).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakr...the-2013-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/

Just about 1 in every hundred Americans are millionaires.
 
Hmmm... very interesting take.

My reflexive response was to say that I wasn't arguing it should be mandated and that obligation does not equal a mandate. When I created the poll, my intent on the obligation question was basically "Are you obligated to give freely because it's the right thing to do?" That's what I was getting at.

But the more I think about it, as a social liberal, I do believe a certain degree of charity should be mandated. Like "making sure poor kids everywhere have access to books"-- That's something where I do do my part of my own free will, but I'll always advocate for more money for public education, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and such. So, to an extent, I do advocate forcing my views on others-- I'm more of a have-not than a have and the haves aren't going to do their fair share any other way.

The freedom of a little kid not to go hungry supercedes Donald Trump's freedom to spend his millions however he sees fit. It's not that kid's fault he or she has to be hungry so my justification is that absolute freedom is a myth and we as a society can only hope to balance the scales in a fair and just way,

There's a mythology in this country that everyone who has money earned it and it is so far from the truth. Even many people who sincerely believe they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps don't acknowledge, through ignorance, ego and self-delusion, that they had a lot of help and advantages along the way.



Well to answer your question how it was originally intended I still believe people should be able to spend their money how they want. If not charity could be banned just as easily as it could be mandated.

What you speak of already exists it's called public assistance. It exists on the state and federal level. There is a portion of our tax dollars that goes to charitable purposes without our ok. So on some level charity is already mandated by the government.

As far as the right of a child to not go hungry. There is no such right. You are imposing a moral obligation and making it a legal one. Donald Trump owns his money; property rights are key to freedom. He has to pay taxes but as a voter he has the right to influence how his money is spent. Any taking outside of the tax is not indicative of a free society it's indicative of a facist society. I don't believe we should impose the duty to give to charity on individuals beyond what they already give in taxes. I wouldn't vote to support anything of that type because it leads down a slippery slope. Donald trump spending his money they way he want's does not cause children to go hungry.
 
I guess Jay-Z doesn't lurk here or has a show in some Stand Your Ground state today :lol:

View Poll Results:
MULTIPLE CHOICE: The following come closest to my view on charity:
Minimalism is the only morally acceptable approach
Costanza, Temujin
2, 11.11%
People fortunate enough to have even a little are obligated to help those with nothing
90s Baby, ballscout1, BLESS, Costanza, doggish_098, Mt Airy Groove, Temujin, Vicodin3
8, 44.44%
If you’re comfortable, you should give a little
marcusfenix, mofo112, Temujin, The G.O.A.T., ugk, Vicodin3
6, 33.33%
It’s wrong to support animals over children
Costanza, no2plex, Temujin, The G.O.A.T., Vicodin3
5, 27.78%
Charity begins at home
Temujin, The G.O.A.T., ugk
3, 16.67%
People can do whatever they like with their own money
334datdude, couvaredman, militantmidget, SLY, Temujin, The G.O.A.T., ugk
7, 38.89%
“My presence is charity”
0, 0%
Fuck charity
RoomService, The G.O.A.T.
2, 11.11%
Voters: 18.
 
We have the ability to feed everyone and give everyone a good standard of living on this planet if we made the progress of humanity our goal economically. Charity is a band aid to a knife cut to the throat. we certainly should be charitable to those of the Human race 1st
:smh::angry:
 
people respond to different causes man...

some people are passionate about the treatment of dogs.

some to kids in developing countries.

some to the rainforest...

a dollar spent on 1 doesnt mean its a dollar that the other would have gotten...
 
I guess Jay-Z doesn't lurk here or has a show in some Stand Your Ground state today :lol:

View Poll Results:
MULTIPLE CHOICE: The following come closest to my view on charity:
Minimalism is the only morally acceptable approach
Costanza, Temujin
2, 11.11%
People fortunate enough to have even a little are obligated to help those with nothing
90s Baby, ballscout1, BLESS, Costanza, doggish_098, Mt Airy Groove, Temujin, Vicodin3
8, 44.44%
If you’re comfortable, you should give a little
marcusfenix, mofo112, Temujin, The G.O.A.T., ugk, Vicodin3
6, 33.33%
It’s wrong to support animals over children
Costanza, no2plex, Temujin, The G.O.A.T., Vicodin3
5, 27.78%
Charity begins at home
Temujin, The G.O.A.T., ugk
3, 16.67%
People can do whatever they like with their own money
334datdude, couvaredman, militantmidget, SLY, Temujin, The G.O.A.T., ugk
7, 38.89%
“My presence is charity”
0, 0%
Fuck charity
RoomService, The G.O.A.T.
2, 11.11%
Voters: 18.

few weeks ago someone told me jay-z lurks on bgol and posts under somefunny ass name on huffingtonpost and youtube.

i told him to stfu w/ that musicbiz groupie talk. but the shit aint that farfetched.
 
people respond to different causes man...

some people are passionate about the treatment of dogs.

some to kids in developing countries.

some to the rainforest...

a dollar spent on 1 doesnt mean its a dollar that the other would have gotten...

Understood and acknowledged. Just stating my immediate, visceral response.

few weeks ago someone told me jay-z lurks on bgol and posts under somefunny ass name on huffingtonpost and youtube.

i told him to stfu w/ that musicbiz groupie talk. but the shit aint that farfetched.

Not farfetched at all. Kanye and Kim shit like everybody else, even if it's into a golden toilet. I don't doubt at all that Jay-Z has online hobbies.

If he were one of the two people who voted "My presence is charity" and didn't respond to the thread with words, now that would be hilarious.
 
The more you give the bigger the charity gets and the more pple or animals they will tell you that need help.

It never ends!! So you are essentially giving your money to a black hole.

Has anyone checked the rules and laws of owning a charity?? I read somewhere they are only required to give like 4% to the cause and can keep the rest for expenses. FOH!!
 
The more you give the bigger the charity gets and the more pple or animals they will tell you that need help.

It never ends!! So you are essentially giving your money to a black hole.

Has anyone checked the rules and laws of owning a charity?? I read somewhere they are only required to give like 4% to the cause and can keep the rest for expenses. FOH!!
That's why you do your homework and make sure you're giving to a legitimate charity. To say every charity is a "black hole" because not every charity does good work is simply a lazy cop-out.
 
i donate money and time to our kids in the community

so i put my presence is charity as well because they see me and learn from me that they have options and are worth something. something most don't hear out of their own parents mouths.
 
i donate money and time to our kids in the community

so i put my presence is charity as well because they see me and learn from me that they have options and are worth something. something most don't hear out of their own parents mouths.
Interesting take. I can support that. Very different from Jay-Z, who was arguing that his very existence is charity. :cool:
 
Interesting take. I can support that. Very different from Jay-Z, who was arguing that his very existence is charity. :cool:

which is wrong. his existence could be considered inspiration or hope but not real charity. by living he isn't giving back. charity is more than being, its doing too. he does stuff too but the statement you're talking bout is just wrong.

also sometimes people like him can't win. there was a thread on here where he had scholarships to give folks 2nd chances. the people who messed up, dropped out of high school, went to jail, single mothers etc..

and someone, i forget who asked how come he didn't make a scholarship for the people who really need it?


:hmm: they are the ones who really need it
 
Interesting take. I can support that. Very different from Jay-Z, who was arguing that his very existence is charity. :cool:

jay-z being attached to any cause can raise millions just thru his presence.

he can influence people to act...just by saying the word. if he said "hiphop, we are boycotting florida until they change their stand ur ground laws and then we will target another state after that", he could start a movement that would prolly get that law wiped off the books nationwide.

so in a way he's right. how he usually wields that influence is another subject...

twerk, twerk miley miley twerk...
 
jay-z being attached to any cause can raise millions just thru his presence.

he can influence people to act...just by saying the word. if he said "hiphop, we are boycotting florida until they change their stand ur ground laws and then we will target another state after that", he could start a movement that would prolly get that law wiped off the books nationwide.

so in a way he's right. how he usually wields that influence is another subject...

twerk, twerk miley miley twerk...

What he does with it and what he could potentially do with it are too very different things.

He could be a GREAT man. He chooses to be a hustler.

His presence is a sum negative.

which is wrong. his existence could be considered inspiration or hope but not real charity. by living he isn't giving back. charity is more than being, its doing too. he does stuff too but the statement you're talking bout is just wrong.

also sometimes people like him can't win. there was a thread on here where he had scholarships to give folks 2nd chances. the people who messed up, dropped out of high school, went to jail, single mothers etc..

and someone, i forget who asked how come he didn't make a scholarship for the people who really need it?


:hmm: they are the ones who really need it

"His existence could be considered inspiration or hope but not real charity"-- True. And what does he propel kids to aspire to? At best, entrepreneurism, a concept which he has debased to the point that there are young people rotting in cells who would not be there if not for people like him.

His lyrics reach more people than his donations, so he can't buy his way to heaven.
 
Red Cross took in OVER 2 Billion for 911
Years afterward the Familys of the Dead said they never saw a Dime
The people in Charge of these charitys get paid Thousands per week and look down on the people they claim to help
100 years of charitys from churches, white shirt Mormons, Red Cross, help the children, dogs, clean water, etc
Where is the One shining spot on the planet that should be like Disney?
Where is that one place with clean water, Roads, Sewers, 24hr electric, etc ?
TRILLIONS gave gone to charity & where can be shown, Look at this wonderful spot?
Tornado in the Midwest comes & they hand out bottles of water and some TeeShirts, WOW ! !
Are they there for cleanup & rebuild, Nope !
They will put up a cinderblock building with no windows, a dirt floor & call that a school with no teachers
Hurricane Katrina, They show up 2 weeks late, hand out water & box lunches,
Take pictures and shoot a new commercial begging for new money
Creflo Dollar understands Charity, Ask him what happens to the money
 
bump

so do any brothers here give to charity?

which charities preferably black do you guys support?
 
This is exactly why charity is not enough and we need government to create a safety net. How many children lost mothers this year but didn't get help because their story wasn't compelling enough? But these kids each get to be millionaires because their mother died in a shooting that was all over the news. It is irrational and ineffective.




  • 56.9K donors
  • 57.6K shares
  • 56.3K followers
https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-hyunjungkim-to-support-my-brother-i/share
56,857 people just donated
$2,207,190 raised of $20,000 goal
 
Back
Top