Charity

[JimboUK]

An example of one I wouldn't give a penny to are the RSPCA, the money there is used to harass and prosecute ordinary decent people, they destroy over 50,000 animals a year and their officers have been guilty of some appalling acts themselves.

You are aware that PETA also destroys several thousand animals a year (in a giant freezer), and has a department specifically for coming up with various appalling acts to get them attention right? Just saying.

 

It's a shame more people aren't aware of what these groups get up to, if the donations stopped that would be the end of them.

[SandsOfTime404]

Eh I always new PETA was up to something. Then again, I never liked them anyhow because most PETA supporters I've met place animals' rights above human rights. I can't agree with that, and I by no means support the abuse of animals.

[Dicecaster]

I don't quite see how you can talk about charities being at all bad. They make it very easy for you to OPTIONALLY give money to whatever cause you believe in. Now, many (if not all) charities have problems. Everything's got problems. But, with the option of charities vs. no charities, how could people possibly lose? The only thing I can see that could be bad about it is if they actually go to you and ask for donations. The most they ought to do while respecting our privacy is to make themselves known in some subtle way, once. That way we know you're there, so we have the option of donating or not. But don't go beyond that line.

[marharth]

I don't quite see how you can talk about charities being at all bad. They make it very easy for you to OPTIONALLY give money to whatever cause you believe in. Now, many (if not all) charities have problems. Everything's got problems. But, with the option of charities vs. no charities, how could people possibly lose? The only thing I can see that could be bad about it is if they actually go to you and ask for donations. The most they ought to do while respecting our privacy is to make themselves known in some subtle way, once. That way we know you're there, so we have the option of donating or not. But don't go beyond that line.

The reason I think the majority of charity is bad is because the money is used for other things, and if someone profits off suffering I am sure they can find news ways for things to suffer...

[Dicecaster]

I don't quite see how you can talk about charities being at all bad. They make it very easy for you to OPTIONALLY give money to whatever cause you believe in. Now, many (if not all) charities have problems. Everything's got problems. But, with the option of charities vs. no charities, how could people possibly lose? The only thing I can see that could be bad about it is if they actually go to you and ask for donations. The most they ought to do while respecting our privacy is to make themselves known in some subtle way, once. That way we know you're there, so we have the option of donating or not. But don't go beyond that line.

The reason I think the majority of charity is bad is because the money is used for other things, and if someone profits off suffering I am sure they can find news ways for things to suffer...

Oh, I'm sorry. See, I assumed that we were talking about charities that have honest, good intentions to help whoever they help as much as possible, using their personal income from it only so they can do it as full time jobs. Obviously, that wasn't implied. Sorry.

[marharth]

I don't quite see how you can talk about charities being at all bad. They make it very easy for you to OPTIONALLY give money to whatever cause you believe in. Now, many (if not all) charities have problems. Everything's got problems. But, with the option of charities vs. no charities, how could people possibly lose? The only thing I can see that could be bad about it is if they actually go to you and ask for donations. The most they ought to do while respecting our privacy is to make themselves known in some subtle way, once. That way we know you're there, so we have the option of donating or not. But don't go beyond that line.

The reason I think the majority of charity is bad is because the money is used for other things, and if someone profits off suffering I am sure they can find news ways for things to suffer...

Oh, I'm sorry. See, I assumed that we were talking about charities that have honest, good intentions to help whoever they help as much as possible, using their personal income from it only so they can do it as full time jobs. Obviously, that wasn't implied. Sorry.

Read my posts over again then.

 

A single person isn't going to profit off it, the entire corporation will. Corporations can be more corrupt then any government. If you give money to these people you don't know where it goes. Your not giving it to a single person or a small group.

[Dicecaster]

I don't quite see how you can talk about charities being at all bad. They make it very easy for you to OPTIONALLY give money to whatever cause you believe in. Now, many (if not all) charities have problems. Everything's got problems. But, with the option of charities vs. no charities, how could people possibly lose? The only thing I can see that could be bad about it is if they actually go to you and ask for donations. The most they ought to do while respecting our privacy is to make themselves known in some subtle way, once. That way we know you're there, so we have the option of donating or not. But don't go beyond that line.

The reason I think the majority of charity is bad is because the money is used for other things, and if someone profits off suffering I am sure they can find news ways for things to suffer...

Oh, I'm sorry. See, I assumed that we were talking about charities that have honest, good intentions to help whoever they help as much as possible, using their personal income from it only so they can do it as full time jobs. Obviously, that wasn't implied. Sorry.

Read my posts over again then.

 

A single person isn't going to profit off it, the entire corporation will. Corporations can be more corrupt then any government. If you give money to these people you don't know where it goes. Your not giving it to a single person or a small group.

Okay, read the post you just replied to. I'm talking about organizations that are honest about where they're putting the money. I'm not writing about the "charities" that really just take the money for their own use and don't use it to aid whatever they represent. There are actually charities who help people with the money you give them (because they don't have enough money to do it themselves).

 

On a side note, I would love to argue about just how corrupt governments can be (ours included), but that would be for another topic (and I don't want this one to be locked because it turned into a flame war).

[BlackBaron2]

I think we should be careful about which charities we give to--in other words, investigate before you log into Paypal. In any case, I think giving your time to local charities is a good idea, if it's feasible for you to do so. That way, you know you're helping people because you're actually there.

[Sinophile]

Well, this topic seems pretty broad in scope, charity comes in many forms.

 

I personally do not believe in welfare. I work in fast food. Many of my co-workers don't want to work more than 30 hours a week, because that increases the rent they pay on their sliding scale housing. Likewise, my employer hires incompetent employees because of the tax benefits for hiring someone on welfare or unemployment. As Milton Friedman once said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I do however regularly donate money to Kiva, because the people that the money goes too are trying to make their own businesses, rather than simply accept a handout.

As far as this topic seems to be concerned, we are talking about charitable organizations, and their effectiveness. Keep in mind that in any modern society, money is needed to do any good. For example, let's say that you want to paint over graffiti. You can your skill and time as a painter, but who should pay for the paint, paintbrushes, ladders, etc? Likewise, if you spend time painting over graffiti for $5.00 an hour, when you can be making $10 an hour painting for rich people, would it be unethical to accept that small wage? As for Peta, Make-A-Wish foundation, and other large National Organizations, none of them will be perfect, regardless of their intentions. They will also have many expenses as well, such as administration and logistics.

Now, if you don;t mind me opening another can of worms, look at religion. The aim of any religion is to better society, and to teach people to care for one another. However, more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than for personal greed. Peta is very much like the major religions, as they do exactly the opposite of what they set out to do( protect animals).

 

For this reason, any reputable charity would be a 501© organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29

 

A single person isn't going to profit off it, the entire corporation will. Corporations can be more corrupt then any government

I disagree, corporations are subject to keeping themselves profitable at all times. Governments on the other hand are always profitable, we pay taxes regardless of how well the government performs.

[Dicecaster]

Well, this topic seems pretty broad in scope, charity comes in many forms.

 

I personally do not believe in welfare. I work in fast food. Many of my co-workers don't want to work more than 30 hours a week, because that increases the rent they pay on their sliding scale housing. Likewise, my employer hires incompetent employees because of the tax benefits for hiring someone on welfare or unemployment. As Milton Friedman once said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I do however regularly donate money to Kiva, because the people that the money goes too are trying to make their own businesses, rather than simply accept a handout.

As far as this topic seems to be concerned, we are talking about charitable organizations, and their effectiveness. Keep in mind that in any modern society, money is needed to do any good. For example, let's say that you want to paint over graffiti. You can your skill and time as a painter, but who should pay for the paint, paintbrushes, ladders, etc? Likewise, if you spend time painting over graffiti for $5.00 an hour, when you can be making $10 an hour painting for rich people, would it be unethical to accept that small wage? As for Peta, Make-A-Wish foundation, and other large National Organizations, none of them will be perfect, regardless of their intentions. They will also have many expenses as well, such as administration and logistics.

Now, if you don;t mind me opening another can of worms, look at religion. The aim of any religion is to better society, and to teach people to care for one another. However, more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than for personal greed. Peta is very much like the major religions, as they do exactly the opposite of what they set out to do( protect animals).

 

For this reason, any reputable charity would be a 501© organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29

 

A single person isn't going to profit off it, the entire corporation will. Corporations can be more corrupt then any government

I disagree, corporations are subject to keeping themselves profitable at all times. Governments on the other hand are always profitable, we pay taxes regardless of how well the government performs.

No, don't talk about religion. All religious discussion is against the rules of the debates forum and will get this topic locked immediately.

 

By the way, I do agree with you.