Charity Donation Effectiveness

[EternalGamer]

I appreciate what the PA guys do, but there are so many better charities that do more important things in my opinion. Buying people videogames, even sick children, has always seemed pretty insignificant to me compared to donating money towards starving families or funding cancer or AIDs research. Or even helping the homeless.

It is not that is a "bad" charity, but it does strike me as a less important one and given that times are tight, there are a lot of life or death charities that really (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/what-we-do/clinton-hiv-aids-initiative) need (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/services/2008-10-26-fundraising-crisis-donations-charities_N.htm) help (http://www.newsweek.com/id/141161) right (http://www.one.org/issues/) now (http://www.sierraclub.org/):


"This is the worst fundraising environment I've ever worked in," says Jeffrey Towers, chief development officer for the American Red Cross, which won promises of $100 million from Congress this month after 2008's hurricanes, tornadoes and floods depleted the group's disaster-relief reserves.

The Red Cross is suffering as much as a 30% drop in responses and contributions from new donors, and corporate donations are "coming in at lower amounts" at the halfway point of a campaign to raise $100 million by Dec. 31, Towers says.


I just hope that the money people donate to this type of thing is just "entertainment" money and not money they would donate to a more serious cause. Perhaps it is more likely that people will donate to a cause like this simply because it is connected to their hobby, but I personally find that idea a little troubling. We shouldn't have to be "entertained" by our charities.

[MosBen]

I don't know, EG, presumably hospitals dedicated to children *have* to budget some money for entertainment. The patients are kids after all. So if Child's Play sends them money/toys/games which can be used to supplement that side of their budget, doesn't it stand to reason that they would then have more money to dedicate to improving medical care?

[cppcrusader]

Buying people videogames, even sick children, has always seemed pretty insignificant to me compared to donating money towards starving families or funding cancer or AIDs research. Or even helping the homeless.


I couldn't disagree with this more. True there are other charities that one would traditionally rank as more important, but I see this one as equal with them. My brother's girlfriend had cystic fibrosis, so she spent a lot of time in Cincinnati Children's. There they only had a handful of videos for kids to watch for entertainment and only one or two of them were worth watching. In fact I think she and my brother actually wore out their copy of Little Mermaid.

Quality of life goes a long way and hospitals spend very little of their budgets on entertainment the kids in their care, which is expected as they're spending that money on the expensive equipment and treatments.

[Jackel]

I couldn't disagree with this more. True there are other charities that one would traditionally rank as more important, but I see this one as equal with them. My brother's girlfriend had cystic fibrosis, so she spent a lot of time in Cincinnati Children's. There they only had a handful of videos for kids to watch for entertainment and only one or two of them were worth watching. In fact I think she and my brother actually wore out their copy of Little Mermaid.

Quality of life goes a long way and hospitals spend very little of their budgets on entertainment the kids in their care, which is expected as they're spending that money on the expensive equipment and treatments.

I completely agree. When these kids are in the hospital, stuck away from friends and family and the normal workings of a kids life. They need something, anything to keep up the drive to live. While games aren't going to cure a disease, they may just help keep the kids spirits up, and if that will to live boost helps enough to save just one kid, i feel my donation is worth every penny.

I have a story similar to this...but before i say it I have to get the ok from that person first.

*side note: ignore my spelling / grammar. typing this on a bus w/ 1 hand.

[EternalGamer]

I couldn't disagree with this more. True there are other charities that one would traditionally rank as more important, but I see this one as equal with them. My brother's girlfriend had cystic fibrosis, so she spent a lot of time in Cincinnati Children's. There they only had a handful of videos for kids to watch for entertainment and only one or two of them were worth watching. In fact I think she and my brother actually wore out their copy of Little Mermaid.

Quality of life goes a long way and hospitals spend very little of their budgets on entertainment the kids in their care, which is expected as they're spending that money on the expensive equipment and treatments.

Yes, I understand people who are suffering in hospitals need something to take their mind off it. That's what friends and family are for. You can loan a toy or a DS to relative or friend in need. Or better yet, take a movie or book and spend time with them. Being around people who care about you when you are facing terminal illness is far more comforting than any consumer product.

I certainly understand first hand the physical and emotional drain sickness and disease can cause. But there are ways to help people cope with this, ways far better, in my opinion, than buying them electronics.

And I don't buy the argument that giving to one charity eliminates money that person might give to another. People have a very limited amount of money they can (or at least are willing) to put towards abstract causes, especially in the current economic climate.

I find it disheartening that some people need their charities to in some way promote their hobbies or at least the "community" their hobby represents. That seems to sort of defiant of the notion of a "charity" to me. Just because I like The PA guys, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they do. Again, this certainly isn't a "bad" thing, but, in my opinion, they would have been far better off putting their efforts towards raising money collectively towards another charity rather than starting their own that is about buying entertainment devices for sick people.

[National Kato]

Buying people videogames, even sick children, has always seemed pretty insignificant to me compared to donating money towards starving families or funding cancer or AIDs research.

So where were you during my 24-Hour Extra Life marathon for pediatric cancer research?! Huh?!?

Seriously, though. Donate to the charities you believe in. We're talking about ill kids, some terminally, who just want to be happy for what little, painful, hard lives they have. Don't bag on it just because you personally believe there are better causes.

Put up or shut up, as they say.

[EternalGamer]

So where were you during my 24-Hour Extra Life marathon for pediatric cancer research?! Huh?!?

Seriously, though. Donate to the charities you believe in. We're talking about terminally ill kids who just want to be happy for what little, painful, hard lives they have left. Don't bag on it just because you personally believe there are better causes.

Put up or shut up, as they say.

So you don't think there is room for discussion about which charities are more worthwhile and why? I do "put up" and give to charities. In fact, I linked to some of the ones I give to regularly. But as with other aspects of my finances, I scrutinize where I am giving the money and ask questions about it, questions about both the ultimate purpose, effectiveness, and efficiency of the charity. I don't just blindly donate to something because someone asks me to or even because it is the "cool kids" charity as the PA one is.

I am not berating the idea of helping terminally ill kids find some comfort. I just question that buying them a bunch of stuff is the most effective means to that end.

Furthermore, I don't think questioning whether or not a particular charity is a good use of your money and whether or not there is a place your money could have a more significant impact is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is the morally responsible thing to do. Like it or not, we have limited time and energy to dedicate to causes. We should be performing a triage. The ones that do the things that are most essential and effective should be the first place the money goes.

[National Kato]

I don't just blindly donate to something because someone asks me to or even because it is the "cool kids" charity as the PA one is.

First thing's first - there's no reason to assume any of us don't do our due dilligence either. No reason to get your virtual panties in a wad. You repeatedly state how you like PA but then use terms like 'cool kids' to refer to how you feel they chose the wrong horse in this race.

Ultimately, during the times I've spent in hospitals handing out games and consoles, talking with the children and watching them light up because they get to play some Mario is proof positive that you may not fully comprehend the good a charity like Child's Play does.

Does it replace other charities I donate to? Does it negate the work I do towards pediatric cancer treatment and research? Does it lessen my own personal triage of charities? Of course not.

Discussing it is fine...but try to keep the condescension out of your posts. It may not be your intention, but that's how it reads.

[Cupelix]

So you don't think there is room for discussion about which charities are more worthwhile and why?No, frankly, I don't. I think that's a really close minded way of thinking. You're choosing to look at Child's Play in an exceptionally negative light, instead of choosing to look at the fact that they have found a great outlet to bring joy to those in pain. No one can properly prioritize pain and suffering; focus on the fact that people are giving - not on how or what.

I'll say again, it's a real asshole move to try and make people feel bad about donating to a charity - any charity - because you feel it's not important enough.

[EternalGamer]

First thing's first - there's no reason to assume any of us don't do our due dilligence either. No reason to get your virtual panties in a wad. You repeatedly state how you like PA but then use terms like 'cool kids' to refer to how you feel they chose the wrong horse in this race.

My "panties" aren't "in a wad." Please do not over emphasizing my emotional state as a way of attempting to delegitimate the point I was making. I called them "the cool kids" because, in this particular gaming culture, they are. Child's Play is largely successful because of the people's whose name is attached to it. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't automatically make it a good charity either. It just means its success is tied to the two guys promoting it, not the legitimacy of the cause itself. I'm sure that any charity Paris Hilton puts her name on would be able to draw a lot of attention and money too, but that doesn't automatically make it a good charity. My point was simply that people shouldn't donate to a charity solely because they like the people's whose names are attached to it. They should question the cause itself and whether or not it is the best place they could give.


Does it replace other charities I donate to? Does it negate the work I do towards pediatric cancer treatment and research? Does it lessen my own personal triage of charities? Of course not.


Negate your other charities? Where in the world did I ever imply that? Please stop playing thought police with me. You are putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of being "condescending." You can address the arguments I make without turning it to a personal attack on me by implying that I am displaying outrage or condescension when I'm doing neither.

[EternalGamer]

No, frankly, I don't. I think that's a really close minded way of thinking. You're choosing to look at Child's Play in an exceptionally negative light, instead of choosing to look at the fact that they have found a great outlet to bring joy to those in pain. No one can properly prioritize pain and suffering; focus on the fact that people are giving - not on how or what.

I'll say again, it's a real asshole move to try and make people feel bad about donating to a charity - any charity - because you feel it's not important enough.

Well, I disagree. In the real world, we have limited resources. It is not being an "asshole" on the battlefield when you put your priorities towards those that might actually make it if they get the proper medical attention. It is being practical. I am not trying to "make people feel bad." But I do hope to make people think about the causes they are donating too and the reasons they are donating to it. The reason being that if everyone scrutinized why and where they were donating money, the money would go a lot further and do a lot more good.

[National Kato]

My point was simply that people shouldn't donate to a charity solely because they like the people's whose names are attached to it.

And my point is that you shouldn't assume anyone in here is doing that. Hence, the 'condescension' usage. How about assuming everyone who donated did their due dilligence and gave money because they believe in the charity? Can you do that?

Or maybe you do believe everyone did what they should and you are just trying to be a 'voice of reason amidst possible, but not implied, lack of proper research.' Fine, we get it. Thanks.

Now go make a difference, everyone!

[violent]

Well, I disagree. In the real world, we have limited resources. It is not being an "asshole" on the battlefield when you put your priorities towards those that might actually make it if they get the proper medical attention. It is being practical. I am not trying to "make people feel bad." But I do hope to make people think about the causes they are donating too and the reasons they are donating to it. The reason being that if everyone scrutinized why and where they were donating money, the money would go a lot further and do a lot more good.

I'm getting the feeling that you're not entirely in agreement with this thread and that's fine. That shouldn't be indicative of a distaste towards helping the less fortunate, just that you don't feel obligated to do so for your own reasons in this particular case. This correct?

[Goronmon]

I find it disheartening that some people need their charities to in some way promote their hobbies or at least the "community" their hobby represents.Sorry man, your guilt trip isn't going to work on me.

[EternalGamer]

And my point is that you shouldn't assume anyone in here is doing that. Hence, the 'condescension' usage. How about assuming everyone who donated did their due dilligence and gave money because they believe in the charity? Can you do that?


I didn't assume that everyone who donated to Child's Play was not being responsible. I did not declare donating to Child's Play to be objectively "wrong." But I am also not going to assume that everyone who does has really thought about why they are donating to this particular charity and whether or not there is a better place for their money. I don't think it is safe to assume that people really think through ANYTHING fully. Encouraging them to do so more often is a good thing, in my opinion.

I was starting a conversation and simply stating the reasons why I do not plan on donating to this charity and instead put my money somewhere where I think it could be more effective.

[EternalGamer]

Alright guys. This is a thread about a charity and should be filled with good-will. I can understand EG's reasoning for bringing up his point, but I think it would be better served if it was taken into another thread. It seems to be developing into a more heated discussion that probably shouldn't be in this one. Stuff like this turns people off to charities, not the opposite.

Well, we fundemantally disagree. I think that discussing whether or not a particular charity is the best cause should be a part of the discussion of getting people to donate. Those who believe in a cause should be able to defend it. People shouldn't just be expected to mindless give money to anything.

[Ghostbear]

Wow, you're acting like a real jerk.
Edit: I changed the wording a bit to be less inflammatory.

[EternalGamer]

I'm getting the feeling that you're not entirely in agreement with this thread and that's fine. That shouldn't be indicative of a distaste towards helping the less fortunate, just that you don't feel obligated to do so for your own reasons in this particular case. This correct?

Of course, I'm not against "helping the less fortunate." My original post contained links to major charities that I think do just that. I give money to those causes. My comments were addressed at this particular charity, not all charities.

[Goronmon]

I was starting a conversation and simply stating the reasons why I do not plan on donating to this charity and instead put my money somewhere where I think it could be more effective.Every single dollar I spend on stuff is money that could be spent "more effectively". Hell, just about every dollar anyone ever spends or every minute you exist could be spent "more effectively".

[Psykoboy2]

Well, we fundemantally disagree. I think that discussing whether or not a particular charity is the best cause should be a part of the discussion of getting people to donate. Those who believe in a cause should be able to defend it. People shouldn't just be expected to mindless give money to anything.

And I disagree with you. Turns out, I'm a founder, and so my opinion weighs more in this case. I don't like to throw that around and have never done so, but I am asking you now to please move this discussion to it's own thread. Pick it up there if you want, but it doesn't belong here.

[Ghostbear]

Unnecessary.

You think so? I call them as I see them. We have a goal that is nothing but positive and we have someone coming in here telling me that what I am doing is not important enough? I am not thinking about where to send my money, that giving sick children some measure of happiness is not inherently good? Thats cheesey movie levels of villainy. I expect him to twirl his handlebar mustache while talking to me.

[Goronmon]

Unnecessary.Well, sorry, but he is kind of being a dick about it. He could have easily created a new thread discussing donations to charities, but instead he tries to guilt people into not donating to Child's Play in this thread.

[violent]

Of course, I'm not against "helping the less fortunate." My original post contained links to major charities that I think do just that. I give money to those causes. My comments were addressed at this particular charity, not all charities.

Do you not see your blunder then? Any qualms to be discussed should be done in their own place. You can't expect to come into this thread--a place we all agree is helping the less fortunate--and start showing issue with the very thing being discussed. If you truly believe there is good to come from this thread, you need to immediately cease from halting it's progression. Doing so is getting a lot of your points overlooked by the fact that you're simply coming off as bitter. Take your points to a different venue where they can be discussed. We here have made a choice and that's what we all have in common. Play smart for everyone's sake.

[EternalGamer]

And I disagree with you. Turns out, I'm a founder, and so my opinion weighs more in this case. I don't like to throw that around and have never done so, but I am asking you now to please move this discussion to it's own thread. Pick it up there if you want, but it doesn't belong here.

Wait, really? What the hell was the point of this site again? I thought we already went through this once. I'm not being disrespectful. And I'm not sure why starting a new thread is necessary since this is directly related to the topic of donation. Do people who talk about why they don't think Gears of War 2 isn't very good start a new thread or do they just talk in the Gears of War thread that already exists? Part of having a discussion means allowing dissenting views. I was under the impression that this was the discussion for the Child's Play donation drive.

[EternalGamer]

Do you not see your blunder then? Any qualms to be discussed should be done in their own place. You can't expect to come into this thread--a place we all agree is helping the less fortunate--and start showing issue with the very thing being discussed. If you truly believe there is good to come from this thread, you need to immediately cease from halting it's progression. Doing so is getting a lot of your points overlooked by the fact that you're simply coming off as bitter. Take your points to a different venue where they can be discussed. We here have made a choice and that's what we all have in common. Play smart for everyone's sake.

I am not bitter at all. But I don't quite understand why there would be a new thread about this topic. Isn't this the thread about the Child's Play donation drive? So why shouldn't a discussion about why this charity is or isn't a good cause be part of this thread. I don't know any other thread topic where the conversation functions only around agreement where dissent has to have its own thread. That seems to be a very useless way to converse.

If people in this thread are allowed to encourage people to donate, I don't understand why asking questions about whether or not there are better uses of that money are not directly related as well. If anything is off topic, it seems to be this meta-coversation about whether or not conversation should be allowed.

[National Kato]

If people in this thread are allowed to encourage people to donate, I don't understand why asking questions about whether or not there are better uses of that money are not directly related as well.

Of course you can ask questions. Do you have any more to ask? I mean, you've stated your reasons for not giving to CP. We've stated our reasons for giving to CP. People are encouraging others to donate. You are discouraging others from donating. Seems cut and dry.

What else do you want to discuss?

[violent]

I am not bitter at all. But I don't quite understand why there would be a new thread about this topic. Isn't this the thread about the Child's Play donation drive? So why shouldn't a discussion about why this charity is or isn't a good cause be part of this thread. I don't know any other thread topic where the conversation functions only around agreement where dissent has to have its own thread. That seems to be a very useless way to converse.

If people in this thread are allowed to encourage people to donate, I don't understand why asking questions about whether or not there are better uses of that money are not directly related as well.

I do think that this thread will serve as a push to some to donate. That would probably be the biggest loss if this thing turned sour. The reason why I say about the new thread is because while Child's Play may be the catalyst, I believe your point goes well beyond that of this particular charity. My advice was simply to go to a location where all your ideas can be shared with people who are there to discuss all angles of opinion. This thread is something much more specific. This thread has something to lose and anyone that's a part of that shouldn't be very quick to forgive themselves.

[Midrael]

So, there was some discussion over in another thread concerning what makes a donation to a charity effective and where should be the best place to apply a donation.

I thought it was a topic that would best be served in its own thread. :) What charities do you consider worthwhile for donation and why? Why do you think donations to one charity may be more effective than another? Are there any statistics that show effectiveness between charities? I'd be very interested to see them if so!

Hopefully, this thread won't grow to be inflammatory in any way and will remain civil. :)

[Sl1pstream]

Is this the thread where we start comparing charities while pimping the one we prefer while making up arguments why the other charities don't matter as much?

This won't end well.

[EternalGamer]

Um, I still don't know why the conversation has to be highlighted and started anew (which seems that it would only further draw attention to it), but here goes anyway. The conversation arose around the discussion of Child's Play in particular. Here is what I said in the previous thread:

I appreciate what the PA guys do, but there are so many better charities that do more important things in my opinion. Buying people videogames, even sick children, has always seemed pretty insignificant to me compared to donating money towards starving families or funding cancer or AIDs research. Or even helping the homeless.

It is not that is a "bad" charity, but it does strike me as a less important one and given that times are tight, there are a lot of life or death charities that really (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/what-we-do/clinton-hiv-aids-initiative) need (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/services/2008-10-26-fundraising-crisis-donations-charities_N.htm) help (http://www.newsweek.com/id/141161) right (http://www.one.org/issues/) now (http://www.sierraclub.org/):

[quote=USA TODAY]"This is the worst fundraising environment I've ever worked in," says Jeffrey Towers, chief development officer for the American Red Cross, which won promises of $100 million from Congress this month after 2008's hurricanes, tornadoes and floods depleted the group's disaster-relief reserves.

The Red Cross is suffering as much as a 30% drop in responses and contributions from new donors, and corporate donations are "coming in at lower amounts" at the halfway point of a campaign to raise $100 million by Dec. 31, Towers says.

I just hope that the money people donate to this type of thing is just "entertainment" money and not money they would donate to a more serious cause. Perhaps it is more likely that people will donate to a cause like this simply because it is connected to their hobby, but I personally find that idea a little troubling. We shouldn't have to be "entertained" by our charities.

I understand people who are suffering in hospitals need something to take their mind off it. That's what friends and family are for. You can loan a toy or a DS to relative or friend in need. Or better yet, take a movie or book and spend time with them. Being around people who care about you when you are facing terminal illness is far more comforting than any consumer product.

I certainly understand first hand the physical and emotional drain sickness and disease can cause. But there are ways to help people cope with this, ways far better, in my opinion, than buying them electronics.

And I don't buy the argument that giving to one charity eliminates money that person might give to another. People have a very limited amount of money they can (or at least are willing) to put towards abstract causes, especially in the current economic climate. Rather, giving requires us to be practical and perform a kind of triage. On the battlefield, the medics direct their attention where it can most make a difference, and I think we need a similar approach towards charity.

I also will admit to being somewhat skeptical of motivations for giving to this particular charity. I find it disheartening if some people need their charities to in some way promote their hobbies or at least the "community" their hobby represents. That seems to sort of defiant of the notion of a "charity" to me. Just because I like The PA guys, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they do. Again, this certainly isn't a "bad" thing, but, in my opinion, they would have been far better off putting their efforts towards raising money collectively towards another charity rather than starting their own that is about buying entertainment devices for sick people.

Again, it is not that I am against all charities. But rather, that I feel people should carefully scrutinize the charities they give to rather than just donating because of the name or group affiliated with the charity. Child's Play is largely successful because of the people's whose name is attached to it. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't automatically make it a good charity either. It just means its success is tied to the two guys promoting it, not the legitimacy of the cause itself. I'm sure that any charity Paris Hilton puts her name on would be able to draw a lot of attention and money too, but that doesn't automatically make it a good charity. My point was simply that people shouldn't donate to a charity solely because they like the people's whose names are attached to it. They should question the cause itself and whether or not it is the best place they could give


Finally, I don't think questioning whether or not a particular charity is a good use of your money and whether or not there is a place your money could have a more significant impact is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is the morally responsible thing to do. Like it or not, we have limited time and energy to dedicate to causes. We should be performing a triage. The ones that do the things that are most essential and effective should be the first place the money goes.

[Hotcod]

EternalGamer until you sell everything you own and go off to do charity work in Africa in some down right dangerous places then you can't even start to talk about priorities and before you ask, this isn't hyperbole as i know a person who did exactly this. She's currently working with the UN and the war crimes court.

But let's just talk about your direct issue shall we... let pick a big charity that i know a bit about, cancer research UK. My brother and his wife both just finished PhDs there... and you know what? they have deep deep pockets they at the moment don't need any money you could give them. Which is not to say they won't in the long run and that they don't need suppourt or that even supporting them is pointless... we can all agree it's not... but the point is that dropping $10 in that charity is simply not going to have the same impact as droping $10 in to CP.

To talk about smaller charities that don't have a such a back log of money let's talk about the one i spent time volunteering at for around 6 months when i didn't really have much work and i wasn't yet back at university. They need the money and time and suppourt people can put in to them and they worked with children on all sorts of levels... according to you this makes them "more worthy" of my money that child's play and yet every last person there when i talked to them about CP was astounded and grateful for what childs play dose. Even when the charity was not directly inovled in the hosipital that would get the stuff over here. They worked in child welfare and one of the main bosses of the place i worked at saw straight away just what a once a year event like this can mean...

Childs play is a once a year event that people can throw $10 at and make other people life's better... that you seem to think that ever family of a sick kid is well off enough to have there own DS is a little be shocking and shows a utter lack of understanding for some one claiming to be talking about a bigger picture.

i know i'm rambling but i'm honestly a little upset by this... both me and 2 of my brother as kids have spent time in the UK hospital that gets stuff from CP... a young close family friend was treated there for cancer... he sadly died. my little brother is now a nurse working with sick children both there and other places...

and i don't know... if you don't think the help that CP can give to the sick suffering kids is worth it... then... ya... just shut up.

Like i said up top, you have no room to talk given that you no doubt spend money on crap you don't need and eat to much when there are poor and starving people in the world... oh and most of the money you have or will borrow in your life is all but taken from poor chines pestents who make the cheap crap that you like to buy beacuse it makes you feel better.

put simply by living at all in the west and not giving it all up to do charity work then your priorities are by huge order of magutied more out of wack than anything you claim to see here

i'm sorry for carrying this on, yet again in this thread... if we could move all these posts to a new thread i'd be more than happy... but felt i was in a place to say something

[Midrael]

Is this the thread where we start comparing charities while pimping the one we prefer while making up arguments why the other charities don't matter as much?

I'm hoping it won't devolve into that. Quite frankly, I'd really like some factual data on what is an effective use of a charitable donation.

For example, where is my $50 donation best spent? Should I give it to the large charity? Should I give it to the small charity? What are the pros and cons of each?

[Sl1pstream]

That's the thing. I don't think that should matter. I gave money to charity, I don't need a thread to see if I made the right decision when picking my charity of choice. I don't need to feel bad about it either.

[Ancalagon]

Well it sounded like it was getting off topic (ie discussing charities in general but not Child's Play).

Myself, I refuse to donate to any charity that uses chuggers (charity muggers). Chuggers are those annoying people you see in the street who are armed with clipboards and loud voices. They usually try any sales tactic they can to get you to donate. I dont like intrusive advertising or salesman, and chuggers are no exception. Present me the information about your charity, and I will decide whether to donate to it. Try to pressure or guilt trip me into it, and I'll just ignore you.

As for specific charities... I donate to MacMillan's cancer support right now - my father suffered from cancer for a few years (died from it) and having someone to provide support really helped. Really though, given my nature and beliefs, I should be donating to to cancer research charities to cure more forms of the disease. Maybe I'll go hunting for a new charity.

[National Kato]

I give money to several charities each year. Charities where I don't see firsthand how my small donations make a difference...you just can't when you're talking about research or other intangibles.

However, when I give to Child's Play, I know the effect. I see the result in my local hospital (part of the Child's Play network). I've gone to Shand's and handed a DS to a child. I've seen the look on the child's face and the appreciation in the faces of their family.

Does that story make CP more important than the bigger charities I give to? Of course not. I give because I can, when and where I can. Anyone who says it's wrong or misguided or just because I follow the 'cool kids' or some imagined 'community' is completely off-base.

There's enough apathy towards charitable giving in this world that any attempt to encourage it should be supported, not broken down into statistics and overanalyzed until the encouragement - and in many cases, the impetus to give - is watered down and lost.

[Goronmon]

Maybe instead of comparing charities, people can just mention and talk about the charities they feel are important?

[DoctorFinger]

One thing to remember in this discussion is the distribution rate that a charity has. Some big charities end up spending only a fraction of their donations on their subjects, with much of it wasted on bureaucracy (the United Way is notorious for this, with somewhere less than 10% ending up actually going to the cause).

[Sl1pstream]

I just hope that the money people donate to this type of thing is just "entertainment" money and not money they would donate to a more serious cause.

This is what bothered me the most. How is "entertainment money" different than normal money. It's still something that could've bought me food and money I could've used on bills.

Instead, I decided to give it to CP. Does that money matter less because I was possibly going to spend it on luxury items?

Or better yet, take a movie or book and spend time with them. Being around people who care about you when you are facing terminal illness is far more comforting than any consumer product.

I doubt that reading a book in between doctor visits and chemo therapy is going to be very fun for a 9 year old kid. Games are a form of escapism, which is exactly what they need.

[Stmfuller]

sadly, I'm not at the point yet where I have the extra money to donate to charities. But usually the best kind of donations are like the toys for tots, salvation army, coat drives, etc. really anything where you're dontating an item over money because at least you know where the money is going. Your local affialted church is usually good too. Canned food drives as well.

We had something in my home town called the sharing tree (I think that's what it was called), and you could buy a christmas present for someone that needed it. It was generally stuff like a toy for a small child, or a sweater etc. Usually not over $20 etc.

With people so greedy and exploative nowadays, it's tough to give money away so freely which is why if I'm going to donate I try and keep it local.

[EternalGamer]

This is what bothered me the most. How is "entertainment money" different than normal money. It's still something that could've bought me food and money I could've used on bills.

Instead, I decided to give it to CP. Does that money matter less because I was possibly going to spend it on luxury items?



I doubt that reading a book in between doctor visits and chemo therapy is going to be very fun for a 9 year old kid. Games are a form of escapism, which is exactly what they need.

As I said, before, I work on the principle of a triage. In the military, you don't bother with the people that will not make it regardless of whether or not you try to help. And you don't bother with the people who will make it without your help. Rather, medics focus only on those that can make it if they recieve attention.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, all of us who live in 1st world countries are selfish to some degree. We never really give as much as we can. But I just feel that there are much more important charities and hope that money people are giving to this is not money that might otherwise go to some of those causes. Rather that it is money that they would have other wise spent on luxury items. Of course, even in that case, one could argue that that money would could go towards a better cause, but as Goromon pointed out, that can lead to infinite paralysis.

[Norse]

Wait, really? What the hell was the point of this site again? I thought we already went through this once.

I don't think he meant it the way you think (at least I hope not).

I'm not sure I understand why we're having this discussion. There might be more important charities out there, but where do you draw the line? What's important enough? People can donate to several charities and IMHO we should be glad people are donating to anything at all, instead of criticizing their choice of charity. How can people stay inside playing video games when they could spend the time fighting poverty or starvation in Africa? :)

[Sl1pstream]

In the military, you don't bother with the people that will not make it regardless of whether or not you try to help.

Maybe you should tell this to the Make A Wish foundation. I'm sure that they'll be glad to hear how much of a fucking asshole you are.

[EternalGamer]

Maybe you should tell this to the Make A Wish foundation. I'm sure that they'll be glad to hear how much of a fucking asshole you are.

It was an analogy.

[Hotcod]

One thing to remember in this discussion is the distribution rate that a charity has. Some big charities end up spending only a fraction of their donations on their subjects, with much of it wasted on bureaucracy (the United Way is notorious for this, with somewhere less than 10% ending up actually going to the cause).

You really don't want to know just how much cancer research UK used to spend on it's Christmas parties... even if rewarding peoples hard work in the charity is worth while i'd like to know my money isn't being spent on nibbles...

[Sl1pstream]

Your analogy was shit.

You don't use the military to make a point about charities.

[bapenguin]

As I said, before, I work on the principle of a triage. In the military, you don't bother with the people that will not make it regardless of whether or not you try to help. And you don't bother with the people who will make it without your help. Rather, medics focus only on those that can make it if they recieve attention.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, all of us who live in 1st world countries are selfish to some degree. We never really give as much as we can. But I just feel that there are much more important charities and hope that money people are giving to this is not money that might otherwise go to some of those causes. Rather that it is money that they would have other wise spent on luxury items. Of course, even in that case, one could argue that that money would could go towards a better cause, but as Goromon pointed out, that can lead to infinite paralysis.

So why donate food or money to starving countries? The way I see it, those people in 3rd world countries are fucked anyway and contribute nothing to this planet. Let them die.

It's extreme, but basically that's what you are saying to a lot of people.

[EternalGamer]

Your analogy was shit.

You don't use the military to make a point about charities.

The point of the analogy is that you put your resources where they can have the most impact. How is that not relevant to the discussion of charities?

[EternalGamer]

So why donate food or money to starving countries? The way I see it, those people in 3rd world countries are fucked anyway and contribute nothing to this planet. Let them die.



But they aren't fucked. If you donate money you to the right charities, you can save their lives. Literally. But not all charities are equal both in their goals and in their effectiveness towards reaching those goals. That is the point of the discussion.


It's extreme, but basically that's what you are saying to a lot of people.

Then they need to calm down and read what I'm writing instead of responding on knee jerk emotion.

[Sl1pstream]

But they do have an impact.

Besides, isn't the point of a charity to give to those who need it? Focussing on one charity would prevent that, as everything would go to the same group of people.

[Hotcod]

As I said, before, I work on the principle of a triage. In the military, you don't bother with the people that will not make it regardless of whether or not you try to help. And you don't bother with the people who will make it without your help. Rather, medics focus only on those that can make it if they recieve attention.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, all of us who live in 1st world countries are selfish to some degree. We never really give as much as we can. But I just feel that there are much more important charities and hope that money people are giving to this is not money that might otherwise go to some of those causes. Rather that it is money that they would have other wise spent on luxury items. Of course, even in that case, one could argue that that money would could go towards a better cause, but as Goromon pointed out, that can lead to infinite paralysis.

thank you for picking up on my point and then completely missing it... simple fact is that any good we can do is still good and people arguing over the 'worthiness' of different causes like you are when you clearly do not devote your life to charity like lots of people i know... well... it's honestly pathetic... if you feel the difference of $10 to CP and $10 to say and aids charity is so vastly important then you are simply being hypercritical for the fact that you do not devote your whole life to said aids charity.

In the end i know the effect that CP can have and CP as a once a year event is well worth throwing a bit of money at even if it takes money away from other charities i might have given it to.

[Ghostbear]

Who is the arbiter of what is or isn't important? Who gets to pick?

[National Kato]

Who is the arbiter...

I'm pretty sure he's Covenant. :p

[Sl1pstream]

My question, since you were orange on EvAv:

How is keeping a website online more important than feeding a starving child in a third world country? Shouldn't you put those resources elsewhere?

[Ghostbear]

I'm pretty sure he's Covenant. :p

It was more of a Starcraft reference actually. :)

[EternalGamer]

My question, since you were orange on EvAv:

How is keeping a website online more important than feeding a starving child in a third world country? Shouldn't you put those resources elsewhere?

It's not. As I said, we all make choices that are more selfish. At least those of us that are lucky enough to live in 1st world countries (and assuming that I am speaking to people who access to the internet, that is probably all of us). We can always do more than what we do. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to be as impactful as we can when we step outside of ourselves and try to contribute to something larger.

[Ghostbear]

It's not. As I said, we all make choices that are more selfish. At least those of us that are lucky enough to live in 1st world countries (and assuming that I am speaking to people who access to the internet, that is probably all of us). We can always do more than what we do. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to be as impactful as we can when we step outside of ourselves and try to contribute to something larger.

mmmm delicious hypocrisy...tastes like....victory.

[EternalGamer]

thank you for picking up on my point and then completely missing it... simple fact is that any good we can do is still good and people arguing over the 'worthiness' of different causes like you are when you clearly do not devote your life to charity like lots of people i know... well... it's honestly pathetic... if you feel the difference of $10 to CP and $10 to say and aids charity is so vastly important then you are simply being hypercritical for the fact that you do not devote your whole life to said aids charity.

In the end i know the effect that CP can have and CP as a once a year event is well worth throwing a bit of money at even if it takes money away from other charities i might have given it to.

For myself, I have more time than I do money. So thinking about and researching and discussing which charities are the more worthwhile is an effective and important part of the equation. I guess for people that have a lot of money to give to many different causes, you are right, the specific donations are less important. But in the larger picture, we are talking about millions of dollars, not ten bucks.

[EternalGamer]

mmmm delicious hypocrisy...tastes like....victory.

You'll have to explain what is hypocritical because I'm not following.

[Straximus]

Sorry, you have it 180 degrees backwards.

You don't wait until the second people stop being selfish and try to bring a bit of happiness to an otherwise fucked world to criticize the way they allocate their money.

[Disgustipated]

You'll have to explain what is hypocritical, because I'm not following.

I believe what Ghostbear is referencing is your donations to Evil Avatar. Perhaps you should have picked a more worthwhile cause.

[EternalGamer]

I believe what Ghostbear is referencing is your donations to Evil Avatar. Perhaps you should have picked a more worthwhile cause.

I don't consider that real charity. That was entertainment expenditure. And for the record, technically someone else (I don't know who) donated for me.

[Disgustipated]

I don't consider that real charity. That was entertainment expenditure. And for the record, technically someone else (I don't know who) donated for me.

Ah. Then perhaps this needless argument should cease if we can so subjectively deem donations as 'entertainment'. Perhaps keeping sick and dying kids happy is just entertainment to the rest of us.

[Straximus]

You'll have to explain what is hypocritical because I'm not following.

Allow me.

You are making an arbitrary distinction between "selfish" money, and let's call it "goodwill" money. You've chosen to criticize that latter. The problem is, there is no such distinction. There is only money. You are criticizing how people spend their money, but only when they spend it unselfishly.

If your argument is that it would do more good elsewhere (highly debatable), then you are a hypocrite for not criticizing money spent on 'selfish' wants, and more-so for spending your own money in such a fashion.

[EternalGamer]

Ah. Then perhaps this needless argument should cease if we can so subjectively deem donations as 'entertainment'. Perhaps keeping sick and dying kids happy is just entertainment to the rest of us.

I am tired of repeating myself. As I said, my major concern was whether this becomes people's primary charity or takes away from money that might otherwise go to other worthwhile causes. I never said that this particular charity has no value whatsoever.

And for the record, I don't conflate "keeping kids happy" with buying them toys and electronics.

[Ghostbear]

Allow me.

You are making an arbitrary distinction between "selfish" money, and let's call it "goodwill" money. You've chosen to criticize that latter. The problem is, there is no such distinction. There is only money. You are criticizing how people spend their money, but only when they spend it unselfishly.

If your argument is that it would do more good elsewhere (highly debatable), then you are a hypocrite for not criticizing money spent on 'selfish' wants, and more-so for spending your own money in such a fashion.

Yeah, thats pretty much it.

[Hotcod]

For myself, I have more time than I do money. So thinking about and researching and discussing which charities are the more worthwhile is an effective and important part of the equation. I guess for people that have a lot of money to give to many different causes, you are right, the specific donations are less important. But in the larger picture, we are talking about millions of dollars, not ten bucks.

Or with all that time you have you could go do some fucking volunteer work and be a billion times more "impactufl" than any of this stupid research crap actually makes you... i'm sorry, but honestly, this is a pathetic argument.

[cassiusregicide]

As I said, before, I work on the principle of a triage. In the military, you don't bother with the people that will not make it regardless of whether or not you try to help. And you don't bother with the people who will make it without your help. Rather, medics focus only on those that can make it if they recieve attention.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, all of us who live in 1st world countries are selfish to some degree. We never really give as much as we can. But I just feel that there are much more important charities and hope that money people are giving to this is not money that might otherwise go to some of those causes. Rather that it is money that they would have other wise spent on luxury items. Of course, even in that case, one could argue that that money would could go towards a better cause, but as Goromon pointed out, that can lead to infinite paralysis.

Your military analogy is overlooking a very important fact. Yes, you help who you know you can save first, but this is in a combat environment where there are severely limited recources, like doctors and medicine. When we are back stateside, military people get all the same treatment and care that any civilian would get regardless of survivabilty or curability. To try and say that donations to charity are the equivalent scarcity to medicine in combat is the best way to go about making your arguement.

Furthermore, I find the idea of more important charities somewhat disturbing. Is it wrong for a person to donate to the cure of progeria instead of AIDs, because there are more people who are dying from AIDs? Most charities do something important, and it is up to the donor to decide how to donate their money.

[Widgetcraft]

Or you could go do some fucking volunteer work and be a billion times more "impactufl" than any of this stupid research crap actually makes you... i'm sorry, but honestly, this is a pathetic argument.

Yeah, you caught that too?

[Disgustipated]

I am tired of repeating myself. As I said, my major concern was whether this becomes people's primary charity or takes away from money that might otherwise go to other worthwhile causes. I never said that this particular charity has no value whatsoever.

And for the record, I don't conflate "keeping kids happy" with buying them toys and electronics.

If the other causes are indeed worthwhile, then it could be stipulated that it's merely a matter of choice, which it is. So if we had donated to other charities, then the same argument could be made that we should have donated to another worthwhile cause, such as Child's Play. See where this goes?

Nowhere.

Next, go visit some kids in a cancer ward. Have you ever? You'd be happy to give them some gaming systems to pass the time and have fun. Being a sick kid in a hospital is one of the worst things that could happen to a child. Have sympathy.

[Straximus]

I am tired of repeating myself.

Then don't.

And for the record, I don't conflate "keeping kids happy" with buying them toys and electronics.


http://www.childsplaycharity.org/photosletters.php

Read them. I dare you.

[EternalGamer]

[QUOTE=Straximus;66036]Allow me.

You are making an arbitrary distinction between "selfish" money, and let's call it "goodwill" money. You've chosen to criticize that latter. The problem is, there is no such distinction. There is only money. You are criticizing how people spend their money, but only when they spend it unselfishly. [quote]

I was never criticizing "goodwill money." Rather I was discussing WHY I spend my "goodwill money" on other causes. I have donated to Child's Play in the past, but after doing so, I couldn't help feeling that it was partially doing so because it was videogame related rather than because I thought the cause itself was the best one I could donate towards. I doubt I was alone in that.

Obviously there is criticism that can be labeled towards ALL of us that live in 1st world countries in terms of how we spend money on things we don't need. If I am not discussing that it is because I consider it a given.

[Psykoboy2]

I am tired of repeating myself.

Finally!

Does that mean you're going to shut up now?

[Sl1pstream]

Also, as a kid I spent a long time in a hospital after I fell down stairs. There was nothing to do there (as I couldn't leave my bed) and as a 7 year old, reading a book wasn't exactly the most fun thing to do for long periods of time. Yes, you can see your family when they're there to visit you, but since most people need to keep their jobs to pay for your hospital bills, there's a lot of downtime.

I just don't see how you could talk about something like Child's Play as if it doesn't matter as much as any other charity. And you know what, Child's Play is my primary charity.

Rather I was discussing WHY I spend my "goodwill money" on other causes.

No, you were trying to convince us that there were more important causes than Child's Play. We already knew there were other important causes, it's just that we think that Child's Play deserves our support, just as much as any other cause.

[EternalGamer]

Then don't.




http://www.childsplaycharity.org/photosletters.php

Read them. I dare you.

I didn't say those don't help. But that there are other ways to comfort people facing difficult health issues. Friends and family in particular can provide this in a much more powerful way than a toy from a stranger can. Loaning a sick child you know your PSP or taking a movie or book up to the hospital with you to share with them can make a huge difference. It's having someone there with you that is most comforting and makes you feel not as alone.

[Hotcod]

Yeah, you caught that too?

yes and it made me snap... i maybe should have worded it better but ya... when i was out of a job and not back at uni yet i went and did voluntary work. I met lots of people who sacrifice a lot of there time to do the same... and this self righteous dumb ass marches in to a thread that is doing a vast amount of good criticise the people there beacuse he claims that we could all be doing, maybe, just maybe, a tiny little bit more good per $ if we donated to one of the charities that his spent his vast free time researching beacuse his got no money to give...

and you know what? all the people i've met who've made true sacrifices to help others would find his point of view and the way he acted appalling... and yet he dose not at all seem to understand why...

Which is why i resorted to using such harsh language

[cppcrusader]

I'm glad to see this all got moved out of the Drive thread. I certainly didn't intend to trigger such a debate with my disagreement with EG.

Honestly, and I'm sure I'll be flamed to all hell and back for the arrogance that will be perceived by the statement I'm about to make, this is the end all be all stance on this as far as I'm concerned:

You choose a charity, any charity, that you can stand behind and believe in. You give to that charity, and that's that. Regardless of whether its for cancer research, or feeding kids in a third world country, or buying games and toys for hospitals, or even giving a homeless man the change in your pocket. All that matters is that you give and you try to help, in some way, those that need it.

[EternalGamer]

Finally!

Does that mean you're going to shut up now?

Don't you have a terribly boring podcast to produce? Why don't you go work on that if you don't want to contribute to conversation. I don't see what threatening me and barking at me without giving any real response to my arguments accomplishes.

[Hotcod]

Don't you have a terribly boring podcast to produce? Why don't you go work on that if you don't want to contribute to conversation. I don't see what threatening me and barking at me without giving any real response to my arguments accomplishes.

don't you have free time to spend doing research you can use to make your self feel superior instead of actually going out and helping people?

[EternalGamer]

Or with all that time you have you could go do some fucking volunteer work and be a billion times more "impactufl" than any of this stupid research crap actually makes you... i'm sorry, but honestly, this is a pathetic argument.

When I was able, I did, except I personally can't because I have multiple sclerosis and it is hard enough for me to walk normally. It is also the reason why I occasionally write words like "impactufl": my brain is slowly deteriorating. I has become a lot worse recently and it sucks to be in front of a class of people who constantly think you can't spell properly.

But I never intended for this conversation to take a personal turn. I didn't attack anyone personally and I wasn't intending too (well, until that jab at Psykoboy, which I admit was out of line). I was merely voicing why I second guessed this being the best way to spend the limited funds I have to donate to a charity.

[Goronmon]

Don't you have a terribly boring podcast to produce? Why don't you go work on that if you don't want to contribute to conversation. I don't see what threatening me and barking at me without giving any real response to my arguments accomplishes.Real response? You started off trying to guilt people into not donating to Child's Play, and initially refused to take the conversation elsewhere. You even attempted to insult the people who had already donated. And then you claim you are free from criticism because you create arbitrary labels for your money.

Sorry if people are not so willing to accept your bullshit.

[Disgustipated]

Don't you have a terribly boring podcast to produce? Why don't you go work on that if you don't want to contribute to conversation. I don't see what threatening me and barking at me without giving any real response to my arguments accomplishes.

Wow. You're better than this. Or at least *I* thought you were.

[National Kato]

And for the record, I don't conflate "keeping kids happy" with buying them toys and electronics.

Jesus, this isn't some birthday party we're donating to. We're not giving kids toys to keep. We're providing hospitals with forms of entertainment to keep sick and/or dying children from the hours of boredom, hopelessness, fear, and solitude that comes with being in a hospital for extremely long periods of time.

Have a fucking heart, man.

[LordDon]

But I never intended for this conversation to take a personal turn. I didn't attack anyone personally and I wasn't intending too (well, until that jab at Psykoboy, which I admit was out of line). I was merely voicing why I second guessed this being the best way to spend the limited funds I have to donate to a charity.

So go and donate your limited funds to where YOU think is best. We admire you for doing that. Just don't tell us that the charities WE think best aren't worth our donations.

[Hotcod]

Except I personally can't because I have multiple sclerosis and it is hard enough for me to walk normally. It is also the reason why I occasionally write words like "impactufl": my brain is slowly deteriorating. I has become a lot worse recently and it sucks to be in front of a class of people who constantly think you can't spell properly.

But I never intended for this conversation to take a personal turn. I didn't attack anyone personally and I wasn't intending too. I was merely voicing why I second guessed this being the best way to spend the limited funds I have to donate to a charity.

You do know i only said "impactful" beacuse i doubted the effect of your impact... you also know that i'm dyslexic and can't spell and even with the spell checker didn't even notice that it was spelled wrong? you do know that i've been heavily attacked for my spelling in a number of threads just on this forum? well you do now and dear god i hope i don't push such a guilt trip on the people who poke at my spelling who don't know any better... not that i was in the first place, but still.

So just to be clear, there is no way on earth i would ever use some ones spelling as a way to attack them and I know exactly what its like to be in front of a class of people who think you are a dumb ass who can't spell properly thank you very much... i have done for as long as i remember.

But fine, you can't go out and about but i'm sure if you really wanted to you could find a charity that would give you something you could do to help them. I know a lot of the work i did was sat in front of a screen which i could have done at home... the point i'm trying to make is that if you have the time and ability to research things then you have time and ability to help... it's that simple.

If you intended it to be personal or not you came in to a thread doing a good thing and attacked it and the people in it beacuse they didn't do what you think they should have. No one here is saying you don't have a right to give your money to who you feel it's best suited all we are upset about is the fact you feel that you are a better person for doing what you do with your charity money than some one who gives there's to CP...

edited to make a little more clear

[EternalGamer]

Real response? You started off trying to guilt people into not donating to Child's Play, and initially refused to take the conversation elsewhere. You even attempted to insult the people who had already donated. And then you claim you are free from criticism because you create arbitrary labels for your money.

Sorry if people are not so willing to accept your bullshit.

Why am I trying to "guilt" people if I discuss other charities? Are you willing to use that label to discuss the thread itself? Is Colony of Gamers trying to "guilt" you into donating to Child's Play? I'm also not sure where I insulted people who gave to Child's Play simply because I questioned whether or not there are better uses for my money. I don't recall saying anything bad about anyone who donated to Child's Play.

[Psykoboy2]

Don't you have a terribly boring podcast to produce? Why don't you go work on that if you don't want to contribute to conversation. I don't see what threatening me and barking at me without giving any real response to my arguments accomplishes.

EDIT: We'll call it even here.

[Sl1pstream]

Why am I trying to "guilt" people if I discuss other charities? Are you willing to use that label to discuss the thread itself? Is Colony of Gamers trying to "guilt" you into donating to Child's Play? I'm also not sure where I insulted people who gave to Child's Play simply because I questioned whether or not there are better uses for my money. I don't recall saying anything bad about anyone who donated to Child's Play.

The thing is, in all your questioning, you haven't mentioned a single charity which you think is more deserving of our money by name. Not one.

[Midrael]

Achievement Unlocked: Asbestos Suit
Create a Powder Keg of a Flame War Thread. :D

I didn't say those don't help. But that there are other ways to comfort people facing difficult health issues. Friends and family in particular can provide this in a much more powerful way than a toy from a stranger can. Loaning a sick child you know your PSP or taking a movie or book up to the hospital with you to share with them can make a huge difference. It's having someone there with you that is most comforting and makes you feel not as alone.

EG, I respect what you're saying here and in some ways I agree, and in others I disagree. The idea that you're suggesting above is great. It's always good to have someone there with you comforting you when you're sick and stuck in a hospital.

I think the reality that you might be missing is these aren't necessarily adults. These are very often children, many very young. Their parents, brothers and sisters may well be there, and I hope they are. Sometimes they can't be. In those cases, it's nice to have something to help the child be less scared and a bit happier.

Sometimes, family is there but they're stuck in the hospital for hours and hours and hours at a stretch. It's great to have family there to comfort, but after so many hours, comfort only goes so far to a five year old attention span. In those cases, it's good to have something to help occupy them and keep them calm.

Sometimes a child has a terminal illness and there's nothing that can be done. Their brothers and sisters are there with them in the hospital. Their last memories can be somber and solemn, or they can be a little happier with memories of some gaming shared between them.

What I think is apparent is that a lot of people in this thread really have given this charity a lot of consideration. That's why they chose to donate to it. They may have all sorts of reasons as to why, but I do think it was well considered.

[Backseat Killer]

That is the great thing about charities - YOU have the choice to participate or not. You can put your money into something else, something that means something to you.

But seriously, giving people shit for choosing to donate their money (that they worked for and have every right to put where they see fit) to a cause they want to is very dickish. You have no idea each individuals reasoning for doing so but you seem to condemn them anyway. Why so angry?

Where do you spend your time and money? And why? Bone and I have had some things hit too close to home and happily give to those charities each year. Even if it has been a rough year. If we don't have the money, we give what we can - clothes, time, etc.

I appreciate that you want your money to go to something you feel is important. But don't make others feel that their donation choice is wrong because you don't agree.

And all charities start small. It is up to the people who donate to make them bigger. And that is what some of us are choosing to do - make Child's Play bigger and help children who are sick and dying feel somewhat normal. If it wasn't a good cause to some of us, this charity would not be doing what it is doing and our monies would go elsewhere.

/rant off

[EternalGamer]

The thing is, in all your questioning, you haven't mentioned a single charity which you think is more deserving of our money by name. Not one.

Actually I linked to three that I donate to in my very first post on the topic: Red Cross, The Clinton Foundation, and One. But if I mention charities that I think are more effective, I don't think it is fair to automatically assume I think I am some how "superior." Nor was I "giving people shit" for their charity of choice. I was stating why I thought there might be better ones to focus on. I never claimed superiority despite how much that charge has been thrown at me (in addition to about twenty others in the last two pages).

[Hotcod]

EDIT: We'll call it even here.

awww i enjoyed your rant

[Ghostbear]

Actually I linked to three that I donate to in my very first post on the topic: Red Cross, The Clinton Foundation, and One. But if I mention charities that I think are more effective, I don't think it is fair to automatically assume I think I am some how "superior." Nor was I "giving people shit" for their charity of choice. I was stating why I thought there might be better ones to focus on. I never claimed superiority despite how much that charge has been thrown at me (in addition to about twenty others in the last two pages).

Using the word better dictates superiority. Embrace your self righteousness, own it.

[Psykoboy2]

He admitted what he said was out of line. Good enough for me. I can easily state what I had said earlier was also out of line and, honestly, VERY uncommon of me.

I was just really angry. I kinda have to realize that at times before making comments and statements.

[Hotcod]

Actually I linked to three that I donate to in my very first post on the topic: Red Cross, The Clinton Foundation, and One. But if I mention charities that I think are more effective, I don't think it is fair to automatically assume I think I am some how "superior." Nor was I "giving people shit" for their charity of choice. I was stating why I thought there might be better ones to focus on. I never claimed superiority despite how much that charge has been thrown at me (in addition to about twenty others in the last two pages).

i'm not going to pull out the quotes but the simple fact is that you marched in to the thread, told every one in it that they are dumb for not giving to the charities that you give to and then went on to say that CP is mostly about "being one of the cool kids" and "pushing our hobbies" rather than honestly making life for some very sick children and there family's a little better.

If you meant it or not it comes across as you being smug and superior and if you can't understand why and learn not to make the same mistakes again then maybe you really are as smug and superior as you've come across so far about this topic

[Hotcod]

He admitted what he said was out of line. Good enough for me. I can easily state what I had said earlier was also out of line and, honestly, VERY uncommon of me.

I was just really angry. I kinda have to realize that at times before making comments and statements.

We've all gotten a little worked up about all this i think... and while it's lead to a rather messy and flamy thread i think it's in a odd way an honestly good thing. The simple fact we have all gotten so worked up shows that a lot of people have a true passion about the issues here... and thats nice to know.

[EternalGamer]

Using the word better dictates superiority. Embrace your self righteousness, own it.

Yeah, that makes the charities superior, not ME personally. And yes I know the whole notion of talking about "superior charities" has gotten people upset. But to me it is simply facing the economic reality. Nobody is criticizing someone who wants to help others. This conversation is about the most effective means of doing so. Or at least, that is what it was supposed to be about until it became about everyone airing their personal grievances with me.

[EternalGamer]

i'm not going to pull out the quotes but the simple fact is that you marched in to the thread, told every one in it that they are dumb for not giving to the charities that you give to and then went on to say that CP is mostly about "being one of the cool kids" and "pushing our hobbies" rather than honestly making life for some very sick children and there family's a little better.

If you meant it or not it comes across as you being smug and superior and if you can't understand why and learn not to make the same mistakes again then maybe you really are as smug and superior as you've come across so far about this topic

I never said anyone was dumb. I never even used that word. Second, I said those were the reasons I found myself donating to it and the reasons I decided to donate elsewhere this year instead. And I never ever implied that everyone who donated did so for those reasons, but that that was one possible reason people donated.

But I can't do very much to change my image in this thread when every 3rd person is either blatantly putting words in my mouth or taking things I said out of context. By using words such as "marched into this thread," "giving people shit," "calling people dumb," etc, people put a characterization on my behavior that I can't easily shake.

I know this particular charity is seen as the community's charity and that a lot of people who self identify as "gamers" are protective of it. But that doesn't mean a discussion about its merits automatically have to turn into a flame war. Or at least it shouldn't have to mean that.

[Hotcod]

Yeah, that makes the charities superior, not ME personally. And yes I know the whole notion of talking about "superior charities" has gotten people upset. But to me it is simply facing the economic reality. Nobody is criticizing someone who wants to help others. This conversation is about the most effective means of doing so. Or at least, that is what it was supposed to be about until it became about everyone airing their personal grievances with me.

*sigh* it's clear that your not at all understanding the point me and other's have been trying to get at... and if you don't have an inkling of that by now then you never will.

[Ghostbear]

Yeah, that makes the charities superior, not ME personally. And yes I know the whole notion of talking about "superior charities" has gotten people upset. But to me it is simply facing the economic reality. Nobody is criticizing someone who wants to help others. This conversation is about the most effective means of doing so. Or at least, that is what it was supposed to be about until it became about everyone airing their personal grievances with me.

The logical extension of having a better charity is that those who donate to them are doing the better thing, making them "better" Don't even pretend that you are some sort of martyr.

[Hotcod]

edit:

you know what... no... i'm just done.

ghostbear has hit the nail on the head in relation to a number of things and that's a better last word from me than i would have written... so i'm stealing it

[Sl1pstream]

All this crap and you're still talking about better charities. Since you're clearly ignoring our points, I'm going to add you to my ignore list.

[EternalGamer]

The logical extension of having a better charity is that those who donate to them are doing the better thing, making them "better" Don't even pretend that you are some sort of martyr.

How is that a "logical extension." My mechanic is "better" at fixing an engine than I am. I don't think that makes him superior. I am better at discussing Shakespeare than he is. That doesn't make me "superior." I don't make it a habit of going around with a score card measuring people's worth by any particular standard nor was I doing so here.

[Sl1pstream]

Tell me how aids research charities are better at healing cancer than Child's Play. If they're better charities, they must know how to do that, right?

Stop comparing charities to each other, there's no point in doing that.

[Bad Buddha]

We're providing hospitals with forms of entertainment to keep sick and/or dying children from the hours of boredom, hopelessness, fear, and solitude that comes with being in a hospital for extremely long periods of time.


Also, if the games are provided by an outside source, the hospital doesn't have to spend budgeted funds to provide for patient entertainment. That money can be spent elsewhere.

[Widgetcraft]

Mark this down lady's and gentlemen: This is the lamest topic in the history of CoG. If you ever find a really lame topic, and say to yourself, "Man, this is lame..." just remember to come back here and bask in the historic lameness, which almost certainly out-lames whatever you've come across.

[National Kato]

Also, if the games are provided by an outside source, the hospital doesn't have to spend budgeted funds to provide for patient entertainment. That money can be spent elsewhere.

Like....maybe...research and treatment?!

y8Kyi0WNg40

[Hotcod]

How is that a "logical extension." My mechanic is "better" at fixing an engine than I am. I don't think that makes him superior. I am better at discussing Shakespeare than he is. That doesn't make me "superior." I don't make it a habit of going around with a score card measuring people's worth by any particular standard nor was I doing so here.

oh for gods sake will you stop saying such stupid things? i told my self i wasn't going to reply any more but this is such a vast misunderstanding i can't help but comment on it...

let me fix your example for you... you go to pick your car up from the mechanic who happens to be talking shakespeare with a friend of his and telling him his point of view on the purely subjective meaning of speech he was talking about is wrong and then when he says that the matter is subjective you tell him that his also wrong about that...

So in the context of the conversation you are making your self out to be the better person beacuse on a subjective matter you presume you are right...

Which is where we run in to the problem, you don't at all see the subjective nature of the context beacuse of your point of view and as such you can not understand why people would claim you are making your self out to be superior or better... it's the same thing as some one on a talent show who is convinced they can sing when they clearly can't and no matter what they are told they won't believe it.

also, i really am done with this thread now... really... for true...

[Bad Buddha]

Mark this down lady's and gentlemen: This is the lamest topic in the history of CoG. If you ever find a really lame topic, and say to yourself, "Man, this is lame..." just remember to come back here and bask in the historic lameness, which almost certainly out-lames whatever you've come across.

Sometimes you just need to wallow in it. Makes you realize how fulfilling and meaningful the rest of your life is.

E0qOOH7NdI8

[ClannerDelta]

Eternal, while I think I possibly see where you're coming from. I'm disappointed that you felt the need to "judge" a charity with your own principles in mind then label everyone's donations as something less than good. I'm not going to hate you, or judge you because of it. I just feel let down by the attitude you've taken. You might have had a better sharing of opinions otherwise.

I don't donate money for various reasons. I've worked with local (and sometimes statewide/national) charities since I was pretty little. I donate my time, and I've donated a lot of it over the years. Helping the local clinic, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, food drives, cold weather clothing drives, and a lot more I just wont be able to remember even if I tried.

Most of these are very small charities that aren't going to work on curing cancer or fighting AIDS. They wont save Africa, they wont defeat hunger, and they wont bring back the dead.

They will, and do, make a huge difference in an individuals life. If I've made a single person's life better because of my effort, then it wasn't a waste.

In my experience, simply getting people interested enough to make a donation is 90% of the fight. If people are donating time or money to anything, it's a good thing please don't belittle that.

[roboninja]

Giving is good. The rest is over-analyzing.

[Backseat Killer]

CD - you win this thread, sir.

[Goronmon]

I just want to take this time to say that as angry as I may seem when posting and even if some of the stuff people says annoys me, those feelings are only temporary and I hope they aren't taken as belying any actual dislike of the people involved.

I mean, arguments are no fun if everyone agrees. :p

[Ten19]

Dear EternalGamer,

You're not as smart or clever as you think you are. You're clearly on a mission to educate the stupid and unwashed masses on how to better allocate their donation dollars. My response to that?

Fuck you.

Seriously.

First of all, I didn't donate (this year and last) because of the connection to Penny Arcade. I did it because it's a straight line between my wallet and helping a sick child feel better.

Second, you have absolutely no idea how I (or anyone else here) spend my money during this time of year. NONE. I could give you full details of other organizations that I've donated to and plan to, but I won't. You know why?

Because it's none of your fucking business.

Stick to whatever it is you spend your time doing (aside from telling others what to do), and let everyone do what they feel is right. Discussion of other charities makes sense, sure, nothing wrong there. But don't for a second start telling me what I'm doing wrong with my charity donations.

Warmest Regards,

Ten19

[Shadowstorm]

Dear EternalGamer,

You're not as smart or clever as you think you are. You're clearly on a mission to educate the stupid and unwashed masses on how to better allocate their donation dollars. My response to that?

Fuck you.

Seriously.

First of all, I didn't donate (this year and last) because of the connection to Penny Arcade. I did it because it's a straight line between my wallet and helping a sick child feel better.

Second, you have absolutely no idea how I (or anyone else here) spend my money during this time of year. NONE. I could give you full details of other organizations that I've donated to and plan to, but I won't. You know why?

Because it's none of your fucking business.

Stick to whatever it is you spend your time doing (aside from telling others what to do), and let everyone do what they feel is right. Discussion of other charities makes sense, sure, nothing wrong there. But don't for a second start telling me what I'm doing wrong with my charity donations.

Warmest Regards,

Ten19

A winner is you!

[Vyzov]

Dear EternalGamer,

You're not as smart or clever as you think you are. You're clearly on a mission to educate the stupid and unwashed masses on how to better allocate their donation dollars. My response to that?

Fuck you.

Seriously.

First of all, I didn't donate (this year and last) because of the connection to Penny Arcade. I did it because it's a straight line between my wallet and helping a sick child feel better.

Second, you have absolutely no idea how I (or anyone else here) spend my money during this time of year. NONE. I could give you full details of other organizations that I've donated to and plan to, but I won't. You know why?

Because it's none of your fucking business.

Stick to whatever it is you spend your time doing (aside from telling others what to do), and let everyone do what they feel is right. Discussion of other charities makes sense, sure, nothing wrong there. But don't for a second start telling me what I'm doing wrong with my charity donations.

Warmest Regards,

Ten19

Well said.

[Ghostbear]

*awesome rant*

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g302/ghostbear1/Internet20Has20Spoken.jpg

[Sandman]

How can you troll a charity man? That's just wrong.

[Whunpo]

While I feel that EG had a point (I think he lost it early on in the thread and just started name calling), I think that Child's Play has a great purpose, and I think donating to it has more importance than most other charities.
Yes. There are probably causes such as AIDs and other life threatening diseases that may have a bit more importance than video games. HOWEVER, there are thousands upon thousands of charities that get a huge amount of money every year. While it may be a lot, it is not enough. Not enough to spare any money to petty things like video games and entertainment. They are forgotten by most, and that is why I think why Child's Play is very important. It gives something that is normally ignored by most people some attention and money. That is why I give/gave to Child's Play ALONG WITH other charities throughout the year.
Another reason I like Child's Play is that it puts such a good light on gamers, who are very commonly seen as violent, careless, ant-social and losers. By donating to Child's Play, you're showing the world that gamers are real people who care about other people.

[TrackZero]

I am tired of repeating myself. As I said, my major concern was whether this becomes people's primary charity or takes away from money that might otherwise go to other worthwhile causes. I never said that this particular charity has no value whatsoever.


I understand what you're saying. But frankly, there's no such thing as more "worthwhile" causes. A cause is a cause, it's value is subjective based on the individuals viewpoint. I donate to this one. /thread

[Lutheran]

I don't know, EG, presumably hospitals dedicated to children *have* to budget some money for entertainment. The patients are kids after all. So if Child's Play sends them money/toys/games which can be used to supplement that side of their budget, doesn't it stand to reason that they would then have more money to dedicate to improving medical care?

This is the first reply in this thread and well its full of win. EG , while I understand where your coming from , I must disagree with your thoughts on this charity. I have spent some time in sloan kettering hospital in NYC and let me tell you when you see a whole floor full of bald kids its life altering. The joy I seen on a few of their faces was due to them playing a video game there. This is while they are getting a chemo drip or some other such treatment. I think this is a great charity , just as important as any other one.

[President Fred]

I know I am little bit late to this and I don't really want to get involved in the argument, but I thought that the videogames weren't given only to kill time in lieu of family as has been suggested but there is an (early) link between pain relief particularly in children and videogames. Not that killing time is a bad thing and I think the charity is noble for just doing that but as I understood it it also has something to do with pain relief which I think everyone can agree might cut costs on medication, raise the quality of life etc.

[mightbe]

Wow, you're acting like a real jerk.
Edit: I changed the wording a bit to be less inflammatory.

I completely agree. Even with the more strongly worded version.

My family, friends, and I donate to child's play every year as well as a handful of other charities. Not because we want to feel better about ourselves, but because we believe that we've been blessed enough to have some extra cash. So why not send it to places that will use it in the way we think would be effective?

Child's Play adds an extra level of transparency where you can purchase the individual items that you think would be most helpful to the hospitals. If you don't like any of the items, don't fucking buy them.

But don't pull a Tim Buckley.

The world has enough douches.