I guess I'm politicaly incorrect, so sad

[gauchecritic]

Okay let's try a different approach:

I give $100 to Planned Parenthood. Operation Rescue sneaks into their offices and steals the $100. THEY use the money to pay for food for their protestors.

Are you saying they didn't commit a crime and that they did not negate my choice by using the money for an organization that I disagree with?

That's just silly and no comparison or are you suggesting that swapping items from one publicly accessible box to another is equivalent to breaking and entering and grand theft?

 

[SeaCat]

Okay,

There were a couple of facts that were left out, mainly because I didn't care to get flamed. After reading this thread for a bit I find I just don't care so here goes.

The group around the Box for Haitian Survivors was made up entirely of Haitians. It wasn't hard to recognize this due to their skin coloring and the minor fact they were speaking Creole. The group collecting for the Haitian Survivors was a local group made up of Haitians.

The box for the survivors in Texas was set up by the Red Cross.

As mentioned above there is a problem with sending Aide to Haiti. It doesn't go very far unless it is the kind of Aide that folds and rustles.

I have this odd feeling. I tend to help people in a certain order. Family, neighbors, countrymen then those outside of my country.

I honestly don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what color, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political affiliation a person is if they need help. I do have ths odd feeling that Charity does and should begin at home.

Cat

 

[Safe_Bet]

That's just silly and no comparison or are you suggesting that swapping items from one publicly accessible box to another is equivalent to breaking and entering and grand theft?

Nope. Just the grand theft. Apparently the police agree with me.

Nice bob & weave though. THEY STILL NEGATED MY CHOICE. Subject closed.

 

[gauchecritic]

Nope. Just the grand theft. Apparently the police agree with me.

Nice bob & weave though. THEY STILL NEGATED MY CHOICE. Subject closed.

and your insistence on choice negated your charity. end of.

 

[Stella_Omega]

and your insistence on choice negated your charity. end of.

Charity is choiceless, end of?
I'm not sure how this philosophical concept resonates in the real world, Gauche.

 

[gauchecritic]

Charity is choiceless, end of?
I'm not sure how this philosophical concept resonates in the real world, Gauche.

Not the choosing, that's up to the individual. but charity itself is an action independent of anything else.

 

[Liar]

There were a couple of facts that were left out, mainly because I didn't care to get flamed. After reading this thread for a bit I find I just don't care so here goes.

That's the spirit. Then I hope you don't mind me reacting.

I honestly don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what color, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political affiliation a person is if they need help.

But, apparently you do give a collie's collar what nationality and/or location a person is if they need help.

I do have ths odd feeling that Charity does and should begin at home.

Just out of curiosity, have you tried to define why?

 

[starrkers]

OK, I give my charitable items (money or goods) to a recognised charity to distribute because I believe they have the infrastructure, knowledge and ability to do a good job. I don't give to Fred Smith's Help Them Fund, which is collecting for the same disaster, because I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the stuff where it's needed.

Fred's mates don't like that his fund is not getting any stuff, so they take some of the stuff from the Red Cross and pass it to Fred's fund.

The Red Cross dips out and Fred's Fund starts looking pretty good at raising awareness and collecting stuff. But when he goes to distribute it, he's met with red tape, bureaucratic BS and military muscle. So his stuff either rots on the docks or ends up in the Fat Cats' pockets. Those that needed it, miss out. Again.

Yeah, that was worth it. No wonder people don't want to give to Fred and are pissed that his mates are pinching another charity's goods.

 

[SweetWitch]

Does the fact of two boxes give you the right to deny one charity over the other?

Yes. It's called choice. I'm the one who earned the money and I'm the one who decides what to do with it. It may be that I have family and friends in the wake zone and I want to send stuff where I think it might help them. Or it may just be that I feel enough of my money goes over-seas and I want it to stay in my country's borders.

There is no moral question. Both boxes are for charity. A third party is being as charitable as they want to be, possibly in the only way they can be.

Choosing to swap boxes is no worse than choosing a box in the first place. Choosing a box is just as morally deficient as swapping a box. Swapping a box is as equally charitable as giving in the first place.

The act of giving is the charitable thing. There is no choice involved in an act of charity.

I find it strange that you see this third party as being charitable. I don't see them as being giving. I see them as thieves. They are taking from my friends in Texas, and taking from me because I put the items in that box and intend for it to go to Texas, hypothetically.

So you're allowed to deliver charity to one group over another but the box swappers aren't?

That's about the size of it, yes. I paid for it. I should be able to decide, without worrying who will steal it, where it should go. The box-swappers aren't allowed to make the choice for me. If I walk up to them, hand them a stack of goods and say, "Do with it what you will," then they can put it in the Haitian box. Otherwise, they are just stealing.

Which is perfectly legitimate. And as you say is your choice. But in doing so you are using a prejudiced view of these organisations which goes against the concept of charity as an action.

Although one could argue that society, as an organism, must include charity in order to survive.

If your choice isn't bad or wrong (and I agree) then how is the swappers choice bad or wrong?

How is it wrong? It's wrong because it's not their choice to make. Did they buy the items? Did they go out and earn the money to do so? I don't understand anyone thinking that they have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul. I've been hungry more times than I care to admit. I've lived out of my car, washed in gas station bathrooms and gone without a great deal, but never did I steal someone else's hard-earned, just to make things easier on myself, nor I would I ever allow anyone to steal for me. It's a moral choice.

No one is disagreeing with your charity. No one is altering your charitable act. It's the giving that is charitable not the destination.

The act is being altered considerably. Charity isn't just in the act, it's also in the intention. I donate to children's groups and to help for the elderly, but if I give $20 to a children's charity and $10 to help the elderly, I would be very upset if the second charity took half or all of the money that I gave to the children. Both are very worthwhile charities, both are very important, but I chose to give twenty to one and ten to the other. It's my choice.

That's the spirit. Then I hope you don't mind me reacting.
But, apparently you do give a collie's collar what nationality and/or location a person is if they need help.
Just out of curiosity, have you tried to define why?

I gave much the same lineup of what's important in my choices. You didn't ask my why, but I'd like to tell you. It's because my family is most important to me. Next come my friends and neighbors. After that is the community where I live and then my country. So much of our money leaves our borders to "help" (and I use that term loosely, given governmental track records) other peoples, yet children here at home are on the streets fighting to survive. Old people die of heat exhaustion in their homes because social security money is eaten up by medications and their too-small pensions aren't enough to keep the lights on. Crack-heads are killing for a buck-75 and little girls are being raped by their mothers' live-in boyfriends. We have a lot of ills here that need attention.

To put it another way: If my own daughter doesn't have shoes on her feet, what business do I have buying shoes for children in another country?

That's just silly and no comparison or are you suggesting that swapping items from one publicly accessible box to another is equivalent to breaking and entering and grand theft?

It's not a silly comparison. The fact that the box is publicly accessible has nothing to do with it. Stealing is black and white. If it doesn't belong to you, you have no right to take it.

It's even simpler than that. The charitable donations were made. End of story. As long as the donations go to charitable causes there is no moral issue.

That's not the "end of story." Just because it's labeled "charity" doesn't make it right. Those who donated to Texas, or Haiti, believed that they were giving something to someone of their choice. To have that item taken and then given to someone else is just wrong.

Or are you saying that charitable intent by one who donates has more credence than one whose charitable intent is redistribution?

Are you given choice as to whom receives your blood donations?

When you take your books and pencils with you to distribute to schoolchildren whilst on holiday in a third world African nation do you give only to those that keep a diary or to those that only have chalk and slate?

Charitable discrimination by the donator is not charity at all.

As a matter of fact, I am given a choice of which person gets my blood. My blood count is too low to donate, except in dire emergencies. I have given twice. Having a rare blood type makes me rather popular with the local hospitals, but giving is very dangerous for me.

My brother has the same blood type and when he was bleeding to death, I gave him a pint and a half. Charity starts at home. For my brother, I risked my own life to give that blood. (And I was quite ill for weeks after). The second time was a little boy in this community. His arm had been torn off in a farming accident and one of the doctors who had worked on my brother called me at 2 AM. After family and friends, I give to my community. I gave to the child.

After a short stay in the hospital, I was able to go home and decide not to give again. If my family needs it, I will give it. After that, I can't give anymore blood. Not even to my community. Now, if I had risked my life for that child and someone told me that the child did without when they gave my blood to someone in Peru or Canada, for instance, I would have been fighting mad.

I have a right to be discriminatory about my charity. I'm the one who earns the money, after all. I'm the one who pumps the blood. When I give, my family does without. Granted, they do without things that aren't a necessity in life, but they do without just the same. So when I give, I want to make damned sure that what I give goes where I intend it to go. It would make me very angry to discover that my neighbors in Texas did without because someone else took my goods and gave them to another country. By the same token, when I give to help storm victims in another country and find out that those good sit on a dock for six months waiting to be shipped, I'm equally angry.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yes. It's called choice. I'm the one who earned the money and I'm the one who decides what to do with it. It may be that I have family and friends in the wake zone and I want to send stuff where I think it might help them. Or is it may just be that I feel enough of my money goes over-seas and I want it to stay in my country's borders.



I find it strange that you see this third party as being charitable. I don't see them as being giving. I see them as thieves. They are taking from my friends in Texas, and taking from me because I put the items in that box and intend for it to go to Texas, hypothetically.



That's about the size of it, yes. I paid for it. I should be able to decide, without worrying who will steal it, where it should go. The box-swappers aren't allowed to make the choice for me. If I walk up to them, hand them a stack of goods and say, "Do with it what you will," then they can put it in the Haitian box. Otherwise, they are just stealing.





How is it wrong? It's wrong because it's not their choice to make. Did they buy the items? Did they go out and earn the money to do so? I don't understand anyone thinking that they have the right to rob Peter to pay Paul. I've been hungry more times than I care to admit. I've lived out of my car, washed in gas station bathrooms and gone without a great deal, but never did I steal someone else's hard-earned, just to make things easier on myself, nor I would I ever allow anyone to steal for me. It's a moral choice.



The act is being altered considerably. Charity isn't just in the act, it's also in the intention. I donate to children's groups and to help for the elderly, but if I give $20 to a children's charity and $10 to help the elderly, I would be very upset if the second charity took half or all of the money that I gave to the children. Both are very worthwhile charities, both are very important, but I chose to give twenty to one and ten to the other. It's my choice.



I gave much the same lineup of what's important in my choices. You didn't ask my why, but I'd like to tell you. It's because my family is most important to me. Next come my friends. After that is the community where I live and then my country. So much of our money leaves our borders to "help" (and I use that term loosely, given governmental track records) other peoples, yet children here at home are on the streets fighting to survive. Old people die of heat exhaustion in their homes because social security money is eaten up by medications and their too-small pensions aren't enough to keep the lights on. Crack-heads are killing for a buck-75 and little girls are being raped by their mothers' live-in boyfriends. We have a lot of ills here that need attention.

To put it another way: If my own daughter doesn't have shoes on her feet, what business do I have buying shoes for children in another country?



It's not a silly comparison. The fact that the box is publicly accessible has nothing to do with it. Stealing is black and white. If it doesn't belong to you, you have no right to take it.




That's not the "end of story." Just because it's labeled "charity" doesn't make it right. Those who donated to Texas, or Haiti, believed that they were giving something to someone of their choice. To have that item taken and then given to someone else is just wrong.



As a matter of fact, I am given a choice of which person gets my blood. My blood count is too low to donate, except in dire emergencies. I have given twice. having a rare blood type makes me rather popular with the local hospitals, but giving is very dangerous for me.

My brother has the same blood type and when he was bleeding to death, I gave him a pint and a half. Charity starts at home. For my brother, I risked my own life to give that blood. (And I was quite ill for weeks after). The second time was a little boy in this community. His arm had been torn off in a farming accident and one of the doctors who had worked on my brother called me at 2 AM. After family and friends, I give to my community. I gave to the child.

After a short stay in the hospital, I was able to go home and decide not to give again. If my family needs it, I will give it. After that, I can't give anymore blood. Not even to my community. Now, if I had risked my life for that child and someone told me that the child did without when they gave my blood to someone in Peru or Canada, for instance, I would have been fighting mad.

I have a right to be discriminatory about my charity. I'm the one who earns the money, after all. I'm the one who pumps the blood. When I give, my family does without. Granted, they do without things that aren't a necessity in life, but they do without just the same. So when I give, I want to make damned sure that what I give goes where I intend it to go. It would make me very angry to discover that my neighbors in Texas did without because someone else took my goods and gave them to another country. By the same token, when I give to help storm victims in another country and find out that those good sit on a dock for six months waiting to be shipped, I'm equally angry.

Thank you. Very well said.

 

[SweetWitch]

Thank you. Very well said.

Thanks. And sorry. I got on my high horse again.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Thanks. And sorry. I got on my high horse again.

Giddy-up!

 

[peterprincipal]

What a funny discussion. If you donate something to anyone, you have the right to feel good, or superior, or proud, or whatever you feel. Anyone has the right to feel anything they damn well please. But anyone dumb enough to care where their donation goes but put that donation in an open box in full view of some other charity who can see the stuff, gives up all rights to determine where it all goes. IT'S OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN, where anyone who wants the stuff can just walk up and take it. That's not PC, or un-PC, or any other C. It's just the reality of the world.
If you give something up, you give it up. Period. If you want to make sure your donation goes to where you want it to, give it to 'em straight away. They've got a place somewhere, they come and empty the box occasionally, don't they? If you want your stuff to go to the Red Cross, TAKE IT TO THE RED CROSS. Don't just stick it in a box. That's like saying "Who fucking cares where it goes."
All it takes to get a donation to where you want it is to take it to 'em. And use your head.
Right, S_B?
Hi there, S_B. Nice to see you.
PP

 

[Safe_Bet]

What a funny discussion. If you donate something to anyone, you have the right to feel good, or superior, or proud, or whatever you feel. Anyone has the right to feel anything they damn well please. But anyone dumb enough to care where their donation goes but put that donation in an open box in full view of some other charity who can see the stuff, gives up all rights to determine where it all goes. IT'S OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN, where anyone who wants the stuff can just walk up and take it. That's not PC, or un-PC, or any other C. It's just the reality of the world.
If you give something up, you give it up. Period. If you want to make sure your donation goes to where you want it to, give it to 'em straight away. They've got a place somewhere, they come and empty the box occasionally, don't they? If you want your stuff to go to the Red Cross, TAKE IT TO THE RED CROSS. Don't just stick it in a box. That's like saying "Who fucking cares where it goes."
All it takes to get a donation to where you want it is to take it to 'em. And use your head.
Right, S_B?
Hi there, S_B. Nice to see you.
PP

Hey, PP Good to see ya dude!

How's it feel to be a virgin with kids?

 

[SweetWitch]

What a funny discussion. If you donate something to anyone, you have the right to feel good, or superior, or proud, or whatever you feel. Anyone has the right to feel anything they damn well please. But anyone dumb enough to care where their donation goes but put that donation in an open box in full view of some other charity who can see the stuff, gives up all rights to determine where it all goes. IT'S OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN, where anyone who wants the stuff can just walk up and take it. That's not PC, or un-PC, or any other C. It's just the reality of the world.
If you give something up, you give it up. Period. If you want to make sure your donation goes to where you want it to, give it to 'em straight away. They've got a place somewhere, they come and empty the box occasionally, don't they? If you want your stuff to go to the Red Cross, TAKE IT TO THE RED CROSS. Don't just stick it in a box. That's like saying "Who fucking cares where it goes."
All it takes to get a donation to where you want it is to take it to 'em. And use your head.
Right, S_B?
Hi there, S_B. Nice to see you.
PP

So much for "friendly" discussion.

 

[peterprincipal]

So much for "friendly" discussion.

Just trying to keep the conversation lively.

 

[Safe_Bet]

So much for "friendly" discussion.

Awww, don't worry about PP. He just likes to yank my chain once in a while. He actually is a friend of mine from another site and is a pretty nice guy - for a putz!!! He also is a REALLY good writer. So, if he gets out of line just spank him - he likes that!

PP: Don't be messing with SW! She's a "farm girl" too and she'll kick your ass six ways to Sunday, dude!

I think you owe us one of your recipes for being so mean!

(SW: This guy can cook! His recipes are fantastic. Plus he has one of the most perverted senses of humor I've ever seen! Too funny!)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Okay,

There were a couple of facts that were left out, mainly because I didn't care to get flamed. After reading this thread for a bit I find I just don't care so here goes.

The group around the Box for Haitian Survivors was made up entirely of Haitians. It wasn't hard to recognize this due to their skin coloring and the minor fact they were speaking Creole. The group collecting for the Haitian Survivors was a local group made up of Haitians.

The box for the survivors in Texas was set up by the Red Cross.

As mentioned above there is a problem with sending Aide to Haiti. It doesn't go very far unless it is the kind of Aide that folds and rustles.

I have this odd feeling. I tend to help people in a certain order. Family, neighbors, countrymen then those outside of my country.

I honestly don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what color, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political affiliation a person is if they need help. I do have ths odd feeling that Charity does and should begin at home.

Cat

I got you, Cat. So it was about color. But it was about nation too.

And it was also about theft. These were two different organizations collecting donations, and one organization was stealing from the other. That's theft, pure and simple.

On the other hand, it was also about discrimination, because apparently people were giving more to the Texas victims than they were to the Haitians, huh? But then, like you say, that's to be expected. Texas is part of the USA. Haiti isn't.

No. You did the right thing. People obviously wanted their donations to go to Texas, and the Haitians were stealing them and trying to send them to Haiti. That's thievery.

Look at it this way. If it had been Canadians stealing the stuff and trying to send it to Canada for some disaster, would you have called the cops? Yes, you would have. So it's not racism. It's nationalism.

You did the right thing.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

That's just silly and no comparison or are you suggesting that swapping items from one publicly accessible box to another is equivalent to breaking and entering and grand theft?

Once they take it out of the box in which I put it, they have decided to appropriate it for their own use. Taking something that was given to the Red Cross (and a "publicly accessible box" is not the moral equivalent of a "grab bag" that invites passersby to consider whether their need outweighs that of the intended recipients) is stealing it. That the thief also has a charitable intent is nice, but morally irrelevant to the act of theft.

 

[gauchecritic]

Once they take it out of the box in which I put it, they have decided to appropriate it for their own use. Taking something that was given to the Red Cross (and a "publicly accessible box" is not the moral equivalent of a "grab bag" that invites passersby to consider whether their need outweighs that of the intended recipients) is stealing it. That the thief also has a charitable intent is nice, but morally irrelevant to the act of theft.

and theft is morally irrelevant to an act of charity.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Back in my working days, it used to piss me off mightily when an office goody-goody would come 'round every week begging for a new charity. "Oooo...if you don't give, we won't meet our quota," or get a plaque or an award or some such shit.

I give to who I want to, when I want to. Period.

If I were rich, I'd probably give to charities - tax breaks and all that.

But honestly, I just believe in paying it forward. I do that a lot.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

and theft is morally irrelevant to an act of charity.

If what you have really been trying to say all along is that the moral outrage at the theft should be no greater if one put something in the box than it should be if one didn't put something in the box, then I agree with you (!!!!). The theft is equally morally indefensible whether you were the donor or an onlooker.

I took your earlier posts to excuse the theft because the thief subsequently disposed of his loot in a charitable manner, in which case we're back to disagreeing.

 

[gauchecritic]

If what you have really been trying to say all along is that the moral outrage at the theft should be no greater if one put something in the box than it should be if one didn't put something in the box, then I agree with you (!!!!). The theft is equally morally indefensible whether you were the donor or an onlooker.

I took your earlier posts to excuse the theft because the thief subsequently disposed of his loot in a charitable manner, in which case we're back to disagreeing.

Most people seemed to think that too. {sr71 mode] I just wish people would stop putting words in my mouth[/sr71mode]

naa nobody did that.

But also no one read what I actually wrote either: that the act of charity begins and ends with putting something in the box. Subsequent actions have no bearing on the act of charity.

Stopping someone from swapping things is not an act of charity.