[blem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif The post is not a manifestation of a blind, hand waving, mouth spittle forming rage. It was intended to do two things. First, it was supposed to precipitate a moral discussion (related to the subject content, rather than the message). Second, it was supposed to get a bit of a laugh..

Right...

 

[dgbiker1]

I gave $5 to a blind charity the other day. When you count my student loans, I have $0.00 to my name. On a percentage basis I gave (100*5/0) INFINITY PERCENT of my net worth! I'm sooooo going to heaven!
BTW: The worst charity offender of them all: Derek Zoolander.

 

[mrdeadfolx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NacMacFeegle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry Duggeh...fail.

Big time fail Duggster. I will go ahead and say that this is the only time I've ever seen a post from you that was anything other than totally intelligent and insightful (aside from the humourous pointless ones).

 

[spitball]

I forgive you.

 

[vagarach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeadfolx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Big time fail Duggster. I will go ahead and say that this is the only time I've ever seen a post from you that was anything other than totally intelligent and insightful (aside from the humourous pointless ones).

I was also rather surprised by his initial post, Duggeh has contributed much to this website with his mammoth reviews! This is why I replied, anyone else I would have just laughed at and moved on.

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vagarach /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was also rather surprised by his initial post, Duggeh has contributed much to this website with his mammoth reviews! This is why I replied, anyone else I would have just laughed at and moved on.

It just goes to show that you never know how much someone's philosophies will surprise you. It's a surpise to me because he seems like a nice guy, and he spends a lot on headphones. I would just assume someone who is a fine upstanding member here would have the ability to empathize with the plight of others, and give when they can.

But everyone has different ideas and biases, his bias seems to be against helping causes that might be personal to the one helping, and that celebrities using their media status to campaign on issues is generally cynical self-serving affair that serves no purpose under the sun, are things to not be respected.

I was attacked earlier in the thread by someone who doesn't seem to believe in charitable causes. Either that or they were being contrary to be contrary, tough to tell with some headfiers. I think the causes I give to are bigger than some "I'm going to disagree with you because I don't like you" battle. And I give when I can. Giving isn't always about money either.

I think, as many have voiced here, that while only the person giving knows their own motives, that good work is done as a result, and those results cannot be ignored. Not all charities are good charities, you have to research who you give the money to, but I don't think that helping those who need it, or funding research for diseases with no cure, is generally a bad thing.

I think it's a shame that someone so young doesn't believe there's any positive way to change the world.

 

[Joey_V]

As said earlier, Duggeh, quit bitching until you donate half a million quid.

Conviction is easiest for those in the sidelines, those on the field see things a little bit different. You are way in the sidelines.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was attacked earlier in the thread by someone who doesn't seem to believe in charitable causes. Either that or they were being contrary to be contrary, tough to tell with some headfiers. I think the causes I give to are bigger than some "I'm going to disagree with you because I don't like you" battle. And I give when I can. Giving isn't always about money either.

I believe this is in reference to me. If it is, please reread what I had written and tell me where I said anything about being against charitable causes. I had attacked your line of thinking of "percentage is the key", which is grossly inaccurate, as I indicated with the Bill Gates example. Someone with immense wealth can easily donate a certain percentage of that wealth with little to no impact on their daily lives. That same percentage from the average joe would cripple them financially. That isn't very hard to understand. How is that in any way a statement against charitable causes, or did you intentionally derail my point because you had no reasonable counter to my questioning of your logic?

I'm sure you don't appreciate being misquoted, and neither do I.

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe this is in reference to me. If it is, please reread what I had written and tell me where I said anything about being against charitable causes. I had attacked your line of thinking of "percentage is the key", which is grossly inaccurate, as I indicated with the Bill Gates example. Someone with immense wealth can easily donate a certain percentage of that wealth with little to no impact on their daily lives. That same percentage from the average joe would cripple them financially. That isn't very hard to understand. How is that in any way a statement against charitable causes, or did you intentionally derail my point because you had no reasonable counter to my questioning of your logic? I'm sure you don't appreciate being misquoted, and neither do I.

Ok, I quoted you to make sure you weren't misquoted. Can you please stop picking a fight now? You think what you think, and I'll think what I think.