Talk:871: Charity

Not sure whether this should be added to the "official" explanation but I interpret the titletext to hint at a better way to bring good into the world than pointing out where others aren't really good, is to one-up them, so to speak, by donating oneself without organizing a reward for oneself. 162.158.90.180 19:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What's with the '0 internet arguments' in the title text? I don't get that part. Runxctry (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did add a small explain on this but I think it's still incomplete.--Dgbrt (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the posts below about charity directors, overfishing, and celebrities raising money for charity. He's saying that letting others know that you think a charity is good is going to lead to an argument online about whether you are really doing good or not. And he's clearly been proven right by this discussion page.172.68.47.48 00:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't he only holding one game? 108.162.237.218 17:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that is actually a phone, so he could be either browsing a site like gamestop to buy PC/console games, or thinking about buying apps. Athang (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How much do the directors of the charity get paid?

I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Eye m n idoit, Vctr (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Vctr

Sorry, but I'm deleting your comment and replacing it with something else, simply because it was stupid. If anyone wants to know what he said, reply to this comment. Otherwise, this imbecile's statement shall remain deleted. R3TRI8UTI0N (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry, but they destroy all fish's life: see NY times etc.: mosquito-nets-for-malaria-spawn-new-epidemic-overfishing -- 162.158.92.17 12:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This point maybe valid, but it's also an example of what Randall says he used to do: Respond to someone else doing something good by figuring out a reason that they're not really as good as they seem, and thereby starting an internet argument.172.68.47.48 00:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this may not be the best example of that. If the good that somebody is doing actually turns out to be, on net, worse than not doing it, then a response might be warranted, because that would mean it's better if what was thought to be the act of charity is actually doing more harm than good. Of course, it's really hard to determine the net benefits of mosquito nets. If people don't use the nets for mosquitos, and use them for overfishing instead, then there's no benefit to the nets, but there is harm. However, not all people use the nets for fishing, so you'd have to look at how many people are benefiting from using the nets properly, and then look at how many fish are being harmed. If you think the harm from the fishing is more impactful than the benefit to the people who are using nets properly, convincing somebody not to do it would be worthwhile. Jeffkmeng (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My favorite whine is about celebrities endorsing 'causes'. They are essentially saying something like 'I have millions of dollars, and this cause is close to my heart. However, I won't give any of my money. Rather, I'll sing a beautiful song. And then you, wage-earner with modest disposable income, should donate money to the cause; while I get honors and recognition for all the money I raised." Mountain Hikes (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is also an example of someone responding to someone else doing something good by figuring out a reason that they're not really as good as they seem, and thereby starting an internet argument. Randall's point is definitely right.172.68.47.48 00:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)