Charity

[f0xx]

Well since the new ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is so popular, I came across a few videos that got me a bit confused.

 

Ice Bucket Challenge by Brad Robbins.

Also, you can find the ALSA organization annual spending report on their site.

Later on I came across this video.

The last one invited a lot of mixed feelings and thoughts.

I am curious to see what you guys think.

[Trick]

I think if you're interested in a charity you should swing by my thread and help a guy out!

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

https://www.google.com/search?num=40&rlz=1C1OPRA_enUS579US579&biw=1588&bih=865&tbm=vid&q=ice+bucket+challenges+fails&oq=ice+bucket+challenges+fails&gs_l=serp.3...40059.45041.0.45127.9.9.0.0.0.0.57.339.9.9.0....0...1c.1.53.serp..6.3.114.lfNuSEsPkcc

[Aulian]

I think if you're interested in a charity you should swing by my thread and help a guy out!

 

 

Are you going to take my £100 and turn it into £10,000,000?

 

Otherwise I'm not interested 

 

 

(This post is in jest)

[Imoutgoodbye]

I am conflicted by the ALS charity.  I think the ice bucket challenge is a great way to create awareness, yet, it is incredibly Americanized.  The number of deaths from ASL versus  the number of deaths due to a lack of clean water isn't even close.  Then again, I'm of the opinion everything should be scrutinized.  

 

P.S. I apologize for not having the time to watch the video and only commenting on the surface topic.

[Dale]

I just find it humorous how many people think that if you do the challenge that you don't have donate money.

[f0xx]

I am surprised that there are 5 replies and still not even one on the topic.

Did any of you even watch the last video?

[Aulian]

I did.

 

It was one of the best ted talks I've actually seen. 

 

However I get what he is saying, I think it comes down to the skope of vision really. People with that sort of vision normally are looking to make money for themselves rather then for a charity (in their own business or profession).

 

People who are dedicated to helping people are on the large, following a 'formula' and not using the potential resources or what could now be considered 'best practices' to actually fund a charity in the sense that you can take some wealth and make it into more rather then just distributing what you manage to bring in after deducting costs.

[Pali]

The number of deaths from ASL versus  the number of deaths due to a lack of clean water isn't even close.

 

To this point, the Palestinian version of the ice bucket challenge.

 

That said, by your logic most Westerners are unjustified in caring about nearly any issue we have to deal with in our lives, as things are going to be worse elsewhere.  That women in many places have extremely limited rights doesn't mean that women in the west lack legitimate grievances, and that slavery still existed in various ways and places doesn't mean American blacks were wrong to spend their time fighting Jim Crow or the modern incarceration state.  We humans tend to focus most on what impacts us the most, and that will usually mean local issues.  Is that right or wrong?  I don't know, but I lean towards it being at least acceptable and justified, if not the most moral option possible. EDIT: Plus, it's not impossible to care about and support more than one cause at the same time.

 

To Foxx's videos... the second demolished the objections of the first far more eloquently than I would, so I won't bother.  I would, however, add that research into any charitable group you may be considering donating to is always a good thing.  A religious charity that feeds the homeless may be a perfectly fine place for me to donate - but not if they require the homeless to sit through sermons before being fed, or discriminate against homosexuals or those who are outside their religion.

[Imoutgoodbye]

My logic falls in line with what I see as the waste of a natural resource.  It has little to do with socially constructed moralities.  I have nothing else to say on this at this time other than to apologize to f0xx for feeling it necessary to post here again, yet further derailing this thread.  

[Pali]

Ah, I misunderstood your objection then.

[Mali]

I work in Charity and Dan Palotta is spot on.

 

Can great work be done outside of the nonprofit arena, on a human to human level? Yes.

 

However, the greatest achievements in public health, human services, and charitable programming have been well funded, planned, and professionally executed.

 

Impact that you can measure on an epidemiological level requires an approach that occurs from multiple levels. See this article: http://ajhpcontents.org/doi/abs/10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282

As Dan discusses, the concept that charitable businesses must operate on different market principles than businesses in the for-profit sector means that they are simply not competitive. Nonprofit products are often not tangible, but they do have impact and value. Without appropriate funding and expertise, you cannot communicate that value, sell your product, or spread your vision.

 

This is analogous to the problem with the current U.S. education system, which is poorly funded and simply unattractive to many people with leadership skills or innovative talents. Of course the issues go deeper than I am discussing here.