Old Spice Guy's manliness repels Ice Bucket Water

[Dutch]

Just keep in mind that at least some, if not most, of the money going to ALS means money not going to other charities. I guess ALS is just more important than the rest.

No such thing as too much awareness? I know this goes against common knowledge but awareness doesn't cure diseases. Would you say we still don't have enough cancer awareness? We've been throwing money at these things endlessly and getting nowhere, but let's just keep doing it while people starve, or live in shit, or die of simple mosquito bites. The 'awareness' if anything, is sorely misplaced.

It's like taking a test and starting on the question that is the hardest, most time (resource) consuming, and worth the least amount of marks. At the end of the hour you could still be stuck on it and end up handing in a 0. Why not get the easy, more prominent questions out of the way first?

that is not a fair statement at all.

lots of charities feed local homeless, and send shit to Africa and have been for DECADES. and situations still don't change.

so to say let's not find cures for diseases and rather feed starving people is beyond ridiculous.

There are much more wasted dollars in this world that could be geared to either feeding starved people or finding a cure for disease.

for example, Calgary wasted 25 million on a stupid art bridge a few years back. Many government projects are like that.

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

Just keep in mind that at least some, if not most, of the money going to ALS means money not going to other charities. I guess ALS is just more important than the rest.

No such thing as too much awareness? I know this goes against common knowledge but awareness doesn't cure diseases. Would you say we still don't have enough cancer awareness? We've been throwing money at these things endlessly and getting nowhere, but let's just keep doing it while people starve, or live in shit, or die of simple mosquito bites. The 'awareness' if anything, is sorely misplaced.

It's like taking a test and starting on the question that is the hardest, most time (resource) consuming, and worth the least amount of marks. At the end of the hour you could still be stuck on it and end up handing in a 0. Why not get the easy, more prominent questions out of the way first?

Where is the "easy question" in your example? I'm all ears for your ideas on up and ending world hunger, horrid living conditions, and other diseases.

[vitun-tyhmä]

that is not a fair statement at all.

lots of charities feed local homeless, and send shit to Africa and have been for DECADES. and situations still don't change.

so to say let's not find cures for diseases and rather feed starving people is beyond ridiculous.

There are much more wasted dollars in this world that could be geared to either feeding starved people or finding a cure for disease.

for example, Calgary wasted 25 million on a stupid art bridge a few years back. Many government projects are like that.

One thing you should always check (demand in fact) is how much of the donations they take in go to actual target people in need. What you find out will really alarm you, charity is a big business like any other, and most of them gobble up the bulk of your donations in "operating costs" (read: stealing). One of the worst is the Susan B Komen "For the Cure" breast cancer one. They've inundated themselves into professional sports and workplaces and they steal most of the money for their own purposes, it's disgusting. They also spend a ton of their money on legal fees to sue anyone else trying to use their marketing material (including the freaking pink ribbon!) to raise money for breast cancer research! Why would you sue people trying to achieve the same end??? Unless your intent is not to actually help people but to make money?

[Dutch]

One thing you should always check (demand in fact) is how much of the donations they take in go to actual target people in need. What you find out will really alarm you, charity is a big business like any other, and most of them gobble up the bulk of your donations in "operating costs" (read: stealing). One of the worst is the Susan B Komen "For the Cure" breast cancer one. They've inundated themselves into professional sports and workplaces and they steal most of the money for their own purposes, it's disgusting. They also spend a ton of their money on legal fees to sue anyone else trying to use their marketing material (including the freaking pink ribbon!) to raise money for breast cancer research! Why would you sue people trying to achieve the same end??? Unless your intent is not to actually help people but to make money?

you must not have read all my other posts lol, in regards to ceo salaries and such

[forumname]

Where is the "easy question" in your example? I'm all ears for your ideas on up and ending world hunger, horrid living conditions, and other diseases.

I'm not going to pretend to have a plan for how to implement an end to world hunger, but we do have a working cure - food.

We have life saving medicines that don't get implemented on large scales because of cost. Millions of people die every year of things we have very easy solutions for.

Animal shelters have to kill animals because they can't afford to house and feed them.

Obscure diseases are always going to take lives. If we cure one, we'll discover another. Meanwhile millions are dying of things we have the technology to fix today - not just throw money at in hopes of being able to one day.


This is from an article I read today:

"$56,000 would provide one quality-adjusted life year to a sufferer. On the other hand, he said, "the same amount of money could provide 500 quality-adjusted life years if you give money to bed nets for malaria."

What makes more sense, spending endless amounts on dead-end research? Or buying some goddamn mosquito nets? The money could do 500 times more good if spent on the latter.

[forumname]

I'll put it this way - If I was to donate money today, ALS would be one of the very LAST causes I would consider donating to. Disease research would be at the bottom in general, but given their huge recent windfall there is even less reason to donate.

EDIT: I understand this is an extremely unpopular opinion at the moment, but if you give it some thought you'll see that it isn't mean-spirited or malicious. I just think money should go where it is most needed and most useful.

[vitun-tyhmä]

you must not have read all my other posts lol, in regards to ceo salaries and such

Oh sorry Dutch, that comment wasn't directed at you specifically or anything, just a general commentary on charities in general. Lots of people have good hearts and want to make a difference, unfortunately the people running the big charities often have different ideas of what is "important"

[newfcollins]

Would you say we still don't have enough cancer awareness? We've been throwing money at these things endlessly and getting nowhere, but let's just keep doing it while people starve, or live in shit, or die of simple mosquito bites.

Kind of interesting you brought that up. If you could donate money to an organization that could come up with a cure for people who get diseases from mosquito bites, wouldn't that be a better option than buying mosquito netting for eternity?

Think of how much money would have gone into polio research before a vaccine was discovered. In 1952, there were 58,000 new cases of polio in the U.S. alone. In 2013, there were about 400 cases around the world. That's hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of people who were saved from the disease because of research.

And there have been cures for cancer, thanks to all the research that has been done. And cancer awareness has led to more people checking for lumps at home, catching it before it spreads too far.

I think there's actually need for all of these different groups/charities. I give to some of the bigger charities, but I also give to local food banks (My Christmas list two years ago was simply to donate the money to the Baby Cupboard at the local food bank instead of buying me a gift). So there's a happy medium out there.

[forumname]

Kind of interesting you brought that up. If you could donate money to an organization that could come up with a cure for people who get diseases from mosquito bites, wouldn't that be a better option than buying mosquito netting for eternity?

Think of how much money would have gone into polio research before a vaccine was discovered. In 1952, there were 58,000 new cases of polio in the U.S. alone. In 2013, there were about 400 cases around the world. That's hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of people who were saved from the disease because of research.

And there have been cures for cancer, thanks to all the research that has been done. And cancer awareness has led to more people checking for lumps at home, catching it before it spreads too far.

I think there's actually need for all of these different groups/charities. I give to some of the bigger charities, but I also give to local food banks (My Christmas list two years ago was simply to donate the money to the Baby Cupboard at the local food bank instead of buying me a gift). So there's a happy medium out there.

I don't disagree that there is a place for disease research funding. It just doesn't make sense for such a specific disease affecting so few people to take such a big piece of the pie, and I think a lot of people are blindly donating without considering anything.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the only 'challenge' that matters anyway:

[vitun-tyhmä]

omfg, can we have more of those? I think this is something we can all get behind right?

[Axeman33]

I don't disagree that there is a place for disease research funding. It just doesn't make sense for such a specific disease affecting so few people to take such a big piece of the pie, and I think a lot of people are blindly donating without considering anything.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the only 'challenge' that matters anyway:

LOL! Best Ice Bucket Challenge video yet! +1