And those are 2 different examples. One supports calling attention to yourself as long as you're spreading the message and the other is against it regardless of it raising awareness or not.
Lets be honest...if you see a video of someone doing the ice bucket challenge and don't say what it's about, do you not know what it's about? Do you need EVERYONE to say what it's about to understand it? I know I don't. If I see someone dumping ice over their head in their front yard while I'm driving down the street, I don't need to stop and ask what they're doing it for. Because of this trend, this has now been something that's implied. It's like a logo. Most people know what the interlocking NY is for. Most people know what the swoosh represents. As well as the golden arches. That is a HUGE deal.
0
And those are 2 different examples. One supports calling attention to yourself as long as you're spreading the message and the other is against it regardless of it raising awareness or not.
Lets be honest...if you see a video of someone doing the ice bucket challenge and don't say what it's about, do you not know what it's about? Do you need EVERYONE to say what it's about to understand it? I know I don't. If I see someone dumping ice over their head in their front yard while I'm driving down the street, I don't need to stop and ask what they're doing it for. Because of this trend, this has now been something that's implied. It's like a logo. Most people know what the interlocking NY is for. Most people know what the swoosh represents. As well as the golden arches. That is a HUGE deal.
I asked 7 people last night what ALS is and not one knew--but they all knew about the challenge, thus the challenge is meaningless. They all also said that if you took the challenge you didn't have to make a donation.
0
I asked 7 people last night what ALS is and not one knew--but they all knew about the challenge, thus the challenge is meaningless. They all also said that if you took the challenge you didn't have to make a donation.
This is the lizard brain thinking that dominates our society. The "who cares as long it's accomplish something" mindset. Who cares about the method/means. Who cares about who's doing it.
So if Phillip Morris executives dumped iced water over themselves in order to help lung cancer research, we should praise them for it? Or Dow Chemicals writing a check for a few thousand dollars to help research of helping endangered sea gulls?
And to bring "awareness" or "talk about" something doesn't mean it will solve anything. We've been talking about the poor education system for decades. Same goes with the struggling middle class, immigration, government debt, health care, unemployment....
So, it would be better if folks had not donated the 41.8 mill? Not sure what you mean.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyClay:
This is the lizard brain thinking that dominates our society. The "who cares as long it's accomplish something" mindset. Who cares about the method/means. Who cares about who's doing it.
So if Phillip Morris executives dumped iced water over themselves in order to help lung cancer research, we should praise them for it? Or Dow Chemicals writing a check for a few thousand dollars to help research of helping endangered sea gulls?
And to bring "awareness" or "talk about" something doesn't mean it will solve anything. We've been talking about the poor education system for decades. Same goes with the struggling middle class, immigration, government debt, health care, unemployment....
So, it would be better if folks had not donated the 41.8 mill? Not sure what you mean.
I asked 7 people last night what ALS is and not one knew--but they all knew about the challenge, thus the challenge is meaningless. They all also said that if you took the challenge you didn't have to make a donation.
And that is my gripe about this. If you take the challenge, you're supposed to donate $10. If you don't, you're supposed to donate $100.
However, you are wrong that the challenge is meaningless and the $41.8 million that has been donated over the past month is all the stat anyone needs. Just because the 7 people you talked to doesn't know what ALS is doesn't mean the 7 random people I could talk to have the same lack of knowledge. It's not a coincidence that there are 739,000 new donors ever since this trend started. As KBrick said...if 10 people do the challenge and only 1 person knows to donate...that's 1 more person donating than there was had there not been the challenge.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:
I asked 7 people last night what ALS is and not one knew--but they all knew about the challenge, thus the challenge is meaningless. They all also said that if you took the challenge you didn't have to make a donation.
And that is my gripe about this. If you take the challenge, you're supposed to donate $10. If you don't, you're supposed to donate $100.
However, you are wrong that the challenge is meaningless and the $41.8 million that has been donated over the past month is all the stat anyone needs. Just because the 7 people you talked to doesn't know what ALS is doesn't mean the 7 random people I could talk to have the same lack of knowledge. It's not a coincidence that there are 739,000 new donors ever since this trend started. As KBrick said...if 10 people do the challenge and only 1 person knows to donate...that's 1 more person donating than there was had there not been the challenge.
Yup. And KBrick and I are still fighting the people who say it's a waste. The difference is...our stats of donations keep increasing so I feel like any argument against the challenge is invalid.
Yup. And KBrick and I are still fighting the people who say it's a waste. The difference is...our stats of donations keep increasing so I feel like any argument against the challenge is invalid.
Just donate the money. Ya see these celebs are only donating because they can be seen while doing it. ALS has been around for decades, where were these donations then?
0
Just donate the money. Ya see these celebs are only donating because they can be seen while doing it. ALS has been around for decades, where were these donations then?
Just donate the money. Ya see these celebs are only donating because they can be seen while doing it. ALS has been around for decades, where were these donations then?
I don't see why this matters. If this is getting people to donate, the question is, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Oprah did the challenge. Lets say this is the first time she's donated to ALS. Does that mean she's less charitable than someone who donated without the challenge in year's past?
You have people who are starving for attention on every social media platform around and are willing to do some incredibly stupid things to get that attention. Your time is better spent complaining about those people than these.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
Just donate the money. Ya see these celebs are only donating because they can be seen while doing it. ALS has been around for decades, where were these donations then?
I don't see why this matters. If this is getting people to donate, the question is, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Oprah did the challenge. Lets say this is the first time she's donated to ALS. Does that mean she's less charitable than someone who donated without the challenge in year's past?
You have people who are starving for attention on every social media platform around and are willing to do some incredibly stupid things to get that attention. Your time is better spent complaining about those people than these.
And I talked about Justin Bieber in the other thread. People are always complaining about celebrities like him who just do stupid things and wish they used their celebrity status for something good. Well...he took the challenge and challenged his "Beliebers." I'm sure nobody on here liked Bieber but you know his following is absolutely remarkable so I checked his Twitter account and he's retweeting a bunch of people who are doing the challenge. And I noticed that a lot of the retweets were actually pictures of their ALS Donations instead of them doing the challenge.
So that is a good reason for these celebs to do this. Sure some are just hungry for attention but with every celebrity is a cult following of some sort and if they do it, much of their following will say "we have to do it, too." And if that's the case...AWESOME.
0
And I talked about Justin Bieber in the other thread. People are always complaining about celebrities like him who just do stupid things and wish they used their celebrity status for something good. Well...he took the challenge and challenged his "Beliebers." I'm sure nobody on here liked Bieber but you know his following is absolutely remarkable so I checked his Twitter account and he's retweeting a bunch of people who are doing the challenge. And I noticed that a lot of the retweets were actually pictures of their ALS Donations instead of them doing the challenge.
So that is a good reason for these celebs to do this. Sure some are just hungry for attention but with every celebrity is a cult following of some sort and if they do it, much of their following will say "we have to do it, too." And if that's the case...AWESOME.
I asked 7 people last night what ALS is and not one knew--but they all knew about the challenge, thus the challenge is meaningless. They all also said that if you took the challenge you didn't have to make a donation.
You should probably stop talking to 2nd graders.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:
I asked 7 people last night what ALS is and not one knew--but they all knew about the challenge, thus the challenge is meaningless. They all also said that if you took the challenge you didn't have to make a donation.
And that is my gripe about this. If you take the challenge, you're supposed to donate $10. If you don't, you're supposed to donate $100.
However, you are wrong that the challenge is meaningless and the $41.8 million that has been donated over the past month is all the stat anyone needs. Just because the 7 people you talked to doesn't know what ALS is doesn't mean the 7 random people I could talk to have the same lack of knowledge. It's not a coincidence that there are 739,000 new donors ever since this trend started. As KBrick said...if 10 people do the challenge and only 1 person knows to donate...that's 1 more person donating than there was had there not been the challenge.
Well said.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sparky10191:
And that is my gripe about this. If you take the challenge, you're supposed to donate $10. If you don't, you're supposed to donate $100.
However, you are wrong that the challenge is meaningless and the $41.8 million that has been donated over the past month is all the stat anyone needs. Just because the 7 people you talked to doesn't know what ALS is doesn't mean the 7 random people I could talk to have the same lack of knowledge. It's not a coincidence that there are 739,000 new donors ever since this trend started. As KBrick said...if 10 people do the challenge and only 1 person knows to donate...that's 1 more person donating than there was had there not been the challenge.
ALL research money is a waste. There is a reason none of these diseases that have been around so many years have never been cured. The pharmo-industrial complex will never permit it.
You may feel good about your donations but they are worthless.
0
ALL research money is a waste. There is a reason none of these diseases that have been around so many years have never been cured. The pharmo-industrial complex will never permit it.
You may feel good about your donations but they are worthless.
My friend nominated me for this, I declined to pour water on myself and just gave $120 donation. I think it's a cool idea to spread awareness but I am sick of seeing the water videos
0
My friend nominated me for this, I declined to pour water on myself and just gave $120 donation. I think it's a cool idea to spread awareness but I am sick of seeing the water videos
When you donate money to 'fight' diseases, that money goes to the pharmo-industrial CORPORATIONS (minus all the money siphoned off to go to advertisers and fund managers and politicians).
You don't donate money to all the other corporations, so why do you donate to the pharmo-industrial corporations? They make enough by selling their products. You don't donate to the oil companies or the fast food companies or Nike or any others.
0
When you donate money to 'fight' diseases, that money goes to the pharmo-industrial CORPORATIONS (minus all the money siphoned off to go to advertisers and fund managers and politicians).
You don't donate money to all the other corporations, so why do you donate to the pharmo-industrial corporations? They make enough by selling their products. You don't donate to the oil companies or the fast food companies or Nike or any others.
And that is my gripe about this. If you take the challenge, you're supposed to donate $10. If you don't, you're supposed to donate $100.
However, you are wrong that the challenge is meaningless and the $41.8 million that has been donated over the past month is all the stat anyone needs. Just because the 7 people you talked to doesn't know what ALS is doesn't mean the 7 random people I could talk to have the same lack of knowledge. It's not a coincidence that there are 739,000 new donors ever since this trend started. As KBrick said...if 10 people do the challenge and only 1 person knows to donate...that's 1 more person donating than there was had there not been the challenge.
Maybe I am wrong---but I think his point is that it is just simply a fad right now and will fade. Your point is it doesn't matter what the reason (or if anyone even knows), money is being raised for a good cause. I think both points are correct.
I can tell you I had no idea what the reason for the challenge was, and certainly didn't know that it was raising money for a cause. Certainly, I don't keep up on celebrity-type gossip, etc that well. But lots of folks at work didn't know until someone explained it to us today.
For example, I had seen the title of this thread but never clicked on it until today because I assumed it was a youtube faze or something like that.
So, I am not sure how long it lasts or if it really is bringing the awareness it should. Maybe it gets bigger and lasts, like the pink ribbons, etc. But, of course, it is good it is raising money.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Sparky10191:
And that is my gripe about this. If you take the challenge, you're supposed to donate $10. If you don't, you're supposed to donate $100.
However, you are wrong that the challenge is meaningless and the $41.8 million that has been donated over the past month is all the stat anyone needs. Just because the 7 people you talked to doesn't know what ALS is doesn't mean the 7 random people I could talk to have the same lack of knowledge. It's not a coincidence that there are 739,000 new donors ever since this trend started. As KBrick said...if 10 people do the challenge and only 1 person knows to donate...that's 1 more person donating than there was had there not been the challenge.
Maybe I am wrong---but I think his point is that it is just simply a fad right now and will fade. Your point is it doesn't matter what the reason (or if anyone even knows), money is being raised for a good cause. I think both points are correct.
I can tell you I had no idea what the reason for the challenge was, and certainly didn't know that it was raising money for a cause. Certainly, I don't keep up on celebrity-type gossip, etc that well. But lots of folks at work didn't know until someone explained it to us today.
For example, I had seen the title of this thread but never clicked on it until today because I assumed it was a youtube faze or something like that.
So, I am not sure how long it lasts or if it really is bringing the awareness it should. Maybe it gets bigger and lasts, like the pink ribbons, etc. But, of course, it is good it is raising money.
My larger problem with this is how it is a spectacle and how people need some gimmick to get involved.
Also, if anyone here thinks that 40M or 400M or 400B is going to find a cure, they are not thinking clearly. The money raised will go to biotech and research firms to keep looking, looking and looking and looking. I would be shocked if anything came out of this from a research perspective. If they find a "cure" then the game is over and corporations lose this source of revenue.
0
My larger problem with this is how it is a spectacle and how people need some gimmick to get involved.
Also, if anyone here thinks that 40M or 400M or 400B is going to find a cure, they are not thinking clearly. The money raised will go to biotech and research firms to keep looking, looking and looking and looking. I would be shocked if anything came out of this from a research perspective. If they find a "cure" then the game is over and corporations lose this source of revenue.
Also, if anyone here thinks that 40M or 400M or 400B is going to find a cure, they are not thinking clearly. The money raised will go to biotech and research firms to keep looking, looking and looking and looking. I would be shocked if anything came out of this from a research perspective. If they find a "cure" then the game is over and corporations lose this source of revenue.
Isn't this very glass half-empty. Doesn't it dismiss the fact that we have found cures for many other things or that we have many sincere people that really are trying to find a cure? Or that they could make money off of the cure itself? People always say this sort of thing as if there is evidence of it. Say they knew a guy that had invented a gasoline-free car and Big Three bought him out and destroyed blueprints. Say guy had invented this or that and was gonna put businesses out of work, etc. Had him done away with.
Do you realize how much money there would be in being the one, or the company, that found a cure for this or cancer?! Yet, folks still say there is no real push for it because Pharma and Big Companies make too much money the way it is. You can be assured if the Big Companies don't find a cure (on purpose), somone, somewhere is trying (on purpose) to find a cure. So, yes, the money in the right place will help in the end. Maybe I am too half-full glass guy.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Also, if anyone here thinks that 40M or 400M or 400B is going to find a cure, they are not thinking clearly. The money raised will go to biotech and research firms to keep looking, looking and looking and looking. I would be shocked if anything came out of this from a research perspective. If they find a "cure" then the game is over and corporations lose this source of revenue.
Isn't this very glass half-empty. Doesn't it dismiss the fact that we have found cures for many other things or that we have many sincere people that really are trying to find a cure? Or that they could make money off of the cure itself? People always say this sort of thing as if there is evidence of it. Say they knew a guy that had invented a gasoline-free car and Big Three bought him out and destroyed blueprints. Say guy had invented this or that and was gonna put businesses out of work, etc. Had him done away with.
Do you realize how much money there would be in being the one, or the company, that found a cure for this or cancer?! Yet, folks still say there is no real push for it because Pharma and Big Companies make too much money the way it is. You can be assured if the Big Companies don't find a cure (on purpose), somone, somewhere is trying (on purpose) to find a cure. So, yes, the money in the right place will help in the end. Maybe I am too half-full glass guy.
that's has been my point. Any person who is charitable with genuine intention will quietly donate and not tell the world about it. Do you really need a "fun reason" in order to be motivated enough to do good deed?
0
wallstreet,
that's has been my point. Any person who is charitable with genuine intention will quietly donate and not tell the world about it. Do you really need a "fun reason" in order to be motivated enough to do good deed?
My larger problem with this is how it is a spectacle and how people need some gimmick to get involved.
Also, if anyone here thinks that 40M or 400M or 400B is going to find a cure, they are not thinking clearly. The money raised will go to biotech and research firms to keep looking, looking and looking and looking. I would be shocked if anything came out of this from a research perspective. If they find a "cure" then the game is over and corporations lose this source of revenue.
Bingo
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
My larger problem with this is how it is a spectacle and how people need some gimmick to get involved.
Also, if anyone here thinks that 40M or 400M or 400B is going to find a cure, they are not thinking clearly. The money raised will go to biotech and research firms to keep looking, looking and looking and looking. I would be shocked if anything came out of this from a research perspective. If they find a "cure" then the game is over and corporations lose this source of revenue.
When you donate money to 'fight' diseases, that money goes to the pharmo-industrial CORPORATIONS (minus all the money siphoned off to go to advertisers and fund managers and politicians).
You don't donate money to all the other corporations, so why do you donate to the pharmo-industrial corporations? They make enough by selling their products. You don't donate to the oil companies or the fast food companies or Nike or any others.
I guess that's why there is no cure for breast cancer.
Oh wait...
Not all diseases are a death sentence. Why? Because cures have been found over time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:
When you donate money to 'fight' diseases, that money goes to the pharmo-industrial CORPORATIONS (minus all the money siphoned off to go to advertisers and fund managers and politicians).
You don't donate money to all the other corporations, so why do you donate to the pharmo-industrial corporations? They make enough by selling their products. You don't donate to the oil companies or the fast food companies or Nike or any others.
I guess that's why there is no cure for breast cancer.
Oh wait...
Not all diseases are a death sentence. Why? Because cures have been found over time.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
