|
Osaka27115 Posts
On October 09 2008 02:20 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 00:49 children_in_need wrote: I have to vent this off, even though I am fully aware that this account will get banned and this post most likely get nuked, just like a critic in a totalitarian regime most likely gets imprisoned or killed. Maybe thats why I didnt post on my real account. Just to comment on this, I think that comparing this forum to some oppressive regime is just ridiculous. If you voice your legitimate criticisms in a reasonable and non-incendiary way, like you did, nobody is going to ban you. I think posting "anonymously" and hiding your real id removes weight and significance from your criticism. But its your choice, just letting you know there's no way we would ban you for a post like yours.
I would totally ban him for it. Spineless entities are always banned. Isn't the unofficial eleventh commandment that you must have vertebra?
Besides, the whole argument is flawed. It is basically saying that children who are in clinics should not get any charity until all the uninsured kids get brought to their level, all the kids in Africa get to their level, and all the other "more important" problems of the world get solved too.
I suggest our anonymous troll go spend some time in a children's hospital like my daughter did in January. Then he will realize that it is not about your perceived bias and level of importance, it is about difference making. Saying we aren't making the "right kind" of difference is the type of narrow-minded thinking that creates problems, not helps them.
|
TL.net: Killing starving children since 2002.
|
Braavos36362 Posts
You'd think someone so "informed" would consider the true cost of his post, which is basically trying killing the sentiment and enthusiasm behind the auction and discourage people from donating. Let's turn the thread into a debate about which charity is best! That surely will help the plight of kids everywhere.
|
I probly should state my opinion a bit clearer.
If I picked the charity, I'd very likely pick a different one.
However, I don't agree with the level/type of criticism on this choice. Like I said to HotBid, I don't think our critic sincerely means all his word; in my opinion, the extra spicy words were an attempt to draw some attention.. it's all benign in my opinion.
|
United States7488 Posts
On October 07 2008 19:21 Darusha wrote: If only they delivering to anything other then United states i would bid . We will ship internationally.
|
16945 Posts
On October 09 2008 07:35 niteReloaded wrote: in my opinion, the extra spicy words were an attempt to draw some attention.. it's all benign in my opinion.
Bullshit. He's very obviously trying to dampen enthusiasm for the auction. For example, if you were running an auction and someone posts all over the public comment space that the proceeds you would get are actually going to be used to make a machine that kill baby deer and make them into earmuffs, and that he had "credible sources" and did his "research" and sites three articles which really have nothing to do with the issue at hand, would that really be benign?
The fact of the matter is, it appears that he's trying to dissuade people from participating in the auction, or at least to second guess themselves. It's almost like he considers himself some sort of absolute authority on morals and is telling people that if he doesn't agree with the charity, then fuck it, no one should donate at all.
What a fucking retard. At least grow a pair and don't hide behind some useless aka..."children_in_need"? Why don't you go and take out a second mortgage on your house, give it all to whatever charity you deem appropriate, fly over to Africa and spend the rest of your life building hospitals for dying children. Or are they not needy enough to warrant that from you?
Asshole.
EDIT: Oh, uh...my post sort of turned into a rant on children_in_need. I think why I quoted niteReloaded was to just disagree with him, and then I kind of got worked up and started talking about children_in_need. So yeah, I'm not attacking niteReloaded. Haha :D
|
Osaka27115 Posts
|
Wow Manifesto, thats awesome.
|
gah. people will read all of that idiot's posts (referring to children_in_need or w.e). that just ruins the mood and might sway away people who might potentially donate. can we hide them or is that unethical?
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
i'm pretty sure anyone who reads his post is gonna be able to figure out that he's a retard
|
On October 09 2008 10:30 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i'm pretty sure anyone who reads his post is gonna be able to figure out that he's a retard
and If they don't, they probably aren't smart enough to figure out how to bid anyways. It's a win-win situation.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
1300 could have bought us alot of booze....shit
|
What me and niteReloaded (I think we share the same opinion) are saying is just that instead of bashing the guy who made the critics (tho he should have been more respectful and comprehensible) aimlessly we should try to find a bright side in every little thing and take only the good side of his argument. So instead of leaving this discussion with nothing but a headache, we could leave with a new lesson learned that we could use to improve ourselves.
Of course that a donation to child's play is better than no donation to child's play. But maybe, if we ever get the chance to do something similar to this again, we should just look a little bit deeper into donation options. The critic guy should also learn and be more polite to TL.
|
On October 09 2008 07:06 SonuvBob wrote: TL.net: Killing starving children since 2002.
I never realized how much I was missing out by not finding TL earlier until this auction.
|
|
|
455 for savior..
nice
Edit: ah apparently that's old news. also good that blizzard gave a shoutout to this
|
First of all I'd like to apologize for my argument that donating nothing at all is better than donating to Child's Play. As niteReloaded pointed out, it was partly due to the fact that I wanted to put some "spice" into my post and provoke some thinking on the matter. Partly it was due to the fact I am a person who gets really emotionally worked up on moral issues and after I had spent hours researching the US health care system and checking every single hospital donated to by Child's Play, finding out they are all private, I was heated up. After a good night's rest and some distance to the topic, I think we can all agree on the fact that donating money is always better than not donating any money at all.
I regret having posted this part, because many people took it out of context and solely responded to that (flawed) part of my post. I also don't feel morally superior or am saying that I am a morally perfect person, although I try to live up to my own moral standards as much as I can. I could go into detail on that, but it would further distract from my core argument and I dont want this discussion to be about my person, or any person at all to be specific. If you think its hippocritic than so be it, but imo its no more hippocritic than critizising a politic for his actions when u sit on your comfy chair and aren't politically involved and active member of a political organization or than FakeSteve critizising progamers on powerrank. If criticism like this wouldn't be tolerated our society would be pretty backwards.
My core argument, like people as GrInq obviously have understood, is just that I think that tl.net could have done much better by spending to a more "deserving "(in lack of a better word) charity. I think the argument that this is a gaming website and thus needs to donate to a gaming related charity organization is flawed. Maybe we can relate better to a gruesome hospital stay which was made better for us when we could play on our gameboy (In fact I had such a stay in a hospital as a child). But I would be ashamed of myself If that would mean I couldn't feel more pity for someone not being born in a wealthy country and starving to death, or some immigrant child being refused proper treatment cus of uninsuredness. In fact, again like others said, a ton of people come to mind that need help more than a kid needs a videogame in a hospital. If I would not have had the chance to play a videogame as a kid in hospital because some donators decided to give it to those people, I certainly would have understood and approved of their decision when I had grewn up. In moral issues, I think we should consider ourselves humans first and foremost and not gamers.
Here is a story which probably helps further explaining my standpoint: My aunt and uncle are veterinarians. They are at the receiving end of charity coming from rich widows of their city, which pay for veterenarian bills for animals of homeless people. They told me myself that they sometimes feel bad when a homeless guy comes in and gets his dog treated, but is obviously in such a condition that he would need health treatment as well, but there isn't enough charity being spent to organizations who would finance that treatment. Obviously those old women can relate more to the poor animals than to a "bum" (in the case they dont as well donate to those organizations, which at least some of them don't im sure). In reference to this case, don't you think some doctors probably feel bad when they have to release a sick child earlier than they should, cus the coverage of the insurance or the financial funds from donations isnt enough and on the same day, they bring in a brand new xbox to a kid being lucky enough to have had a donator buy it for them on Child's Play?
In the end I think this is still awesome by tl.net, but imo tl.net also missed a huge chance to really do a glorious deed that would have shone far beyond the gaming community. Maybe some people that don't have to do anything with gaming would have said "wow look at those gamers! they even care about pressing problems in the world!".
It doesnt mean this charity auction is worth nothing at all, but it could have been worth a lot more.
PS: Manis response disappoints me. It also proves me right in my decision to stay anonymous. Cus in the end, it doesn't matter if the majority of mods think its not ban-worthy, as long as I rub one mod the wrong way, I get banned. And I think I can safely assume that no mod would risk their status and start a fight within the mods crew to resurrect a banned user or a deleted thread which they think got banned or deleted unrightfully.
PPS: For all the people flaming me and calling me a retard, maybe you should stay out of a serious discussion like this, as your obviously too immature to contribute something meaningful.
|
On October 09 2008 21:24 children_in_need_2 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +First of all I'd like to apologize for my argument that donating nothing at all is better than donating to Child's Play. As niteReloaded pointed out, it was partly due to the fact that I wanted to put some "spice" into my post and provoke some thinking on the matter. Partly it was due to the fact I am a person who gets really emotionally worked up on moral issues and after I had spent hours researching the US health care system and checking every single hospital donated to by Child's Play, finding out they are all private, I was heated up. After a good night's rest and some distance to the topic, I think we can all agree on the fact that donating money is always better than not donating any money at all.
I regret having posted this part, because many people took it out of context and solely responded to that (flawed) part of my post. I also don't feel morally superior or am saying that I am a morally perfect person, although I try to live up to my own moral standards as much as I can. I could go into detail on that, but it would further distract from my core argument and I dont want this discussion to be about my person, or any person at all to be specific. If you think its hippocritic than so be it, but imo its no more hippocritic than critizising a politic for his actions when u sit on your comfy chair and aren't politically involved and active member of a political organization or than FakeSteve critizising progamers on powerrank. If criticism like this wouldn't be tolerated our society would be pretty backwards.
My core argument, like people as GrInq obviously have understood, is just that I think that tl.net could have done much better by spending to a more "deserving "(in lack of a better word) charity. I think the argument that this is a gaming website and thus needs to donate to a gaming related charity organization is flawed. Maybe we can relate better to a gruesome hospital stay which was made better for us when we could play on our gameboy (In fact I had such a stay in a hospital as a child). But I would be ashamed of myself If that would mean I couldn't feel more pity for someone not being born in a wealthy country and starving to death, or some immigrant child being refused proper treatment cus of uninsuredness. In fact, again like others said, a ton of people come to mind that need help more than a kid needs a videogame in a hospital. If I would not have had the chance to play a videogame as a kid in hospital because some donators decided to give it to those people, I certainly would have understood and approved of their decision when I had grewn up. In moral issues, I think we should consider ourselves humans first and foremost and not gamers.
Here is a story which probably helps further explaining my standpoint: My aunt and uncle are veterinarians. They are at the receiving end of charity coming from rich widows of their city, which pay for veterenarian bills for animals of homeless people. They told me myself that they sometimes feel bad when a homeless guy comes in and gets his dog treated, but is obviously in such a condition that he would need health treatment as well, but there isn't enough charity being spent to organizations who would finance that treatment. Obviously those old women can relate more to the poor animals than to a "bum" (in the case they dont as well donate to those organizations, which at least some of them don't im sure). In reference to this case, don't you think some doctors probably feel bad when they have to release a sick child earlier than they should, cus the coverage of the insurance or the financial funds from donations isnt enough and on the same day, they bring in a brand new xbox to a kid being lucky enough to have had a donator buy it for them on Child's Play?
In the end I think this is still awesome by tl.net, but imo tl.net also missed a huge chance to really do a glorious deed that would have shone far beyond the gaming community. Maybe some people that don't have to do anything with gaming would have said "wow look at those gamers! they even care about pressing problems in the world!".
It doesnt mean this charity auction is worth nothing at all, but it could have been worth a lot more.
PS: Manis response disappoints me. It also proves me right in my decision to stay anonymous. Cus in the end, it doesn't matter if the majority of mods think its not ban-worthy, as long as I rub one mod the wrong way, I get banned. And I think I can safely assume that no mod would risk their status and start a fight within the mods crew to resurrect a banned user or a deleted thread which they think got banned or deleted unrightfully.
PPS: For all the people flaming me and calling me a retard, maybe you should stay out of a serious discussion like this, as your obviously too immature to contribute something meaningful.
You cannot rank charities in an absolute measure with regard to "relief delivered" or something like that although there definitely is a difference between saving a human being from starvation and giving a child a PSP or something comparable but these gaming devices will not only benefit one child but multiple in the future.
However, I think it is perfectly justifiable that TL chose Child's Play and will give them the raised money. TL is not raising millions of dollars either, so why have lengthy discussion about this, when you could focus your energy on something else?
|
I think he has a point. I kind of agree that there are better uses for the money than Child's Play. I understand its gaming related but I just personally don't agree with the way they use charitable donations, so I'm not likely to bid on any of these auctions (plus they very quickly went higher than I could afford)
But if you really look at any charity, there are always better uses for your money. You don't know what exactly your money goes to when you give to large organizations like Red Cross etc, but you know it's going to help more than a somewhat frivolous charity like this one in particular.
It's a great idea though and I hope we can see it again with new pro gamer merchandise in the future. And if that happens I don't see his posts as trolling if that means the next time around it goes to a better cause.
|
|
|
|