dude, picture that in your head, that's a fucking lot of people who DO donate.

almost 1 in 4 people hand shit out to you for free. Holy shit I wish I could get that kind of treatment.

All I know is 10 in 10 purchase I make I have to pay stupid tax
10 in 10 employers I know will not give you freebies for fun

grow the fuck up. We live in the most expensive to live in city with the lowest minimum wage of all provinces. Just shut up already. If any province needs donation we should get donation from Albertans.

i've got no issues with people who can't afford to donate.... engrish much?


as i've stated... most comments in RS threads about the needy are about how the needy deserve to be needy because they got themselves into that situation

so im not surprised if most people in bc have the same mentality

my comments have NOTHING, NOTHING to do with people who can't afford to donate

Have you read Freakanomics or Super Freakanomics?

The sequel has an entire chapter about how generous people are. The books looks at various studies, real world and lab, of how people handle giving money away. It was very interesting to see that:
- If you gave someone $20 and asked them to give another person some of it, they would give some money away.
- If you gave 2 people $20, and told one that they could give or take money from the other then some people gave yet more people took
- If you gave 2 people $20, and told one that they could give or take money from the other, yet the other worked hard and earned it, then most people didn't exchange any money

Basically it comes down to:
- if you have extra money, you'll give some away
- if you see others have the same money, you'll likely find a way to take their money
- if you see others earned their money, then life is good

My biggest problem with charities is I don't think most who get the support of the charity need it. Charities that sponsor medical research I completely agree with, yet food/clothing/homeless charities tend to get abused by those who aren't really needy. Sure some are needy, yet those who aren't trigger my "you didn't earn it" mentality and I don't donate.

Does anyone here donate blood?

this thread is getting outta control... i will donate these 2 videos into this thread


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO0Q2yu1pzk&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Ufv65L39s

I guess 1 of the biggest problem about charity organizations is their lack of transparency. No 1 really knows how much of their proceeds are put towards their actual cause. In fact, no 1 really ask them to show the world how they allocate their money. I think people will be more comfortable at donating their hard earned cash if charity organizations are more transparent.

And the other thing that really gets me is who are really in need? I believe people who are genuinely unfortunate deserves our help. But what about those who fucked up their own lives themselves. Those single moms who had 10 kids with 10 different men and are now having trouble supporting her "family". Are they really in need? Why do we have to pay for their mistakes? Why is it that these ppl can screw themselves over but those of us to lead a good life have to be suck with the bill?

I still dont see anything wrong with a 23% donatation percentage.

Exactly, 23% of the entire population doesnt mean anything cuz bums & ppl living in poverty are not capable of donating and should not be counted.

I agree with this,
In one of my marketing classes our instructor told us how some charities really waste their money. She used to donate to a specific charity but stopped because she wasn't able to do so. She told the charity she would no longer donate. However, the charity tried so hard to get her back as a "donor" (if thats a word) that they kept sending this marketing collateral to her like t-shirts, mugs, etc. with the charity's name on it for several years now. The moral of this is that some charities don't know how to allocate their budget. Some spend too much of their donations trying to retrieve "donors" and ultimately hinder the amount of money they give to the people that need it.
The problem is that some of them don't have properly trained people in economics that see the equalibrium between spending marketing dollars and receiving donations. :rolleyes:

yeah i don't care, am i supposed to?

its your money, you spend it the way you want to.

doesn't mean your cold hearted, stuck up, or ignorant.

do you have trouble relating to people? it must be hard to make friends with that high horse you're always on top of.

you're sort of missing the point :P

and no ive got no trouble, thx :)

You have good English skill so you shouldn't have been confused if you actually read the original article prior to reading my post. Didn't you see any relationship between the 23% I stated and the 23% stated in the original article? Obviously I meant 23% of all ppl actually donated to the ppl in need. Fine, I may have been a little unclear there since I was in a hurry, but you have great English so you should've figured it out.

BTW for all those rs members reading this, becareful of StylinRed word tricks. Like I said, he has good English Skill. He is able to use "Logical Fallacies" in the stuff he writes. The one he used in the above quote is called "Slippery Slope."
23% donation rate != how much money should people be giving.
Please don't get fooled by StylinRed's definition.

You got the wrong idea bro. I too dislike those ppl who have mountains of money but don't donate.
In my original post I don't recall harping on you. I only said you sicken me and said you are stupid after you called me stupid first. In fact, I think i said more good things about you than negative things. I called you a baller + smart, and said you have good English skill.

Originally, I failed you because you thought 23% (23/100ppl) was not good enough for expensive-living Vancouver. Again, I seriously don't see what's wrong with 23%. In fact, I'm quite happy to hear this news. So you still haven't answered my original question. What is an acceptable percentage?

You understood half of my point earlier.
Your previous post told me these things: you didn't think 23% was acceptable, you jumped to a conclusion for most ppl in vancouver based on a few negative posts in RS, and the "most ppl" includes ppl who have money but don't donate as well as people who don't have money and don't donate. I was defending those people who don't have money and don't donate.

Thank you for double checking with me before you make an ass out of you and me. I did not mean to say anyone on RS is poor. Your post originally told me that the "most ppl" includes both rich and poor. Hence, I included bums in my post. You should've figured this out since you're smart.

Why would you say something like this to anyone? You really do sicken me. You know, I think I've said more good things about you than bad things. Why are you acting like this?
Also, stop using logical fallacies. You just used "False Dilemma - Either/Or." In other words, you just characterized me in the above quote with two options when reality there are more.


I think you're a nice guy in real life, but you need to bullying me. This is a debate, not a fight where you kill the other person and win.

rofl ok ok im sorry orange7

i just become a big ass when im bored and my postings of late should show im really bored


and i think the logical answer for an acceptable rate would be 100% of ppl donate even if you're poor (as long as you're not homeless) you can still offer some change