The Reven Pack Raises Over $2 Million in Support of CureDuchenne

[Kaleredar]

That's just whatabouism. You don't know him and you don't know how he is helping on his level. What you can pretty much assume, however, is that he's not a billionaire or a huge corporations with all the resources in the world. Corporatios that already got all the money required to help deserving causes (like the one here) but instead choose to gain easy public perception points, all while adopting greedier and greedier practices to fill the insatiable hunger of their executives.

they can feel free to refute me.

...which... they didn't. They just posted a link to a tax filing with no context to imply some sort of malfeasance on Cureduchenne's part.

He does and you should to. Would you applaude a man with an full bottle because he's giving a drop a water to a thirtsy child ?

How much did you give to that thirsty child?

You know how much money Cureduchenne would have if Blizzard hadn't done this charity event? At least 2 million fewer dollars. If you asked Cureduchenne "hey would you rather get 2 million dollars, or zero dollars?" I'm pretty sure I can guess their answer.

- - - Updated - - -

"But I'm hungry NOW!" says the man, demanding the fish. And will forever remain reliant on you being there deciding to give him a fish, because you refused to teach him to fish since "what does the man suffering from hunger need right now?"

Geez, man.

No, my example makes perfect sense. Because the opposite in the parable is "teaching a man to fish." But you're not doing that, even. So absent teaching the man to fish which as we've established you're not doing, I'm sure he'd damn well rather have the fish than a vague placation that it's unfair he has to fish.

[Zardas]

they can feel free to refute me.

And you're free to not start assuming things about people.

How much did you give to that thirsty child?

Again, whatabouism. It's not about me, it's about the large corporations with way enough means to cover whatever need they have. The issue being that said need more often rythme with "illing up the executive's yachts" than with "ving money to deserving causes".

You know how much money Cureduchenne would have if Blizzard hadn't done this charity event? At least 2 million fewer dollars. If you asked Cureduchenne "hey would you rather get 2 million dollars, or zero dollars?" I'm pretty sure I can guess their answer.:

And now you're creating false choices. There is not only two options available, it's not between 2 million or nothing.

To get back to the thirsty child example, the question is not "would you rather have this child get a drop of water or nothing ?". I want the child to get the whole fucking bottle, and I would accept nothing less. Just like you shouldn't accept anything less from Blizzard than a full commitement to these causes with all the means at their disposal.

Of course we can celebrate that this charity get 2 million, but we shouldn't forget that they could have (and should have) received much much more, nor should we pardon big corporations for creating the very need for these charity in the first place.

[vilememory]

Thank you MMO Champion for killing my faith in humanity and destroying any desire I had to helping people as this thread shows me it is either being exploited or useless.

[Al Gorefiend]

Thank you MMO Champion for killing my faith in humanity and destroying any desire I had to helping people as this thread shows me it is either being exploited or useless.

It took you up until this thread to lose faith in humanity? What a tame life.

[Hitei]

To get back to the thirsty child example, the question is not "would you rather have this child get a drop of water or nothing ?". I want the child to get the whole fucking bottle, and I would accept nothing less. Just like you shouldn't accept anything less from Blizzard than a full commitement to these causes with all the means at their disposal.

Of course we can celebrate that this charity get 2 million, but we shouldn't forget that they could have (and should have) received much much more, nor should we pardon big corporations for creating the very need for these charity in the first place.

It's not about me, it's about the large corporations with way enough means to cover whatever need they have.

Why should anyone be accepting nothing less from Blizzard but give you a free pass? Both of you are making the deliberate choice to not use your excess to help other people.

It's not about whataboutism, it's about hypocrisy. The old adage about stones and glass houses.

[Kaleredar]

And you're free to not start assuming things about people.

The clod I quoted came into a thread about successfully raising money to help cure a and started slinging accusations.

I'll assume what I damn well please about them.

Again, whatabouism. It's not about me, it's about the large corporations with way enough means to cover whatever need they have. The issue being that said need more often rythme with "illing up the executive's yachts" than with "ving money to deserving causes".

Seeing as you're the guy flying in with the problem about how much money you think should've been given, it seems very much like you are making it about you.

And now you're creating false choices. There is not only two options available, it's not between 2 million or nothing.

To get back to the thirsty child example, the question is not "would you rather have this child get a drop of water or nothing ?". I want the child to get the whole fucking bottle, and I would accept nothing less. Just like you shouldn't accept anything less from Blizzard than a full commitement to these causes with all the means at their disposal.

But here's the thing, in your example you're still not giving the child any water. You're just chastising someone else for giving someone who isn't you less than you think this other person needs, while also not giving that person anything. You aren't the thirsty child, and you aren't prepared to do anything about helping them.

So between the thirsty child, the person giving the child some water, and the third guy standing on the sideline going "hmmm I think that child needs more water, no I'm not going to give them any but look how much water person two has left over" I'll tell you who the biggest asshole in the room is and it ain't the first two people.

Of course we can celebrate that this charity get 2 million, but we shouldn't forget that they could have (and should have) received much much more, nor should we pardon big corporations for creating the very need for these charity in the first place.

Now who's creating false dichotomies?

Blizzard makes video games. To make video games they need money. To do research to cure Duchenne, they need money for said research . Therefore... More money to Blizzard... less money to Duchenne-curing research? That's your thesis, here?

That's utter nonsense. You could say that about any given thing versus any other thing. Every dollar spent making a movie is a dollar not spent feeding the homeless. Therefore, we shouldn't make movies. Every dollar I spent buying new shoes is money I didn't spend feeding the homeless, and money I spend feeding the homeless is money I can't spend on curing Duchenne. Or AIDS. Or any other societal ill.

Where does the chain end?

[munkeyinorbit]

...Where does the chain end?

How about we start with taking away incentives for corporate charity and just tax them as you would a normal individual? That will probably generate 100s of billions annually. If not then maybe we bring back the guillotine.

[Zardas]

Why should anyone be accepting nothing less from Blizzard but give you a free pass? Both of you are making the deliberate choice to not use your excess to help other people.

The excess is very much not the same. Again : you, me and all of the other in this thread (probably) are just regular people trying to live as best as possible with what they have. It's obvious that we shouldn't be held to the same standard than a multi-million dollar corporation with so much more means at its disposale.

I mean, if a man with one dollar in his pocket passed a homeless man without giving him money, would you find this as chocking than if a man with pocket overflowing from bills did the same ?

The clod I quoted came into a thread about successfully raising money to help cure a and started slinging accusations.

I'll assume what I damn well please about them.

Then you're not better than him.

Seeing as you're the guy flying in with the problem about how much money you think should've been given, it seems very much like you are making it about you.

Are you saying that you don't think that blizz should give more money to these kinds of charities ?

But here's the thing, in your example you're still not giving the child any water. You're just chastising someone else for giving someone who isn't you less than you think this other person needs, while also not giving that person anything. You aren't the thirsty child, and you aren't prepared to do anything about helping them.

So between the thirsty child, the person giving the child some water, and the third guy standing on the sideline going "hmmm I think that child needs more water, no I'm not going to give them any but look how much water person two has left over" I'll tell you who the biggest asshole in the room is and it ain't the first two people.

The detail you are conveniently ignoring is that, in this example, the dude "standing on the sideline" has barely enough water to sustain himself (while the first has a fully filled 2 liters water bottle). Again, people's responsibilities are dependant of their means.

Now who's creating false dichotomies?

Blizzard makes video games. To make video games they need money. To do research to cure Duchenne, they need money for said research . Therefore... More money to Blizzard... less money to Duchenne-curing research? That's your thesis, here?

That's utter nonsense. You could say that about any given thing versus any other thing. Every dollar spent making a movie is a dollar not spent feeding the homeless. Therefore, we shouldn't make movies. Every dollar I spent buying new shoes is money I didn't spend feeding the homeless, and money I spend feeding the homeless is money I can't spend on curing Duchenne. Or AIDS. Or any other societal ill.

Where does the chain end?

I'm not complaining about the money going into the development of the game not going into helping charities. I'm talking about all the money instead used to fill up the the yachts of the executives. That's where the chain ends, with this.

[Relapses]

How about we start with taking away incentives for corporate charity and just tax them as you would a normal individual? That will probably generate 100s of billions annually. If not then maybe we bring back the guillotine.

Perhaps the only sane suggestion in this entire thread.

Viva la Revolution!

[Kaleredar]

Then you're not better than him.

Stopped his little moral tirade against charity.

Besides, from what I could tell from his... extremely vague accusations... he seemed to be impugning the charity itself, not Blizzard, seeing as he linked the charity's financial statements.

Are you saying that you don't think that blizz should give more money to these kinds of charities ?

Couldn't that be said of anyone that could technically give "more money" than they're giving face the same criticism?

Unless you're going to go full "camel through the eye of a needle" here, I'd say 2 million dollars and heightened awareness of the cause is a pretty good turnout.

The detail you are conveniently ignoring is that, in this example, the dude "standing on the sideline" has barely enough water to sustain himself (while the first has a fully filled 2 liters water bottle). Again, people's responsibilities are dependant of their means.

You're assuming he barely has enough water, and what's the limit on "how much" water someone should give vis-a-vis the water they have? Is it a percentage? Should he give all the water that he doesn't technically need to survive to the thirsty child?

I'm not complaining about the money going into the development of the game not going into helping charities. I'm talking about all the money instead used to fill up the the yachts of the executives. That's where the chain ends, with this.

Then maybe name the executives instead of the charity drive itself.

[Biomega]

No, my example makes perfect sense. Because the opposite in the parable is "teaching a man to fish." But you're not doing that, even. So absent teaching the man to fish which as we've established you're not doing, I'm sure he'd damn well rather have the fish than a vague placation that it's unfair he has to fish.

I'm sorry, do you think the point of that parable is that that man specifically has to be the one to learn how to fish? And if it was, say, a child and you taught their parents to fish (rather than the child themselves) it wouldn't work? If that is the case you understand things even less than I thought.

The point of the parable is to value long-term solutions that effect systemic change: rather than having to rely on someone being there to give you fish (which they may decide to do or not to do) you are shifting towards a more stable supply of fish by learning how to fish.

That's exactly what we need to do in science and research: shift away from relying on the goodwill of charitable donations which may or may not be forthcoming and towards a steady apportionment of funds that creates long-term stability and certainty of purpose. Which is massively important in fields like medical research, because the whole reason we have a term like "orphan drugs" is because funding by for-profit agencies will naturally gravitate towards profitable research, and away from unprofitable research. And the only way to be more equitable is to have a system in place that's disinterested and neutral and hands out funding based on other criteria.

This, incidentally, is also how a lot of conservation efforts work with wildlife. Everyone donates to save tigers and pandas, but no one will donate to save some random Brazilian spider or whatever. And the way to solve this is to involve a disinterested party who can distribute funds in a neutral way, without relying on some public donor suddenly developing an intense emotional attachment to a Brazilian spider and giving money to save it. And in large parts, that is done by governments and other public funds, precisely because it's the best way to distribute this kind of resource.

The whole debate about who gets to give how much and whatnot and whether we need to dismantle the greedy capitalist system or whatever... that's a different discussion. It's not entirely unrelated and also about systemic change, but it's straying too far off course here.

The point is to shift people's sensibilities: away from charitable donations and towards being more demanding of responsible and equitable government funding of things that rely entirely or to too high a degree on charity, but that we nevertheless can rationally argue are necessary expenditures: cures for rare and neglected diseases, development and distribution of orphan drugs, and so on. The goal isn't to make charity illegal, but rather to make it unnecessary - to make it a true gratuity rather than a primary driver, which it very much is in far too many areas.

And the same goes for a lot of grant funding, too, which isn't necessarily charity but operates in similar ways and with similar problems - it creates perverse incentives that turn scientists into grant-hunters instead of researchers. This is especially pernicious in medical research, but present in other areas as well.

If you think this can't be done and is Utopian - cool. I acknowledge your fatalism, even if I don't share it.

If you think this shouldn't be done - I'd really like to hear good reasons why not.

[Hitei]

The excess is very much not the same. Again : you, me and all of the other in this thread (probably) are just regular people trying to live as best as possible with what they have. It's obvious that we shouldn't be held to the same standard than a multi-million dollar corporation with so much more means at its disposale.

I mean, if a man with one dollar in his pocket passed a homeless man without giving him money, would you find this as chocking than if a man with pocket overflowing from bills did the same ?

Putting aside that it's actually that the second man did give money to the homeless man but still has tons more in his pocket, I'm not going to hold it against either of them, it's their money to do what they want with.

But I do think that the first man would have to be kind of an asshole to walk by with money in his pocket, and then turn around and yell about how the second man has some obligation to fully commit and help that homeless man with all means at his disposal. Because at least the second man helped at all, even if he benefited from it--even if he had just done it ironically as a laugh and to feel superior--he helped that homeless guy and the second man is just soapboxing to try and claim some moral high-ground despite doing nothing or very little in comparison.

[Yrelen]

What did I do? Ohh boy...
I should have left this post with 0 comments.

At the end of the day, some people will blindly trust others, and there are like me who will never trust anyone until it proves their trustworthiness.

[Syegfryed]

He does and you should to. Would you applaude a man with an full bottle because he's giving a drop a water to a thirtsy child ?

Im pretty sure some people would applaud, depending on the man. Just like they do with Blizzard

[Xilurm]

Did Blizzard actually donate any money though?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean something is always better than nothing I guess... But instead of asking people to buy stuff from them so that they can donate the money that was raised for a cause, why not just donate 10 million from the get go and skip the middle man?

Nothing is really going to change if we just praise corporations for the bare minimum.

[En Sabah Nur]

The absolute state of this thread and many of the people in it...

[Tupolew519]

I want that fox too.

[gimleyix]

Do any of you guys think that it'll ever come back to the store?