Giving trading profits to charity

[Vaco]

On a metaphysical level (no idea what that means) If we do away with the police will there be less crime?

Does the existence of police effectively preclude a solution to the problems they address?

 

[Gumping]

On a metaphysical level (no idea what that means) If we do away with the police will there be less crime?

Does the existence of police effectively preclude a solution to the problems they address?

If we abolished money, would everyone be rich?

Or poor?


On a different note, my wife is Eastern European and used to work for a major NGO development fund out there. Since this experience, she has vowed never to give money to big charities again.
When my family are sorted out I'll think about where to put my cash. But ur right charity DOES begin at home.

 

[shadowninja]

The root cause of any problem needs to be addressed from a starting point WAAAY back from anything that is normally considered.

Yes, I agree; I am also a great believer in metaphysics but the work of charities cannot be confused with metaphysics and cause and effect. There's a big difference between, for instance, manifestation/laws of attraction and not helping someone who is less fortunate than you.

 

[shadowninja]

Since this experience, she has vowed never to give money to big charities again.

Yes, you have to be careful with the charities you decide to donate time/money to. There's a big element of MP expenses claim-style shenanigans...

 

[Gumping]

Yes, you have to be careful with the charities you decide to donate time/money to. There's a big element of MP expenses claim-style shenanigans...

Ur not wrong....

 

[dilesh23]

Masons of California

anyone else tempted to donate? I still cant decicde between them and help the aged.

 

[TheBramble]

On a metaphysical level (no idea what that means) If we do away with the police will there be less crime?

It's a possibility.

Does the existence of police effectively preclude a solution to the problems they address?

I'm not sure they address that many problems really.

What happened BEFORE police?

 

[TheBramble]

If we abolished money, would everyone be rich?

It would level things out a bit. For a while...

BTW I wasn't criticising charities or people who work for them or people who do voluntary work for any manner of ’good causes’. I’m just suggesting we can never know enough to be sure of the right thing to do and certainly what we’re currently doing isn’t working.

Also, to add to the pot, bods that do do voluntary work, do so for ostensibly the people they help, but also, for themselves. There can’t be a motivation to do anything which doesn’t serve some self-interest primarily, whether consciously or not. That doesn’t invalidate the effort in any way, but it does bring back into focus the driving force behind any human action.

For the record I also used to feel it was the ‘right thing’ to give both money and time to charities and other ‘good causes’ and then I saw the light.

 

[TheBramble]

Yes, I agree; I am also a great believer in metaphysics but the work of charities cannot be confused with metaphysics and cause and effect. There's a big difference between, for instance, manifestation/laws of attraction and not helping someone who is less fortunate than you.

Oooops. I'm busted.

I think it's the cause and effect thing which is key.

You and most others probably believe the thing that happens 'before' is the cause and the thing that happens 'after' is the effect. I’m not necessarily buying into that illusion anymore.

Does ‘people not being able to work’ cause benefits or do the free availability of benefits cause ‘people to not be able to work’?

 

[TheBramble]

Masons of California

anyone else tempted to donate? I still cant decicde between them and help the aged.

Same thing.

 

[TheBramble]

Yes, I agree; I am also a great believer in metaphysics but the work of charities cannot be confused with metaphysics and cause and effect. There's a big difference between, for instance, manifestation/laws of attraction and not helping someone who is less fortunate than you.

Sorry mate, missed the opportunity first time around…

There is a BIG difference between “manifestation/laws of attraction” and “not helping someone who is less fortunate than you”. The difference is that ‘helping’ someone needs a much deeper consideration than is currently considered fashionably sufficient. Simply throwing money/food at a starving village does not help them, other than temporarily and on a very superficial level. On a deeper level it actually harms them as you further reduce their ability to resolve their situation themselves and deny them the opportunity to learn to learn. It harms you as you think you’ve done lasting good and wonder why Live Aid comes back to address the same problems it addressed before – but now much worse.

This benign enervation occurs as easily in Dunqulah as it does Doncaster. The more used you get to other folk taking care of you, be it government, social welfare, charities, whatever - the weaker you become and the less able to (a) deal with your current situations and (b) avoid similar situations/conditions occurring in the future.

Those that are less fortunate than me deserve appropriate help – help that will enable them and empower them to help themselves – not merely helping them find the latest and temporary band-aid for a problem that is way more than just skin deep. It takes more effort and more time and it is done on a far more personal and individual level and almost always without awareness from the recipient. And it is all the better for that.

 

[N Rothschild]

this chat reminds me of,

 

[rags2riches]

The root cause of any problem needs to be addressed from a starting point WAAAY back from anything that is normally considered. You don’t get rid of hunger in Africa by providing food to those that are currently hungry. All you’re doing is feeding a small subset of hungry people out of the enormous set of hungry people. Before another war or natural disaster grabs the collective consciousness’ attention and aid goes thataway.

Therein lies the problem.

No funding = no charity.
Corporate funding = long term survivability of charity guaranteed .... but corporations dictate terms, conditions and policies.

There is an overwhelming stench of greed and corruption at the highest level - these are the people that have the power and money to really effect change. But this would mean relinquishing their wealth and power - how is that ever going to happen if "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

In the meantime would you rather allow people to suffer and die because the root causes of the problems are not being addresssed?

If everyone was equal the world as we know it would cease to function. What is the solution?

:?:

 

[shadowninja]

Oooops. I'm busted.

I think it's the cause and effect thing which is key.

You and most others probably believe the thing that happens 'before' is the cause and the thing that happens 'after' is the effect. I’m not necessarily buying into that illusion anymore.

Does ‘people not being able to work’ cause benefits or do the free availability of benefits cause ‘people to not be able to work’?

I'm not happy with your wording. You're changing it to suit your argument.

In any case, looking at your example, that is down to other issues like government policy, not just pure cause and effect.

 

[shadowninja]

Sorry mate, missed the opportunity first time around…

There is a BIG difference between “manifestation/laws of attraction” and “not helping someone who is less fortunate than you”. The difference is that ‘helping’ someone needs a much deeper consideration than is currently considered fashionably sufficient. Simply throwing money/food at a starving village does not help them, other than temporarily and on a very superficial level. On a deeper level it actually harms them as you further reduce their ability to resolve their situation themselves and deny them the opportunity to learn to learn. It harms you as you think you’ve done lasting good and wonder why Live Aid comes back to address the same problems it addressed before – but now much worse.

This benign enervation occurs as easily in Dunqulah as it does Doncaster. The more used you get to other folk taking care of you, be it government, social welfare, charities, whatever - the weaker you become and the less able to (a) deal with your current situations and (b) avoid similar situations/conditions occurring in the future.

Those that are less fortunate than me deserve appropriate help – help that will enable them and empower them to help themselves – not merely helping them find the latest and temporary band-aid for a problem that is way more than just skin deep. It takes more effort and more time and it is done on a far more personal and individual level and almost always without awareness from the recipient. And it is all the better for that.

That simply highlights an ineffective way of helping them not that they shouldn't be helped. Devil is in the detail.