Subj : Re: the true meaning of sacrifice To : alt.tv.farscape From : Trouble Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 20:27:07 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Nick wrote: > Tyler Trafford wrote: >> http://tinyurl.com/7ree8 > I don't like the precedent that is setting. Quote from the article; "So, this is just a different way of getting money out of people." In thirteen words they've defined just what's wrong with America, notice they don't mention anything about helping people, or a good cause... They're basically turning the relief effort into an anoyance, that is the first ugly part here, its a tax on your tolerance, not an appeal to your better neature. Secondly If I weasn't going to give to a cause, or I already gave what I allotted to a cause, annoying me to give more $ pushes beyond polite solicitation. People are going associate negativity from the annoyance with the cause. However the children are going to see how much money they made, not raised, and call it a sucess. The other children will take away from it a negative view of charities. I once had a boss[1] who always collected for United Way and he always expected you to donate some magical number of $ that only he knew. I stopped giving altogether because I didn't like the pressure from my boss. I'm sure others have similar experience with manadatory work donations. The worst part of mandatory work doantions is it assumes you haven't already donated your budget to your cause of choice, or that you are ok with the mission and practice of the charity chosen by the company. -- "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought." --Basho [1] The one thing I really respected him for was his vegetarianism was based off land use, not some nebulous cruelty arguement, he'd eat eggs, cheese, milk and other dairy products, but not beef or chicken because it took more energy and water to make a new cow or chicken than it did to make the same weight worth of dairy products. He ate fish because they could be sustainably harvested. .