"but the fundamental reason why I gave is because it was the right thing to do, regardless of who he was. I feel that I do have an obligation to better and enrich the lives of those around me, and to leave the world a better place than I found it."
Quite a high horse to climb off of. It implies a lack of moral fortitude in people like me that apparently don't live up to the obligation to do the right thing.
No, it doesn't. He's saying that he personally feels he has an obligation to try and help people. You are projecting.
Greg Sestero said:
"If you disagree with him receiving charity and feel that his attitude or actions don't warrant it, then you have a fundamental problem with charity in general..."
I'm a socialist. I applaud personal charity and believe in huge systems of obligatory social charity for every human society.
If you were to donate money to an organization that provided temporary shelter to people who had recently lost their homes, they would have purchased the same sort of things I did for them. Maybe he was afforded more luxuries than the average beneficiary, but that's because of how many people have been exposed to Chris.
You also don't really follow this point up. Are you saying you support charity, therefore agree with his point? That can't be it. Are you saying that you support charity unless it goes to Chris? Why doesn't Chris deserve help?
I think what Greg is trying to say is that the idea that we're against charity in general solely because we feel Chris doesn't deserve any is an offensive assertion, in Greg's case especially because he does believe in charity.
And I'm saying that his concept of charity is fucked if he doesn't think that victims of a house fire don't qualify. You could safely argue that he received too much, or too much cash, but to say you both support charity and simultaneously claim that Chris is undeserving of anything is absolute doublethink and an embarrassing admission that all of this stems from a fundamental dislike of the guy.
I think if you start talking implication, then the rabbit hole goes much further. How can you correctly assume the implication from a written statement by someone you don't know? I think we should stick to what people have actually written. After all, it could be more a question of your perception than their implication.
Not trying to shit on anyone, but my perception is that this discussion is getting heated, when it really doesn't need to be.
Charity is a zero-sum game. We hate to think this way, because it makes us feel like assholes (It certainly makes me feel that way), but when you choose between a Sudanese and a Cambodian child to give money to, you're saying one needs it more, or that you'd like one to have more for whatever reason. It's terrible but that's the choice people have to make. That's why you're urged to research and consider the benefits of donation to this or that charity. If I was going to take a $100 to leave the world a better place, Chris would not make the list of potential recipients. That doesn't mean that I'm opposed to people donating $100 somewhere else, which is flat-out what that post stated.
Again, I only even bring that up because this guy is talking about "the right thing to do" and us being anti-charity. If morality has to be brought into it at all - and seriously, all my moral arguments have been in response to people asserting the righteousness of donating - I don't think that Chris being funny makes him a "righter" cause to donate to than organizations that actually try to help people with nothing.
who cares either way? either you did or you didn't. then shut up about it. is chris a monumental idiot? yes. big deal. if you hate him so much, leave. if you white knight him so much, also leave. both vocal sides are just unnecessary drama. we're here to laugh at the guy's stupid antics.
I'm going to end my part in this with a rant, because I'm pissed off.
With the reception of this package I have seen a thousand times increase in outright a-logging of Chris from almost everyone. I now have two idiots barking about something and at this point I don't even know what they're upset over. They just don't want Chris to get donations. Today 4 posts got reported by different people in the "no charity" party because they felt that the author was insulting them for holding the point of view that Chris is absolutely undeserving. The following posts received no reports.
I feel like I'm missing out on some sort of in joke. Is this stuff facetious? Why are people throwing a hissy fit over posts like what Ice posted but nobody even bats an eye (and sometimes actively encourage) shit like this?
I'm jaded. I thought people would understand that this was supposed to be for its own sake, and we could sit back and watch what happens -- for better or for worse -- without becoming cannibalistic over it. I'm seeing nothing but fights and arguments everywhere. I'm seeing the same people perpetuating a fight in every thread. I'm sick of it. This shit has been the topic of conversation for a month now. I want to see it die. It's over.
If I see any more "fuck chris, die package" shit from greg, batman, or crazy I'm banning them. It's 4am and I've stayed up to try and figure out what the problem is, and just now I realized it's the pretentious sperg's really elaborate way of saying "julay".
