MacInsiders Logo

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pets ? Skye Off-Campus Housing (SOCS) 18 11-01-2010 08:59 PM
donating blood question...vegetarian? mac_nurse90 Body & Food 3 10-02-2010 06:41 PM
Pets anthony Residence & Housing 10 08-23-2010 02:03 PM
Pets Taunton General Discussion 38 07-28-2009 09:32 AM

We are donating to pets.....SERIOUSLY???

 
Old 12-01-2011 at 06:45 PM   #16
Bhaltair
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 405

Thanked: 36 Times
Liked: 158 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by jamescw1234 View Post
As someone who works with individuals who live in poverty, that is utter bullcrap. Have you actually spoken to someone who is on Ontario Works? Do you know how much someone on OW makes a month? And I'm also offended that you assume poverty=bad parenting. If you have money it's just wayy easier to sweep things under the rug. It makes me ill knowing that such ignorance exists.
I never said being in poverty makes you a bad parent. I actually lived in poverty with my mother for a few years until she completed her education. We resided in a low income neighborhood because the house is all we could afford. Growing up there, I have seen a lot of frustrated parents who struggle to make ends meet and yet continue to provide what's best for their children (my old friends). However, I have seen some nastiest parents who doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but themselves.

I am just saying, those who sit in front of a TV all day while they have four working limbs and a functional brain should contribute to the society rather than leeching off the taxpayer's money. They are not the kind of people I'd rather be donating to. This is equivalent to a homeless man who needs money to survive but in reality, he actually owns a nice home with a family that has everything they need. You can google this phenomenon.
Old 12-01-2011 at 07:29 PM   #17
The Guardian
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 44

Thanked: 3 Times
Liked: 3 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaltair View Post
This is equivalent to a homeless man who needs money to survive but in reality, he actually owns a nice home with a family that has everything they need. You can google this phenomenon.
I have no idea what you mean. How is the man homeless if he has a home? Also, why would he be begging or whatever if he's obviously attained the means to provide his family with a home and essential needs for life?

Also, you're missing a major point, not everyone in poverty is in poverty because they're lazy. I kind of doubt that laziness as a SINGLE factor is utterly responsible for the majority of people in poverty. What about people stuck in jobs that aren't protected by minimum wage (eg a waitress/waiter)? Or immigrants that haven't developed the necessary social and technical skills to be hired by Canadian companies? How do you intend on seperating the well-intended from the "lazy"?

On the donating to pets topic, I don't think we should be supporting families with pets they can't afford to maintain unless those pets are crucial to a family member's survival. If a family is in financial need, it makes no sense for them to take in a pet (from a shelter or not). The general populace shares enough burden by taxes, we shouldn't be doing the financial lifting for families that aren't sensibly spending.

Again, unless the pet was for survival, the money can go other places. Rehabilitation for drug addicts, workshops for foreigners or homeless people. Promotion of free education in a school or upgrading the workspace for students. We should try and improve the quality of life for EVERYONE, but a human's life is first priority.

gwenethrules says thanks to The Guardian for this post.
Old 12-01-2011 at 07:35 PM   #18
RyanC
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,014

Thanked: 408 Times
Liked: 2,314 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian View Post

On the donating to pets topic, I don't think we should be supporting families with pets they can't afford to maintain unless those pets are crucial to a family member's survival. If a family is in financial need, it makes no sense for them to take in a pet (from a shelter or not). The general populace shares enough burden by taxes, we shouldn't be doing the financial lifting for families that aren't sensibly spending.
Ever heard of toys for tots? This is the same thing, except for pets. Toys are necessary for children's survival, and the money would obviously be better spent on other things, but the donated items arn't purchased specifically for the donatee, they're hand-me-downs.

I really don't understand how this is so hard to grasp..

Kathy2 likes this.
Old 12-01-2011 at 08:05 PM   #19
Kathy2
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,112

Thanked: 159 Times
Liked: 529 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian View Post
On the donating to pets topic, I don't think we should be supporting families with pets they can't afford to maintain unless those pets are crucial to a family member's survival. If a family is in financial need, it makes no sense for them to take in a pet (from a shelter or not). The general populace shares enough burden by taxes, we shouldn't be doing the financial lifting for families that aren't sensibly spending.

Again, unless the pet was for survival, the money can go other places. Rehabilitation for drug addicts, workshops for foreigners or homeless people. Promotion of free education in a school or upgrading the workspace for students. We should try and improve the quality of life for EVERYONE, but a human's life is first priority.
Maybe they got the pet before they had financial issues. Just like they probably had children before they had financial issues.

It's fine if you think a human's life is first priority. But does that mean you can't help other causes? I donated to the disaster in Haiti because people were literally starving. But within the same week, I donated toys to the Good Shepherd. The kids receiving those toys didn't need them as much as the kids in Haiti needed the money I donated, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have done it. Helping one cause doesn't require ignoring all other causes.


I think a lot of people don't understand who receives food/toys from these bins. They aren't going to homeless people on the street. They are going to regular people who are struggling with money. These families usually have homes/apartments, electricity, computers, their kids go to school, etc. Maybe the mom is only able to find work at McDonalds, or the dad was just laid off from his job, and they're struggling to make ends meet. They sign up for these Christmas programs to help ease the load over the holidays. They are generally just "regular" families. They could be any person you see at the mall, or any person you go to school with.

When I did the Sponsor a Family program at the Good Shepherd, one of the items on the kid's list was a Miley Cyrus CD. Her family obviously had enough money to buy a CD player or a computer.

So for some people to say "Don't donate to 'animal' bins! There are people STARVING!!" Well, the same applies to the "people" bins. The food and toys you donate won't save their lives, it's just to help them through the holidays.

We all pick and choose which charities we donate to, and that's fine. But it boggles my mind that people would complain about anyone trying to help anyone else (humans OR animals). We should be happy that there are people generous to set up these Christmas programs and others who are generous to give. If you don't want to donate to the animal bins, that's fine, you don't have to. But don't try to make people feel bad for helping others. When I donate to the animal bin, I'm also donating to the people bin. No amount of people bitching and complaining can make me feel bad about that.

Last edited by Kathy2 : 12-01-2011 at 08:16 PM.

AlienSummer, ashleymuller, nerual all say thanks to Kathy2 for this post.

Old 12-01-2011 at 08:19 PM   #20
Bhaltair
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 405

Thanked: 36 Times
Liked: 158 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian View Post
I have no idea what you mean. How is the man homeless if he has a home? Also, why would he be begging or whatever if he's obviously attained the means to provide his family with a home and essential needs for life?
I did some quick googling for you to answer this question: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-year.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian View Post
Also, you're missing a major point, not everyone in poverty is in poverty because they're lazy. I kind of doubt that laziness as a SINGLE factor is utterly responsible for the majority of people in poverty. What about people stuck in jobs that aren't protected by minimum wage (eg a waitress/waiter)? Or immigrants that haven't developed the necessary social and technical skills to be hired by Canadian companies? How do you intend on seperating the well-intended from the "lazy"?
If you take economics, government income is one of the reasons why people are less inclined to seek employment. This is why employment insurance have a time constraint. Yes, there are other factors why poverty exists. It is driven by greed and corruption due to scarcity as we only have finite amount of resources on this planet. This is something we cannot change. I am only targeting those who refuses to work when they are capable to do so. This frees up a lot of dough and it can be better spent on something like social housing that houses those who are actually homeless. This won't happen because of our mindset, who would give up $800 a month to buy some extra things so a homeless man can have some food to eat? That's all I am trying to point out.

Last edited by Bhaltair : 12-01-2011 at 08:23 PM.
Old 12-01-2011 at 09:15 PM   #21
The Guardian
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 44

Thanked: 3 Times
Liked: 3 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Ever heard of toys for tots? This is the same thing, except for pets. Toys are necessary for children's survival, and the money would obviously be better spent on other things, but the donated items arn't purchased specifically for the donatee, they're hand-me-downs.

I really don't understand how this is so hard to grasp..
I understand the concept of hand-me-downs, if people are passing off things that take no energy or money to give (like hand me downs) that's totally cool. But people could be going out of their way to support a demographic that isn't necessarily top priority. I'm betting the latter would be focused on getting the most out their dollar (aka they're hoping their money is going to help a lot of lives). How would these people feel if hand me downs were enough? I'd feel like I lost an opportunity to help the groups I want to help the most.

This is a personal example. My grandfather died of Parkinson's. Out of all charities that I'd like to donate to, it's charities that are dedicated to finding a cure for Parkinson's that are at the top of my list.
BUT, if another charity is going out of it's way to gather financial support (like dedicating a space to getting funds, or hosting a car wash, or gift wrapping service or whatever) then of course I'll support them. I don't have the time to investigate each charity but I trust my money is in reliable hands and that it's going to be used efficiently.

How do you think I'd feel if my money was going to a charity that was REALLY just asking for modest donations, but didn't explicitly say so? What if the money wasn't necessary and hand me downs were enough? I'd feel terrible because it was money that could've gone to finding a cure to Parkinson's instead. Do I feel like my money has been wasted? No, because it's gone to charity. But did this charity really need my money more than Parkinsons' affiliated groups? That's debateable depending on what charities you look at, but if the charity really didn't require people to make donations that required effort, then no.

What about other people who have emotional agendas associated with donations? They have a right to know what a charity expects as a donation. It's not wrong for a charity to explicitly say what they want either.

Should people be told what to do with their money? No, because it's THEIR money. Should people be informed about the demographic that they're donating to and what level of donations are appropriate? YES.

Why are pets being advertised in the library when there's probably another demographic that needs the support more (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one)? If there is, why aren't we supporting THAT cause instead?

Do these causes really need to be advertised publicly in order for people to realize they have relatively inexpensive items that they can donate? For example, if you had toys to pass down to another family, should it take advertisements that (could instead be asking for donations for another equally worthy cause) to remind you that you should donate those toys?

I love donating to charity, but as someone who's spent ENOUGH time with fundraising for causes, I can say there were other ways to get the same donations.
Old 12-01-2011 at 09:45 PM   #22
jhan523
Moderator
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,484

Thanked: 1,629 Times
Liked: 604 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian View Post
I understand the concept of hand-me-downs, if people are passing off things that take no energy or money to give (like hand me downs) that's totally cool. But people could be going out of their way to support a demographic that isn't necessarily top priority. I'm betting the latter would be focused on getting the most out their dollar (aka they're hoping their money is going to help a lot of lives). How would these people feel if hand me downs were enough? I'd feel like I lost an opportunity to help the groups I want to help the most.

This is a personal example. My grandfather died of Parkinson's. Out of all charities that I'd like to donate to, it's charities that are dedicated to finding a cure for Parkinson's that are at the top of my list.
BUT, if another charity is going out of it's way to gather financial support (like dedicating a space to getting funds, or hosting a car wash, or gift wrapping service or whatever) then of course I'll support them. I don't have the time to investigate each charity but I trust my money is in reliable hands and that it's going to be used efficiently.

How do you think I'd feel if my money was going to a charity that was REALLY just asking for modest donations, but didn't explicitly say so? What if the money wasn't necessary and hand me downs were enough? I'd feel terrible because it was money that could've gone to finding a cure to Parkinson's instead. Do I feel like my money has been wasted? No, because it's gone to charity. But did this charity really need my money more than Parkinsons' affiliated groups? That's debateable depending on what charities you look at, but if the charity really didn't require people to make donations that required effort, then no.

What about other people who have emotional agendas associated with donations? They have a right to know what a charity expects as a donation. It's not wrong for a charity to explicitly say what they want either.

Should people be told what to do with their money? No, because it's THEIR money. Should people be informed about the demographic that they're donating to and what level of donations are appropriate? YES.

Why are pets being advertised in the library when there's probably another demographic that needs the support more (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one)? If there is, why aren't we supporting THAT cause instead?

Do these causes really need to be advertised publicly in order for people to realize they have relatively inexpensive items that they can donate? For example, if you had toys to pass down to another family, should it take advertisements that (could instead be asking for donations for another equally worthy cause) to remind you that you should donate those toys?

I love donating to charity, but as someone who's spent ENOUGH time with fundraising for causes, I can say there were other ways to get the same donations.
I always believe that it's the donator's responsibility for finding out about the charities which they are donating to. A donator can easily search for the charity's website for information, or if the charity is small then the donator can contact the charity to inquire. A donator who has emotional agendas associated with their donations or those who want to know what they can actually donate (material goods or does it have to be money for example) shouldn't just be giving their money away to charities without first finding out about that charity and what they do with donations.

To answer your last question, I would say yes. Not everyone has a good memory or will be willing to go out of their way to find charities when they are cleaning their house and find things they no longer need. Advertising shows people that a new charity has formed and is willing to take the old goods. Lack of advertising could possibly mean that the charity no longer exists or that donations boxes have moved somewhere else since the last time and people wouldn't go out of their way to bring everything to the same place without knowing for sure that the charity is still located there when they could just put everything out on the curb.
__________________
Jeremy Han
McMaster Alumni - Honours Molecular Biology and Genetics
Pennsylvania College of Optometry at Salus University Third Year - Doctor of Optometry
Old 12-01-2011 at 10:08 PM   #23
The Guardian
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 44

Thanked: 3 Times
Liked: 3 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathy2 View Post
Maybe they got the pet before they had financial issues. Just like they probably had children before they had financial issues.

It's fine if you think a human's life is first priority. But does that mean you can't help other causes? I donated to the disaster in Haiti because people were literally starving. But within the same week, I donated toys to the Good Shepherd. The kids receiving those toys didn't need them as much as the kids in Haiti needed the money I donated, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have done it. Helping one cause doesn't require ignoring all other causes.


I think a lot of people don't understand who receives food/toys from these bins. They aren't going to homeless people on the street. They are going to regular people who are struggling with money. These families usually have homes/apartments, electricity, computers, their kids go to school, etc. Maybe the mom is only able to find work at McDonalds, or the dad was just laid off from his job, and they're struggling to make ends meet. They sign up for these Christmas programs to help ease the load over the holidays. They are generally just "regular" families. They could be any person you see at the mall, or any person you go to school with.

When I did the Sponsor a Family program at the Good Shepherd, one of the items on the kid's list was a Miley Cyrus CD. Her family obviously had enough money to buy a CD player or a computer.

So for some people to say "Don't donate to 'animal' bins! There are people STARVING!!" Well, the same applies to the "people" bins. The food and toys you donate won't save their lives, it's just to help them through the holidays.

We all pick and choose which charities we donate to, and that's fine. But it boggles my mind that people would complain about anyone trying to help anyone else (humans OR animals). We should be happy that there are people generous to set up these Christmas programs and others who are generous to give. If you don't want to donate to the animal bins, that's fine, you don't have to. But don't try to make people feel bad for helping others. When I donate to the animal bin, I'm also donating to the people bin. No amount of people bitching and complaining can make me feel bad about that.
Yes, that was something I didn't consider. Things CAN happen and people can be indebted without anyone being responsible. The donations could be going to people who aren't even close to being in a life/death situation. I won't argue that money that goes into charities will ALWAYS save someone's life, but if charities are going out of their way to get your attention, you're going to divert resources you'd normally give to a charity YOU like. That's what this entire thread is about.

Some things I'd like to clear up, I feel like my personality is being associated with my questions. I'm just stating what I'm observing and I'd appreciate it if people didn't see me as some heartless person. It kind of hurts when it's being insinuated that my intention is to make other's feel bad for donating to a cause. I'm a person who asks questions, and those questions are almost never rhetoric. THEY ARE ACTUAL QUESTIONS.

There are TONS of charities, and all of them are vying for our attention. How did YOU know about Good Shephard or Haiti in the first place? Word got around that the groups affiliated with each charity needed help. Would you be supporting Good Shephard if you never heard of them? No, you'd be helping the next charity you identify with in whatever way you could. But what if a charity that

a) you don't identify with
b) you haven't heard of
c) doesn't need extravagant donations

made an effort to be seen and is vying for your donations? Forget people who can easily access donations, if they can donate that's awesome. But for people who fill any of the criteria above and normally put effort into their donations (like they would go ahead and buy groceries to support a food drive instead of just searching their cabinets), is that fair?

I'm against withholding donations if you can make them, but if a charity is bold enough to be out there in the public, people who are emotionally attached or used to making donations elsewhere will give money to THAT charity instead.

General questions

(Not directed at any charity in particular, but should be thought about)

Why is the charity making the effort to be seen?

Is the purpose of that charity's presence for just money,or education on the charity's purpose too?

What was the point of the group being in the spotlight if they don't immediately require the spending power of the general public more than any other charity?

Was their goal(s) solveable by alternate means?

What's stopping people who can effortlessly donate appropriate items to appropriate charities (ie. the people who could give hand me downs)?

Did this charity need to make the effort to get in the public eye to get their target's attention (ie the people who could give hand me downs)?

If the last question above is yes we really need to step back and see how less understood/relateable causes can be supported at McMaster. My last question is

Why does this charity deserve to be in the spotlight above all others?
Old 12-01-2011 at 10:49 PM   #24
The Guardian
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 44

Thanked: 3 Times
Liked: 3 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaltair View Post
I did some quick googling for you to answer this question: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-year.html



If you take economics, government income is one of the reasons why people are less inclined to seek employment. This is why employment insurance have a time constraint. Yes, there are other factors why poverty exists. It is driven by greed and corruption due to scarcity as we only have finite amount of resources on this planet. This is something we cannot change. I am only targeting those who refuses to work when they are capable to do so. This frees up a lot of dough and it can be better spent on something like social housing that houses those who are actually homeless. This won't happen because of our mindset, who would give up $800 a month to buy some extra things so a homeless man can have some food to eat? That's all I am trying to point out.
First of all, this news was made in England, where fake beggars are found aplenty. I would know because I was approached by one and given plenty of stories by my English relatives about them. I wouldn't know what relevance this story holds in Canada.

Second, I think you're mistaken when you say we can't change greed or corruption for the better. I don't think we can eliminate greed or corruption, but we can absolutely change it for the better.

No comment on the rest. I could argue with it, but not now.
Old 12-01-2011 at 11:24 PM   #25
jhan523
Moderator
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,484

Thanked: 1,629 Times
Liked: 604 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian View Post
First of all, this news was made in England, where fake beggars are found aplenty. I would know because I was approached by one and given plenty of stories by my English relatives about them. I wouldn't know what relevance this story holds in Canada.

Second, I think you're mistaken when you say we can't change greed or corruption for the better. I don't think we can eliminate greed or corruption, but we can absolutely change it for the better.

No comment on the rest. I could argue with it, but not now.
I remember this woman back when I was in highschool: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/678638/posts

It's in Toronto. But I don't know if it's very common.
__________________
Jeremy Han
McMaster Alumni - Honours Molecular Biology and Genetics
Pennsylvania College of Optometry at Salus University Third Year - Doctor of Optometry

apples12 likes this.
Old 12-02-2011 at 12:28 AM   #26
ashleymuller
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4

Thanked: 2 Times
Liked: Liked 3 Times




"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”
- Mahatma Gandhi

The only thing disgusting in this thread is the original post and the ugly sentiments that go along with it.

Donating is not disgusting. Belittling other people's causes and being blatantly ignorant to suffering just because it doesn't involve a "human being" is. I respect other charities even if I don't feel particularly inclined to donate to them (and there are several at McMaster that I don't agree with/support).

The only thing that this post caused me to "reconsider" is following Macinsiders on twitter because they post this kind of garbage.. and being compelled to read so many ridiculous, presumptuous, arrogant arguments puts a negative spin on my night.

The bottom line is compassion should be something that should be respected and valued in any capacity and no one has any right to judge or dictate who/what causes I (or anyone else) should be compassionate towards.

PS I'm going to go buy a big box of dog toys tomorrow to donate Thanks for your input though. Hope you are doing the same for the human beings.

guildenstern says thanks to ashleymuller for this post.

Kathy2, nerual, The Guardian like this.
Old 12-02-2011 at 09:07 AM   #27
RyanC
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,014

Thanked: 408 Times
Liked: 2,314 Times




#firstworldprolems.. sigh


also: Toys aren't necessary for children's survival (to correct my silly mistake below)

justinsftw likes this.
Old 12-02-2011 at 01:03 PM   #28
Sintos
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 210

Thanked: 21 Times
Liked: 85 Times




3 steps to solve all the problems on this thread:

1. Cancel the "free" teeth cleaning from the campus dentist, that charges you $100+ a year (that like 80% of school do not know about...)
2. Take that money and donate it to whoever the fack you want.
3. FEEL GOOD that you actually did something, instead of saying other people should.

Think about if everyone at Mac did this. Bad for the campus dentist... Good for shelters!
__________________
Honours Life Science. Year III
Old 12-02-2011 at 03:12 PM   #29
Rudiger
Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 70

Thanked: 33 Times
Liked: 36 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Sintos View Post
3 steps to solve all the problems on this thread:

1. Cancel the "free" teeth cleaning from the campus dentist, that charges you $100+ a year (that like 80% of school do not know about...)
2. Take that money and donate it to whoever the fack you want.
3. FEEL GOOD that you actually did something, instead of saying other people should.

Think about if everyone at Mac did this. Bad for the campus dentist... Good for shelters!

Everyone already has the choice to opt out of the dental insurance plan. Also, this insurance is valid at any dentist, not just the Campus Dentist.

And lastly, it's a very reasonable cost ($110) for excellent dental coverage. You should be thankful that your student union offers it to you: a lot of schools don't.
Old 12-02-2011 at 03:14 PM   #30
RyanC
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,014

Thanked: 408 Times
Liked: 2,314 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Sintos View Post
3 steps to solve all the problems on this thread:

1. Cancel the "free" teeth cleaning from the campus dentist, that charges you $100+ a year (that like 80% of school do not know about...
Its not just 'free teeth cleaning from the campus dentist' its a school dental insurance plan that applies to any dentist that is well worth the money, and its good for more than 100$ when actually used..



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms