• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Principled or stupid?

Is returning the donations a good idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • No

    Votes: 13 72.2%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,266
Reaction score
55,003
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors

A cancer charity whose top fundraisers included a group of Reddit users donating “in honor” of Jennifer Lawrence’s hacked personal photos has announced they will return all of the money, The Washington Post reported.

If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.

Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?
 
They should have kept the money.
 
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors



If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.

Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?

Image is everything.....

I once covered a news story about some strippers who wanted to put on a benefit for charity. They were rejected by all of them because, well, they danced nude in bars.

Finally, a charity came forward and said we'll take it....a bunch of Catholic nuns running a home for unwed mothers who were on the financial ropes.

I say take the money and do some good.....to hell with what people make of it
 
Keep the money, who cares where it comes from as long as it helps getting a cure for cancer.
 
They should have kept the money.

Greetings, TeleKat. :2wave:

:agree: Where the donation came from is not a logical reason to return it, unless there is more to this story than we're being told. Money is money and it spends the same, no matter who the donors are, IMO.
 
I voted "other". I read the link, and if I'm reading it right the charity is taking exception to what happened to Lawrence, and seem to find the reference to Lawrence objectionable.

Do they need the money? Sure. Do they want to take the money because of a crime committed against Lawrence? No. That's their call if they want to make that statement. "In honor of" doesn't really extend to what happened to Lawrence, IMO. I see what they did and why they are doing it.
 
Man I'm outta the loop, I don't even know who she is? But just keep the money and put it to good use, and stop taking anymore donations... That was easy.
 
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors



If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.

Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?

Standing up for your values is (almost) always a good idea. So is generating good publicity for a charity.
 
If some donors withhold donations because of whom the charity is associated with, I see no reason why the charity can not do the same.

Their charity, their choice.
 
Unfortunately, saving face is more important than thousands of dollars to prostate cancer research. I can see why they gave it back, though I wish they hadn't.
 
If some donors withhold donations because of whom the charity is associated with, I see no reason why the charity can not do the same.

Their charity, their choice.
I don't see where anybody suggested the charity shouldn't have the choice. The questions regards whether the charity should make the choice that they did. Two completely different issues.
 
After doing more research I change my vote to "yes returning the donation was a good idea".

Reddit users were helping to spread the nude photos of Lawrence and posting them in a single thread. They had to remove the thread because of copyright issues, but continued to ensure the pictures made it to other sites. I'm sorry, but that's pretty deplorable. This was a scheme they cooked up to further the embarrassment of Lawrence (and others, BTW, including Mckayla Maroney and Misty May-Treanor). It is not an amusing stunt by any means and now I really support this group for refusing to be a part of this. Good for them. PS I made a donation to them last night.
 
Probably 99.99999999% of people will never know where the money came from, and even if somebody did try to make an issue of it publicly I doubt it'd go anywhere, so I don't think it affects the charity's image one bit.

They should have kept the money.

Now, if the donation were from the KKK, then that is something that somebody could raise a stink about, so in a case like that they probably should return the money.
 
The photos were obtained illegally and are what might be considered 'porn'. If the charity doesn't want to accept money from people supporting that, it's their choice and I can't hate on them for it. They can surely raise money from more legitimate sources.
 
The photos were obtained illegally and are what might be considered 'porn'. If the charity doesn't want to accept money from people supporting that, it's their choice and I can't hate on them for it. They can surely raise money from more legitimate sources.
That is a good and fair point, but I still think they should have kept it. However, because of your point, I don't necessarily blame them or fault them for giving it back, either.
 
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors



If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.

Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?

I don't know what or who Reddit is (I'm proudly social media illiterate) but seems to me that any donation that has no strings attached should be honoured and thanks given. I recall someone relatively famous doing the "ice bucket challenge" and substituting bullets for ice. I didn't hear the ALS society complaining about the donation being related to another political/social cause unrelated to the disease they fight against.

It should be celebrated any time an individual reaches into their own pocket and willingly, without conditions, gives of their own resources to any charitable cause. If the Prostate Cancer Foundation doesn't want the money, I say to hell with them, find another charity who wants the money, and let it be known loud and wide that people should avoid sending money to the Prostate Cancer Foundation and seek out more accepting and deserving causes.
 
I don't know what or who Reddit is (I'm proudly social media illiterate) but seems to me that any donation that has no strings attached should be honoured and thanks given. I recall someone relatively famous doing the "ice bucket challenge" and substituting bullets for ice. I didn't hear the ALS society complaining about the donation being related to another political/social cause unrelated to the disease they fight against.

It should be celebrated any time an individual reaches into their own pocket and willingly, without conditions, gives of their own resources to any charitable cause. If the Prostate Cancer Foundation doesn't want the money, I say to hell with them, find another charity who wants the money, and let it be known loud and wide that people should avoid sending money to the Prostate Cancer Foundation and seek out more accepting and deserving causes.

They declined the money because it was raised by a group who was promoting the spreading of nude photographs (aka pornography) that were obtained illegally, and made these donations "in honor" of the people whose privacy was invaded and were victims of an illegal act. No correlation to the ice bucket challenge.
 
They declined the money because it was raised by a group who was promoting the spreading of nude photographs (aka pornography) that were obtained illegally, and made these donations "in honor" of the people whose privacy was invaded and were victims of an illegal act. No correlation to the ice bucket challenge.

Clearly, they had the choice to decline the money - in my view, they're fools. If a charity is going to have a purity test for donators, they might just as well bolt the doors and shut down now.

I don't know what or who Reddit is, but if they are in any way a media outlet it is their business to share "news". Did the New York Times refuse to publish information illegally gained by Edward Snowden? So what if the pics are, in your view, pornographic - didn't your Supreme Court establish a first amendment right related to pornography? Who's more at fault here? - the guys who created the "pornography" and posted it on a segment of the internet thus making it susceptible to distribution or the guys who viewed the "pornography"? Only an utter idiot, after all the previous examples, posts self-"pornography" anywhere on the internet. Even teenagers are becoming savvy enough to get it.
 
Clearly, they had the choice to decline the money - in my view, they're fools. If a charity is going to have a purity test for donators, they might just as well bolt the doors and shut down now.

I don't know what or who Reddit is, but if they are in any way a media outlet it is their business to share "news". Did the New York Times refuse to publish information illegally gained by Edward Snowden? So what if the pics are, in your view, pornographic - didn't your Supreme Court establish a first amendment right related to pornography? Who's more at fault here? - the guys who created the "pornography" and posted it on a segment of the internet thus making it susceptible to distribution or the guys who viewed the "pornography"? Only an utter idiot, after all the previous examples, posts self-"pornography" anywhere on the internet. Even teenagers are becoming savvy enough to get it.

The charity isn't the NY Times. They aren't part of the press. They don't want to associate with a group who is advancing illegally obtained nude pictures, including some of underage girls.
 
The charity isn't the NY Times. They aren't part of the press. They don't want to associate with a group who is advancing illegally obtained nude pictures, including some of underage girls.

So if the New York Times ran a promotion to raise funds for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Foundation would decline the funds because they don't want to associate with a group that is advancing illegally obtained information?

Again, where is the purity of source line drawn?
 
So if the New York Times ran a promotion to raise funds for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the Foundation would decline the funds because they don't want to associate with a group that is advancing illegally obtained information?

Again, where is the purity of source line drawn?

Never mind.
 
If the donor truly wants to help, and is not seeking attention, why even put the name on something that might be controversial? :shrug:
 
I'm with Tres Borrachos on this one. IMO the charity did the right thing.

The Reddit community helped to spread the illegally obtained photos. There is no way to know if the individuals who contributed did, or did not, participate in such activities. However, anyone who did distribute such images, and the Reddit community itself, cannot whitewash its participation by donating to a charity.

Nor should any charity want to be associated with this episode. Charities do receive funds from the public, but that doesn't mean they should never apply any standards to donations.
 
Cancer charity rejects funds raised by Redditors



If I'm following this correctly the Prostate Cancer Foundation is returning donations from Reddit users. The Reddit users apparently came up with the idea to donate because of the celeb nudie pics hack. From the sounds of things the suggestion to donate was kind of a joke.

Is returning the money a good thing or is it just plain stupid?

It's stupid. Could have done good with that money. It's not like they were beholden to the Reddit users nor does it seem that the Reddit users were duped into donating.
 
Back
Top Bottom