Anarkavre Posted March 4, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3428673.stm 0 Share this post Link to post
Jehar Posted March 4, 2005 The antichrist i tell you. Proof that the queen is getting senile. 0 Share this post Link to post
Siggi Posted March 4, 2005 ...thats just hilarious. I s'pose some credit is inorder. 0 Share this post Link to post
darknation Posted March 4, 2005 bill gates has given a lot of money to charity. Of course, it's his own charity, The Mr and Mrs Bill Gates Foundation, which ensures he gets due recognition and praise from his peers. Nothing like giving your pocket change to hungry babies to boost your own personal FUCKING feelings of... well, I'm sure you get my point. Fuck gates and fuck the queen. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fletcher` Posted March 4, 2005 I didn't think the Queen could look anymore frumpy... 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted March 4, 2005 WEALTHY PEOPLE ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL AMERICAN CAPITALISM IS BAD I HATE LIFE BLAH BLAH BLAH 0 Share this post Link to post
Cyb Posted March 4, 2005 Ralphis said:WEALTHY PEOPLE ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL AMERICAN CAPITALISM IS BAD I HATE LIFE BLAH BLAH BLAH you forgot AMERIKKKA!! 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted March 4, 2005 Jehar said:The antichrist i tell you. Proof that the queen is getting senile. The queen generally isn't the one who decides who gets (honourary) knighthoods. 0 Share this post Link to post
Combine Posted March 4, 2005 Ralphis said:WEALTHY PEOPLE ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL AMERICAN CAPITALISM IS BAD I HATE LIFE BLAH BLAH BLAH yay long live communism and Joseph Stalin! 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted March 5, 2005 The article says: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is currently working on a global health programme in the developing world. True enough, boss, you can't have effective outsourcing without a healthy 3rd world. Ralphis said: WEALTHY PEOPLE ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL Alas, back in the day knighthood was reserved for the truly noble; not also for the upstart bourgeois. 0 Share this post Link to post
ducon Posted March 5, 2005 Ralphis said:WEALTHY PEOPLE ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL Not only, but what’s evil? Betruger?AMERICAN CAPITALISM IS BAD Not only the american one, and communism isn’t good either.I HATE LIFE What? Ah, the troll is yelling and trying to make a joke. ;-) 0 Share this post Link to post
Janderson Posted March 5, 2005 darknation said:bill gates has given a lot of money to charity. Of course, it's his own charity, The Mr and Mrs Bill Gates Foundation, which ensures he gets due recognition and praise from his peers. Nothing like giving your pocket change to hungry babies to boost your own personal FUCKING feelings of... well, I'm sure you get my point.There are only two reasons for starting charities:Recognition. When you or a family member gets an incurable disease. (in the hopes your money will find the cure.) Charaties are a selfish concept, stop giving. 0 Share this post Link to post
zark Posted March 5, 2005 Janderson said:There are only two reasons for starting charities:Recognition. When you or a family member gets an incurable disease. (in the hopes your money will find the cure.) Charaties are a selfish concept, stop giving. What? So charities like Cancer Research, AIDS Research Allience, the Salvation Army and the Red Cross are selfish? Considering all they do to help people, I think you're the selfish one. Try giving for a change, these charities help a hell of a lot of people. 0 Share this post Link to post
ducon Posted March 5, 2005 Janderson said:Charities are a selfish concept, stop giving. Yes, and selfishness is not mandatory bad if it is well understood, read Stirner. 0 Share this post Link to post
Captain Red Posted March 5, 2005 Janderson said: There are only two reasons for starting charities:Recognition. When you or a family member gets an incurable disease. (in the hopes your money will find the cure.) Charaties are a selfish concept, stop giving. You can be a cheap bastard OR you can have the high moral ground. Not both. 0 Share this post Link to post
Siggi Posted March 5, 2005 When there is spare cash to give why not... Pity I don't have any 0 Share this post Link to post
Janderson Posted March 5, 2005 Oh shit! I meant to say celebrity charities. + I was joking btw. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted March 6, 2005 So becoming famous instantly turns you into a selfish person? How would you explain someone like Mother Teresa then? 0 Share this post Link to post
ducon Posted March 6, 2005 Teresa is not so disinteressed… She’s not so white and pure that we might think at first sight. It’s not sexual :-) but financial. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted March 6, 2005 Wow, dn. That was very informative. And a bit depressing. 0 Share this post Link to post
Dodge Posted March 6, 2005 Hence the phrase, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". From that, hence the phrase, "The answer is right under your nose". 0 Share this post Link to post
Janderson Posted March 6, 2005 Heh, then good ridance to that bitch. So where was I?...Oh yea. No it doesn't always mean your selfish it just means you now have the resources to do what comes naturally; self-preservation. The reason I believe that some do it for reputation is that most celebrity charities are started by those who's fame is dwindling. Their last names on the tips of our tongues, their fisrt names forgotten. They join or start a cause and earn a day or two in a magazine or the news. HAPPY ENDING: As they fade from our minds they begin to understand the work they are doing. They are no longer celebrities and their names are no longer important, the end. Btw, I'm not such a dick, I do buy from Cancer Research shops, perhaps for the wrong reasons (cheap) but it still counts as donation. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fletcher` Posted March 6, 2005 "Power corrupts, but absolut power corrupts like vodka" 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted March 6, 2005 Darknation: that's all very well and good, but how exactly does being anti-abortion and tolerant of Communism make you selfish? In fact, both things can be said to be selfless: most of the argument of anti-abortion campaigners is that they want expectant mothers to put their unborn child's life before their own, and Communism is supposed to consist of sharing wealth and property (yes I know that it doesn't work in practice, but that's purely due to human nature. In theory, Communism is the least selfish of all economical systems). 0 Share this post Link to post
Janderson Posted March 6, 2005 She refused treatment in crappy hospitals like her patients go to and paid for the same treatment in established hotels. She refused to die with the rest in the houses of death and got her own private room with equipment the others weren't getting - as implied by the the article 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted March 6, 2005 Again that isn't selishness, merely hypocrisy. And it isn't even really that: other people insisted she get treatment, and other people paid for it. Also, perhaps she thought by extending her life, she'd be able to help more people? BTW a hypothetical question for you: If you dedicate 99% of your entire adult life and 99% of your wealth to those in need, are you selfish to live 1% of your life for yourself and retain 1% of your wealth? Personally I think not. 0 Share this post Link to post
Janderson Posted March 6, 2005 I don't really know or care about Mother Therasa, I just thought you skipped a bit of the article, however she doesn't count as a celebrity charity as she created hers and had already decided to lead a life of healing before she became famous. I'm talking Hollywood baby. 0 Share this post Link to post