Criticism about Child's Play Charity

PA_Jay

There is currently an auction going on over at a Starcraft related website (Teamliquid.net) that is donating the proceeds to the Child's Play Charity. Info:

http://www.starcraft2.com/community.xml
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=79902

However, apparently someone seems to think Child's Play detracts from other charities as it is a less "worthy" charity for reasons such as "Instead of giving some kid an xbox you could be feeding some starving kid somewhere else." The discussion started with a post by a user "children_in_need" here:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=79902&currentpage=8

Thoughts?

Silas Brown

Charity is not a mandatory part of life; it is an act of social conscienciousness (butchered word, go!). Therefore, which charity someone starts or which charity someone chooses to contribute to are personal decisions not to be marginalized by qualifiers such as "worthy." It becomes worth what I put into it; no more, no less.

Evil Multifarious

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

Headspace Cools

There already exist charities that donate food/clothing/etc to needy kids. Not to say that there shouldn't be more... because there should be (and the existing ones should be as effective as possible as well) but that's not the original intent of Child's Play.

Wasn't it Gabe visiting a sick relative (a niece or nephew) who noticed just how bored he/she was while stuck in the hospital? Wasn't that the inspiration for this charity; to give something to sick kids to keep them occupied and maybe take their mind off the pain they're going through?

For someone to say that Child's Play isn't a good charity because it doesn't give food or clothes to needy kids... that's like someone saying that a Honda Civic isn't a good car because it's not a truck. 0_o

Picardathon

The false assumption is that all money that goes to Child's play would instead go to children in Africa.
Also, this same criticism could be leveled at many other charities (helping children with autism? Fuck that, they aren't gonna die of starvation anytime soon!)
Moriarty, you were really close, change the second c to a t.

Octoparrot

Is this some existentialist argument, like why "Make a Wish" is a terrible thing to donate to?

Oboro

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

They're not giving the kid an XBox, though, they're giving the hospital itself recreational infrastructure which will (typically) remain in the hospital.

So, like, it's more equitable to giving a hundred very ill patients spending long amounts of time in a hospital XBoxes.

AngelHedgie

Fuck, here comes the stupid train.

Maybe it makes this idiot feel better to try to play "suffering Olympics". It's bullshit. There are many, many worthy causes out there, and there are groups who cover each. If he's so concerned about said cause, instead of trying to play the shame game, maybe he should try to convince people of why we should support them.

I really hope a mod locks this thread.

Evil Multifarious

Oboro wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

They're not giving the kid an XBox, though, they're giving the hospital itself recreational infrastructure which will (typically) remain in the hospital.

So, like, it's more equitable to giving a hundred very ill patients spending long amounts of time in a hospital XBoxes.

there you go, even better

that's totally a worthy cause

the argument against child's play can be extended to basically mean that nobody should do anything except try to help starving children

obviously this is absurd

Cauld

AngelHedgie wrote: »

Fuck, here comes the stupid train.

Maybe it makes this idiot feel better to try to play "suffering Olympics". It's bullshit. There are many, many worthy causes out there, and there are groups who cover each. If he's so concerned about said cause, instead of trying to play the shame game, maybe he should try to convince people of why we should support them.

I really hope a mod locks this thread.

I... I actually agree with AH. Arguing about who is doing more good is a stupid argument to have. Isn't it enough to just be doing good?

Cauld

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Oboro wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

They're not giving the kid an XBox, though, they're giving the hospital itself recreational infrastructure which will (typically) remain in the hospital.

So, like, it's more equitable to giving a hundred very ill patients spending long amounts of time in a hospital XBoxes.

there you go, even better

that's totally a worthy cause

the argument against child's play can be extended to basically mean that nobody should do anything except try to help starving children

obviously this is absurd

Well, to take it one step further: family planning/birth control to keep the children from being at risk of starving in the first place.

Feral

Oboro wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

They're not giving the kid an XBox, though, they're giving the hospital itself recreational infrastructure which will (typically) remain in the hospital.

So, like, it's more equitable to giving a hundred very ill patients spending long amounts of time in a hospital XBoxes.

Yes, exactly.

Would it be morally preferable to help the neediest people with the worst problems first? Yes. Does that make it immoral to help needy, but not quite as needy, people? No. I'm not going to fault somebody who's doing good by telling them they should have done better.

Headspace Cools

Feral wrote: »

Oboro wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

They're not giving the kid an XBox, though, they're giving the hospital itself recreational infrastructure which will (typically) remain in the hospital.

So, like, it's more equitable to giving a hundred very ill patients spending long amounts of time in a hospital XBoxes.

Yes, exactly.

Would it be morally preferable to help the neediest people with the worst problems first? Yes. Does that make it immoral to help needy, but not quite as needy, people? No. I'm not going to fault somebody who's doing good by telling them they should have done better.

Who is to say that they didn't do better?

I think they did!

They didn't enter into an already crowded "charity market" with another charity for the same cause.

They did something that no one else had ever done before. I think that's better than just giving more to a similar cause... they're giving to a completley new cause.

AngelHedgie

Feral wrote: »

Oboro wrote: »

Evil Multifarious wrote: »

Isn't Child's Play giving "some kid an xbox" as in, some sick kid who's in the hospital with a terminal illness or something? Something to give them some enjoyment and pleasure?

They're not giving the kid an XBox, though, they're giving the hospital itself recreational infrastructure which will (typically) remain in the hospital.

So, like, it's more equitable to giving a hundred very ill patients spending long amounts of time in a hospital XBoxes.

Yes, exactly.

Would it be morally preferable to help the neediest people with the worst problems first? Yes. Does that make it immoral to help needy, but not quite as needy, people? No. I'm not going to fault somebody who's doing good by telling them they should have done better.

As it's been said, perfect is the enemy of good.

Seriously, to the OP, you have to understand what's happening here. This poster is not trying to have an honest debate with you, and that's clear from the first several posts he made. He's playing a game called "suffering Olympics", in which he's out to prove that he's the better man then everyone else because he cares about the "right" causes. To quote the film WarGames, "The only winning move is not to play." He's just trying to sate his martyr complex. You have to not let him, and arguing with him just feeds into that. Just ignore him, and understand that not only are his arguments bullshit, but his reasons for them are utterly atrocious.