What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Wake me when the Ice Buckets stop (1 Viewer)

Bucks

Footballguy
It was cute last week. Now I can't escape these. Flooded the airwaves and the social media. Is this the biggest attack of innerweb bandwidth since dial-up and those 15 minute email attachment downloads only to find another copy of the dancing baby? Uga chucka, uga chucka

The only good one I've seen so far is Weird Al's: http://youtu.be/1nYjEF6e_n8

 
I see people complaining that we are in a drought and this shouldn't be done because water is being wasted.

That's a little ridiculous. Do it standing on grass.

 
One of the guys who helped create the ice bucket challenge with his friend (who has ALS) died over the weekend after diving into shallow water.

 
If you're going to do the ice bucket challenge then ####### do it right. Use either a full bucket of freezing cold, ice filled water or use a full ice tub like James Harrison did.

Several of my friends have used a total wimp approach. They had a bucket that was quarter filled with water. They then cracked one measly tray into the water, gave the ice absolutely no time to cool the water down, and the instantly poured the quarter bucket on their head. The viewer has no clue if the water was even cold, but probably not given the overall wimp approach.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I keep getting the Kicked in the Nuts for Prostate Cancer videos on my newsfeed. I guess that's what the cool people are doing now.

 
Given that this has increased donations to help find a cure by over 11 million dollars versus this time last year it seems like something you can live through. And really aren't you kind of begging for this being on Facebook to start with? It's all about look at me.

 
The challenge is to donate $ or do the ice bucket. Yes, all the celebrities are doing both but 99.9% of the kiddies filling the pipes with these videos aren't donating a penny. They are just creating awareness. Sort of like a Bono charity I guess.

Homer alert: 50% of the today's posts on instagram are young teens in bikinis.

 
How about you pour boiling water over your head or delete your facebook account forever?
The challenge is to donate $ or do the ice bucket. Yes, all the celebrities are doing both but 99.9% of the kiddies filling the pipes with these videos aren't donating a penny. They are just creating awareness. Sort of like a Bono charity I guess.

Homer alert: 50% of the today's posts on instagram are young teens in bikinis.
I do love Instagram though...
 
The challenge is to donate $ or do the ice bucket. Yes, all the celebrities are doing both but 99.9% of the kiddies filling the pipes with these videos aren't donating a penny. They are just creating awareness. Sort of like a Bono charity I guess.

Homer alert: 50% of the today's posts on instagram are young teens in bikinis.
They have raised something like 15 times as much money this year than at this time last year. It has been a huge success whether everyone doing the ice bucket is donating or not.

 
Al O said:
If you're going to do the ice bucket challenge then ####### do it right. Use either a full bucket of freezing cold, ice filled water or use a full ice tub like James Harrison did.

Several of my friends have used a total wimp approach. They had a bucket that was quarter filled with water. They then cracked one measly tray into the water, gave the ice absolutely no time to cool the water down, and the instantly poured the quarter bucket on their head. The viewer has no clue if the water was even cold, but probably not given the overall wimp approach.
Most are not doing it right. You are supposed to dump ice water on your head only if you decide NOT to donate.

 
The challenge is to donate $ or do the ice bucket. Yes, all the celebrities are doing both but 99.9% of the kiddies filling the pipes with these videos aren't donating a penny. They are just creating awareness. Sort of like a Bono charity I guess.

Homer alert: 50% of the today's posts on instagram are young teens in bikinis.
They have raised something like 15 times as much money this year than at this time last year. It has been a huge success whether everyone doing the ice bucket is donating or not.
Oh, I know. I'm just helping increase awareness too.

 
Whole circus act is lame.... wanna help? Help.

I donated $20 just so i can tell all the morons wasting water that I was actually twice as helpful to the cause as them, and I didn't even have to contribute to the historic water shortage in the western half of our nation. :thumbup:

 
Meh at first I hated it but if it generates more money in the end I'm all for it. Anything to not see another family member suffer from this

 
It's fine if it raises money, but I'm more interested in electing candidates that don't block stem cell research for absurd reasons.

 
It will run its course. In the meantime, it's raised over 13million for ALS, an amount I guarantee would have taken them 10 years to raise if this wasn't circulating.

Sorry if your facebook feeds or instagram feeds are overwhelmed by this and not vague political statements or pictures of food.

When we as a society complain about people doing good at no cost/harm to us, we've really fallen.

 
McGarnicle said:
Yeah I hate it when money is raised to help people with horrible diseases.
It will run its course. In the meantime, it's raised over 13million for ALS, an amount I guarantee would have taken them 10 years to raise if this wasn't circulating.

Sorry if your facebook feeds or instagram feeds are overwhelmed by this and not vague political statements or pictures of food.

When we as a society complain about people doing good at no cost/harm to us, we've really fallen.
good postings guys

 
Americans are probably not unique in the world in treating philanthropy as a sort of game, with the goal of making it go down painlessly.

The ice bucket challenge sweeping the nation--or at least those parts of it accessible by Facebook and Twitter--is another example of how that system works. It's a system that includes credit card companies making a Christmastime donation to a charity every time you charge a purchase, or shoe companies sending a pair to Africa every time you buy one for yourself, or your pledging some money for every mile that someone else runs or swims to support research into a disease cure.

On the surface there's nothing wrong with any of this, since every dollar donated means one dollar more. But deeper down, there are lots of problems with it, and the ice bucket challenge illustrates why.

The challenge, as you may know, benefits the ALS Association, which supports research into the degenerative condition ALS--amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease.

As described by the association, the challenge "involves people getting doused with buckets of ice water on video, posting that video to social media, then nominating others to do the same, all in an effort to raise ALS awareness. Those who refuse to take the challenge are asked to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice." (The commonly suggested donation is $100.)

Plainly, there's something of a perverse inventive here. Those pictured on Facebook or Twitter dousing themselves with ice water are ostensibly people who refused to donate.

But since dozens of celebrities have made videos of themselves getting doused--Matt Lauer, Mike Trout, Martha Stewart, etc.--we can assume that the principle has been turned around. The challenge has morphed into a device for increasing awareness and therefore fundraising for ALS research. It appears to be quite successful, since the association says it's received $15.6 million in donations since July 29, compared with $1.8 million in the same period last year.

The first issue raised by the ice bucket challenge is whether this money is being put to its best use. That's not a rap on the ALS Association, which appears to get good marks on philanthropic efficiency. Nor is it about whether ALS warrants this level of attention and charitable giving. It's whether ALS warrants the attention, compared with other possible causes.

The most successful charities will be those that are best at soliciting funds, not those that are best at making the world a better place. - British charity organizer William MacAskill, on charity stunts like the ice bucket challenge

Let's stipulate that ALS is a devastating condition for those who have it. It's almost invariably fatal, with most victims living two to five years after symptoms first appear, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers are still struggling to understand its causes.

But ALS is also, by any definition, a rare disease; the threshold specified in the federal Rare Disease Act of 2002 is a nationwide incidence of 200,000 patients. The CDC estimates the prevalence of ALS in the U.S. at about 12,000 persons. The ALS Association says 30,000, but hasn't responded to my inquiry about the discrepancy.

This is perfect, and expresses what I've been thinking for a few days, every since I found out about this fad. In our town, while I was actually trying to get somewhere, the Fire Department clogged up a major intersection by walking around with boots in their hands (having parked fire...

Even taking the ALS Association figure, the disease is rare, far outstripped by many other conditions requiring research funding. These include Alzheimer's (an estimated 5.2 million patients in the U.S.), and diabetes (25.8 million).

Stunt philanthropy like the ice bucket challenge doesn't accommodate these sorts of distinctions and comparisons--it just feeds whatever charity hits on a catchy device and treats all causes as essentially equivalent, distinguished only by their claim on public attention. The result is that "the most successful charities will be those that are best at soliciting funds, not those that are best at making the world a better place," as the British philanthropic organizer William MacAskill puts it.

It's a fair guess that most people prompted by ice bucket publicity to make a donation don't know much about ALS beyond the fact that Lou Gehrig got it (maybe they know about Stephen Hawking, too). They may assume that it's a major public health problem, though the numbers say it's not.

That would be all right if new donations to ALS added to the total of charitable giving. But the evidence is to the contrary. The concern of philanthropy experts is that high-profile fundraising campaigns like this end up cannibalizing other donations--those inclined to donate $100 to charity this summer, or this year, will judge that they've met their social obligations by spending the money on ALS. (See this piece by MacAskill for an explanation.)

The explosive spread of the ice bucket challenge could even end up hurting ALS fundraising in the long term. The challenge is a fad, and fads by their nature burn out--the brighter they glow, the sooner they disappear.

The hard work of philanthropy always lies in creating a sustainable donor base. But the ice bucket challenge has all the hallmarks of something that will be regarded in 2015 as last year's thing.

Even today the connection between the ice bucket videos and ALS seems tenuous--think about how many times you heard about the "ice bucket challenge" or saw the hashtag #icebucketchallenge on Twitter before you had any idea that it was associated with ALS. The ALS Association may be very pleased with its haul of donated cash this summer, but here's betting that next year's collections will be closer to last year's than this year's.

So, sure. You want to contribute to the fight against ALS, great. But if you're doing it just because you saw or heard about Bill Gates, Jimmy Fallon, Justin Timberlake or Ethel Kennedy dumping ice water on their head, maybe you should give a bit more thought to where you donate your money.
 
Americans are probably not unique in the world in treating philanthropy as a sort of game, with the goal of making it go down painlessly.

The ice bucket challenge sweeping the nation--or at least those parts of it accessible by Facebook and Twitter--is another example of how that system works. It's a system that includes credit card companies making a Christmastime donation to a charity every time you charge a purchase, or shoe companies sending a pair to Africa every time you buy one for yourself, or your pledging some money for every mile that someone else runs or swims to support research into a disease cure.

On the surface there's nothing wrong with any of this, since every dollar donated means one dollar more. But deeper down, there are lots of problems with it, and the ice bucket challenge illustrates why.

The challenge, as you may know, benefits the ALS Association, which supports research into the degenerative condition ALS--amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease.

As described by the association, the challenge "involves people getting doused with buckets of ice water on video, posting that video to social media, then nominating others to do the same, all in an effort to raise ALS awareness. Those who refuse to take the challenge are asked to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice." (The commonly suggested donation is $100.)

Plainly, there's something of a perverse inventive here. Those pictured on Facebook or Twitter dousing themselves with ice water are ostensibly people who refused to donate.

But since dozens of celebrities have made videos of themselves getting doused--Matt Lauer, Mike Trout, Martha Stewart, etc.--we can assume that the principle has been turned around. The challenge has morphed into a device for increasing awareness and therefore fundraising for ALS research. It appears to be quite successful, since the association says it's received $15.6 million in donations since July 29, compared with $1.8 million in the same period last year.

The first issue raised by the ice bucket challenge is whether this money is being put to its best use. That's not a rap on the ALS Association, which appears to get good marks on philanthropic efficiency. Nor is it about whether ALS warrants this level of attention and charitable giving. It's whether ALS warrants the attention, compared with other possible causes.

The most successful charities will be those that are best at soliciting funds, not those that are best at making the world a better place. - British charity organizer William MacAskill, on charity stunts like the ice bucket challenge

Let's stipulate that ALS is a devastating condition for those who have it. It's almost invariably fatal, with most victims living two to five years after symptoms first appear, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers are still struggling to understand its causes.

But ALS is also, by any definition, a rare disease; the threshold specified in the federal Rare Disease Act of 2002 is a nationwide incidence of 200,000 patients. The CDC estimates the prevalence of ALS in the U.S. at about 12,000 persons. The ALS Association says 30,000, but hasn't responded to my inquiry about the discrepancy.

This is perfect, and expresses what I've been thinking for a few days, every since I found out about this fad. In our town, while I was actually trying to get somewhere, the Fire Department clogged up a major intersection by walking around with boots in their hands (having parked fire...

Even taking the ALS Association figure, the disease is rare, far outstripped by many other conditions requiring research funding. These include Alzheimer's (an estimated 5.2 million patients in the U.S.), and diabetes (25.8 million).

Stunt philanthropy like the ice bucket challenge doesn't accommodate these sorts of distinctions and comparisons--it just feeds whatever charity hits on a catchy device and treats all causes as essentially equivalent, distinguished only by their claim on public attention. The result is that "the most successful charities will be those that are best at soliciting funds, not those that are best at making the world a better place," as the British philanthropic organizer William MacAskill puts it.

It's a fair guess that most people prompted by ice bucket publicity to make a donation don't know much about ALS beyond the fact that Lou Gehrig got it (maybe they know about Stephen Hawking, too). They may assume that it's a major public health problem, though the numbers say it's not.

That would be all right if new donations to ALS added to the total of charitable giving. But the evidence is to the contrary. The concern of philanthropy experts is that high-profile fundraising campaigns like this end up cannibalizing other donations--those inclined to donate $100 to charity this summer, or this year, will judge that they've met their social obligations by spending the money on ALS. (See this piece by MacAskill for an explanation.)

The explosive spread of the ice bucket challenge could even end up hurting ALS fundraising in the long term. The challenge is a fad, and fads by their nature burn out--the brighter they glow, the sooner they disappear.

The hard work of philanthropy always lies in creating a sustainable donor base. But the ice bucket challenge has all the hallmarks of something that will be regarded in 2015 as last year's thing.

Even today the connection between the ice bucket videos and ALS seems tenuous--think about how many times you heard about the "ice bucket challenge" or saw the hashtag #icebucketchallenge on Twitter before you had any idea that it was associated with ALS. The ALS Association may be very pleased with its haul of donated cash this summer, but here's betting that next year's collections will be closer to last year's than this year's.

So, sure. You want to contribute to the fight against ALS, great. But if you're doing it just because you saw or heard about Bill Gates, Jimmy Fallon, Justin Timberlake or Ethel Kennedy dumping ice water on their head, maybe you should give a bit more thought to where you donate your money.
onion article?

 
Every dollar you give to ALS is a dollar that you're not giving to cure cancer.
:goodposting:
I can only imagine how much the two of you have donated to anything.
I've given plenty. Primarily to cancer research and local charities/fundraisers.

The reason you don't know about it is because I don't usually make silly shows of it on social media.
Instead you just brag about it on FBG?
 
Every dollar you give to ALS is a dollar that you're not giving to cure cancer.
:goodposting:
Not necessarily true.
Well, I think it's inescapably true. But also true is this phrase: "Every dollar you spend on food or going to the movies is a dollar that you're not giving to cure cancer." Thankfully people can give to both ALS research and cancer reasearch as well as eat and go to the movies.

 
Every dollar you give to ALS is a dollar that you're not giving to cure cancer.
:goodposting:
A similar argument came up a while back when Batkid was a sensation.

I just saw the following Gawker article referenced in a one of those 'Worst of 2013' lists.Renowned ethicist Peter Singer (he who advocates being allowed to kid your child up to twenty-eight days after birth) argues that the Batkid episode was a horrible waste of resources. The Gawker author agrees that the spending money on making Batkid's dream come true was immoral.

How Many People Died Because of Batkid?

Batkid. Remember Batkid? A sick child, running around San Francisco, living a wonderful dream? Terrible use of resources, that kid was.

The Make-a-Wish foundation reportedly sought more than $100,000 to reimburse the city of San Francisco for what it spent making the Batkid dream of little leukemia patient Miles Scott come true. Writing in the Washington Post today, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer points out the uncomfortable fact: that charity money could have done a lot more.

"It's obvious, isn't it," Singer asks, "that saving a child's life is better than fulfilling a child's wish to be Batkid?" Yes. It is just as obvious as obvious can be. Even a five year-old could see that it's obvious. But that will not stop this line of argument (and our perhaps overly provocative headline) from enraging those who prefer to luxuriate in a bath of warm and fuzzy emotional validation, rather than to think about this simple fact: In a world of scarce resources and limitless need, it's just common sense (and common decency) to direct our charitable resources to those who need it the most. It is not moral to pour charity money into non-life-and-deathcauses when that money could be used to actually save human lives.

According to Make-A-Wish, the average cost of realizing the wish of a child with a life-threatening illness is $7,500. That sum, if donated to the Against Malaria Foundation and used to provide bed nets to families in malaria-prone regions, could save the lives of at least two or three children (and that's a conservative estimate). If donated to the Fistula Foundation, it could pay for surgeries for approximately 17 young mothers who, without that assistance, will be unable to prevent their bodily wastes from leaking through their ######s and hence are likely to be outcasts for the rest of their lives. If donated to the Seva Foundation to treat trachoma and other common causes of blindness in developing countries, it could protect 100 children from losing their sight as they grow older.

Though it is not considered polite to say it, the fact is that most of the charity money we give to less important causes represents money not given to more important causes, and that means fewer lives saved, simply due to our own whimsical preferences. That's not nice.

Peter Singer recommends some good charities here. And here, he explains why people in poverty deserve our support. There's nothing better to read at Christmas than this.
There are no such things as "charity dollars." Dollars are dollars. What is better for the author, the new car he just bought, or saving the lives of children? How about his latest vacation? Why is he going to see Anchorman 2, when those dollars could be used to help save a child? Whimsical preferences indeed.Perhaps the author could write an article titled "How many people died because I bought a home?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top