Moral Question

[DrLove42]

OK a moral question here

Pornhub, a youtube style website for all things Porn make money through advertising and subscriber features (what they are, i have no idea).

They recently tried to make a $10,000 dollar donation to a Breast Cancer Research charity (cos lets face it....they make their money on boobs)

Said charity refused to accept it because of who the donor was.

Do we still live in a world where porn as a business is that looked down on?

And how do you feel about denying money for a good cause because its source doesn't agree with your morals, but is still legal

[Bean]

I'm not sure that's a moral question, but the answer is obviously yes: we do still live in a world where porn as a business is that looked down on.

Whether or not that's a good thing (and there are some reasonable arguments either way) would be a moral question.

[DrLove42]

OK then I think the question I was going for was something along the lines of how do you feel about deying money for a good cause because its source doesn't agree with your morals, but is still legal?

[Psychosplodge]

They should have taken the money, it's not from illegal means.
I would also assume at least 50% of the charities staff access porn in some form or another.

[ElectricPaladin]

I take issue with a cancer charity using its position to moralize. Cancer is a terrible disease - the biggest disease of all, as its tied to the central flaw of multicellular biology - and we should all pool our resources to limit its impact on our lives. This is not a place for petty concerns.

At the same time - and for the same reason - I take issue with (and no longer support) the "Komen For the Cure" foundation, as it has become apparent that they are more interested in protecting their IP and market share, pursuing a bizarrely anti-women's health anti-Planned Parenthood agenda, and otherwise meddling in politics than they are in cancer research and awareness. I still donate, just not to them.

That said, I also have a problem with the "save the boobies!" campaign. Sure, it's cute, but breast cancer kills women. It also kills women. Reducing it to "let's stop this disease from making women who we are attracted to less attractive by hurting their boobs" is childish and a little insulting.

But... it also sells, and why should we look a gift donation in the... mouth?

And, frankly, sh*t always gets done by appealing to the in-power-group. Because, you know, they have the power. Dr. King did the same thing with civil disobedience to overcome America's Jim Crow laws. If we have to appeal to the lust of men - especially in such a light-hearted way - to get money for breast cancer research... well, there are worse strategies.

But back to the issue at hand - yes, I think that refusing to take money from porn producers when lives are on the line is morally questionable. Porn is an industry, and most porn actors and actresses are in it because they like it, or at least can live with it, which is all that most people can say about their lives. Refusing their money is nothing but self-righteousness, and when it's a matter of life or death for people suffering from or who might develop cancer, it's a pretty terrible kind of self-righteousness.

[Psychosplodge]

There are probably cancer charities in other countries that are less "self righteous" anyone know if they tried one of those?

[Deadlift]

I think that because some porn can still be seen as exploitive to some vulnerable woman, especially a site like porn hub when just about anything can be uploaded, then yes I think morally, the charity in question has a point. Obviously not all woman are in the porn industry because of exploitation, it obvious some love it. But not all. I suppose you could suggest that the chosen Breast cancer charity, whilst a little tongue in cheek could but seen as maybe distasteful and obviously a promotional ploy too. Had someone from the company made a private donation under the radar, I don't think the charity in question would have refused.
But let's not sugar coat how charity's sometimes go about getting donations. I have recently stopped my business donating to one charity in favour of another. The charity collections officer ( a paid not voluntary position) tried every tactic under the sun to get a donation. He finally lied to my staff and said I had agreed to donate X amount when I had actuall told him no.
We all know we hate those chuggers (charity muggers) who accost you on the street wanting you bank details etc etc.
So for some charity's to take a moral high ground, is quite frankly hypocritical in some instances.

[Psychosplodge]

I hate chuggers.

[Deadlift]

I hate chuggers.

I had one actually try and stop me by holding my sons pushchair back by grabbing the handle. I wrapped my hand over his and dragged him 25 metres up the street.

[Psychosplodge]

That's terrible that they'd do that. When the third tried stopping me in about 100m of street I stood for half an hour asking him questions and been interested, and at end walked away after telling him I'd never give my bank details to some random in the street.
Made his targets harder to hit that day though...

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Are you kidding me? People in Britain ask you for your bank information on the street? Who would be stupid enough to give it out?

On the main topic. If the cash was legal they should have taken it. So what if it came from a seedy industry? Money is money. As Adam Smith wrote in 1776: "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation..."

[Psychosplodge]

Look up chuggers or chugging on the bbc/news website, then look in the comments and see how much they piss people off...

[Gotthammer]

I can see why the charity would deny it if the backlash they would get for accepting it was considered to make them worse off in the long run due to other groups boycotting donations or some such.

Chuggers annoy me - I donate to the Cancer Council and Amnesty International. CC keeps calling me all the time asking for more money & they get an earful from me each time. Amnesty just shuts up, takes my money and does stuff with it.


Like EP I have my share of beefs with certain charities and "awareness groups" - Straight But Not Narrow as they don't actually donate any money to LGBTA+ groups but just take it themselves to continue selling merch to their target group of young straight (presumably cis) males & It Gets Better because for a lot of people it doesn't and their founder is a racist (http://ernesthardy.blogspot.com.au/2008/11/****-dan-savage.html), transphobic (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/11/dan_savage_gets_glitter_bombed_for_being_transphob .php) piece of ****.

[Psychosplodge]

cis?

[Gotthammer]

Sorry, jargon overload - in laymans terms someone who looks male and was designated male at birth, or someone who looks female and was designated female at birth; opposite of the trans in transgender.
Comes from the latin prefix meaning "the same as".

[ElectricPaladin]

cis?

Cis-Gendered: falls into a "simple" sex/gender category - ie. I am a male-bodied, male-identified person, therefore I am cisgendered. If I were male-identified but female-bodied - or vice versa - or gender-queer such that I did not identify as any kind of gender, or intersexed, or male bodied and male-identified, but effeminate to the point that I have significant disconnect with "standard" maleness for my society (or femaleness, etc), then I would not be cis-gendered.

Personally, I don't think Dan Savage is racist or transphobic. I happen to think that a lot of the commentary he's given the trans community is perfectly valid - criticizing a community is not the same as phobia or prejudice - and I've never known him to make racist comments. Of course, I haven't read or heard everything the man has created in his life, so perhaps there are things I don't know about. I also happen to like the It Gets Better project. Maybe it doesn't get better, but telling people that it can has got to be valuable.

Anyway, I don't want to get derailed on Dan Savage. That's just details. The fact is that just because you're a charity, sadly, doesn't mean that your behavior or principles are at all, well, principled, and the discerning giver should stay aware of such issues.

[Gotthammer]

criticizing a community is not the same as phobia or prejudice

Calling transwomen shemales and trannies is - or at the very least it's perpetuating the usage of hurtful terms which (to have an at least semi-relavent point here) does not make things better for Trans* people.


I do agree that things like this do encourage me to thoroughly research charities before donating to them.

[ElectricPaladin]

Calling transwomen shemales and trannies is - or at the very least it's perpetuating the usage of hurtful terms which (to have an at least semi-relavent point here) does not make things better for Trans* people.

He may have used that term at one point, but I haven't heard him use it recently - or even in living memory (this is in the "I can't recall him ever saying that but maybe he did at one point...). Are you sure about that? I'd be annoyed at him, too, for using that term, but the last time it came up on his show - and all other times I can remember - I distinctly recall him correcting the caller.

I'm a seriously bad derailing person, aren't I?

[Gotthammer]

One of our mods is a horseman of derailment - we'll be fine ;)

Title of this article (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=13054). Third part of this one (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1192438).

[ElectricPaladin]

One of our mods is a horseman of derailment - we'll be fine ;)

Title of this article (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=13054). Third part of this one (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1192438).

Can't follow the links - Facebook is blocked at work :(. I'll have to be educated later.

[Denzark]

I had one actually try and stop me by holding my sons pushchair back by grabbing the handle. I wrapped my hand over his and dragged him 25 metres up the street.

Surprised you didn't leave his head where you started DL...

[Gotthammer]

Well, to be fair he never said he didn't ;)

[Wildeybeast]

I don't see any issue with the OP. The charity is perfectly entitled to refuse donations from any legal source for political, moral or PR grounds. Suggesting they should take money from any source is just silly. You wouldn't expect Amnesty to accept money from arms companies or WWF to accept money from oil companies. Supporting their cause should never come at the extent of compromising their principles.

[Psychosplodge]

That's a poor analogy, all the examples you provide are in direct opposition to each other,
a cancer charity is hardly an anti porn cause. If it was a feminist charity or a religious group I could support your argument...this not so much...

[ElectricPaladin]

"I am against porn, which I believe may cause harm despite the existence of numerous psychological studies establishing that a little porn never hurt anyone and the overwhelming evidence that most porn actors and actresses enjoy their jobs. I am so against porn that I am willing to refuse money to help prevent cancer, despite the fact that cancer freaking kills people."

Great priorities there, chief.

[Wildeybeast]

That's a poor analogy, all the examples you provide are in direct opposition to each other,
a cancer charity is hardly an anti porn cause. If it was a feminist charity or a religious group I could support your argument...this not so much...


"I am against porn, which I believe may cause harm despite the existence of numerous psychological studies establishing that a little porn never hurt anyone and the overwhelming evidence that most porn actors and actresses enjoy their jobs. I am so against porn that I am willing to refuse money to help prevent cancer, despite the fact that cancer freaking kills people."

Great priorities there, chief.

There are also studies which show a lot of porn can be rather damaging to a person. But you can prove anything with statistics. 67% of all people know that. If you want a revealing insight as to what porn actors really think about their jobs, I'd recommend trying to find the BBC documentary Louis Theroux did earlier this year. He gets some pretty candid stuff out of some of the top names in the business.

I'd also like to point out that I never said porn was bad, nor did I say that their principles made sense or that they had to. And I would say that there is fairly strong link between a women's health charity and an industry, which in some sections, can be exploitative of women. It wouldn't matter even if there wasn't, the breast cancer people would be just as entitled to refuse money from the oil company or the arms manufacturers because they disagree with those industries. It may not even be a point of principle, it may just be that they felt it would be bad PR to accept the money from a porn company. If, for example, they had regular contributions from wealthy, religious backers, it would make very good sense to refuse a one-off donation from the porn people.

At the end of the day, there are god knows how many cancer charities, I'm sure there are plenty of others who will take the money. What does it matter so long as it goes to a good cause in the end? If one charity gets silly about accepting donations, people will just donate to another and that one will shut down. Not really a big deal.

[Deadlift]

There are also studies which show a lot of porn can be rather damaging to a person. But you can prove anything with statistics. 67% of all people know that. If you want a revealing insight as to what porn actors really think about their jobs, I'd recommend trying to find the BBC documentary Louis Theroux did earlier this year. He gets some pretty candid stuff out of some of the top names in the business.

I'd also like to point out that I never said porn was bad, nor did I say that their principles made sense or that they had to. And I would say that there is fairly strong link between a women's health charity and an industry, which in some sections, can be exploitative of women. It wouldn't matter even if there wasn't, the breast cancer people would be just as entitled to refuse money from the oil company or the arms manufacturers because they disagree with those industries. It may not even be a point of principle, it may just be that they felt it would be bad PR to accept the money from a porn company. If, for example, they had regular contributions from wealthy, religious backers, it would make very good sense to refuse a one-off donation from the porn people.

At the end of the day, there are god knows how many cancer charities, I'm sure there are plenty of others who will take the money. What does it matter so long as it goes to a good cause in the end? If one charity gets silly about accepting donations, people will just donate to another and that one will shut down. Not really a big deal.

Yeah I saw the show, I also saw the one Louis did years ago previous to it, both were a bit of an eye opener. Non gay stars, doing gay porn for the money. Don't get that at all. The Beeb also did another show following porn actors lives, one rather disturbing scene was of an actress taking a shower after her filming and crying her eyes out as she was washing herself. I know it's not like that for all of them, but that bit of footage really got to me. I sat rather dumbly thinking "that's some guys daughter"

[Wildeybeast]

Yeah I saw the show, I also saw the one Louis did years ago previous to it, both were a bit of an eye opener. Non gay stars, doing gay porn for the money. Don't get that at all. The Beeb also did another show following porn actors lives, one rather disturbing scene was of an actress taking a shower after her filming and crying her eyes out as she was washing herself. I know it's not like that for all of them, but that bit of footage really got to me. I sat rather dumbly thinking "that's some guys daughter"

The bit that actually got me was Tommy Gunn talking about how he felt completely incapable of forming relationships with women. You'd assume that a stud like him would have them hanging off him, but the only ones he had any significant contact with were the ones he was banging for money and he couldn't tell whether they liked him or not. He seemed incredibly lonely and yet was quite stoic and not entirely despondent about it. That and the guy from the first one who had offed himself and none of them really knew much about him

[Mud Duck]

I take issue with a cancer charity using its position to moralize. Cancer is a terrible disease - the biggest disease of all, as its tied to the central flaw of multicellular biology - and we should all pool our resources to limit its impact on our lives. This is not a place for petty concerns.

At the same time - and for the same reason - I take issue with (and no longer support) the "Komen For the Cure" foundation, as it has become apparent that they are more interested in protecting their IP and market share, pursuing a bizarrely anti-women's health anti-Planned Parenthood agenda, and otherwise meddling in politics than they are in cancer research and awareness. I still donate, just not to them.

That said, I also have a problem with the "save the boobies!" campaign. Sure, it's cute, but breast cancer kills women. It also kills women. Reducing it to "let's stop this disease from making women who we are attracted to less attractive by hurting their boobs" is childish and a little insulting.

But... it also sells, and why should we look a gift donation in the... mouth?

And, frankly, sh*t always gets done by appealing to the in-power-group. Because, you know, they have the power. Dr. King did the same thing with civil disobedience to overcome America's Jim Crow laws. If we have to appeal to the lust of men - especially in such a light-hearted way - to get money for breast cancer research... well, there are worse strategies.

But back to the issue at hand - yes, I think that refusing to take money from porn producers when lives are on the line is morally questionable. Porn is an industry, and most porn actors and actresses are in it because they like it, or at least can live with it, which is all that most people can say about their lives. Refusing their money is nothing but self-righteousness, and when it's a matter of life or death for people suffering from or who might develop cancer, it's a pretty terrible kind of self-righteousness.

They're IP is the biggest thing that they've got. And if the majority of their monies come from Pro-Lifers, who do you think that they are going to support. It is also (I believe) a 'Christan' company at the core, so any support of ideas against that core would alienate the public to their message.
Breast cancer can effect men as well.
"Save the Boobies!" Hey it's easy to remember, funny, slightly; just a little bit naughty in context; hey it is Minnesota dontcha know. Also fits across the front T-shirt nicely. Come on! Who doesn't like Boobies?:D

I'd say refusing the money isn't self-righteousness, but self-preservation. They know or have a good idea where the most of the donations come from and the core values of those donators, and to be honest 10 grand is but a drop in the bucket....

[eldargal]

Is porn illegal? No. Then that should have been an end to it. If the money is not the proceeds of crime then the charity has no business refusing it, to me it is the worst kind of self righteousness. 'We're too good to accept your money because you made it through porn'.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

'your money because you made it through porn'.


How did you guess?!?? O_O

[Psychosplodge]

@Wildey I think I've seen them, and the difference between the first and second program is amazing, and it's all down to the internet...

@Deadlift I haven't seen that one, it sounds quite sad. Amateur internet stuff is better anyway...



I'd say refusing the money isn't self-righteousness, but self-preservation. They know or have a good idea where the most of the donations come from and the core values of those donators, and to be honest 10 grand is but a drop in the bucket....

It's a sad day for freedom.

[Wildeybeast]

Is porn illegal? No. Then that should have been an end to it. If the money is not the proceeds of crime then the charity has no business refusing it, to me it is the worst kind of self righteousness. 'We're too good to accept your money because you made it through porn'.

I disagree. Just because money doesn't come from illegal sources, doesn't mean it isn't 'dirty' money. Would you expect a charity to take money from a Russian arms company selling weapons to the Syrian government? I sure wouldn't.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I disagree. Just because money doesn't come from illegal sources, doesn't mean it isn't 'dirty' money. Would you expect a charity to take money from a Russian arms company selling weapons to the Syrian government? I sure wouldn't.Porn to arms-dealing.

...well, that escalated quickly! :P

[Wildeybeast]

Porn to arms-dealing.

...well, that escalated quickly! :P

Not really. They are both legal industries which some people consider to be immoral. If you have a moral issue with something, you should not be forced to be party to it under any circumstances, regardless of how misplaced your sense of morality might be.

[Deadlift]

Porn to arms-dealing.

...well, that escalated quickly! :P

Make love not war eh ?

[Sean_OBrien]

Not really. They are both legal industries which some people consider to be immoral. If you have a moral issue with something, you should not be forced to be party to it under any circumstances, regardless of how misplaced your sense of morality might be.

Perhaps the bigger question then should be...

...assuming all the allegations are shown to have merit, should every group which has received money from here give it back:

http://www.livestrong.org/

The ill gotten gains are in no small part directly as a result of his illicit 'roid fueled wins. Pretty sure you won't find half a billion dollars worth of righteousness.

[Chris*ta]

Porn to arms-dealing.

...well, that escalated quickly! :P

Well, what if the money came from Hitler? ;)


They should have taken the money, it's not from illegal means.
I would also assume at least 50% of the charities staff access porn in some form or another.

Or, as the Emperor Vespasian would have it "Pecunia non olet" (about a "urine tax").

There you go, lowering and raising the tone in one post.

And am I the only person who assumed this thread was a question about the morale rules

And also dumbenning the tone, too, apparently.

"Wait, that's not how you spell dumbening." :D

[Kyban]

There's also a difference between 'dirty' and dirty. :p
And if it's anything like American TV/movies then the porn money will be denied but they'll take the arms-dealing money.

[Psychosplodge]

And also dumbenning the tone, too, apparently.

"Wait, that's not how you spell dumbening." :D
dumbing down, or lowering the tone pick one

regarding arms money, accept it unless your country has an embargo against it.

[Wildeybeast]

Perhaps the bigger question then should be...

...assuming all the allegations are shown to have merit, should every group which has received money from here give it back:

http://www.livestrong.org/

The ill gotten gains are in no small part directly as a result of his illicit 'roid fueled wins. Pretty sure you won't find half a billion dollars worth of righteousness.

No. They took the money in good faith rather than against their better judgement, not knowing what he was really up to. It's not their fault is it. I think most people would consider it unreasonable to expect them to be under any obligation to do so. Should everyone who's ever been helped by Jimmy Saville have to give the money back? They may not feel that great about having accepted it, but that doesn't mean they should give it back. Not to mention from a practical point of view it would be nearly impossible.

[Psychosplodge]

Should everyone who's ever been helped by Jimmy Saville have to give the money back? They may not feel that great about having accepted it, but that doesn't mean they should give it back. Not to mention from a practical point of view it would be nearly impossible.

But that argument stopped at least one newspaper apparently exposing him...

[Chris*ta]

dumbing down, or lowering the tone pick one

regarding arms money, accept it unless your country has an embargo against it.


Wait, that's how you spell dumbening. Wait, dumbening isn't even a word!

This is meaningless text so I can post this. Please ignore. Fnord.

[Wildeybeast]

But that argument stopped at least one newspaper apparently exposing him...

It seems like half the country knew about him and yet said and did bugger all.

[eldargal]

But there is no such thing as dirty money, money is money, it has no morality. If it is not the proceeds of crime then there can be no objection to it, charities knocking back money from, say, porn is simply the worst kind of self-righteous, Victorian snobbery. The Syria example isn't particularly useful, weaposn going to Syria are being used in crimes against humanity afterall, the morality of that is not ambiguous.

I disagree. Just because money doesn't come from illegal sources, doesn't mean it isn't 'dirty' money. Would you expect a charity to take money from a Russian arms company selling weapons to the Syrian government? I sure wouldn't.

[Wildeybeast]

But there is no such thing as dirty money, money is money, it has no morality. If it is not the proceeds of crime then there can be no objection to it, charities knocking back money from, say, porn is simply the worst kind of self-righteous, Victorian snobbery. The Syria example isn't particularly useful, weaposn going to Syria are being used in crimes against humanity afterall, the morality of that is not ambiguous.


Morality is entirely subjective. If you decide, based on your morality, that the profit generated by crimes against humanity is 'dirty' money but that generated by porn is fine, you have to acknowledge and respect the right of others to decide, based on their morality, that porn money is 'dirty'. You can't deride it as outmoded snobbery simply because it doesn;t match up with your moral code.

To suggest money is just money is incredibly naive. Guns are morally neutral, what matters is what they are used for. In the same way, how money is generated and what it is used for are not morally neutral. By that logic, the Russian arms companies shipping to Syria have clean hands since there are no arms embargo in place and what they are doing is perfectly legal. Only yesterday the Turks detained a plane load of weapons from Russia, but had to let it go as there was no legal grounds to stop the arms entering Syria. (By the way, morality and legality are not the same thing). In reality, the arms companies know exactly what the weapons are used for, they just don't care. Would you say they are morally innocent?

[eldargal]

Exactly, morality is subjective and and a charity has no business being the arbiter of morality. They exist to provide relief and aid and it is just prudish snobbery to knock back money because it comes from a perfectly legal industry that some people object to.

A weapons company shipping things to Syria where those weapons ARE being used in crimes against the populace is morally wrongand that moeny is coming from aiding and abetting crime. But that is as far as it goes, there is nothing illegal about the arms trade and its morality is also up for question. Nations have a right to defend themselves as people do and there are many companies who help meet that demand without giving weapons to nations who are using them in an immoral fashion. There is a world of difference between 'an arms company' and 'an arms company actively supplying weapons to a government using them to commit crimes against humanities'.

[Wildeybeast]

Exactly, morality is subjective and and a charity has no business being the arbiter of morality. They exist to provide relief and aid and it is just prudish snobbery to knock back money because it comes from a perfectly legal industry that some people object to.

A weapons company shipping things to Syria where those weapons ARE being used in crimes against the populace is morally wrongand that moeny is coming from aiding and abetting crime. But that is as far as it goes, there is nothing illegal about the arms trade and its morality is also up for question. Nations have a right to defend themselves as people do and there are many companies who help meet that demand without giving weapons to nations who are using them in an immoral fashion. There is a world of difference between 'an arms company' and 'an arms company actively supplying weapons to a government using them to commit crimes against humanities'.

A charity is just as entitled to have a moral code as any other business or organisation. I agree with you in this instance, but I defend their right to make that decision. And besides, their overriding goal is to act in the best interests of the charity. If taking this money would jeopardise other more reliable sources of income, the image of the charity or negatively affect those they help, then they would be obliged to do refuse the money. It is more than possible that any of these were factors in the decision of the board, rather than own personal sense of "prudish snobbery".

As for the Syria thing, it is impossible to determine which weapons are being used in the crimes against humanity and therefore which companies are supplying them. As such, legally the weapons suppliers are not guilty of aiding any crimes. I would also be incredibly impressed if you could find an arms company which has never, directly or indirectly, sold weapons to a country with a questionable human rights record. They make things designed to kill people, morality is irrelevant to them, all that matters is what is legal and what is not and how much profit they can make from it.

[eldargal]

See that is where I just disagree. A charity has no business placing a conception of morality over the good of the people it is trying to help. Pornography is not illegal and its morality is at the very worst merely questionable.


You could as easily argue a charity should reject US guvmint funding on account of the tens of thousands (conservative estimate) of civilians killed by their armed forces in Iraq. Where do you draw the line? What about Boeing, they produce military aircraft? A gun company who produced a firearm used in a murder? Charities would spend more time vetting their funding sources than actually doing good.

[Deadlift]

Just as an example, Because I am in the amusement arcade business, I am required ( no choice it's part of our license) to make an annual "donation" to Gamcare. This is an organisation that helps people who have a gambling addiction. You could argue that Gamcare are hypocritical in accepting these donations. Or we has members of the British Amusements Catering Trades Association are giving something back to repair some of damage uncontrolled gambling can do to some people's lives.

Either way if it weren't for the B.A.C.T.A members donations I doubt Gamcare would exist. Maybe Pornhub should be giving something back too, maybe it's the choice of charity some find distasteful. If it had maybe been the AIDS Foundation or something similar it would have been deemed more appropriate. The donation they made was nothing more than a publicity stunt really.

[Wildeybeast]

See that is where I just disagree. A charity has no business placing a conception of morality over the good of the people it is trying to help. Pornography is not illegal and its morality is at the very worst merely questionable.


You could as easily argue a charity should reject US guvmint funding on account of the tens of thousands (conservative estimate) of civilians killed by their armed forces in Iraq. Where do you draw the line? What about Boeing, they produce military aircraft? A gun company who produced a firearm used in a murder? Charities would spend more time vetting their funding sources than actually doing good.

They should place the good of those they help above all others, but if that good is best served by refusing certain donations in order to protect the image and reputation of the charity then so be it. If porn money damages the image of the charity and therefore their long term funding, they should refuse it. And surely charities are under an obligation vet any significant donations? If a random bloke offers them ten grand, should they not be asking where that money came form and why he is giving them so much? Or do you think they should just take it no questions asked? Personally, I'd be wanting to know where it came from, but maybe that's just me.


Just as an example, Because I am in the amusement arcade business, I am required ( no choice it's part of our license) to make an annual "donation" to Gamcare. This is an organisation that helps people who have a gambling addiction. You could argue that Gamcare are hypocritical in accepting these donations. Or we has members of the British Amusements Catering Trades Association are giving something back to repair some of damage uncontrolled gambling can do to some people's lives.

Either way if it weren't for the B.A.C.T.A members donations I doubt Gamcare would exist. Maybe Pornhub should be giving something back too, maybe it's the choice of charity some find distasteful. If it had maybe been the AIDS Foundation or something similar it would have been deemed more appropriate. The donation they made was nothing more than a publicity stunt really.

You make a really interesting point about Gamcare. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they a government established organisation run as a charity? In which case they would in effect be government institution funded by a tax, which makes the situation slightly different. Do they have any choice about accepting your 'donations'?

I agree entirely that the Pronhub donation was publicity stunt designed to get them some free advertising. They may have even deliberately chosen a charity they thought likely to refuse the donation.

[Chris*ta]

I agree entirely that the Pronhub donation was publicity stunt designed to get them some free advertising. They may have even deliberately chosen a charity they thought likely to refuse the donation.

Isn't any donation from a company pretty much a publicity stunt, by definition? I mean large, publicly traded companies, not small-medium independent businesses.

Actually that's an interesting thought, how can publicly traded companies make donations? Don't they have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit? And/or not give away free money?

[Kyban]

Isn't any donation from a company pretty much a publicity stunt, by definition? I mean large, publicly traded companies, not small-medium independent businesses.

Actually that's an interesting thought, how can publicly traded companies make donations? Don't they have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit? And/or not give away free money?

I would think so, they're supposed to be "owned" by the shareholders so it really has to be a business decision. I bet the decision to turn down the donation was a business decision as well, they probably turned it down to ensure they didn't lose their other donors that might be more squeamish about the porn industry.

[Psychosplodge]

BUt more importantly, What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Sean_OBrien]

Isn't any donation from a company pretty much a publicity stunt, by definition? I mean large, publicly traded companies, not small-medium independent businesses.

Actually that's an interesting thought, how can publicly traded companies make donations? Don't they have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit? And/or not give away free money?

Even with small (medium) companies it is publicity (and tax benefits). I know when we support things like Little League teams with company money, our first concern is the publicity we will get. If we support a team which past customers' kids play on - it is more likely to get our name in front of future customers. We are much less likely to support a team in front of agricultural customers or those on the lower income spectrum...they just don't have access to what we want.

Of course you have certain aspects of attempting to garner goodwill with consumers. A company like PornHub may have seen it as a bit of free advertising, but from what I have heard - many in that business actually are fairly descent people who wish their industry wasn't painted so broadly as oppressive against women. Tossing a chunk of money at a women's charity goes a fair way in showing they are not evil for a portion of the public at large.

You see similar activity with mining/oil companies supporting environmental concerns and what not. Sometimes it is in direct response to a specific instance (BP and the Gulf Oil Spill for example) while other times it is just part of a long running campaign to generate goodwill against the tide of negative press. So, in that regard - it isn't so much giving away free money as it is buying advertising. Quite often, you will actually write into your corporate structuring that a portion of revenues will be donated each year and it is expensed appropriately and you gain tax benefits as a result.

One thing which I did find odd though was that the SGK (and many others) seemed to think that it was a significant issue that they were only donating 1 cent per 30 videos watched. Today, a bit more than half way through the month that ended up coming to over $14K. While not a huge donation, it is significant for any charity to have a $30K or so (by the end of the month) donation.

[Chris*ta]

BUt more importantly, What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Gee, why don't you go flip over a turtle?

I have noticed several times on (Australian) TV, a charity collecting donations, where said charity has the same name (and is affiliated with) a major company, usually a bank.

I rather dislike the idea that they're collecting donations to improve their own public image, so I don't donate. That, and I'm too poor :(

[Drunkencorgimaster]

BUt more importantly, What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Slower than Rainbow Dash, faster than Fluttershy.

[Psychosplodge]

BUt more importantly, What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?




Gee, why don't you go flip over a turtle?



That sounds cruel.


Slower than Rainbow Dash, faster than Fluttershy.

I think clearly this is the better answer...

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I think clearly this is the better answer...

I'm inclined to agree.

[Uncle Nutsy]

If a charity wants to use it's position to deny money from a porn website, then they really need to reassess their own position on the matter.

I can't support a charity like this if they use their own misguided morality to decide on what donations they will receive.

[Wildeybeast]

If a charity wants to use it's position to deny money from a porn website, then they really need to reassess their own position on the matter.

I can't support a charity like this if they use their own misguided morality to decide on what donations they will receive.

Then don't. Give your money to another cancer charity. What does it matter which charity it goes to as long as it all ends up on the same cause? If everyone agrees with you, the charity goes under, people give their money to another one and the 'victims' still get helped, just be people with different principles. Same outcome.

[Phototoxin]

I think the charities should be grateful. Then again I can see why the charity might not want to be seen to be affiliated with an industry that some believe exploits women. (Even though breast cancer can effect men as well)

[Uncle Nutsy]

Then don't. Give your money to another cancer charity. What does it matter which charity it goes to as long as it all ends up on the same cause? If everyone agrees with you, the charity goes under, people give their money to another one and the 'victims' still get helped, just be people with different principles. Same outcome.

agreed. and the moral crusade dies with it.

[Chris*ta]

Slower than Rainbow Dash, faster than Fluttershy.


That sounds cruel.

I think clearly this is the better answer...


I'm inclined to agree.

Philistines.

"A tortoise. What's that?"

"You know what a turtle is? Same thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc_204tXHZY&feature=related)."

[Psychosplodge]

Is this a test to see if I'm a replicant or a lesbian?

[Chris*ta]

Can't you be both?

Mmm, replicant lesbian sex droids :)

[Psychosplodge]

Obviously the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Chris*ta]

You had me at "sex droid".

[White Tiger88]

What idiot said "hey lets turn down 10,000 dollars we can help people with"?????

[Chris*ta]

It's most likely because they're worried that the people who will donate the next 100,000 would be upset at them taking money from the sex industry.

Which is sad, but that's life, I guess ...