Well, to be fair he never said he didn't
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.
Chief Educator of the Horsemen of Derailment "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." SOREN KIERKEGAARD
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...
However the process of robo-insemination is far too complex for the human mind!
A knee high fence, my one weakness
"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.
ElectricPaladin Paints: http://tiny-plastic-dead.tumblr.com/
ElectricPaladin Writes: burningzeppelinexperience.blogspot.com
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.
Chief Educator of the Horsemen of Derailment "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." SOREN KIERKEGAARD
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"
http://paintingplasticcrack.blogspot.co.uk
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
Chief Educator of the Horsemen of Derailment "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." SOREN KIERKEGAARD
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?
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....
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'.
Last edited by Tzeentch's Dark Agent; 10-11-2012 at 11:03 PM.
Ask not the EldarGal a question, for she will give you three answers, all of which are puns and terrifying to know. Back off man, I'm a feminist. Ia! Ia! Gloppal Snode!