Are you implying that a 'serious' fundraiser would have raised more money? Maybe part of why this campaign has been so successful (They have done 'serious' fundraisers that haven't come close to this kind of success) is because of its viral silliness?
I don't get why people hate on the campaign if it's been incredibly effective. If you had ALS-would it really matter to you if it was viral and silly?
I'm not implying anything, interpretation is left up to you :] Although yes, that's definitely how it became successful in the first place. As I stated, I'm not diminishing the importance of such a fundraising, and of course if I had ALS I would like it.
As far as I understand the physic and chemistry on our planet nothing can disappear (only acceptation seams to be money but that's a different story).
They pour water over themselves? Let them do it. The water will be soaked into the earth and that what's left will evaporates and come down in form of rain, which will help some plants. The kids in Africa don't need our water they need a well (on the other hand a healthy Africa would collapse the planet ...).
Do you know what the real aim is? Open a discussion like this. This is the high form of media manipulation.
"Don't think on a blue elephant." Now your brain will automatically think on an elephant with the color blue on it. You can't do anything against it, that's how our brain works. To know what it shouldn't do it needs to imagine it first. That's why to say 'Calm down!' will have a better effect as 'Don't get into a panic!'.
This Ice Bucket challenge, looks stupid and it won't bring some real money, which is worth to mention, but a discussion(?*) which will work like this one. And this will keep you busy so you won't find time for other important things, like what's wrong with our society or what's wrong with my life.
ALS wont be cured by us, this is the job of the scientists and even if they find a cure the first step is 'How can we make money with it?', because the main investors** are big medical companies. So in the end all your gifted money help them to lower the cost for the research.
(That's for example wrong with our society.)
*A discussion needs actually two sites, but as the nature these pseudo discussion is, it will give one major indignant side, which condemn the happening and be happy that they are not so stupid, which will raise up there own wellbeing. What Alison McDaniel is simply another form of being an attention wore. She condemn the action, but on the same time she shows how clever and better she is, compared to the others who play the silly game. She has jumped on the long train of haters only to gain approval.
** In the end it will need a distributor and if a company hasn't invested in the research yet, they will invest in the cure and the right to distribute it the end. The problem lies on the hand: if a cure doesn't bring more money, then it will be to expensive for a normal human being or vanish from the radar. They can do it because they have the rights on it.
Money doesn't actually disappear, it's just the higher tiers that keep it
You see, I know media is manipulative, but if getting people to discuss was their goal, I think they'd have gone this way. Or maybe they would, then so be it. I don't see why we can't have intelligent discussions on various matters. I shared my opinion, and then you comment, making me reply and so on, sharing our perceptions on the matter. That's how we can see what various people think, instead of stopping ourselves to one interpretation, maybe flawed.
As for the funds it raises and the help it brings, yes it's indeed a good thing, as all fundraising activities are. Again, it's not the activity itself I dislike, it's the way it's been done. Maybe you're right, and such a discussion drifts me away from what I should be doing. So does that mean I need to be a sheep and follow the mass? That's completely opposite to my values, it's not something I would enjoy doing.
While a discussion needs at least two sides, there's always a third side, the people who refuse to take part in it. It's often the best choice, and is often the side I prefer to take in controversial situations. While Alison McDaniel might be an attention whore as you state it, she's using that to make a point and share it. Pretty much the same thing as posting in a forums full of video game modders does.
That money goes somewhere that's for sure. But yes, if people do it once then stop, then it will help for a short time and not on long-term basis. People wouldn't donate $10 every, say, 6 months, would they? Research is expensive.
If the money is going to Africa, or many other areas like it, then the funds may as well be chucked down a bottomless pit. Good intentions will not sort that place out. They need to be left alone. We are papering over the cracks, and despots are using the money directly and indirectly.
I remember a very good book on this by an African lady too..
How much longer are people going to throw money at this dead end? A start might be for them to practise proper contraception instead of adhering to a fictional book and man made dogma.
And I'm not saying that because I am a heartless animal. If I thought money was correcting these places, I'd be the first to donate.
========
I don't have any feelings on the ice challenge. Novak Djokovic did it too, which I respected.
And now I have a good example of "I don't take any position but feel the need to comment" kind of people. It's not bad, I just personally believe that you need to take a side if you're going to discuss. Not that it's a norm, that's just how I see it.
And also, even with a controversial topic like this one, where both sides are in right and in wrong, we can still have intelligent discussions.
