More of my family's repugnant display of faith

[Jackalope]

Why would you want to blow up someone that gave 75% of the money he earned to people in a earthquake ravaged area of the world?

He didn't earn it. He collected it. It's not like it was his own money.

What have you done for Haiti lately?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I give to organizations like Red Cross every paycheck. I've also worked collecting donations for other organizations (such as NAMI - not connected to Haiti, of course). I've never taken or considered taking a cent for doing so.

Also does anyone find it an invasion of privacy for someone to post a person's full name and photo on a forum without their consent? Couldn't the original poster have described what occurred on Facebook instead of using a screen shot?

It depends. If it's world-viewable, no - if he doesn't want his shit on the Internet, then he shouldn't post it there for everyone to see. You don't have much expectation of privacy for things you willingly put on Facebook, or anywhere else on the Internet for that matter.

(I personally wouldn't re-post someone's crap from Facebook without sanitizing it, but that's a personal choice.)

[Pierre Bon-Bon]

He seems a tad prideful and vain for a god-fearing man.

A bit greedy to collect the money as well.

Hmm...

[Handprint]

Why would you want to blow up someone that gave 75% of the money he earned to people in a earthquake ravaged area of the world?

He didn't earn it. He collected it. It's not like it was his own money.

What have you done for Haiti lately?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I give to organizations like Red Cross every paycheck. I've also worked collecting donations for other organizations (such as NAMI - not connected to Haiti, of course). I've never taken or considered taking a cent for doing so.

Also does anyone find it an invasion of privacy for someone to post a person's full name and photo on a forum without their consent? Couldn't the original poster have described what occurred on Facebook instead of using a screen shot?

It depends. If it's world-viewable, no - if he doesn't want his shit on the Internet, then he shouldn't post it there for everyone to see. You don't have much expectation of privacy for things you willingly put on Facebook, or anywhere else on the Internet for that matter.

(I personally wouldn't re-post someone's crap from Facebook without sanitizing it, but that's a personal choice.)

I think he earned it. I mean, he put in the work to collect it no?

And that's good that you give to the Red Cross and helped NAMI.

and i point out that when a person posts their stuff on Facebook they probably mean only for those who are their friends to be able to see it, otherwise they would just have their privacy settings wide open.

He did do a good, that's my argument. Even if you personally believe that him taking a slice of the donations was wrong, he did do some good.

So I guess we disagree.

[Erinome]

He sent out mass messages on fb. He didn't even have to pay taxes.

Then, like a moron, he waved it around on the internet making ridiculous, disgusting remarks about how good god is TO HIM.

Meanwhile, in Haiti-

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/a...645286.php

FUCK THAT IDIOT. Acknowledgement of goodness DENIED.

[Jackalope]

I think he earned it. I mean, he put in the work to collect it no?

And that's good that you give to the Red Cross and helped NAMI.

and i point out that when a person posts their stuff on Facebook they probably mean only for those who are their friends to be able to see it, otherwise they would just have their privacy settings wide open.

He did do a good, that's my argument. Even if you personally believe that him taking a slice of the donations was wrong, he did do some good.

So I guess we disagree.

A lot, maybe even most people leave their privacy settings pretty much open, since that's the default. Either way, it's not my style to repost someone else's stuff. I personally don't put anything on Facebook that I wouldn't want to see on the 6:00 news.

Yep, agree to disagree. I've said my piece on this and don't care to beat it to death.

[Autumnlicious]

Why would you want to blow up someone that gave 75% of the money he earned to people in a earthquake ravaged area of the world?

A thief robs a dozen stores. Upon being caught, the magistrate learns that the thief gave the property he didn't want to charity, leaving only 25% to himself.

His argument is that "he did more good than harm."

Why does the judge not agree?

In a similar vein, this man has committed fraud. The reasonable expectation is that charitable donations will go to the cause it is associated with, sometimes paying for the very transport of volunteer relief workers and the like. There is little to no good explanation that places this delightful gentlemen within that expectation.

Ergo, while perhaps he included a legal caveat stating "some goes to me", it won't work in any court of law, as the associated reasonable expectations that come with charity are not met and he represented himself as a charity.

That is one of many interpretations that instead of shouting unethical, actually does something by looking at the misrepresentation that said gentlemen has indulged in.

What have you done for Haiti lately?

Not steal other people's money and then send off some of it to their desired cause. I certainly hope you can vouch for the same.

Also does anyone find it an invasion of privacy for someone to post a person's full name and photo on a forum without their consent? Couldn't the original poster have described what occurred on Facebook instead of using a screen shot?

Depends. However, as recent court rulings have held, Facebook is more akin to the public watering hole than a private space unless measures have been taken to enact the reasonable expectations of such (which, if violated, Facebook would find itself in a rather sticky mess because there is established precedent). That said, fuck him.

I've no sympathy of thieves and even less for religiously motivated ones.

[Handprint]

He sent out mass messages on fb. He didn't even have to pay taxes.

Then, like a moron, he waved it around on the internet making ridiculous, disgusting remarks about how good god is TO HIM.

Meanwhile, in Haiti-

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/a...645286.php

FUCK THAT IDIOT. Acknowledgement of goodness DENIED.

Charities have to pay taxes?

yes the money might make less people eat dirt cookies.

Okay lets suppose he was in it just for the profit. Even that, even with that motive 75% of what he collected (earned) went to Haiti so less people have to eat dirt cookies.

---

Why would you want to blow up someone that gave 75% of the money he earned to people in a earthquake ravaged area of the world?

A thief robs a dozen stores. Upon being caught, the magistrate learns that the thief gave the property he didn't want to charity, leaving only 25% to himself.

His argument is that "he did more good than harm."

Why does the judge not agree?

This reminds me of Robin Hood for some reason...


Also I see the wording in here that says "the thief gave the property he didn't want to charity", this is not analogous to the situation in this thread for money is money, and property can come in varying conditions and qualities of construction. Whereas even a rumpled paper bill is still worth a dollar.

To answer your question of Why the judge does not agree, it's because stealing is stealing and stealing is against the law. By this logic Robin Hood would go to jail.

Then again I think Robin Hood gave all his money to the poor, but where did he get the money to buy his tights!?

Was the cousin allowed under the Charity to take 25% of the profit? Did he inform the people he asked for money that he would receive 25%?


Conclusion: Robin Hood is evil.

[Erinome]

No. Charities don't pay taxes, but people whom "earn" money are supposed to, damn it!

I have a problem with it because it's blatant hypocrisy. He's claiming to be a Christian. Christians are not supposed to behave this way according to Jesus himself. Not only is he parading his "good deeds" around (big Jesus NO NO), but he is keeping money for himself when he has PLENTY, that he could give to starving Haitians but is too fucked up and disgusting to do so.

It makes me want to barf on a bible in front of him, personally.

[Handprint]

In a similar vein, this man has committed fraud. The reasonable expectation is that charitable donations will go to the cause it is associated with, sometimes paying for the very transport of volunteer relief workers and the like. There is little to no good explanation that places this delightful gentlemen within that expectation.

Ergo, while perhaps he included a legal caveat stating "some goes to me", it won't work in any court of law, as the associated reasonable expectations that come with charity are not met and he represented himself as a charity.

That is one of many interpretations that instead of shouting unethical, actually does something by looking at the misrepresentation that said gentlemen has indulged in.

I would like to address this, but could you please restate this in simpler terms? What are the expectations of charities legally?

[Autumnlicious]

Oh for fucks sake...

To put it in purple crayon, a fucking Judge will look at what a person employed by a charity does (they earn money after it has been accounted for in the organization), what someone whom donates to a charity expects and then compares it what Allie's fortunate relatives have done.

In this case, the judge will see that this person is claiming to represent a charity. However, instead of passing the donations onto said charity where said donations can be logged for tax purposes, he has taken an amount. So we have a case of fraud when it comes to tax accounting.

Now, if the organization did not explicitly put that action in writing, then this man has committed theft. If the organization did place that in writing, then the charity itself is now in trouble for potential laundering charges (along with fraud).

Finally, the judge will look at what someone who donates to said charity would expect. To do this, the attorneys present and argue their case while the judge examines the evidence and constructs a rhetorical story to fit the facts based on what both attorneys are presenting. So for someone donating, the judge no doubt will look at how the defendant presented himself, how he asked for things, what his documentation/materials were presented as and the consider that while asking "What would a member of the public, given the defendant's story, expect?"

---

Charities have to pay taxes?

yes the money might make less people eat dirt cookies.

Okay lets suppose he was in it just for the profit. Even that, even with that motive 75% of what he collected (earned) went to Haiti so less people have to eat dirt cookies.

Charities do have to submit documentation detailing their income so as to not run afoul of money laundering or fraud.

This reminds me of Robin Hood for some reason...

Did you seriously fucking try to use Robin Hood as an argument?