• Comedian Doug Stanhope raising money ($98,446 so far) for atheist victim of Oklahoma tornado
    111 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Comedian and vocal atheist Doug Stanhope is spearheading an effort to raise money for one of the thousands of families affected by the recent tornado in Oklahoma that left at least 24 people – including nine children – dead. His intentions became public when he tweeted out a video link wherein CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was interviewing a woman Rebecca Vitsmun in Moore, OK, as she was holding her infant son. Stanhope included the text, “Wish someone would start a fund solely for the chick who told Blitzer she was an atheist.” In the video below, Blitzer asks Vitsmun if she thanks “the Lord” for her good fortune in making it through the natural disaster alive. The woman politely explains she’s an atheist but that she doesn’t fault anyone for thanking God. Although Stanhope has since deleted the tweet, obviously his plans to raise money were set into motion. Under the title “Atheists Unite,” a [URL="http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/atheists-unite"]fundraising page on Indiegogo[/URL] has been launched and in the first hour, the cause has already raised nearly $3,000 of its $50,000 goal to start rebuilding Vitsmun’s life with her family. There are 60 days left in the campaign.[/QUOTE] Source: [URL]http://www.laughspin.com/2013/05/23/comedian-doug-stanhope-raising-50000-for-atheist-victim-of-oklahoma-tornado-video/[/URL] indiegogo page: [URL]http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/atheists-unite[/URL]
Seems sorta selfish really. Don't get me wrong, woohoo helping people, but why only help one person(and their family) because she is an atheist?
I'm Doug Stanhope, and that's why I drink.
I agree with Joe, I'm an atheist and all but I just feel like the woman's distress is being used to pass on another message..
Did anyone remember to thank the lord for sending the Tornado in the first place? Our country, economic crisis and all, has enough money to rebuild everything that was destroyed there 100 times over if everyone pitched in, and that's in just donations. I'm against giving my money to most charities, personally, and would rather put my money directly into their hands, though
[QUOTE=Tomberry;40810903]I agree with Joe, I'm an atheist and all but I just feel like the woman's distress is being used to pass on another message..[/QUOTE] What message exactly?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40810884]Seems sorta selfish really. Don't get me wrong, woohoo helping people, but why only help one person(and their family) because she is an atheist?[/QUOTE] It's amazing that people can see a story about someone using their popularity to help another human being after a natural disaster selfish. I guess atleast it's only "sorta" selfish. He's doing this because it's his perogative. He isn't saying only one person deserves help. You think everyone should be helped? Go donate some money yourself to the Red Cross or something. Otherwise stop posting on internet boards about how selfish other people are.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40810961]It's amazing that people can see a story about someone using their popularity to help another human being after a natural disaster selfish. I guess atleast it's only "sorta" selfish. He's doing this because it's his perogative. He isn't saying only one person deserves help. You think everyone should be helped? Go donate some money yourself to the Red Cross or something. Otherwise stop posting on internet boards about how selfish other people are.[/QUOTE] But he said "Wish someone would start a fund solely for the chick who told Blitzer she was an atheist." That'd be like a dog lover saying "Wish someone would start a fund solely for the old lady who found her dog alive in the wreckage." Why pick out who you're going to help because of such a small detail? Help everyone instead of choosing favorites over such silly things.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40810950]What message exactly?[/QUOTE] I mean that she doesn't deserve more help than any of the victims, atheist or not, everyone should have the same treatment. If you're gonna raise money to help victims of a natural disaster as such, at least don't be a jerk and don't limit it to one person, especially for religious belief. I can't help but think he's doing it for his own fame.. I'm bad at english and I'm working, sorry if my point might seem vague, I'll try to answer a bit more later. edit : I might extrapolate, but that's kind of like saying "See that brave atheist who expressed her belief on TV? Well now she'll have loadsa money to build back her life, but not you.". She should get help because she went through a traumatic experience, and lost a lot of her life in that event, not because she's an atheist.
[QUOTE=c:;40811029]But he said "Wish someone would start a fund solely for the chick who told Blitzer she was an atheist." That'd be like a dog lover saying "Wish someone would start a fund solely for the old lady who found her dog alive in the wreckage." Why pick out who you're going to help because of such a small detail? Help everyone instead of choosing favorites over such silly things.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't give a shit if someone started a fund for that lady. Giving money to someone who has suffered monstrous loss, for whatever reason, can never be deemed as selfish. You seem pretty eager to help everyone and I admire that. How much have you donated so far? [QUOTE=Tomberry;40811040]I mean that she doesn't deserve more help than any of the victims, atheist or not, everyone should have the same treatment. [/QUOTE] I agree. Let's start an indiegogo campaign for every single person who was impacted by the tornadoes.
Why would you discriminate between victims of a natural disaster. Why does an atheist woman deserve money more than a christian woman? I'm not religious myself, but this kind of shit just makes me frown.
Raidyr, you're not getting my point, and this isn't a game of, "did you donate?" I'm stating it's selfish(or narcissistic) to only donate to people who carry the same belief as you, and not trying to help the overall group which was harmed thanks to the tornado. As for the comment regarding, "How much did you give?" two hundred dollars, and a slab of granite with my uncle's name.
well if you don't agree with it then donate to the larger relief fund. if you believe in his goals then donate to his specific cause. it is that simple. maybe BOTH? it's not like everything has to be so black and white. it's not like one cancels out the other. it's not like he is saying she "deserves" more. it's just an option
I hope that woman realizes the bullshit and shares the money within her community. Would make the comedian look like a clown.
[QUOTE=Tomberry;40811040] If you're gonna raise money to help victims of a natural disaster as such, at least don't be a jerk and don't limit it to one person, especially for religious belief. [/QUOTE] This is so insanely and arrogantly entitled I'm amazed you even typed it out without having an aneurysm. You're literally calling someone a jerk for starting a campaign that has raised almost $100,000 for disaster relief. Could he have used his name recognition to help more people? Maybe. Shit, he could have used it to raise money for an entirely unrelated cause. He could have backed a video game kickstarter project, or a documentary. Instead he staked his name and reputation in trying to get a woman back on her feet after everything was taken from her. But you don't get to call him a jerk, nor does anyone get to call him selfish. This doesn't even cover the fact that the whole thing was crowdsourced. Are the people who gave the money $10 or $20 at a time being selfish as well, or is it just the ideas guy? If she actually gets a fraction of this money, he has done more good in this world than anyone who has ever criticized charity. [editline]28th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811114]Raidyr, you're not getting my point, and this isn't a game of, "did you donate?" I'm stating it's selfish(or narcissistic) to only donate to people who carry the same belief as you, and not trying to help the overall group which was harmed thanks to the tornado. As for the comment regarding, "How much did you give?" two hundred dollars, and a slab of granite with my uncle's name.[/QUOTE] It's never selfish or narcissistic to donate money to anyone who has lost something, [B]ever[/B]. You don't get to decide that. You think people are being neglected based on their religion? You're wrong. But if you are really worried about it, start a fund yourself. [QUOTE=V12US;40811105]Why would you discriminate between victims of a natural disaster. Why does an atheist woman deserve money more than a christian woman? I'm not religious myself, but this kind of shit just makes me frown.[/QUOTE] Yes people willingly parting with money to help support other people also makes me frown.
Although it's bad to pick one side on who to help out instead of treating everyone equally, I'm guessing the reason for this is to help out people who are not christian, as christian only help out fellow Christians and not any opposing religions out there? Some people can be downright retarded like that and not help everyone equally and just put bullshit here and there.
I'll decide what I wish to decide Raidyr. Do not imply you are my own or that some line is crossed when I state my opinion.
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;40811125]well if you don't agree with it then donate to the larger relief fund. if you believe in his goals then donate to his specific cause. it is that simple. maybe BOTH? it's not like everything has to be so black and white. it's not like one cancels out the other. it's not like he is saying she "deserves" more. it's just an option[/QUOTE] Just expressing my opinion, man. This has nothing to do with what I might donate, I'm just commenting the news, and the new is that a woman got privilegied over thousand of people because she is an atheist, not that we should donate her money. [QUOTE=Raidyr;40811147]This is so insanely and arrogantly entitled I'm amazed you even typed it out without having an aneurysm. You're literally calling someone a jerk for starting a campaign that has raised almost $100,000 for disaster relief. Could he have used his name recognition to help more people? Maybe. Shit, he could have used it to raise money for an entirely unrelated cause. He could have backed a video game kickstarter project, or a documentary. Instead he staked his name and reputation in trying to get a woman back on her feet after everything was taken from her. But you don't get to call him a jerk, nor does anyone get to call him selfish. This doesn't even cover the fact that the whole thing was crowdsourced. Are the people who gave the money $10 or $20 at a time being selfish as well, or is it just the ideas guy?[/QUOTE] Not gonna argue with that tone. Bye.
[QUOTE=darkedone02;40811180]Although it's bad to pick one side on who to help out instead of treating everyone equally, I'm guessing the reason for this is to help out people who are not christian, as christian only help out fellow Christians and not any opposing religions out there? Some people can be downright retarded like that and not help everyone equally and just put bullshit here and there.[/QUOTE] Well the key difference here is that it isn't occluding any religions. It's a private crowdsourcing campaign to help a woman out. The dude who started it liked the fact that she outed herself as an atheist. Personally, I wouldn't give a damn if he did it because she liked the shirt she was wearing in the interview, and decided that nonexistant-god damnit this woman has great fashion sense, I'm going to start a crowdsourcing campaign to get her propped back up. The religious aspects of it are actually quite secondary to the fact that someone who lost a lot in a disaster is about to get a lot of charitable donations because someone took the time to responsibility to help raise the money. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811184]I'll decide what I wish to decide Raidyr. Do not imply you are my own or that some line is crossed when I state my opinion.[/QUOTE] When you post terrible opinions on the internet, expect them to be criticized. And "Charity is selfish" is about as fucking terrible as you can get.
Never stated charity was bad. On the other hand though, I don't think Doug would of given two shits about Moore if someone didn't openly claim themselves to be an atheist.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811245]Never stated charity was bad.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40810884]Seems sorta selfish really.[/QUOTE] Now please retort that I'm taking you out of context. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40810884]On the other hand though, I don't think Doug would of given two shits about Moore if someone didn't openly claim themselves to be an atheist.[/QUOTE] I thought this wasn't a game of who donated what. Just in case you are right though, lets pursue this thread If he hadn't given a shit: No one would have gotten money from him If he gave a shit enough about one person to start an indiegogo fund: Someone is getting a lot of sorely-needed money for food and housing Welp it still looks like it was a net positive. Better luck next time trying to finger the dude raising charity money (as well as even donating some himself generally for all we know) as the bad guy in this story.
I don't see anything wrong people can raise money for whoever they want to
People can raise money for whoever they want or for whatever reason they want. All I'm asking is why do you need someone to have the same belief(or non-belief) as you to get something done. I hope the lady who receives this money does something with it to help herself and those around her, because the people in Moore need actual help, and not political drama. I apologize to those in this thread who may see me as immoral for my opinions.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811340]People can raise money for whoever they want or for whatever reason they want. [/QUOTE] So I take this as you conceding that your opening line about charity being selfish was wrong? [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811340]All I'm asking is why do you need someone to have the same belief(or non-belief) as you to get something done.[/QUOTE] You're still assuming that he did nothing except start this crowdsourcing, and even if he didn't, as I illustrated above, it's still a net positive. One person getting charitable donations is better than no one getting charitable donations. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811340]the people in Moore need actual help, and not political drama.[/QUOTE] There is no political drama unless you are looking for it. I read the title and the article as one person helping another in a time of crisis.
Yeah it was pretty wrong for the most part... I apologize once again.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40811114]I'm stating it's selfish(or narcissistic) to only donate to people who carry the same belief as you, and not trying to help the overall group which was harmed thanks to the tornado.[/QUOTE] I don't think it is any of those. Donating is (as far as I understand) doing something not selfish. [editline]Clock[/editline] Oh I see you already got it, sorry.
Don't really see the point in the charity, would be better going to a wider charity rather than a charity just to help one person who is in a situation that is effecting lots right now.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40811464]Don't really see the point in the charity, would be better going to a wider charity rather than a charity just to help one person who is in a situation that is effecting lots right now.[/QUOTE] It's not like donating to one charity prevents you from donating in general. And the point? The point is pretty clear. Charity is a very simple concept.
doug loves stirring up shit doesn't he
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40811485]It's not like donating to one charity prevents you from donating in general. And the point? The point is pretty clear. Charity is a very simple concept.[/QUOTE] Well it kind of does, if someone donates a large sum of money to this one woman they are unlikely to donate much to the wider cause.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.