Moral Question

[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?

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'.