Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and Employees Give $2.6 Million to Charity Through Donation Matching Program

samcraig said:
Make up your mind - FUD or off topic. Because 1) it's not FUD. and 2) as I was responding to the direction of the thread at the time makes it on topic.
Click to expand...

I don't know which it was. Depends on your intention. Did you mean to imply that there should be laws to force corporate giving and that Apple does not follow discrimination laws? If so, FUD. If not, off topic.

And who are you do dictate or define what Social Responsibility is or isn't. Are you the arbiter. I'm not suggesting I am. But as you like to point out - that's your opinion, not a fact :)
Click to expand...

I didn't claim to be an arbiter. I stated a fact. The two terms are not equal. A company can be socially responsible without donating money.

Also - if you look at my original comment in this thread - I congratulated Apple on their matching program and hope it continues. I never was arguing on the amount they specifically gave. My comments have been in reply to statements which I don't agree with by members on this board. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

And my comment was in specific reference to your random, unspecific claim about the general idea of corporate discrimination in an attempt to justify your bad analogy and leap in logic that you pointed out yourself.
 
BaldiMac said:
I don't know which it was. Depends on your intention. Did you mean to imply that there should be laws to force corporate giving and that Apple does not follow discrimination laws? If so, FUD. If not, off topic.



I didn't claim to be an arbiter. I stated a fact. The two terms are not equal. A company can be socially responsible without donating money.



And my comment was in specific reference to your random, unspecific claim about the general idea of corporate discrimination in an attempt to justify your bad analogy and leap in logic that you pointed out yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply any of those things. Again - my response was to a previous poster who said "No, equal employment practices are the law of the land." My point is that they might be laws now - but they weren't always AND that just because they are laws, doesn't mean they are practiced.

And you're right - giving does not equal social responsibility. It's not a 1:1 ratio. Social responsibility encompasses many things. But some here would say that donating is NOT part of social responsibility - and that's wrong. Donating is a subset of Social Responsibility.

I think we've gone back and forth on this enough and perhaps it's better to not completely take this thread off topic...
 
AidenShaw said:
You mean "very very very very very piss poor". As in the superlative of "piss poor". Or the "super-superlative" of "piss poor".

A small local restaurant group with 12 restaurants in the valley donates more to local non-profit causes than Apple.

The turtlenecked overlord is gone, we can hope that The Tim does better.
Click to expand...

If this is a group of 12 privately owned restaurants, they are free to donate to whichever charity they want and whatever amount they can afford to donate. That's the difference between privately owned companies and corporations. Corporations belong to shareholders, and unless the majority of shareholders agree to give a portion of their profits to a charitable cause, a corporation should not be involved in any type of charity.
 
samcraig said:
I didn't mean to imply any of those things. Again - my response was to a previous poster who said "No, equal employment practices are the law of the land." My point is that they might be laws now - but they weren't always AND that just because they are laws, doesn't mean they are practiced.
Click to expand...

Sure, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Remember that it was you that started this tangent by claiming that lack of corporate giving was analogous to corporate discrimination.

And you're right - giving does not equal social responsibility. It's not a 1:1 ratio. Social responsibility encompasses many things. But some here would say that donating is NOT part of social responsibility - and that's wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay. But that's not what I said. I'm not responsible for what "some here would say."

Donating is a subset of Social Responsibility.
Click to expand...

It can be depending on your moral standards and the alternatives for the money being donated. It can be a completely justifiable moral position that you can do more for the world through legitimate business strategies than through corporate giving.
 
pjfanelli said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)



Tax write offs and good PR. Shareholders approve. Nice try, champ.
Click to expand...

Then why wouldn't apple share holders welcome the same write offs, champ?
 
BaldiMac said:
Sure, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Remember that it was you that started this tangent by claiming that lack of corporate giving was analogous to corporate discrimination.
Click to expand...

It was prompted by the comment "I don't judge any of them based on their public donations. I judge them on their products and services."

So I was posing other areas that are not products and services which a company could/should be based on. Again - follow the thread. I didn't make it analogous to donating.
 
Well, that's $1.3 million more than Apple ever gave under Steve "The Grinch" Jobs. Whether it's just a publicity stunt or whether their new CEO isn't such a greedmonger, it's too soon to say. :cool:
 
I'm the kind of person who believes that while donating to charity is nice and all, there are better ways to invest money. Rather than donate to charity, try eliminate the need for charity. Maybe Apple can reinvest in itself, buy more and/or better equipment, create more jobs, pay the workers better, etc. The whole "Teach a man to fish" kind of thing.

I would really like a way for society (either through companies, government or something) to provide people with what they need to survive that they cannot provide for themselves. I believe everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps (and enjoy the rewards of doing so), but also have society make sure they have the bootstraps. I hope I'm making sense.

I'm discouraged by all the capitalist agenda/materialism/greed there is today. IMHO, there's so much more than just material wealth and monetary compensation. There are other forms of compensation like the look on a kids face when they learn something, or a deaf person hearing, or just the good will of your friends. I'm not saying that material wealth is unimportant, just that other things are important as well.
 
Last edited:
samcraig said:
It was prompted by the comment "I don't judge any of them based on their public donations. I judge them on their products and services."
Click to expand...

Which was on topic and reasonable. You threw in the word "only" to justify going off topic with an analogy to corporate discrimination.
 
BaldiMac said:
Which was on topic and reasonable. You threw in the word "only" to justify going off topic with an analogy to corporate discrimination.
Click to expand...

No - that's your interpretation. I didn't introduce anything to "justify" going off topic. If my post (to you) was off topic - then that's your opinion. But don't try to intimate that I had some agenda other than to respond to the post with my opinion.
 
Pathetic...a drop in the ocean for a company that exploits tens of thousands of Chinese workers every day.

Going on their $76 billion reserves, its like me having $76000 in the bank and giving $1 to a homeless man.

Its not newsworthy its shameful.
 
samcraig said:
No - that's your interpretation. I didn't introduce anything to "justify" going off topic. If my post (to you) was off topic - then that's your opinion. But don't try to intimate that I had some agenda other than to respond to the post with my opinion.
Click to expand...

Wow. Didn't seem like that big a stretch. Why exactly did you add the word "only" to a seemingly reasonable post and then start talking about corporate discrimination?
 
The fundamental advantage and problem inherent in humanity is people believing they know best what other people should do with their lives and resources.

Want your money to go to the starving, doctor-less millions across india? Want to try to put a stop to the religious atrocities upon children by the Lords Army across Africa? Want to stop aggressive China from finishing wiping out peaceful Tibet and its people? Want to help the Wild Foundation stop the poaching of endangered and exotic species ? Send the money to them, not Apple. It'll go much farther.

If you give a damn, the next time you budget $3500 for a MBP cause it looks neater than your last one, order it online from MacMall or MacConnection or whomever is advertising deals on MacRumors at the time, and send the savings off to charity. Every dollar there is worth much more than it is here. You can't count on self-serving corporations or our useless government doing it for you, because it's not their focus.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... the Bill Gates' of the world are few and far between.




Ohhhh... China attempts genocide in Tibet, Jobs becomes a Buhddist, China exploits what's left of Tibet, Apple exploits the Chinese.
 
BaldiMac said:
Wow. Didn't seem like that big a stretch. Why exactly did you add the word "only" to a seemingly reasonable post and then start talking about corporate discrimination?
Click to expand...

I really would prefer to not keep this tangent going. But...

"I judge them on their products and services."

That, to me, is pretty absolute. My adding "only" seems irrelevant either way.
 
samcraig said:
I really would prefer to not keep this tangent going. But...

"I judge them on their products and services."

That, to me, is pretty absolute. My adding "only" seems irrelevant either way.
Click to expand...

That's just irrational. You understand the difference between judging a company "on their products and services" and "only on their products and services" because you specifically mentioned the discrepancy in your original post. There is a huge difference between the two statements. One is reasonable. One is not.
 
BaldiMac said:
That's just irrational. You understand the difference between judging a company "on their products and services" and "only on their products and services" because you specifically mentioned the discrepancy in your original post. There is a huge difference between the two statements. One is reasonable. One is not.
Click to expand...

Let it go. I know I am. This is now taking this thread on a derailment and I am sure it's boring others. I would suggest taking it to private message instead. But I see no point because we'll just agree to disagree.
 
samcraig said:
Let it go. I know I am. This is now taking this thread on a derailment and I am sure it's boring others. I would suggest taking it to private message instead. But I see no point because we'll just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the advice. An alternative way to end the conversation would be to stop replying rather than telling me what I should let go.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

I like matching schemes like this. It always encourages the people donating to give that little bit extra.
 
MacAudioPro said:
Actually you are. You are using this forum to push your far out left wing trash. There are plenty of "internet forums" decided to political discussion.

Why not visit one of them and make multiple posts about how everyone with money should be required to give it away in handouts?
Click to expand...

Why the blind defense? What is your agenda? Trash?

----------
JHankwitz said:
It's always easy to tell who doesn't own Apple stock.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't change my point of view at all. Apple wastes tens of millions on things that do nothing for the shareholders. I'm a charitable person, evidently most Apple supporters aren't. Somehow I don't find this surprising at all.
 
BaldiMac said:
I understand your opinion. Read what you replied to. Blind attacks aren't any more rational than blind defense.
Click to expand...

But blind defense is ok because it is Apple. Anyone voicing another opinion is wrong. Most may think that I sound ridiculous, but for some odd reason they don't think they do too with their illogical viewpoints on many subjects here. Why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back