Ganondork
goo
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
The ice bucket challenge is a recent fad aimed at raising awareness for ALS, a disease that afflicts nerve cells and can cause paralysis. This particular disease is increasingly common in professional football players, as their many concussions throughout their football career cause long term damage. ALS has been in the local news, Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, and even 60 Minutes. I personally have known of it for about four years now.
For those who don't know, the ice bucket challenge is a challenge where your friends and family nominate you to do one of two things: pour a bucket of ice-cold water on your head, or donate $100 to the ALS Association. In recent weeks, it has received national attention. College football coaches have been filmed being doused in frigid waters and replayed on ESPN.
So what is wrong with this? Quite a few things. The most glaring problem I have noticed is that everyone receives attention for pouring the water on their head. No one that I know who has done it - I know about 10 people that have done it - has actually donated any money. Despite this, they receive endless praise for doing something that doesn't help the ALS Association get any closer to finding a cure or treatment. Even people with a considerable amount of money - college football coaches, namely - opt to get publicity via pouring a bucket of water on their head instead of actually helping the cause.
To place a personal anecdote into this argument, my sister did the ice bucket challenge today. The problem was a number of things: she took water from our pool, which was around 85 degrees. It was by no means cold. In addition, she had no intention of donating money. In her video, she didn't even mention ALS. I got the impression almost immediately that she was doing it as a means of seeming charitable without donating anything.
My mother was then challenged to do it. Except she had no idea why she was doing it. It wasn't until the 85 degree water was poured on her and the phone was turned off that she bothered to ask why she did it. I'm pretty sure she has absolutely no idea what ALS is. I really fail to see how it raises awareness when some people don't even know why they are doing this.
Then comes a moral dilemma that I have been wondering since I knew about this challenge. I started wondering if a charitable act is actually a charitable act if the reasoning behind doing it is acceptance for being part of a fad. Perhaps I wouldn't feel this way if they were donating money, but they are just pouring a bucket of cold water on their head. How is this an act of selflessness when the reasoning behind it is all but selfless? I see nothing but attempts at gaining praise and attention coming from this challenge. ALS is not any closer to being cured. People's egos are being stroked, and that's all.
While I didn't have $100 to donate, I left all of the money in my wallet ($70) on my sister's bed for her to donate. During a semi-argument between her and I earlier, she asked me if I had $100 to give to the cause. I was taken aback by this question. Why does it have to be $100? Is any donation below that inadequate? Am I supposed to be looked down upon for not having that much money? I find it hard to be sympathetic to these people, when they'd rather pour water on their head than actual raise money for a cause.
What are your thoughts on this?
For those who don't know, the ice bucket challenge is a challenge where your friends and family nominate you to do one of two things: pour a bucket of ice-cold water on your head, or donate $100 to the ALS Association. In recent weeks, it has received national attention. College football coaches have been filmed being doused in frigid waters and replayed on ESPN.
So what is wrong with this? Quite a few things. The most glaring problem I have noticed is that everyone receives attention for pouring the water on their head. No one that I know who has done it - I know about 10 people that have done it - has actually donated any money. Despite this, they receive endless praise for doing something that doesn't help the ALS Association get any closer to finding a cure or treatment. Even people with a considerable amount of money - college football coaches, namely - opt to get publicity via pouring a bucket of water on their head instead of actually helping the cause.
To place a personal anecdote into this argument, my sister did the ice bucket challenge today. The problem was a number of things: she took water from our pool, which was around 85 degrees. It was by no means cold. In addition, she had no intention of donating money. In her video, she didn't even mention ALS. I got the impression almost immediately that she was doing it as a means of seeming charitable without donating anything.
My mother was then challenged to do it. Except she had no idea why she was doing it. It wasn't until the 85 degree water was poured on her and the phone was turned off that she bothered to ask why she did it. I'm pretty sure she has absolutely no idea what ALS is. I really fail to see how it raises awareness when some people don't even know why they are doing this.
Then comes a moral dilemma that I have been wondering since I knew about this challenge. I started wondering if a charitable act is actually a charitable act if the reasoning behind doing it is acceptance for being part of a fad. Perhaps I wouldn't feel this way if they were donating money, but they are just pouring a bucket of cold water on their head. How is this an act of selflessness when the reasoning behind it is all but selfless? I see nothing but attempts at gaining praise and attention coming from this challenge. ALS is not any closer to being cured. People's egos are being stroked, and that's all.
While I didn't have $100 to donate, I left all of the money in my wallet ($70) on my sister's bed for her to donate. During a semi-argument between her and I earlier, she asked me if I had $100 to give to the cause. I was taken aback by this question. Why does it have to be $100? Is any donation below that inadequate? Am I supposed to be looked down upon for not having that much money? I find it hard to be sympathetic to these people, when they'd rather pour water on their head than actual raise money for a cause.
What are your thoughts on this?
