Small good deed versus business agreement

[Kathrin]

I e-mailed someody at "The Hunger Site"l, a website where the sponsors pay an amount to charity for everybody who clicks on their site (so to say, one click equals a bowl of rice for a person).
I’ve struggeld with this before. They count one click per person per day. That is, from the same computer, any further clicks on the same day will not be counted. That is the agreement with the sponsors: One click per person per day, it says on the website.
Now, sometimes I am at the library, and really for a long time I went from computer to computer clicking the site from all the different computers.
And even at home, I can click from internet explorer and then again from firefox, and I think it will be counted twice.
One time I asked about thsi and the answer I got seemed to indicate it was ok. But now after reading this about the agreement with the sponsors, I e-mailed them again.
I got a reply from a very nice man, he said it was not their custom to dictate the morals of people, that he was sure that my heart would tell me the right thing to do, in accordance with their policy…
Now I am asking here, since this is obviously a moral question. What would you do?
It is easy to say: Ok, it is their policy, so I will click only once. That’s the agreement with the sponsors: One click per person.
But then I am sitting here in front of the computer and could easily click also from firefox, and then another person would get a bowl of food, how can I not do it???
OK, maybe going to 10 different computers at the library was taking it a bit far, but an extra click if I’m there anyway?
Any ideas?

Kathrin

 

[jmcrae]

I expect that the reason they limit it to one click per customer is because whatever it is you’re clicking on is giving you information or updates of some kind. Since (in theory) you don’t need to be updated more than once per day on the information, they are limiting it to one click per customer.

They probably also don’t want to be on the hook for more charity dollars than they can afford.

What would make more sense to me would be for a company to send in one dollar for every item actually purchased from the web site, but that’s just me - that way, nobody could cause the company to go broke by clicking too many times.

That’s just me, though.

 

[Kathrin]

They do have an online store too.

I think the limit of once a day per person is because of this: When you click, you see the banners of the sponsors. So the sponsors pay for that advertisement. The site itself is non-profit and gives all that money to charity, I think the UN Food program.

So it is the sponsors who would be the losers if somebody clicks too often.

 

[jmcrae]

They do have an online store too.

I think the limit of once a day per person is because of this: When you click, you see the banners of the sponsors. So the sponsors pay for that advertisement. The site itself is non-profit and gives all that money to charity, I think the UN Food program.

So it is the sponsors who would be the losers if somebody clicks too often.

Ah. I actually don’t support the UN anymore, because of their pro-abortion policies in the Third World. But if the money is earmarked for rice bowls only, and not for “health programs” (meaning, abortions) then it’s probably fine.

 

[Ashe_Faelsdon]

Most of these things are tracked by IP address and restricted to one IP address per bowl (for example…) now you taking your time to go to every distinct computer in the library MAY be counted as each computer it is far more likely that the Library has ONE IP address that they route through a network to each computer… so even though you went to every computer you only got one bowl of rice… so good idea but it doesn’t work…

 

[Kathrin]

Most of these things are tracked by IP address and restricted to one IP address per bowl (for example…) now you taking your time to go to every distinct computer in the library MAY be counted as each computer it is far more likely that the Library has ONE IP address that they route through a network to each computer… so even though you went to every computer you only got one bowl of rice… so good idea but it doesn’t work…

I thought this before, that maybe it is only counted as one.
Well, at least the running around gave me some exercise…

I do think it works to click from Explorer as well as from Firefox though. At home, for example.
And of course it works to click from home, and then click again at the library (unless somebody else has clicked before there…)

So the question remains, am I violating the site policy, the contract between the site and the sponsors, by doing this.
And is it more important to donate an extra bowl of rice than to stick to the policy.

Kathrin

 

[Ashe_Faelsdon]

It could be argued that by breaking their policy you could be stealing… I personally wouldn’t go that far but I’m sure others might…

Also Firefox and Internet Explorer would have the exact same IP… even though it may record the transaction, when they tabulate all of them at the end of day they probably just delete the duplicates.

 

[kage_ar]

I do not support UN funds like this as the UN is a huge supporter of abortion and contraception.

Donate your money to a Catholic orginization, stop clicking for the UN.

 

[Kathrin]

Hey, I just double checked.
The food relief doesn’t go through the UN. I think it used to? But the oranization is GreaterGoods, and charitable partner are Mercy Corps, Feeding America, and Millennium Promise.

 

[Ashe_Faelsdon]

I don’t think that Jesus would differentiate between different caregiving institutions…

The idea that one should not support food for the poor or indigent just because the institution might support birth control is ridiculous… most of the people that receive this support… (if christian, or catholic) do not involve themselves in birth control…

As an ex-president of Ontario Student for Life… I understand why you might want to limit your involvement…

HOWEVER, would you refuse food to a starving woman just because she chose to have an abortion…?

What kind of Christian does that make you?

 

[crowcounty]

weird

 

[Kathrin]

It wasn’t my original topic, but I agree:
What is important is that we feed the hungry.
If an organization that helps us do that also does other things that aren’t good, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help them do what IS good.
After all, we all do things that aren’t so good?
And still, we are supported by others, and support others.
And maybe together, we can grow.

Kathrin

Maybe the original question was something like that:
If you have the opportunity to give somebody a plate of food, but it is against some policy that you do it, what do you do?
Probably the Christian thing is to give the food?
Now, in this instance, it is probably not like REALLY one click more gives one person a meal, exactly literally; it is a few cents that are donated. And if the sponsors have agree to only pay once a day for every person who looks at thir banner, that is understandable… on the other side, isn’t it even more understandable that a person would like to click more if they can?

 

[jmcrae]

IHOWEVER, would you refuse food to a starving woman just because she chose to have an abortion…?

I don’t think giving money to the Devil is ever a good idea, even if he is promising to use it to feed the hungry.

 

[kage_ar]

I don’t think that Jesus would differentiate between different caregiving institutions…

The idea that one should not support food for the poor or indigent just because the institution might support birth control is ridiculous… most of the people that receive this support… (if christian, or catholic) do not involve themselves in birth control…

Let’s pretend we live in another demiesion and there is only one way for the poor and hungry of the world to get food - and that is from Planned Parenthood. No one else, anywhere, has access to food. Then your argument might stand up.

Thing is, most of the work in the world feeding the hungry is done by the Catholic Church. Why not just donate to Catholic Charities? Why not give money to your local Parish St Vincent de Paul Society? There are scores of options for feeding the poor that do not also support abortion or birth control.

What would Jesus do to the abortion providing food sources? Likely something like he did to the moneychangers in the temple.

Remember Ashe, the law against abortion and contraception is God’s law for every human on this planet, past, present and future. This law applies regardless of religion or creed or nationality.

Many of these non-catholic orgs DO tie birth control to aid. I have seen it in Haiti.

HOWEVER, would you refuse food to a starving woman just because she chose to have an abortion…?

What kind of Christian does that make you?

No one said to refuse food to a starving woman. Support the MORAL charities.

 

[Kathrin]

I have to repeat again that I do NOT think that “The Hunger Site” supports any immoral charities. That was a misunderstanding. I think it is a very worthy cause. And it is a way to help even if you can’t afford to give money. Just one click per day.

And there are many sites like that. I click a lot of them regularly.