So... you'd prefer funding nothing with the money you're giving out anyway, rather than help people who live in another country? Wow.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure someone will make a Kickstarter with that idea one day.
Comment has been collapsed.
"help people"
Erm, I dont know if giving video games to hospitals constitute as "helping". I mean, its not bad, sure but I can think that there more important necessities to help.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's already charities that focus on giving supplies to hospitals. Kids for extended stays need something to help them cope with that and bandages won't do that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I 99% of the time give my money to the devs and the Humble Bundle site, I would imagine at least 80% of people go for charities. Pay no attention to haters, they literally have no clue what they are talking about, so they play internet police instead. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Top results on Google for me were UK sites. If that's what you're referring to, then I doubt it, I'm afraid. America loves to make donating to charity for companies as difficult and as mindnumbingly incomprehensible as possible. When you start crossing into international charities, the difficulty increases exponentially to where it may as well be impossible. Humble's unlikely to do anything non-American, I'm afraid.
Comment has been collapsed.
What...? The Charities they have already ARE for Sick Kids...
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, i just looked at Child's Play website and nearly all money goes to American kids, so i will not donate to "Charity" anymore.
Hopefully Humble Bundle will find an international charity project.
Comment has been collapsed.
im gonna fucking donate my money to the most reddiest biggest crossiest that has ever surfaced this universe
then ill be the president of it
Comment has been collapsed.
I really don't get this point of view at all. Isn't helping kids a good thing? Who cares about their nationality? Child's Play started tiny, they grew because it was effective. Not funding them doesn't exactly help anyone. The quotation marks around charity is just insulting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get it, completely, and you will too, after you've watched This. I don't think Child's Play is a useless charity, it's a "good charity", or atleast decent. But personally, I don't want to give them anything, I'd rather give my money to charities that save lifes. Humble Bundle had Watsi as an alternative in the Humble Indie Bundle 9, I chose that one. Pst: I have donated something like... 100+ dollars to Child's play through my days of buying Humble bundles... And I haven't bought very many humble bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's fine, I'm not saying you have to donate. Everyone has reasons. For example, I refused to donate to the Human Rights Campaign in the Humble Origin Bundle because of their treatment of transexuals. I'm just confused by the ones who seem to say "my country's charities or GTFO"
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't helping mostly only American kids a good or "better" thing? Isn't there enough misery in the world, not just only in the U.S.? So, yes i care where my donations would going to.
But, do be honest: If i were an U.S. citizen, i would donate to them. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if you're giving the money anyway, why not help? Yeah, it's not helping children in your country, I wish it helped more UK children too, but that's up to the hospitals themselves, I think. I figure it's best to tackle all the misery you can, even if it doesn't help those geographically close to you, especially since the bigger Child's Play becomes, the more misery it can tackle. It's growing exponentially and that's awesome.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone who says it's stupid severely underestimates how much help it gives to children, especially those in long-term care.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh come on Jade, this is really rather obvious. If you are to help somebody, you need to do it in a triage order, help somebody who's suffering the most first. I don't think giving games to american kids in hospitals is more important than giving clean water to people in Africa or helping people from poorer countries to get relatively cheap medical help they desperately need.
Hell, I think even donating to homeless shelters is more important than Child's Play. It's just such a first world problem that it makes a lot of people rage.
Comment has been collapsed.
she doesn't seem to be disagreeing with you, its more of "this is the charity we've got so its either donate to it and do what little it will or refuse, do absolutely nothing to help at all and whine about it not being german" which this guy's post was.
"looked at Child's Play website and nearly all money goes to American kids, so i will not donate to "Charity" anymore. Hopefully Humble Bundle will find an international charity project."
comes across as "fuck america, why isn't any of this money going to my country" far more than a statement about the "triage of aid" medicine before games thing you seem to think jade is arguing against.
Comment has been collapsed.
What TheGannet said, but I'll add once again that humans are capable of multitasking. No, we don't have limitless personal funds, but what we do have can be fairly split between multiple causes we can believe in. This guy says why not toys for American kids to keep them emotionally healthy? This person says why not schooling for African kids to keep them mentally healthy? I say why not both? Physical, mental and emotional health are all vitally important, no matter what country you live in, what economy you're both into or what hospital you check into. There's a reason things like the Make-A-Wish Foundation exist. Sure, we could spend the money on something else. But then these kids would spend their last days miserable. Who can genuinely say "Yes, I want to prevent a terminally ill child from having one last wish granted" and not be a complete cunt?
Finally, the most important thing: first world problems are still problems. Just because they are less doesn't mean that they're non-existant. Racism and sexism are lower in most first world countries than third world countries. Should we cancel racial equality movements? Tell feminism to pack its shit up, it's moving to the Congo? No. We fight for them still because there are still problems to be solved. And we, both as individuals and as a race, can solve problems together, not just one at a time.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok fair enough ill not question anyones right to fight a cause they find worthy, its roping us into it though, i know we dont have to even buy the bundle but its using the carrot instead of a stick and irritates people with the american centric causes, as it goes i donate when i buy humble bundles my dislike of some of the causes doesnt stop me donating to them i figure some charity donation beats giving to companies that by and large probably dont need more than the default amount from the sales id much prefer lets say a broader range of chariities though i guess that more administration costs so less donations in the end
Comment has been collapsed.
"irritates people with the american centric causes"
Again, that one's just simply not their fault, but the fault of the laws surrounding charity donations in America.
Comment has been collapsed.
They've used other charities aswell. http://indiegamebundle.wikia.com/wiki/Humble_Bundle - Not very updated, since there is atleast one, maybe more, charities missing in that list to the right. You could go in and check every single bundle, and see what charities they had... Well well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you serious? Measuring the worth of a child based on the location lived in? What kind of sick twisted ass are you?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sarcasm? Really? Maybe make it more apparent? Because I see no hint of joking or sarcasm in your words.
Sarcasm is harder to use through type and you did not do it right...sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
But he's right though... I'm an American, we're freaking spoiled. I'd be happy for less fortunate countries to be helped. We sure as heck don't need it. (Except when the government shuts down, hur hur hur.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because you need it less doesn't mean you don't need charity at home too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, I'm simply saying we don't NEED it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, parts of the US are deeply impoverished, and there are many communities which are all but destroyed by violence, poverty and a raft of horrific and deeply entrenched social problems.
While a great number of Americans are rich beyond the wildest dreams of the majority of the world's population, there remain a significant number for whom life is a pretty hopeless struggle.
While I'm certain the root issues can't be changed by charities, the suffering of individuals can be (and often is) lessened by charities operating in these areas that mainstream America has turned its back on.
Comment has been collapsed.
For those areas however the problem is the people, not the money. What they've gotta do is pack up and get outta there.
Comment has been collapsed.
That could be said of just about anywhere in the world. The oceans are teeming with boatloads of people risking everything for a better life.
I don't see your point.
Comment has been collapsed.
He sadly won't see yours, he thinks everyone in America is well fed and has shelter and AC....because you know money grows on trees here.
Comment has been collapsed.
America has a bunchload of people living under the poverty treeshold. A BUNCHLOAD
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah because every kid in America is spoiled and everyone else isn't.
We don't need it? Are you fucking kidding me? Wow you most never walk out of your rich suburban neighborhood or you would know better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Correct, the people in the country don't need it nearly as much as in other countries.
I'm far from a rich suburban neighborhood, what do you mean "you would know better." I already know that even the poorest of our people at least have the option of shelter, air conditioning, food, water. And then the people that aren't poor take most things for granted, even human life, you hear about people getting beaten, blown up, shot, stabbed all the time. People try to blame it on some foreign terrorists while the truth is many of the problems rise from with-in. The only thing we need right now is a government that does a bit more than tax more so they can build a new stadium or add a couple more lanes to a road that barely has any traffic anyway. They say it'd cost to much to send food over seas, while at the same time they spend million (if not billions) on things that don't matter much at all.
Also, I never said "everyone else isn't" I said I'd be happy if less fortunate countries were helped. I know there's plenty of other places that would see little to no benefit from charity, while others would benefit greatly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stopped reading here: " I already know that even the poorest of our people at least have the option of shelter, air conditioning, food, water."
Wrong, you must live in a nice area.
Comment has been collapsed.
And where do you live a cave?
I said they've got the option, unless they're stranded in the desert somewhere I'm correct.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you actually serious? No one can be this stupid or blind right?
You think that everyone poor in America has food, shelter, and air conditioning of all things? WOW.
Just stop, you sound ridiculous. I live in NYC and I see people on the street with their children, living out of cars, pretty sure they don't have the AC on never mind a steady stream of food. Grow up and open your damn eyes you ignorant person.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're the one who doesn't seem to notice the "option" part. Usually all it takes is asking for help to get some, many people are just too proud for their own good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, because its an option without money, do you know what poor means? Get a dictionary.
Oh and ask, really? I am sure that goes as far as people giving you the money for rent, food, and AC, but in your world apparently it does, its not earth though or anywhere around where I live.
I'm done with this conversation, its quite obvious that you have never been poor or haven't been around enough of it to see how bad it can be...
I talk from experience, from the looks of it you talk from a "Let them eat cake" perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying they'd freaking buy or live in said shelters or air-conditioned areas. However they have the option of being safe and comfortable in a majority of buildings in America.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are either blind, delusional or a complete moron.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seriously, charity is GOOD.
Of course, there are other foundations/countries that need the money more than USA ones (South America countries & Africa for example) but it's still charity.
I really don't get this anti-USA attitude, especially since we are talking about less fortunate people. They have homeless people and sick kids as well.
It seams to me that some people think that in the US everybody is rich & selfish. Oh yeah, and ignorant too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because the money could better used than to give games to kids on hospitals, when there are much more important things we should focus on.
Comment has been collapsed.
But again, presuming you're giving the money out anyway, it's still a charity in need.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 videogames is a silly charity but I still put my purchase sliders for it because otherwise its just going to humble tip or something(and a preemptive reply to somebody saying about server costs: they can run the website and make a profit without my 15% 2 or 3 from me is plenty look at the sales figures most of whom don't touch sliders). not like I can scratch it out and write in something else so why be completely useless instead of only partly useless? moral can be a big deal for sick kids even if medicine would be better.
(its easy to fall into a "I'm going to die in this bed" state of mind with an extended stay in those empty bare rooms hooked up to those machines and games are nice and distracting which is more helpful than you'd think
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. People seem to only think of physical health in this thread. A child's mental and emotional health suffers in extended periods without anything to do. If they're in hospital, there's nothing to do. Hell, there could be a Child's Play for adults and I'd donate to it. Hospitals have an awful lack of basic entertainment.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want them to support another charity, send them an email about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
They do, but it's considered high risk because they say gay men are more likely to share needles and carry diseases. It's horrible and homophobic and if they really needed the blood they wouldn't do it, but their blood drives are generally very successful, so they can afford to stick by their "principles."
Comment has been collapsed.
Its the same here in Germany, with the private organization iam giving blood. If you are homosexual you are in a risk group, but the same goes to normal people who have often changing partners.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although I suppose aids.gov could be biased against gays and blacks and gay black people, those hate mongering bastards!
http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/
Comment has been collapsed.
ok perhaps gay people are more prone to contracting HIV, i dont consider that a good reason to stop all gay people from giving blood its also a self fulfilling prophecy gay people are more prone to contracting HIV so gay people will get tested more
Comment has been collapsed.
If they apparently get enough blood regardless that they can afford to drop a higher risk source then why not?
do you really trust their "testing" to be much more than the few and far between randomized spot checking we get from everything else thats important(fda, bridge and dam inspectors, ect)?(...because based on this policy I don't think they do)
(But I agree on the data bias for high risk groups testing more often. I'd tend to assume that sort of thing is in any data really("there hasn't been a recorded case of voters fraud so it'd be a waste of time ever checking for it. that way there'll never be a recorded case" or "we find alot of black people in stolen cars, so lets keep pulling all of them over to check if they really own that convertible. make something up about rolling a stopsign or whatever")and that groups not known for it may be under reported or have lagging numbers(not learning you have hiv until you have aids years later, and maybe some die before that happens and just be remembered as having been sickly for awhile) for the same reasons... but even so its a wide margin(especially considering what you said about risk factors is generally considered correct across the sites I pulled up. (Maybe they just have a larger pool of infected in a smaller population of partners to begin with so that has a higher rate of infection anyway? none of the sites seem to explain it really))that a simple information bias seems unlikely to explain)
mostly I think its just a pragmatic concern with the reliably of the aids tests. Last i paid attention there was a fairly high false positive on them and also enough room in false negatives to justify erring on the side of caution so they dropped the highest rate group as risk management. I don't think its homophobia based is all (and whiteknight kneejerk assumptions that it must be(without even pretending to look for facts/data before concluding) bug me)
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah you might be right their, i just dont like discrimination, though lets face it the attitude of some africans to executing gay people is probably more in need sorting out, just the idea of picking random groups as being less worthy of equality gets at me
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing about the American Cancer Society... that really happened?
Comment has been collapsed.
its obviously a bit more than that...there were probably some weird strings attached. unacceptable conditions on uses and such. I'll go look it up. thats what these stories of "charity x refused funding from y" always end up being...
edit- ah here it is(from the atheist's side(which helps with bias concerns))
so they didn't reject them and would have been happy to take their money. The problem was the atheists tried to donate it wrong and made a fuss when the charity suggested they send it where they can accept it. they only wanted the benefits from the corporate event tier but didn't qualify for it, sounds like the donors withdrew the money like assholes when they realized they couldn't get it and then went bitching about it to the internet in an effort to taint their name by claiming they were discriminated against for being an atheist group.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, alright, I was hoping there was something more to the story. Thanks for informing me
Comment has been collapsed.
Saw in a comment: "I refuse to donate to ANY organization whose CEO makes a million dollars. They obviously don't need my money."
Also, ACS indeed rejected the donation because FBB is not a corporate entity and they were only accepting donations from corporate entities.
Comment has been collapsed.
I fucking hate the American Red Cross actually....to many reasons to even list, shit group.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to give to Sick Kids Hospital, why not just do it outside of the Humble system. Humble isn't the only way to make a donation, y'know :)
Even better (where I live, at least) you can reclaim tax on donations, so if you do it separately, and to a charity of your choice, you can give more for the same amount!
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate that this idea is so left field that it's going to blow some people's minds, but why doesn't he pay a couple of dollars (or whatever he deems fit) to the developers for the games, then simply give a sum of his choosing to the charity of his choice.
As I said, this idea is pretty "out there". I've probably missed some obvious logical flaw, as it sounds too straightforward to be true ¬_¬
Comment has been collapsed.
Ahw, you naive people actually think you send money to the needy and not some corrupt CEO?
That's so cute.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 have you seen the statistics for what fraction of a penny from each dollar actually goes anywhere from uniceff? If you want to help just mail the cash to a needy child yourself or buy a hobo a sandwich. you'll do far more with direct charity
I mean the corporate charities are better than nothing, but anything that allowed you to give directly will be order of magnitude more. (if you've got somebody starving right next to you why put a few bucks in a box to help starving people on the other side of the world when you know embezzling pseudo-ceos are raiding the box instead of buying a meal for that guy starving next to you?)
Comment has been collapsed.
The mindset of this is just what keeps many people away from giving money to charities... It's kind of sad. True, some charities may use most/a high percentage of their money to fund their CEO or their adverts or whatever, but if they save one life, or one town, or whatever they do, it's well worth every penny I gave them, even if 80% went to shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
The pewdiepie one was one of the few times I donated for charity.
I rather not contribute to their standard choice of charities( EFF and Childs Play). The first one is a digital rights groups and second gives games to hospitals. Your donations to them are to buy games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why don't you want to support the EFF? They were one of the bigger groups organising people against SOPA and crap like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
while i support the EFF's goals ill admit donating to them is about at the bottom of the list after all the diseases/medical coniditions are cured or managed, everyones is well fed and has the easy life your average westerner has then ill start worrying about digital rights
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, you focus on that, I'll work on the magic of multitasking and, you know, keep my basic right to privacy. Feel free to CC all your e-mails, browser history and personal conversations to NSA@gov.us though. Maybe you'll get a visit from the FBI thanking you for your contribution to the planet's security. Long as you've never googled places to buy pressure cookers, anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
the NSA activities are merely extensions of official actions and private companies actions, im dismayed it happened but also amazed anyone was suprised, goverments are control freaks amd modern technoligy makes its child play what do you expect, power corrupts and theirs no one more powerful than the US government
Comment has been collapsed.
http://www.charitywater.org/whywater/ their main example are people who must walk hours to get water and are vulnerable on attacks. Why the hell are they living so far away from water in the first place?
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps because they've never thought to dig up a well?
Comment has been collapsed.
in the devloped world yeah women ideally get a voice in how many kids they have, but even here we have the catholic church and its banning of birth control which means your good catholics who listen to the weird old men in dresses in rome will have large families, then we get to less developed places where the mans opinion is the only one that matters they also have some justification as the truly horrific infant mortality rates mean they need that many kids to not be wiped out
Comment has been collapsed.
The EA one had really good options. I don't know why they don't list those anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also Charity is not good. Charity is just a way of keeping people feeling good while the system is fucked up and keeps creating poverty and misery.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay. I'll stop donating to cancer research, to anything giving peace of mind to the terminally ill, to anything to help people. I mean, what possible use could those be? Down with the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Charity is just a patch and not a very good one. Being that you are into cancer reseach I'd say that charity is like taking painkillers to treat a tumour. It might seem to help but you'll be still dying.
Comment has been collapsed.
But we can make that dying as non-miserable as possible. My £2 is not going to be the tipping point into an actual cure, not even combined with everyone else's funds for that year. But it may be the tipping point for one more smile in a rough, lonely time. And to me, that is worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
So there's something wrong with making people feel good? Who cares if the system is fucked up? Cancer is fucked up and causes poverty and misery. But I can't fight cancer, not efficiently. I can fight the symptoms of it though.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not that there's something wrong in making people feel good. I never said that and that's never been my point.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Charity is not good. Charity is just a way of keeping people feeling good while the system is fucked up and keeps creating poverty and misery."
Then word this better, because that is exactly what you said, whether it was what you intended to or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I might or might have not worded it misleadingly, but I just said that charity is just a way of placating one's guilt. That it's not going to change anything, that it's like trying to extinguish a fire with glasses of water.
Having said that it's better than nothing and, of course, making people feeling good is not bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
"...charity is just a way of placating one's guilt."
That's a pretty cynical view, and very much along the same lines of the argument that goes "nobody who says 'thanks' in a giveaway actually means it".
Why should people feel guilty that they were born in a safe, affluent and peaceful country. Personally I feel damn lucky, but I don't feel a shred of guilt. Why should anyone feel guilty about blind luck, any more than they should feel pride, or any other irrational emotion about such random serendipity?
Compassion, and the will to make the world a better place, if only for one person, are basics of positive human interaction. While some charities are corrupt, and inefficient vehicles for doing this, many others are genuine, well run institutions, determined to accomplish real goals and fundamentally effect the way real people experience life.
You say that you'd rather give time than money, and that's commendable. Both time and money are vital building blocks for change. However, at their best, charitable organisations are the most efficient way of coordinating the giving of both time and money to accomplish goals beyond what a single person, or a handful of people could do on their own.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You know the story of the finger and the moon, right?
Charity is a way of adressing the finger. It's good, up to some point. It's nowhere near enough and many times misguided and prevents the real action to take course.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you really expect charities to get rid of world poverty, or impose a utopian social order in chaotic areas or entire countries, riven with social problems and unresolved tensions? Of course they can't, but they can make life significantly better for individuals living there.
Some charities are rotten to the core. Some wish to peddle politics and/or religion to people who don't even have clean drinking water, or a better-than-average chance of living to celebrate their 40th birthday. Some cream off such horrific wedges of cash that only cents in the dollar make it through to the cause the charity is claiming to help.
That said, there are plenty of bona fide charities, and at the risk of copying and pasting, IMO they still represent the most efficient way of coordinating the giving of both time and money to accomplish goals beyond what a single person, or a handful of people could do on their own.
Sure, lobby governments, write angry letters to politicians, sign petitions, and riot heartily at every possible opportunity, but if your government is anything like mine, they won't give a damn. Apathy is endemic, and most people wouldn't have it any other way.
Over in the UK, in 2003, a million citizens (almost a quarter of the population of NZ) gathered to protest about the war in Iraq. The government cooly gave them the finger, and proceeded anyway. This was mirrored worldwide, with an estimated number of protesters exceeding 30 million. Nobody bothered listening to them.
Fixing up even a portion of the problems in this fucked up world would cost many magnitudes in excess of the cost of the Iraq invasion , and would in all likelihood involve real, tangible, and potentially very unpopular changes in lifestyles for citizens of affluent nations across the globe. It would involve governments and multinationals unsinking their talons from countless overseas interests, and an absolutely inconceivable paradigm shift in the attitudes of so many people, groups and nations as to be out of the question. It ain't going to happen.
Speaking as someone who has, on a number of occasions, had their life significantly and often totally unexpectedly brightened by the kindness of others, surely if you're able, it's better to do a little for a few people than nothing at all for anybody? Charities might not be perfect, but what organisations are? You can use your time to do stuff locally, but outside of your own locale, how many of us, acting alone, have the time, skills or resources to do so in countries where poverty and quality of life are at their very worst?
If anyone has made it this far, please excuse the wall of text :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I read it all and I've got say I see your point. I do acknowledge that something is better than nothing and that the very least ray of hope can signify a dramatic change in someone's live.
I will, however, continue to state that Charities are no solution, but patches and not specially good ones. It might be the best way that is within our reach. However, it's not (by any stretch of the imagination actually) ideal.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying that helping people is bad. Never did. I'm saying that charities are not good. At least not as good as they seem to be. And I'll stop here because I don't think that anyone wants to have my political views showed down their throat. But I'll just say that keep donating to WWF or Red Cross while workers in Bangladesh are killed for demonstrating in the aim of getting a "decent" salary (80$ month)
Comment has been collapsed.
And what exactly are normal people meant to do about that? Sign petitions saying "Bangladeshis, stop being dicks, give them better pay"? Petitions are free. I can do both.
Comment has been collapsed.
While their actions may not always change the system, charities can mitigate the effects of it on individuals, and make people's quality of life significantly better. If you can be a part of doing something that has a profound and positive impact on someone's life, often for the price of little more than a couple of luxury items a month, it has to be a good thing.
That is surely more than enough reason to give to charities. I'd love to see world poverty solved overnight too, but as a lowly pleb, I can't do anything to make that happen. Giving to charity at least has a tangible effect in the meantime, and is something almost everyone rich enough to own a computer and buy games is in a position to do IMO :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I rather help with my time than with my money, and sadly lately I'm short of both. And I might have to concur with you pessimistic view, sadly.
Comment has been collapsed.
My opinion on the subject? It's their company. They can have any charity that they want. If you don't like the charities? Don't give to them or don't buy a bundle. If you're really concerned about a certain charity, give it to them directly. Why go through game bundles?
Or you can create your own bundle site and use any charity you want......
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not giving my money to save human beings. So I just give the money to the developers. I wish they put animal charity organizations. It's so sad how animals are suffering because of human beings, yet only human beings get to have the most important charity organizations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mmm.. This sure is a tasty sandwich I'm having right now... lots of meat on it.
What's that? I'm not "Supposed" to eat animals? Oh man, you better warn the animal kingdom I saw a hawk carry off a little rabbit just the other day... You shouldn't worry though, I'm sure he was only having the bunny over for lunch.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the US maybe, but in the UK, some of the biggest charities are animal welfare ones (such as the RSPCA)
Comment has been collapsed.
17 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by moronic
261 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by DaveFerret
48 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by wigglenose
161 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by HappierParsley
1,215 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Carenard
45 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by gonsi
125 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by ewoda
4 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by moronic
3 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by m0r1arty
41 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by mmm29
9,899 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by UlverHausu
74 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by Sylom
182 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by SonicQuack
47 Comments - Last post 26 minutes ago by Ch1cWolf
Do you think Humble Bundle ever list Sick Kids Hospital as a charity to donate too or will it remain Child's Play, EFF and/or Red Cross? I've only seen those three and the water one from Pew Die Pie.
Comment has been collapsed.