This one is the best. I thought people are supposed to donate OR dump a bucket of ice on themselves. Either way I think it is fine.
Sweet Twisted Tribble Tits, that man is awesome. From what I recall, it was $100 donation, or an ice bucket over the head and a $10 donation.
I think most people are doing both - $100 or more and a bucket of ice. My boss did it yesterday afternoon. I've got pictures.
While people are free to do what they wish with their own time and money, I think guys named Al should get a job and make their own way in life for a change.
One of my friends challenged me, so I'll be doing it either this evening or tomorrow. I only have ice tray ice cubes, so this might hurt like a motherfucker.
I noticed this shit circling closer and closer in my social network, and my uncle challenged me a couple of days ago. I haven't gotten around to it yet, but is it really much of a challenge? I just bungee jumped off a bridge two days ago--why don't these pussies try something like that? Sent from my iPhone while driving
My brother-in-law did it over the weekend. It was great fun to watch; I've often wanted to dump a bucket of ice over that liberal moonbat's head.
Fucking bingo. Bick, I could kiss you for posting this. Mike Rowe has articulated so eloquently what I failed to. The ice bucket challenge is an empty-headed feel-good sham. Fuck anyone who's done it and I'm glad one of its creators drowned.
Yes, I realize you feel it's nice to sound like an empty headed buffoon. But, it's really not nice to rejoice in someone's demise just because you don't like something.
I'm going to dump a bucket of ice water on the ground to taunt the millions of people in parts of the world who die because they don't have access to clean water.
Most charitable giving is generally an empty-headed feel-good sham. This is just a particularly egregious case. It highlights how grossly inefficient it is to raise funds charitably--the resources people have expended raising that $75 million are ludicrous, as are the resources that will need to be spent to manage that money--and how poorly charitably funds are allocated--surely a one time $75 windfall for an ALS charity is not even remotely close to being a reasonable way to spend $75 million to make the world a better place. Direct government funding is vastly more efficient and vastly more likely to be reasonably distributed than government subsidized tax deductible charitable giving. But paying taxes and doing things efficiently doesn't give people a warm tingle in their heart like cutting a check to the ALS Association or dropping a dollar in a salvation army bucket do. edit:
Unless you care far too much about what other people are up to I struggle to understand how anybody would be annoyed by this. ALS is a fucking awful disease and the local charity has just had its entire years budget raised inside a week because of this. If annoying oversensitive people is the only downside to raising a fuckload of cash then I can live with that. (I'm doing it tomorrow.)
I could, and then I wouldn't be nominating anyone else to do it, nor publicising the fact among my friends. Whether you like it or not, the social media gimmick works.
Regarding the chart you posted, heart disease has a lot to do with diet/lifestyle, right? Unlike most of the other diseases on there that strike there's a helluva otta info on how to curb that (mainly, less fatty foods, quit smoking). Fewer peole die of ALS, but there's no good treatment for that out there.