Would you go to a charity 40K tournament? Response from GW Legal.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Orkeosaurus**

Overpopulation isn't really a problem. Not on a world-wide scale, at any rate. The threat of the "population bomb" has long since disappeared, as we already produce a surplus of food on the planet without using nearly as much land and technology as we could.

(Of course, that's no reason to try to increase the population either.)

**caesar_uec**

Redbeard wrote:Well, it really depends on the charity. Let's say someone picked a pro-choice group as the charity - Planned Parenthood, for instance. Some people might have a problem with that, if they were anti-choice.

Personally, I cannot support any charity dedicated to keeping more people alive. The world is already seriously overpopulated, and there is no reason to support even more people. I would not attend a tournament where the proceeds went to the March of Dimes. I understand my position on this is probably unusual, but looking at the world from a larger perspective, maybe we need less babies, not more.

Suicide is always an option.

Anyways that sounds like an awesome idea and I would be more willing to travel for a charity event the an ultra competitive tournament. Hopefully everyone would show up to have a good time to support a good charity and not bring the table you by turn 2 lists

**Mick A**

I hope it all goes well for you and you raise plenty of money for this good cause, but I would think twice about the name and image you described as it could be looked at in a negative fashion, ie giving weapons to minors.
Mick

**Makaleth**

Love the idea,
Agree with Redbeard (and others) that the charity itself I would have to agree and support.

But enough on the population stuff.
Take that to another non related thread (Where actuaries and demographic experts can add their piece)

**Neconilis**

Bartali wrote:
Albatross wrote:Sorry - have I been taking crazy-pills? I could swear that there are people on this board opposed to the treatment of prematurely-born infants... How can you oppose that on the grounds of over-population? If you where opposed to immigration on that basis, then whatever, it's your party.
But premature babies must make up a minute percentage of the general population, surely. By that logic, do we stop treating all sick people? I know you're American Redbeard, but still...
That has got to be the least controversial charity I've ever heard of - Well, apart from 'The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Want to Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too', of course

How about 'Battle for Babies'? Avoids legal problems.

+1

I hope Redbeard is turning down any medical assistance when he's ill

Of course not, he has money and we all know a person's worth is based upon how much wealth they have. Am I right people? Better dead than red!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makaleth wrote:Love the idea,
Agree with Redbeard (and others) that the charity itself I would have to agree and support.

But enough on the population stuff.
Take that to another non related thread (Where actuaries and demographic experts can add their piece)

You are honestly right, it's just sometimes you have to step up and say WTF.

**imweasel**

If this is in the KC area, I can bring up a car load or two from wichita, depending on the format, date and time.