K Warner - no matter what great guy

[atcchris]

Folks, I really don't think religion has anything to do with this.

So let's not start a holy war, alright?

You might be right. Maybe it has nothing to do with beliefs or values.

I'll tell you this, though, it has a lot to do with being very hateful toward someone who certainly doesn't deserve it.

It has a lot to do with accusing Warner of something of which there is no real evidence, simply assumptions. So... using that same sort of logic, I jumped to the same sort of conclusion.... if it was wrong for me to do so.... we can assume.....

In any event, someone who is a member of this site, decided to make a post praising a former Ram, in fact, a key component of our only Super Bowl winning team, and a very prominent member of this board decided to be, at best, extremely cynical about it.

Why not just let it go and let someone honor a former Ram? But no.

[ramsanddodgers]

Wow, I have heard losing creates dissension in the locker room, but it seems to have spread to message boards. I can't wait until the Rams start winning so we can start hugging and high-fiving again!

[Chris58]

In my mind it doesn't matter what motivated Warner to do this. He could be doing it for all the positive press he could muster or he could be doing it for the pure joy of giving to his fellow man. The fact is the color of the money is the same and the recipients still benefit.

Is an act that benefits another human being any less impactful to the recipient because of the motivation behind it?

But based upon Warner's own reasoning, his generosity surely seems unselfish on his part.

[AvengerRam]

Neither does Warner.

No, he tells a reporter for the New York Times, who tells everyone...

You seem to still not understand that this isn't about him buying a dinner it's about him trying to teach his kids something.

You don't know anything about what I "understand." I have kids of my own, and I do many things to teach them about giving to those in need. I just don't do it by suggesting to my kids that everyone with less money than me is a charity case.

I still haven't heard your theory on what Warner gets out of "leaking" the story. Let's just say that it's all grandstanding like you think. What does he gain by doing it?

Publicity.

[AvengerRam]

Is an act that benefits another human being any less impactful to the recipient because of the motivation behind it?

That's not exactly the point. If Kurt buys dinner for a family who can easily afford the meal, then the impact on the recipient is minimal. Kurt, on the other hand, if motivated by his own self-gratification and desire to enhance his public image, has not engaged in a true form of charity.

[AvengerRam]

It has a lot to do with accusing Warner of something of which there is no real evidence, simply assumptions.

I've made no assumptions. My comments are based in facts.

Fact #1: Kurt buys dinner for random families - thus he has no knowledge of whether they are "needy."

Fact #2: Kurt told a reporter about this practice, knowing that the reporter was preparing an article for a national publication.

To me, that's not charity, and its not a good way to teach his kids about giving to the needy. Rather, the message seems to be "We're richer than everyone in this room."

In the end, I think you all are grasping for something that might not be there. You want Kurt Warner, a hero on the football field, to also be this perfect role model of a person. The press would like you to believe that too, as it makes a good story. My point is that Kurt, who appears to be a good person with a big heart, is also human. He, like everyone else, possesses human flaws like arrogance, ego and sanctimony. I think you'd all be well served to view him as a positive, but not perfect, human role model, rather than a flawless Earth-bound Saint.

[ramsanddodgers]

That's not exactly the point. If Kurt buys dinner for a family who can easily afford the meal, then the impact on the recipient is minimal. Kurt, on the other hand, if motivated by his own self-gratification and desire to enhance his public image, has not engaged in a true form of charity.

So are you saying that if Warner wants to treat a family to a meal he needs to treat a family 'in need' thus he should go to a lesser restaurant (I am making the assumption that Kurt doesn't take his family to a 'greasy spoon' type eatery) rather than selecting, or letting his kids select an anonymous diner at the above average place he is no doubt patronizing so that the act of kindness (rather than charity) is better appreciated by the recipient?

Biblical precepts, which this random act of kindness is possibly based on, state that when engaged in such an act , 'But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.' Matthew, 6:3 (King James Version)'. So I would have to agree with you that while not wrong but possibly misapplied, the aforementioned act of kindness need be done without publicity in mind.

Basically we are arguing semantics, IMHO.

[AvengerRam]

When he pays for someone else's dinner, his heart is in the right place (though, I would argue, its a misguided manner of teaching a lesson about giving).

When he tells a reporter about it, his heart has nothing to do with it (though, I would argue, his ego does).

I've been to many functions in my life at which a person is honored for his or her generousity. In my experience, the person being honored is rarely the most generous person in the room.

Another example of what I'm talking about was the Oprah stunt where she gave cars to every person in her audience. Sure, the ones who received the cars derived a benefit from this "random act of kindness," but is anyone naive enough to think that Oprah was not motivated by her desire to portray herself as this wonderful, generous, person?

Of course, nobody here wears an Oprah jersey.

[Nick]

Of course, nobody here wears an Oprah jersey.

What I have in my wardrobe is nobody's business but my own.

[AvengerRam]

What I have in my wardrobe is nobody's business but my own.

I've seen pictures of you Nick, and its pretty clear that at least 2 of you could fit into 1 Oprah jersey.

[ramsanddodgers]

I've been to many functions in my life at which a person is honored for his or her generousity. In my experience, the person being honored is rarely the most generous person in the room.

Ahh, but this borders on politics? Agreed, this person is usually the winner of a popularity contest.

Another example of what I'm talking about was the Oprah stunt where she gave cars to every person in her audience. Sure, the ones who received the cars derived a benefit from this "random act of kindness," but is anyone naive enough to think that Oprah was not motivated by her desire to portray herself as this wonderful, generous, person?

But Oprah was not so generous as to help these 'unfortunates' who happened to be her audience to pay the gift tax on the cars forcing most of them to either sell their car to pay the taxes and maybe have some left over cash in their pocket, or to not accept (afford) the 'gift'? How much of this was out of the "Oprah Corporation" funds or donations made to her for as an advertising gimmick?

My, are we not a cynical lot? lol

[ramsanddodgers]

I've seen pictures of you Nick, and its pretty clear that at least 2 of you could fit into 1 Oprah jersey.

and here I thought Oprah was just busty only to find out it is Nick(2) in there. I wonder how Stedman (?) feels about that?

[moklerman]

You don't know anything about what I "understand." I have kids of my own, and I do many things to teach them about giving to those in need. I just don't do it by suggesting to my kids that everyone with less money than me is a charity case.

No, you're not making assumptions at all...

Sounds an awful lot like you're projecting your own issues onto this story.

Publicity.

So you're really arguing that Warner and his family have been setting up this publicity stunt for 8 years? Finally to reveal it to a virtually unknown beat reporter for the Jets?

If Kurt buys dinner for a family who can easily afford the meal, then the impact on the recipient is minimal.

Perhaps his motivation isn't to change their lives. I think you're confusing charity and generosity and kindness. He isn't slumming, handing out coins to the masses. He's buying dinner for a family where he is also eating. If he's eating there, he obviously doesn't look down on the people.

Also, if any pro athlete values what the costs of real life actually are, it's Warner and his family. They've been to the very bottom and I'm sure that, like most of the rest of us, a free meal when you were expecting to drop $100 or whatever on a night out would be a treat. It wouldn't change your life but it could brighten your day or end it on a high note or rekindle a bit of optimism that not everyone in life is a skeptic and cynic.

But mission accomplished, AV. You've easily established yourself as the antithesis to what Warner and his family were apparently trying to accomplish. They were trying to brighten someone's day just for the sake of it and you seem to have accomplished just the opposite. You say you're teaching your kids these attitudes?

If you really can't give a guy like Warner the benefit of doubt then your judgment and character assessment skills are questionable at best.

[atcchris]

No, you're not making assumptions at all...

Sounds an awful lot like you're projecting your own issues onto this story.
So you're really arguing that Warner and his family have been setting up this publicity stunt for 8 years? Finally to reveal it to a virtually unknown beat reporter for the Jets?

Perhaps his motivation isn't to change their lives. I think you're confusing charity and generosity and kindness. He isn't slumming, handing out coins to the masses. He's buying dinner for a family where he is also eating. If he's eating there, he obviously doesn't look down on the people.

Also, if any pro athlete values what the costs of real life actually are, it's Warner and his family. They've been to the very bottom and I'm sure that, like most of the rest of us, a free meal when you were expecting to drop $100 or whatever on a night out would be a treat. It wouldn't change your life but it could brighten your day or end it on a high note or rekindle a bit of optimism that not everyone in life is a skeptic and cynic.

But mission accomplished, AV. You've easily established yourself as the antithesis to what Warner and his family were apparently trying to accomplish. They were trying to brighten someone's day just for the sake of it and you seem to have accomplished just the opposite. You say you're teaching your kids these attitudes?

If you really can't give a guy like Warner the benefit of doubt then your judgment and character assessment skills are questionable at best.

Good points... if you really want to do something NICE for someone, the best way is to get them doing what they're doing... buying someone a car may not be nearly as meaningful as buying them dinner..

For the guys I supervise at work, they have lots of money... I couldn't get them anything they couldn't get themselves... so it's not about the money.. it's about the THINKING ABOUT SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF. So I FIND OUT SOMETHING ABOUT THEM. If they like to go to the movies, I get them a gift card to a theater near their house.. if they like to stop at starbucks and get coffee, I get them a gift card for starbucks. Whenever one of them has a baby or something, we get together and get them some disposable diapers or something. For someone you don't know in the least, a candidate for a random act, the best way to do it is to catch them in the act.. paying for dinner is a great idea.

The very fact that someone else thought about you enough to buy your dinner is the "gift".. not the dinner itself.

avengerram is really missing the point when talking about "easily afford" vs impact. Do we buy our own spouses birthday presents? Really, all we have is each others' so.. our spouse can "easily afford" (or not, as the case may be with credit.. lol) whatever gift we give as well... truly, it IS the thought that counts.

It is just SHAMEFUL that all this energy is spent in hating Kurt Warner and attempting to denigrate him.

That level of cynicism is extremely difficult to respect.

[HUbison]

But Oprah was not so generous as to help these 'unfortunates' who happened to be her audience to pay the gift tax on the cars forcing most of them to either sell their car to pay the taxes and maybe have some left over cash in their pocket, or to not accept (afford) the 'gift'? How much of this was out of the "Oprah Corporation" funds or donations made to her for as an advertising gimmick?

My, are we not a cynical lot? lol

At risk of showing my nerdy CPA side..........the recepient doesn't pay the gift tax, the donor does. In fact, for every recepient a donor gives more than $10,000 in a calendar year, a gift tax return must be filed by the donor (ie. the Harpo Corp. has to file a Form 709 Gift Tax Return for every one of those women that gets a car from Oprah). However, each recepient has a lifetime exclusion of $1 million from each donor. So over her lifetime a recepient can receive $999,999 from Oprah before the first dollar of tax is collected.