• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    12
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I see this line used a lot, and it sure does sound snappy but it doesn’t actual make any sense. Exploitation requires an exploiter, and the troops are funding themselves by talking to relatives and maybe standing at a table in a supervised group for a two hours on the weekend. No one is profiting off this fundraiser except the troops themselves.

    There is actual child exploitation problems in the US. I think you are falling in to the qAnon style trap where some people talk about “child sexual abuse” by a secret cabals instead of talking about actual child abuse occurring in their own towns because it sounds Spicer to talk about the first one.

    This isn’t a topic that’s worth much time or energy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -45 months ago

      If you read the comment chain with OP you’ll see my argument present is that the “fundraiser” for the troop nets 22% while taking 78% of while only having 24% cost.

      Please explain to me what value is provided for 54% of the revenue after having already paid the cost to get the cookies made and packaged and already having paid dues to access this program?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        That 54% helps to pay for the camp facilities and subsidize participation in summer camp and troops for low-income kids that otherwise wouldn’t be able to participate.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Hi medgremlin, you are correct. I misread the 2023 earnings report where it stated fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising (which is false). Which is why I tried to defend my position that there’s no value in taking that from the children and it’s just a cash grab.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        Okay at this point I just have to assume you are a troll who likes to argue without caring about or understanding a topic. If you did care, the infromation is readily available. But your intent is to argue, so here you are sealioning.

        It’s easy to say “100% should go to the cause”, but that’s literally never how these things work. Go check up on any charity you like, none of them donate 100% to one thing. The scouts are running a drive for various causes, and to try and reach for “exploration” because it funds scholarships for under privligaged scouts is bad faith.

        As I said before, this isn’t a topic that is worth time or energy. You can insist on your hard line definition but understand that most people don’t agree it’s exploitation and the girls know they are helping a good cause. I know it sounds spicy to say it’s a consisparcy harming kids, but that doesn’t reflect reality.

        Go argue about actual child labor laws and leave the girl scouts and comet pizza alone.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          25 months ago

          Not a troll, I misread the 2023 earnings report where it states fundraising was $4.4 million as revenue instead of an expense, so when you read it like I did originally it would mean they make 97% from dues and other means and 3% from fundraising. Which is why I tried to defend my position that there’s no value in taking that from the children and it’s just a cash grab.

          While I understand that the mistake is entirely my own and I apologize to you, perhaps in the future just point out the flaw in their argument instead of calling them a qanon conspiracy nutjob.