- cross-posted to:
- transgender@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- transgender@lemmy.ml
Also, The Girl Scouts explicitly rejected a large donation from an anti-trans organization: https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2015/06/donor-says-girl-scouts-can-t-use-100k-gift-for-transgender-girls
Girl Scouting is for all girls. Trans girls are girls, so they belong in Girl Scouts.
Girl scout cookies are not some unique creation, they are specifically licensed and legally cannot be made by anyone else but they aren’t exclusive to girl scouts and can be purchased under their normal brand name if you know it from the official source like these coconut dreams I’ve got in my pantry.
“They cannot make a profit”, out of curisoity what would you call charging 54% on top of the 24% cost, non-profit profit?
The difference in my example scenarios were after costs were paid all remaining revenue goes to the troop to be used by the troop for the troop, that’s how a fundraiser should work. In the current business model you seem keen to defend you are giving away more than half of the revenue to the organization which already makes it’s money through dues.
I never said they were unique. I said they were unusual and that you generally can’t get them elsewhere. That makes them desirable. I’m not sure why you think it doesn’t.
Raising funds. That is something any nonprofit can do. How do you think nonprofits stay in operation?
Unusual is quite literally a synonym for unique. If you are saying something is unusual and difficult to acquire that makes it unique by the very definition of the word.
Raising funds is correct, non-profits do need to offset their cost to stay solvent which is why the services you received are paid for by dues which is how the GSA remains solvent. That includes access to their resources for selling cookies as a fundraiser, you have already paid for this so the company has no need to charge you. Yet you’re paying them an additional 54% of your revenue even though you already prepaid for the cost of the fundraiser.
Here’s a link to the GSA’s 2023 earnings and you can see the money made from the fundraiser is pennies compared to their dues.
If you think the organization that is fairly funded through your dues to access the resources and services should be paid the majority of profit from your fundraiser instead of giving that money directly to the children it’s meant to fundraiser then good for you, I personally don’t think a fundraiser should be used to raise funds for an organization you’ve already fairly compensated.
We clearly have different opinions on the matter and that’s cool, but I’m not going to spend the rest of my day debating. It’s good to have met you Flying Squid and I wish you and your daughter the best.
Not seeing the word ‘unique’ here-
Because Merrian-Webster’s website is designed to take the boiled-down definition and show the synonyms for that, so you are looking at the synonyms for “uncommon”; If you type in unique as the search term you’ll see what I mean as it boils down the definitions into “personal, unusual, only, and uncommon” and shows the synonyms for those.
Are you really going to insist that when I said unusual I meant unique when I’m telling you I didn’t?
Hi again Flying Squid, first I just wanted to apologize to you and admit I was wrong. 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. Second, no I was not trying to dictate what you meant, I was simply pointing out that the words can be used interchangeably after you cited my usage of the word unique when you said unusual.
Thank you, I appreciate it.