 | | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) Isn't it pretty sad to think that there is nothing you could do to "earn" charity? Wouldn't it be better if you went up to a church (or any other building) and offered to pick up trash in their parking lot for a hot meal and a roof to sleep (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Generosity makes us better people (at least in my code of values--if it doesn't in yours then there's nothing but for us to agree to disagree). If our "generosity" is fueled only by a desire to earn a space in heaven, we are buying, not (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Everyone who buys anything (excepting a few items like food and, in some cases, clothing) already pays taxes, so this particular fallacy as you frame it does not exist in the governor's reasoning. Dave! (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) Allow me a maudlin, over-wrought digression: We're *all* street people. It's just that some of us have had the good luck to be related to wealthy people, and others have had the good luck to achieve a personal wealth by what they perceive as (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
|
(...) I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like you're working from a Randian definition of altruism, which is like working from a Falwellian definition of pornography. I don't know why we'd want to pick that particular slant as the "right" definition (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
