 | | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) They share part of the tax burden. But if they don't share the full tax burden, aren't they just, as you put it in another reply to me, squatters? Best regards, Carl (23 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!)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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! (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) And what, exactly, does it do for us? If charity is performed to achieve a space in heaven, then it's a simple economic transaction designed to favor oneself with a payoff disproportionate to the act of charity. (...) On the contrary--public (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote: <snip> (...) I don't believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me. After all, he was the walrus.... I could be the walrus... still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car... "...I recall Central (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!
|
|
(...) Point taken--probably not the best illustration of charity. "Buy a panhandler a meal" would have been a better example. Religiously speaking, Jesus would have helped the panhandler to overcome addiction, adversity, laziness, or whatever other (...) (23 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!)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <anip> (...) Perfectly said, Larry. Walking down the street years ago, guy says, "Hey, spot me some coin for a coffee?" Well, we just happen to be close to a Tim Hortins (Canadian version of 'coffee (...) (23 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
