Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1nathanielcampbell
Local Church Full Of Brainwashed Idiots Feeds Town’s Poor Every Week (The Onion):
MACON, GA—Sources confirmed today that the brainwashed morons at First Baptist Assembly of Christ, all of whom blindly accept whatever simplistic fairy tales are fed to them, volunteer each Wednesday night to provide meals to impoverished members of the community. “Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in town who have fallen on hard times and are unable to afford to put food on the table, so we try to help out as best we can,” said 48-year-old Kerri Bellamy, one of the mindless sheep who adheres to a backward ideology and is incapable of thinking for herself, while spooning out homemade shepherd’s pie to a line of poor and homeless individuals. “It feels great to share our blessings with the less fortunate. Plus, it’s fun to work alongside all the members of our [corrupt institution of propaganda and lies'] who come out each week.” As of press time, the brainless, unthinking lemmings had donated winter clothing they no longer wore to several needy families and still hadn’t opened their eyes to reality.
2BruceCoulson
Okay, we get it. Religion has (and is) used as a justification for being nice to our fellow human beings. (Although not as much, I fear, as it's used as a justification for being cruel to them...) Although various posters are correct in saying that religion is not necessary for someone to be a good person, the hard fact remains; most people aren't going to do much for their fellows UNLESS they see some benefit from doing so.
Religion provides that benefit. It doesn't matter that it may be imaginary; what matters is that if you believe it to be true, you'll base your conduct upon that belief. (Which can lead to such interesting conundrums as killing people in the name of those benefits.)
Religion provides that benefit. It doesn't matter that it may be imaginary; what matters is that if you believe it to be true, you'll base your conduct upon that belief. (Which can lead to such interesting conundrums as killing people in the name of those benefits.)
3jburlinson
2. (Although not as much, I fear, as it's used as a justification for being cruel to them...)
I'd be interested in evidence that might support that. Not, mind you, that I'm saying that there isn't ample evidence that people perform cruel acts in the name of religion. But as to whether there's more cruelty than kindness? I'm just not sure about that.
most people aren't going to do much for their fellows UNLESS they see some benefit from doing so.
I guess you mean benefit to themselves for doing good deeds. You seem dubious that people might actually want to do something to benefit someone else without being all that concerned as to whether or not there's a benefit to themselves. There are certainly selfish people in the world, I'll grant you that. But even those, at least in my experience, are sometimes capable of doing something to benefit others without getting anything much out of it for themselves.
Religion provides that benefit. It doesn't matter that it may be imaginary; what matters is that if you believe it to be true, you'll base your conduct upon that belief.
So are you saying that irreligious people have no reason whatsoever for doing anything for their fellows? Or do you mean that there might be a few non-religious people who do good things for non-imaginary, ie. realistic, reasons?
I'd be interested in evidence that might support that. Not, mind you, that I'm saying that there isn't ample evidence that people perform cruel acts in the name of religion. But as to whether there's more cruelty than kindness? I'm just not sure about that.
most people aren't going to do much for their fellows UNLESS they see some benefit from doing so.
I guess you mean benefit to themselves for doing good deeds. You seem dubious that people might actually want to do something to benefit someone else without being all that concerned as to whether or not there's a benefit to themselves. There are certainly selfish people in the world, I'll grant you that. But even those, at least in my experience, are sometimes capable of doing something to benefit others without getting anything much out of it for themselves.
Religion provides that benefit. It doesn't matter that it may be imaginary; what matters is that if you believe it to be true, you'll base your conduct upon that belief.
So are you saying that irreligious people have no reason whatsoever for doing anything for their fellows? Or do you mean that there might be a few non-religious people who do good things for non-imaginary, ie. realistic, reasons?
4prosfilaes
It's a crying shame that those who have fallen on hard times couldn't just go down to the supermarket and buy food like the rest of us. But statistics show the people of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ oppose any extension to the food stamp program, that it's important that the people of First Baptist get to feel great sharing their blessings, instead acting as part of a nation working together to unobtrusively help the poor and hungry.
5jburlinson
>4 prosfilaes: statistics show the people of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ oppose any extension to the food stamp program
That's interesting. Where are these statistics?
That's interesting. Where are these statistics?
6JGL53
Good religion is good and by definition induces moral behavior.
Bad religion is bad and by definition induces immoral behavior.
Most people most of the time have figured all that out. Many have not, unfortunately.
So, if one is to have a religion, one should embrace the good and eschew the bad.
Duh? Well, apparently, not so much.
Secular or non-religious people must be judged by the same standards of behavior as we do the religious.
Ultimately each individual must take responsibility for his/her own behavior and cannot
shift the blame to parents, mentors, peers, religion, lack of religion or their Marxist professors in college, etc.
Most people seem to understand moral behavior in terms of the libertarian ideal of eschewing force and fraud PLUS the ideals of empathy, sympathy, charity, living in peace, working together for common goals, justice, fairness, and the Good Samaritan/Golden Rule ideal. And eschewing narcissism, selfishness, self-righteousness and similar anti-social attitudes and mindsets.
As for sociopaths and psychopaths and criminals? - well, they generally get theirs, as it should be.
The choices for the rest of us are clear and we each must make them. E.g., religion is a choice. I myself need it about as much as a fish needs a bicycle. But those who choose it? - Well, knock yourself out. But if you shit in your own whiskey you will still have to drink it. If you have to believe something - believe THAT.
Bad religion is bad and by definition induces immoral behavior.
Most people most of the time have figured all that out. Many have not, unfortunately.
So, if one is to have a religion, one should embrace the good and eschew the bad.
Duh? Well, apparently, not so much.
Secular or non-religious people must be judged by the same standards of behavior as we do the religious.
Ultimately each individual must take responsibility for his/her own behavior and cannot
shift the blame to parents, mentors, peers, religion, lack of religion or their Marxist professors in college, etc.
Most people seem to understand moral behavior in terms of the libertarian ideal of eschewing force and fraud PLUS the ideals of empathy, sympathy, charity, living in peace, working together for common goals, justice, fairness, and the Good Samaritan/Golden Rule ideal. And eschewing narcissism, selfishness, self-righteousness and similar anti-social attitudes and mindsets.
As for sociopaths and psychopaths and criminals? - well, they generally get theirs, as it should be.
The choices for the rest of us are clear and we each must make them. E.g., religion is a choice. I myself need it about as much as a fish needs a bicycle. But those who choose it? - Well, knock yourself out. But if you shit in your own whiskey you will still have to drink it. If you have to believe something - believe THAT.
7southernbooklady
>5 jburlinson: Food stamp programs in the US have been coming under scrutiny lately, especially by conservative-leaning administrations. Scott Walker, I think, has advocated adding mandatory drug testing as a requirement for receiving assistance.
As far as the First Baptist Assembly of Christ in Macon, Georgia, goes, however, some of them may in fact be in dire need of the assistance themselves. The state of Georgia seems to have been dealing with a mismanagement crisis:
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/04/03/gov-deal-orders-changes-to-food-stamp-pr...
As far as the First Baptist Assembly of Christ in Macon, Georgia, goes, however, some of them may in fact be in dire need of the assistance themselves. The state of Georgia seems to have been dealing with a mismanagement crisis:
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/04/03/gov-deal-orders-changes-to-food-stamp-pr...
8nathanielcampbell
>7 southernbooklady: "especially by conservative-leaning administrations"
Because Christianity(TM) is, of course, a Republican SuperPAC.
Because Christianity(TM) is, of course, a Republican SuperPAC.
9prosfilaes
>8 nathanielcampbell: The First Baptist Assembly of Christ probably is. Talk about Catholics or some other branch, and the arguments might have to go differently.
10nathanielcampbell
>9 prosfilaes: I just don't know how to take such reductionist assumptions seriously. Basically you're saying, "I know a Baptist who's Republican; therefore, all Baptists are political operatives of the GOP."
11JGL53
I think it is a well known fact amongst people who actually know some facts that some HUGE per cent of white southern baptists in the south are republicans. "Conservative" may be too lighthearted an adjective to be applied to them.
OF COURSE not ALL white southern baptists in the south are republican. I feel sure SEVERAL aren't.
I have never met such people but I am sure they're there. Somewhere.
OF COURSE not ALL white southern baptists in the south are republican. I feel sure SEVERAL aren't.
I have never met such people but I am sure they're there. Somewhere.
12southernbooklady
>10 nathanielcampbell: I just don't know how to take such reductionist assumptions seriously
Yes, well, we are talking about a church in a story in The Onion. A little levity was to be expected.
Yes, well, we are talking about a church in a story in The Onion. A little levity was to be expected.
13prosfilaes
>10 nathanielcampbell: Basically you're saying, "I know a Baptist who's Republican; therefore, all Baptists are political operatives of the GOP."
No, I'm saying that 26% of Americans are Republican, but 32% of Protestants are, and 38% of evangelical Protestants. We shouldn't be encouraging people to stop efficient solutions so they can feel great with inefficient solutions.
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-party-affiliation-by-religious-tradition... from http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons .
No, I'm saying that 26% of Americans are Republican, but 32% of Protestants are, and 38% of evangelical Protestants. We shouldn't be encouraging people to stop efficient solutions so they can feel great with inefficient solutions.
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-party-affiliation-by-religious-tradition... from http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons .
14JGL53
> 13
I don't know offhand about the rest of the country but around 90 per cent of white Mississippi voters are of the fundamentalist or literalist christian mindset - the goodly majority of whom happen to be southern baptists - and about ninety per cent of white Mississippians voters have been voting republican for several decades now.
I invite nat to do the math - there are free online calculators available if someone's PC does not have one.
According to my high-level calculations a minimum of at least 81 per cent of Mississippi voters who are white are also christian republicans, with some large plurality or even a majority of such people being southern baptist republicans.
I don't know offhand about the rest of the country but around 90 per cent of white Mississippi voters are of the fundamentalist or literalist christian mindset - the goodly majority of whom happen to be southern baptists - and about ninety per cent of white Mississippians voters have been voting republican for several decades now.
I invite nat to do the math - there are free online calculators available if someone's PC does not have one.
According to my high-level calculations a minimum of at least 81 per cent of Mississippi voters who are white are also christian republicans, with some large plurality or even a majority of such people being southern baptist republicans.
15jburlinson
>9 prosfilaes: The First Baptist Assembly of Christ probably is.
That's a bit different than your first announcement that "statistics show the people of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ oppose any extension to the food stamp program". Where are these statistics? Are they the Pew Research numbers? Pew doesn't say word one about the the First Baptist Assembly of Christ.
That's a bit different than your first announcement that "statistics show the people of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ oppose any extension to the food stamp program". Where are these statistics? Are they the Pew Research numbers? Pew doesn't say word one about the the First Baptist Assembly of Christ.
16southernbooklady
>15 jburlinson: Pew doesn't say word one about the the First Baptist Assembly of Christ
I don't believe there is such a thing.
I don't believe there is such a thing.
172wonderY
My experience in the field shows a positive correlation between working directly with poor relief and a liberal political belief system.
Those who work the soup kitchens and man the table for helping with utilities and prescriptions are also usually the ones who pass around the petitions trying to slow down the erosion of Department of Welfare services. At least in my community.
Those who work the soup kitchens and man the table for helping with utilities and prescriptions are also usually the ones who pass around the petitions trying to slow down the erosion of Department of Welfare services. At least in my community.
18timspalding
My experience in the field shows a positive correlation between working directly with poor relief and a liberal political belief system.
Statistically-speaking your experience is atypical. We've gone over the data before. Conservatives give more to charity on average, even not counting religious charity. The same effects show up in non-financial donations (time, blood, etc.).
Statistically-speaking your experience is atypical. We've gone over the data before. Conservatives give more to charity on average, even not counting religious charity. The same effects show up in non-financial donations (time, blood, etc.).
20paradoxosalpha
>17 2wonderY: working directly with poor relief
>18 timspalding: give more to charity
Not the same thing; not at all.
>18 timspalding: give more to charity
Not the same thing; not at all.
21southernbooklady
>20 paradoxosalpha: Tim also said "The same effects show up in non-financial donations (time, blood, etc.) Although granted neither of those things necessarily translate into "working directly with the poor." Volunteering at a soup kitchen is one thing. Serving on the board of the organization that runs the soup kitchen quite another.
22nathanielcampbell
>13 prosfilaes: I'm trying to figure out how you go from (a) a minority of Christians, a minority of Protestants, and a minority of evangelical Protestants are Republicans; to (b) a hypothetical Christian church "probably" supports specific Republican policies.
23JGL53
> 18
In the end, though, the pragmatic argument for religious belief leaves me cold.
Does that make me a bad person? Or merely one who can score well on a logic test?
Here's an explanatory analogy:
Studies show that people who always wear clothes in public are three times more likely to engage in charitable activities than nudists.
Conclusion: We should all wear clothes in public all the time.
That logical conclusion make sense to you, tim?
In the end, though, the pragmatic argument for religious belief leaves me cold.
Does that make me a bad person? Or merely one who can score well on a logic test?
Here's an explanatory analogy:
Studies show that people who always wear clothes in public are three times more likely to engage in charitable activities than nudists.
Conclusion: We should all wear clothes in public all the time.
That logical conclusion make sense to you, tim?
24jburlinson
I was just listening to the radio where a Dr. Richard Sacra was being interviewed about his decision to return to West Africa to continue his medical work there after barely surviving an ebola infection. His answer was that, as a Christian, he tried to model his life on that of Jesus and he gave a couple of the standard biblical quotes about love and healing. It can't help but make a person wonder about the power of an exemplar and perhaps question why other people might want to try to undermine that power in the lives of believers.
25southernbooklady
>24 jburlinson: make a person wonder about the power of an exemplar and perhaps question why other people might want to try to undermine that power in the lives of believers.
It usually is inspired by believers wanting to undermine that power in them.
It usually is inspired by believers wanting to undermine that power in them.
26jburlinson
>25 southernbooklady: The best defense is a good offense?
The interview with Dr. Sacra was fairly brief, so I couldn't get a very detailed picture of his belief system. It could be that he's a card-carrying member of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ and hence a republican who wants to do away with food stamps and similar such things. I somehow didn't get that impression, though.
Of course, it might be better for him to forget about going back to Africa and taking >4 prosfilaes: 's advice to content himself with acting "as part of a nation working together to unobtrusively help the poor and hungry" rather than "feeling great about sharing his blessings".
The interview with Dr. Sacra was fairly brief, so I couldn't get a very detailed picture of his belief system. It could be that he's a card-carrying member of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ and hence a republican who wants to do away with food stamps and similar such things. I somehow didn't get that impression, though.
Of course, it might be better for him to forget about going back to Africa and taking >4 prosfilaes: 's advice to content himself with acting "as part of a nation working together to unobtrusively help the poor and hungry" rather than "feeling great about sharing his blessings".
27JGL53
No one is opposing all the good things done in the name of christianity by christians. The more good they do the better for everyone. That should go without saying but I said it anyway because apparently it DOES need to be said after all.
It is the bad stuff done by christians in the name of christianity that atheists and others criticize. Does someone have some problem with THAT? If so, WHY?
Anyone can be an exemplar, or mentor, for anyone, even fictional characters can be exemplars for someone.
But is would seem that all exemplars are imperfect vessels just like regular folk. E.g., I am not sure Jesus whipping the dishonest moneychangers out of the temple is a good example for the children. E.g., M.L. King stands as a wonderful exemplar for us today but I wouldn't go out and commit adultery just because he did.
In today's world I don't see how anyone can hold up christianity as the greatest philosophy to follow. The Golden Rule part of it is not unique to it. Valuing the individual is not unique to it. Empathy (love) for one's fellow "man" is not unique to it.
Being a good person has nothing NECESSARILY or UNIQUE to do with christianity. Encouraging all to be more moral and less immoral has nothing NECESSARILY or UNIQUE to do with christianity.
Even an atheist or a deist or a pantheist might choose the character of Jesus depicted in the bible as his or her exemplar. In fact it has been done. Nothing wrong with that.
But this mooning over christianity like it is something special - like it must needs lord over all - that needs to stop. People are just embarrassing themselves needlessly when they do that. IMHO.
It is the bad stuff done by christians in the name of christianity that atheists and others criticize. Does someone have some problem with THAT? If so, WHY?
Anyone can be an exemplar, or mentor, for anyone, even fictional characters can be exemplars for someone.
But is would seem that all exemplars are imperfect vessels just like regular folk. E.g., I am not sure Jesus whipping the dishonest moneychangers out of the temple is a good example for the children. E.g., M.L. King stands as a wonderful exemplar for us today but I wouldn't go out and commit adultery just because he did.
In today's world I don't see how anyone can hold up christianity as the greatest philosophy to follow. The Golden Rule part of it is not unique to it. Valuing the individual is not unique to it. Empathy (love) for one's fellow "man" is not unique to it.
Being a good person has nothing NECESSARILY or UNIQUE to do with christianity. Encouraging all to be more moral and less immoral has nothing NECESSARILY or UNIQUE to do with christianity.
Even an atheist or a deist or a pantheist might choose the character of Jesus depicted in the bible as his or her exemplar. In fact it has been done. Nothing wrong with that.
But this mooning over christianity like it is something special - like it must needs lord over all - that needs to stop. People are just embarrassing themselves needlessly when they do that. IMHO.
28paradoxosalpha
>27 JGL53:
"Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple.
I hate banks. It's just that simple."
--Mojo Nixon
"Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple.
I hate banks. It's just that simple."
--Mojo Nixon
29JGL53
>27 JGL53:
When faced with questions of money Jesus lost his shit and chose violence as his initial reaction.
When confronted with an adulteress Jesus was quite forgiving and overtly nice and, rather than trying to shame her, shamed her accusers instead.
Jesus never specifically called out homos - well, maybe once - but he has no particular obsession with sex in general or alleged sexual "sins".
Hmmmm. What are we to reasonably conclude from all that?
When faced with questions of money Jesus lost his shit and chose violence as his initial reaction.
When confronted with an adulteress Jesus was quite forgiving and overtly nice and, rather than trying to shame her, shamed her accusers instead.
Jesus never specifically called out homos - well, maybe once - but he has no particular obsession with sex in general or alleged sexual "sins".
Hmmmm. What are we to reasonably conclude from all that?
30southernbooklady
>26 jburlinson: It could be that he's a card-carrying member of the First Baptist Assembly of Christ
I'd be interested to see the card he was carrying, since the Baptists are Baptists and the Assembly of God and Christ Assembly churches are Pentecostal. (I happen to have been educated about the difference recently after reading the Jerry Lee Lewis book by Rick Bragg, since Lewis was raised in the Assembly of God church and his cousin was Jimmy Swaggart -- I'd venture Swaggart is a Republican. No idea about Jerry Lee, though. He's a force unto himself.)
Here's one guy who seems to practice what's preached at him:
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/27834767/chick-fil-a-manager-helps-homeless-ma...
And here's someone who missed the whole compassion message in the New Testament:
http://mashable.com/2015/01/14/colorado-church-stops-funeral/
I suppose when it comes to charity, or even just being charitable, it all depends on who you deem worthy to receive your good works.
I'd be interested to see the card he was carrying, since the Baptists are Baptists and the Assembly of God and Christ Assembly churches are Pentecostal. (I happen to have been educated about the difference recently after reading the Jerry Lee Lewis book by Rick Bragg, since Lewis was raised in the Assembly of God church and his cousin was Jimmy Swaggart -- I'd venture Swaggart is a Republican. No idea about Jerry Lee, though. He's a force unto himself.)
Here's one guy who seems to practice what's preached at him:
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/27834767/chick-fil-a-manager-helps-homeless-ma...
And here's someone who missed the whole compassion message in the New Testament:
http://mashable.com/2015/01/14/colorado-church-stops-funeral/
I suppose when it comes to charity, or even just being charitable, it all depends on who you deem worthy to receive your good works.
31timspalding
I find it odd when people pick out random, small charitable acts—this one, the police officer who bought the grandmother caught shoplifting a few things, etc. It's like they don't realize this stuff happens ALL the time.
As I've mentioned before, I sometimes coffee for homeless people. That's not a big charitable act—I'm getting coffee for myself, and it's like two bucks extra. Anyway, yesterday I noticed one of my regulars was wearing a nice coat. I remarked on it and she told me the day before she put on her little sign that she needed a coat and someone walking by—it's been around 0 Farenheit recently—just took off their coat and handed it to her. This sort of thing is normal life for a lot of people.
And it's abnormal and newsworthy for some others. They're the weird ones, IMHO.
As I've mentioned before, I sometimes coffee for homeless people. That's not a big charitable act—I'm getting coffee for myself, and it's like two bucks extra. Anyway, yesterday I noticed one of my regulars was wearing a nice coat. I remarked on it and she told me the day before she put on her little sign that she needed a coat and someone walking by—it's been around 0 Farenheit recently—just took off their coat and handed it to her. This sort of thing is normal life for a lot of people.
And it's abnormal and newsworthy for some others. They're the weird ones, IMHO.
32southernbooklady
What I find interesting is the rationalizations people often use when giving: "I didn't want to give him money because he might spend it on drugs, so I bought him lunch."
33jburlinson
>27 JGL53: Even an atheist or a deist or a pantheist might choose the character of Jesus depicted in the bible as his or her exemplar. In fact it has been done. Nothing wrong with that.
But this mooning over christianity like it is something special - like it must needs lord over all - that needs to stop. People are just embarrassing themselves needlessly when they do that. IMHO.
Well, which is it? "Nothing wrong" or "needlessly embarrassing"? If Jesus is a person's exemplar, doesn't that make him "something special"?
But this mooning over christianity like it is something special - like it must needs lord over all - that needs to stop. People are just embarrassing themselves needlessly when they do that. IMHO.
Well, which is it? "Nothing wrong" or "needlessly embarrassing"? If Jesus is a person's exemplar, doesn't that make him "something special"?
34timspalding
Well, money is fungible, but I agree with that rationalization to some extent. While it depends, a significant percentage of the homeless population if addicted. I much rather give a homeless person a coat than $100 for that reason. And indeed, I think the human value of a cup of coffee is better than $1.79 or whatever.
35southernbooklady
A gift with conditions might still be a gift, but is it an act of love if it is also an attempt at control?
36timspalding
There is a difference between controlling someone and not giving someone something. Is it controlling if a food pantry chooses not to stock unhealthy foods? Is it controlling if a bookstore doesn't stock porn?
37southernbooklady
>36 timspalding: Is it controlling if a bookstore doesn't stock porn?
Not a gift example, but yes, don't you think the store/food pantry are exercising some control in those cases?
If a gift is meant to be given freely, with no expectations of return, then isn't asking for a certain kind of behavior for your gift an expectation of sorts? Doesn't that mitigate the "freely given" nature of the gift?
Not a gift example, but yes, don't you think the store/food pantry are exercising some control in those cases?
If a gift is meant to be given freely, with no expectations of return, then isn't asking for a certain kind of behavior for your gift an expectation of sorts? Doesn't that mitigate the "freely given" nature of the gift?
38jburlinson
>37 southernbooklady: If a gift is meant to be given freely, with no expectations of return, then isn't asking for a certain kind of behavior for your gift an expectation of sorts?
The expectation may be nothing more than a desire to see the recipient use the gift in a way that will do them good. It would be an odd impulse for someone to give something and then be indifferent to the consequences. As for "expectations of return", a gift isn't a gift it the giver expects to get something for it. If I'm buying a good opinion of myself, then my "gift" doesn't qualify as one.
The expectation may be nothing more than a desire to see the recipient use the gift in a way that will do them good. It would be an odd impulse for someone to give something and then be indifferent to the consequences. As for "expectations of return", a gift isn't a gift it the giver expects to get something for it. If I'm buying a good opinion of myself, then my "gift" doesn't qualify as one.
39southernbooklady
>38 jburlinson: If I'm buying a good opinion of myself, then my "gift" doesn't qualify as one.
Obligated good works aren't really "good"?
Obligated good works aren't really "good"?
40jburlinson
>39 southernbooklady: Obligated good works aren't really "good"?
As far as the receiver is concerned, we'd have to consider the consequences; and I thought you were suggesting that the gift falls short of true goodness if the giver wants her gift to be used for the good of the recipient (lunch) and not for his harm (drugs).
As far as the giver is concerned, fulfilling one's obligations is one thing, giving a gift is something else.
As far as the receiver is concerned, we'd have to consider the consequences; and I thought you were suggesting that the gift falls short of true goodness if the giver wants her gift to be used for the good of the recipient (lunch) and not for his harm (drugs).
As far as the giver is concerned, fulfilling one's obligations is one thing, giving a gift is something else.
41timspalding
I thought you were suggesting that the gift falls short of true goodness if the giver wants her gift to be used for the good of the recipient (lunch) and not for his harm (drugs).
Isn't she saying this?
Isn't she saying this?
42southernbooklady
Well I am at least questioning it. It's been on my mind lately because I've come into contact with more than usual numbers of indigent people on the highway. I never give them rides--because I'm afraid, actually -- but I do give them money if I have it. I don't know who is really helped by the fact I gave the guy at the traffic light a $5 bill but didn't take him for a cup of coffee. I suppose I hope the money helped a little.
ETA. But I don't know that giving the money helped me at all.
ETA. But I don't know that giving the money helped me at all.
43timspalding
So, I don't really worry about money. I think people who won't give money ever because they assume it's going to drugs or whatever are being paranoid and uncharitable. But for my own giving, it's probably 80/20 in-kind now. Real stuff is more real, and I can give as much as I want without thinking my gift might present an occasion for an overdose, or whatever.
44prosfilaes
>34 timspalding: I much rather give a homeless person a coat than $100 for that reason.
There was some fuss in the news a couple years ago when a police officer bought a beggar a pair of $100 boots. Turns out a beggar can't afford to wear $100 boots, so he left them at home when he was begging. (Yes, at home; he had a state-supported place, with family IIRC.) Perhaps that beggar knew better then that police officer what he needed and what he could afford to wear.
There was some fuss in the news a couple years ago when a police officer bought a beggar a pair of $100 boots. Turns out a beggar can't afford to wear $100 boots, so he left them at home when he was begging. (Yes, at home; he had a state-supported place, with family IIRC.) Perhaps that beggar knew better then that police officer what he needed and what he could afford to wear.
45JGL53
The gov'ment job from which I retired had to do with Medicaid. Most (white) people around me who found out what I did for a living were generally somewhat aghast at the idea.
Most white people I know (who are republican in the vast majority) view Medicaid and welfare or even the old free 'surplus cheese" program- any gov'ment program to help the indigent - as a pure scam, taking their "hard earned" tax money and wasting it on bums who are too lazy to work. Ditto all foreign aid, btw - all those naked nasty foreigners too dumb to stop having children they can't feed.
When I try to inform them that most people on welfare and Medicaid are innocent children or very old people living in poverty on a small S.S. check - most white people I know just refuse to listen. When I try to inform them that corporate welfare - huge tax breaks - and Wall Street rip-offs and defense contract rip-offs cost them many billions more in stolen tax money than any group of "welfare queens" have ever done or ever will do - most white people I know refuse to listen.
I have a tendency to look down on most white people as immoral and ignorant scum, even though I am a white person myself (I think only about 15 or 20 per cent of white people in Mississippi are even semi-decent human beings, at best - based on my experience of nearly 66 years of life).
Your mileage may vary. (Jesus fucking Christ, I HOPE it does. If so, then god-fucking bless you, you lucky bastard.)
I would rather be drowned in a bucket of buzzard puke mixed with liquid shit than vote republican.
Just my opinion. Based on my personal experiences.
Most white people I know (who are republican in the vast majority) view Medicaid and welfare or even the old free 'surplus cheese" program- any gov'ment program to help the indigent - as a pure scam, taking their "hard earned" tax money and wasting it on bums who are too lazy to work. Ditto all foreign aid, btw - all those naked nasty foreigners too dumb to stop having children they can't feed.
When I try to inform them that most people on welfare and Medicaid are innocent children or very old people living in poverty on a small S.S. check - most white people I know just refuse to listen. When I try to inform them that corporate welfare - huge tax breaks - and Wall Street rip-offs and defense contract rip-offs cost them many billions more in stolen tax money than any group of "welfare queens" have ever done or ever will do - most white people I know refuse to listen.
I have a tendency to look down on most white people as immoral and ignorant scum, even though I am a white person myself (I think only about 15 or 20 per cent of white people in Mississippi are even semi-decent human beings, at best - based on my experience of nearly 66 years of life).
Your mileage may vary. (Jesus fucking Christ, I HOPE it does. If so, then god-fucking bless you, you lucky bastard.)
I would rather be drowned in a bucket of buzzard puke mixed with liquid shit than vote republican.
Just my opinion. Based on my personal experiences.
46JGL53
> 33
Are you effing kidding?
You actually cannot intellectually discern ANY real difference between:
1. selecting the character of Jesus depicted in the bible as one's personal moral exemplar
and
2. mooning over christianity like it is something special, like it must needs lord over all.
?
OK. So. Then.
Trying to explain this to you wherein a light might go off in your head may very well be above my pay grade. At any rate, I will just leave it lay.
Try and have a nice day, OK?
Are you effing kidding?
You actually cannot intellectually discern ANY real difference between:
1. selecting the character of Jesus depicted in the bible as one's personal moral exemplar
and
2. mooning over christianity like it is something special, like it must needs lord over all.
?
OK. So. Then.
Trying to explain this to you wherein a light might go off in your head may very well be above my pay grade. At any rate, I will just leave it lay.
Try and have a nice day, OK?
47John5918
>44 prosfilaes: Perhaps that beggar knew better... what he needed
A constant issue with international aid agencies working in Africa. Despite their protestations that they listen to the local people (the "beneficiaries"), in practice they usually make decisions on what to give based on their own assumptions, biases, culture, "best practice", industry standards, internal agendas, back-donor requirements, etc. All of this is usually worked out by bright young things with an MA in development studies or international relations but very little field experience, and even less experience in the country/locality actually receiving the aid.
A constant issue with international aid agencies working in Africa. Despite their protestations that they listen to the local people (the "beneficiaries"), in practice they usually make decisions on what to give based on their own assumptions, biases, culture, "best practice", industry standards, internal agendas, back-donor requirements, etc. All of this is usually worked out by bright young things with an MA in development studies or international relations but very little field experience, and even less experience in the country/locality actually receiving the aid.
48southernbooklady
>47 John5918: based on their own assumptions, biases, culture, "best practice", industry standards, internal agendas, back-donor requirements, etc.
In their defense, they are all also trying to maintain standards of accountability, fiscal responsibility, transparency, and oversight and a guard against corruption and inefficiency. Plus, "industry standards" usually exist for a reason.
In their defense, they are all also trying to maintain standards of accountability, fiscal responsibility, transparency, and oversight and a guard against corruption and inefficiency. Plus, "industry standards" usually exist for a reason.
49John5918
>48 southernbooklady: Yes, that's what they tell us while they maintain the pretence that their programmes are actually working!
