PDA

View Full Version : Church builds $1 million mansion for Wright



Pages : 1 [2]

Daniel
04-05-2008, 06:39 PM
Like 100%

Gan
04-06-2008, 01:15 AM
I'm only going to say it one last time because I don't feel like bringing more attention to it -- but it was about his obligations as a father/husband and not his daughters.

Guilty conscience?

We know what you said, how you said it, the context in which it was said, as well as what was said. No further explanation is necessary if you ask me.

Just take comfort that you werent the only one that was directed about. ;)

Gan
04-06-2008, 01:23 AM
This is a fairly old philosophical problem: that of charity vs. justice. Buying a familiy groceries for a week is an admirable thing to do, to be sure, but by definition it lasts a week. No single person is going to change the inherent problems with the system - only by working in concert will lasting progress be made, and this is where "charitable" organizations come in. Instead of buying a ham (which again, to be clear, I'm not looking down upon), an organization can fund a school, clean up a neighborhood, etc. There is inefficiency inherent in this, but no long-term effect is going to appear worthwhile from a short-term perspective.

Say that $80ish spent on grocieries for that couple allowed them to purchase needed medicine for their child (with the money saved from buying groceries) who would have either gotten sick(er) without it. I'd say the effects last longer than a week. You're only looking at the benefit one dimensionally.

For a good example of why I'm not a huge fan of charities - see the huge scandals of United Way and their overpaid CEO back in the early 2000's. Or the 'charities' that call you over the phone that only receive 10 to 15% of whats donated and the rest go to the telemarketer making the calls.

Thats why I would rather donate clothing items to the star of hope missions or good will. Donate baby supplies to centers that support indigent mother/baby, etc.

Latrinsorm
04-06-2008, 11:46 AM
Say that $80ish spent on grocieries for that couple allowed them to purchase needed medicine for their child (with the money saved from buying groceries) who would have either gotten sick(er) without it. I'd say the effects last longer than a week. You're only looking at the benefit one dimensionally.You make my point for me. A couple that has to choose between food or medicine for their child is evidence of a deeply, deeply flawed system: all the more reason it must be addressed as a whole.
For a good example of why I'm not a huge fan of charities - see the huge scandals of United Way and their overpaid CEO back in the early 2000's. Or the 'charities' that call you over the phone that only receive 10 to 15% of whats donated and the rest go to the telemarketer making the calls.The difference is that you don't claim "any" charity follows this pattern.

Gan
04-06-2008, 09:24 PM
You make my point for me.
I'm not disagreeing with you to begin with. You're welcome?



The difference is that you don't claim "any" charity follows this pattern.
Clarify?

Daniel
04-06-2008, 09:36 PM
You aren't claiming that all charities only utilize 10-15% of donations.

FYI, I refrained from pointing out that good will and the other thing you pointed out is a charity itself.

Gan
04-06-2008, 10:48 PM
Way to regognize the hypothetical. :(

Hint: If I dont source it, then I'm shooting from the hip when I post percentages or statistics that arent common knowledge. I use this to emphasize or illustrate a point. Of course, if you want to argue specifics, then you can feel free to post some sources stating so. ;)

Daniel
04-06-2008, 11:11 PM
Regognize? :)

Gan
04-07-2008, 08:48 AM
Like you've never mispelled a word before. :-\

Daniel
04-07-2008, 08:49 AM
Touche

Latrinsorm
04-07-2008, 01:36 PM
Clarify?As Daniel noted, I was comparing your position to PB's; that which prompted my initial remarks.