Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (209953)	12/5/2006 4:21:18 PM
From: mistermj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

According to Brooks research...if liberals gave blood like conservatives did, our blood supply would jump by 45%. Says it all doesn't it?

To: epicure who wrote (209953)	12/6/2006 12:00:32 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"that's only if we assume that charity has something to do with character." Charity, as a principle, has everything to do with character. Charity as an institution is quite another matter; as it is quite possible and probable for people to use the mask of charity to garner influence, proselytize, or to self promote for economic or political reasons. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."

To: epicure who wrote (209953)	12/6/2006 1:37:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No, I meant to say liberalism erodes character. That's my personal opinion. .. given your posts, you may have no interest in such logic ... I could say, given your posts, gratutitous personal insults are a substitute for logical argumentation for liberals. .. if we assume that charity has something to do with character. Most people think charity is a virtue and that is the traditional view in our and most other societies. I realize modern liberal opinion may differ. If you look at religiously driven donations as "bribery" to God, to allow you into the Pearly Gates, it begins to look less like good character. If you look at charity like that, you would be off-base and be displaying a deep-seated bias against the religious. Brooks made it clear that "religious people are more likely than the non-religious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change." Only a malicious bigot would think people are trying to bribe God when they give blood, work for United Way agencies, return excess change, work for the PTA, etc. etc. etc. When I give, and when I work for social institutions, I do it because I want to, not because I need to get in good with God. But you (think you) know that religious people aren't as noble-minded as you claim to be ("..if people really NEED God driving them to do nice things and to be nice people.."). Your motives are pure but others are impure, you claim. Since we all know you can't really see into the hearts of others, this claim is clearly based on your own personal psychological needs. I wonder why you have such a desparate need to see yourself as superior to others. Obviously though, most people don't have the good character to be good without a God looking over their shoulder. The only way we have to judge others characters is by their actions. I see no reason based on your posts on SI to think you have a good character. On the contrary, I see an arrogant elitist desparate to assert her superiority. Too bad about that.