sundin13 said:
You saying this is almost as strong of a condemnation of that slogan as I would have made, so I have nothing further to add. These are strange conversations indeed, when you seem to repeatedly agree with me under the facade of argument. |
Well it's not saying much based on what was said. I wouldn't call that strong condemnation but that's just me. I don't live by the rule that everything not said as you might assume, is necessarily proof of something.
Maybe because they're conversations in general, with arguments taking place at times. Going to the beach on a sunny day isn't going to turn out like you thought it would if it's winter and not summer.
SpokenTruth said:
1). You don't understand what an implication is, do you? It's implied. If you are giving but only doing so out of motivation that you will benefit, that's not now, ever has been, nor ever will be accepted as a defining facet of charity. The altruistic nature of giving for the sake of giving is implied in the concept of charity. Why the hell I just had to explain that I'll never understand. 2). Did you just suggest that people only give to charity because it strokes their ego? Holy hell.
He'll respect the National Parks service when people accept and abide by his mission statement? So....our National Parks (among other things) are being held hostage by Trump's ego? I'm glad you've finally seen the truth. |
Ego - A persons sense of self esteem or self importance.
How many people do you think feel terrible about giving to charity? How many think it's wrong and do it anyway? Even if you give to charity because it feels good since you're doing a good thing, and don't ask for 'anything' in return, you're still receiving an ego boost indirectly, just in a manner that some find more acceptable. The fact is it doesn't matter why you're doing it, charity is charity. It's not like the money produces less good for the cause it supports if it comes from someone who wants the most minuscule direct physical gesture.
The NPS was a reply to what was said below in bold. As I initially stated, it's never enough. There is always another reason to neglect any good that may have been done because of some wrongdoing. How much wrongdoing is too much? A lot, a little, any at all? How do you assign a value to each?
| sundin13 said:
As for whether it is worth respect, I'll respect Trump for donating to the National Park Services when he stops actively going against the mission statement of the National Park Services in every other move that he makes. I'm not going to praise someone for taking one tiny step forward when the rest of the year they have been sprinting backwards at full speed... |
