The US Politics |OT|

[EricHiggin]

Immersiveunreality said:

EricHiggin said:

The definition says nothing about the giver.

Well there you go, another way in which to point out something bad so you don't have to acknowledge the good.

The definition of charity says nothing about the giver.

Why should anyone give to charity? Because in one way or another it stokes their ego. It just depends whether or not that form of ego is seen as acceptable to some people. Other people couldn't care less where the money comes from, within reason.

Bolded: Yeah in some way it ultimately strokes our ego but there is still a difference in how we use it to stroke our ego,or you just feel good about helping others and keep it mostly a personal thing or you expect people to respect you for what you've done and you try to gain a better social status in a needy way.

The first example is the good way to do charity and those that practice the second example are the more powerhungry people and the more negative use of ego in charity in my opinion,those in the second group aren't always the best of people.

Yes, some people use charity to further a separate agenda that would be seen as negative and that sucks, but as in any system, it's not perfect and you have to take the good with the bad. In a well thought out, useful system, typically much more good than bad.

That doesn't mean there aren't poor, average, and rich people who give in a manner most would accept, and even some who may push their own employees in a  somewhat 'negative' manner, while using that money for charity because they see it as more important than simply giving those employees a raise on top of what is already seen as a worthy enough wage.

Where is the line? Always moving.