Ok this is pure comedic gold.  Are you making the defense that people should praise someone for doing a generous act out of self interest because if not they would get discouraged and not do it.  

You would be that person who gives 10 bucks to a homeless person and go around telling everyone looking for praise.  

What you just described is the difference between someone who is generous and someone who looks to appear generous.  Keep going down this line, it should be interesting where you take it.  I am sure you have one of your famous analogies to bring it all home.

If you tell someone born here to go fix the country they're "from" you are telling them they aren't from here. Otherwise it would be redundant to tell congresswomen to fix the country they're from. This was said in a more clever format by Rol but I thought it worth reiterating. 

2. Lol, but their country is the US so I guess they are doing exactly that.  This is where your defense goes out the window.  They are US citizens so there is no country to go to but here.  Trump is 70+ years old.  Do you think he doesn't know the history of those words.  He chose those words because its what every prejudice person in America have said for decades to people of color.  He knows his base think those very same words every day when they look at a person of color in office, protest or defending their rights. The reason you do not believe its prejudice is because you have never been on the other end of people telling you those words.  You have no clue of the history and you dismiss it believing that Trump just said that because he dislike these 4 women.

Its the same way he always like to call women who disagree with him or have issues nasty.  His choice of words shows his true feelings and how he thinks but I guess you would defend those choice of words as well.

"I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page..."

>Something like that. I can't prove Trump gives to charity because he just wants the good PR.

I can't read minds.

"Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist?"

>No, I need him to use someone's race as a means to insult them. Telling someone to go back to some country, fix its problems, and then return does not qualify.

"If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary?"

>A burglar can be found in possession of stolen property or caught in the act. Someone saying something without making any reference to race means they said something while never making any reference to race. As a skeptic, I need it to be there explicitly.

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

You are not being a skeptic through this conversation. One of the key attributes of a skeptic is thinking and making well reasoned conclusions using the evidence that has been presented. Your entire argument rests upon the insistence that you do not believe you should be able to use your mind to make any conclusions that aren't laid out for you like a children's book.

That isn't being a skeptic, that is called being willfully ignorant.

If denying yourself the use of your mind is what it takes in order for you to justify Trump's words, I think that says all that needs to be said.

Depends on what the person hates about America. If they hate something like the existing tax system, that's something that can be changed to some degree without much issue, but if you hate the existence of another country and it's people and wish they would just 'go away', then that's a problem America won't be participating in unless they become an enemy, so you might as well go elsewhere if that's a problem you want to fix. The types of complaints and the type of person doing the complaining would be taken into account when determining the type of response.

If you're told to go do a job somewhere else and then expected to return when finished, with a full report and the job completed, is that racist or prejudice? By Trump saying go to your home country and fix it and come back here and show us how you did it, how is that necessarily seen as a bad thing, unless those other countries are that horrible, or those individuals couldn't complete the task? It's as if people are taking it like Trump would basically be sending them to jail, which doesn't say good things about those countries, by the same people who seem to be defending them. I also don't see how it could be looked at as racist or prejudice, as those countries are not all single race countries, and if by chance they were, then you couldn't help but wonder if those countries are racist or prejudice themselves, or just so horrible no other race wants to live there, even some of their own.

Everyone just keeps strengthening the point.

Are you saying that because both you and I have been wrong in the past and admitted it, that means we're both stupid and aren't worthy of being conversed with no matter how correct or useful our other comments may be? Just because we've made mistakes before, that means we have nothing else to offer?

Just because someone like Epstein may be a POS when it comes to woman, who may deserve to spend a lot of time behind bars, doesn't mean a blind eye should be turned to any good deeds he's done. That's not to say he should be praised for it, but like in my example, you can't even give him the smallest amount of respect or anything for that matter, just because he did something else unacceptable. When it comes to being wrong, where do you draw the line? At what age and at what level of bad deeds are your good deeds from then on inadmissible?

It's like trying to say Bill Cosby was never funny. The guy was hilarious, but apparently was also a scumbag. That doesn't change the fact he was funny when it came to his comedy though. Do I look at him in the same light as I used to? No, but I couldn't logically say he wasn't a funny guy.

I also wasn't the one who brought up Epstein's charitable donations, and for good reason.

Charity - An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need, or, the voluntary giving of help typically in the form of money to those in need.

You're only allowed to give away help if you want absolutely nothing in return? Even a simple thanks as a pat on the back? You realize without having done what people have to do to earn that money, they wouldn't have the money to give away in the first place right? Money that in no way do they have to give away. That's not worth one word to show the smallest amount of appreciation and respect for their contribution?

"Allowed"? I haven't spoken a single word about being "allowed" to donate to charity. Why are you going off on random tangents that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand? The conversation isn't about who is allowed to donate to charity. That doesn't even make sense. The conversation is about what it means for someone to donate to charity selfishly, something which you have provided several examples of.

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...

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.

How, in any stretch of the imagination, is that vague slogan meant to be a rebuttal to anything?

You have long abandoned actually trying to have an argument here. If you have nothing of merit to say, feel free to say nothing.