Lets tax Christmas !

JL, they're not excuses, they are reasons. I do believe that charity may mean love, and that comes with no strings attached.

So, Letty, you interpret Antibuddha as asking why one should need reasons for dismantling official charitablness? I wonder if he would admit to that.

Hee! Hee! Well, he dropped his avatar, JL. Hey, Fresco. This thread has become quite taxing on all of us.

Seriously. So many organizations have claimed tax exempt privileges, and then do all but extort, and that includes churches.

The rich man begs of us our envy; the poor man begs of us our charity.

Then the rich man is not so rich. And the poor not so poor. I think it's curious that it is only the rich man you need to tax. The poor will give what he can spare no matter what. And if he sees need, he will give until it hurts.

Note that I see a difference between poor people and broke rich people.

Hey, Cyracuz, I just had an AHA moment. Let's tax music, then no one will need inspiration. As for the rich man, we can restore the luxury tax, and since the poor will always be with us, we can read to him The Vision of Sir Launfal.

Who was it that said, "Millions for charity; not one cent for retribution". UhOh, that didn't sound right.

Firstly, the word reason and the word excuse mean different things. Do not interpret them as being the same thing or you will find yourself making incredibly inaccurate conclusions.

Secondly, do not attempt to assume my political stance from me asking a question. Asking questions are necessary in philosophy to get to the heart of the matter. What I was attempting to do was to get you to elaborate upon your point and explain where it came from.

(something which I clearly did not achieve)

So I will ask again.

Can you explain why precisely one requires excuses to dismantle official charity?

If you look closely, I believe you will find that it comes from your code of morality which not everyone shares. I share a similiar morality in that I believe a utopia would be a socialist environment in which there is official support for everyone. I support charities being tax-free, government welfare being provided to the poor or handicapped and I think that all these things should be increased.

Yet as a moral relativist I don't assume that everyone shares the same opinion or moral code. Perhaps you should consider that not everyone will agree with you because you're basing your sole argument on the morality of your opinion.

This is the point I was working towards by asking the question, I was hoping to bring you to realise the point on your own by a process of questioning your assumptions. Clearly that's not going to occur so I will say it straight.

Don't read too much into a question.

Fine, I'm just admitting that my moral position is that we "should" not permit people to starve on our streets if we can help it. I grant that this reflects my moral position and that of millions of others (and has nothing to do with "socialist utopias"), and I do believe that many people do not concern themselves with the suffering of others. They only care about themselves and "their kind." I'm glad this does not include you.
By the way I don't see what the issue is here about the obvious difference between "reason" and "excuse."

On my left I have the libertarians. Though they don't think people should starve on the streets (actually some of them probably do... they're a bit social darwinist, you know those guys) they believe that charity should never be forced or provided by the government.

On my right I have the muslims. Though they don't think people should starve on the streets they believe that charity is the religious duty of every muslim to personally provide.

Behind me over there are the anarchists. Though they don't think people should starve on the streets they don't think there should be a government at all to provide official charity.

Up ahead are the socialists. Though they don't think people should starve on the streets they think that it should be the government providing charity and that individual charity (though they're often happy to contribute) should not be necessary.

Your explanation oversimplifies matters. You don't just believe that the poor should be fed, you believe in a how and by whom. As do others who may agree with you on the extremely simple premise you reduced it to here, without agreeing with the method.



<cough>Ad populum</cough>



I see you are familiar with the most basic level of parody. Quoting a few words you personally find strange from the other person's post with quote marks around them. In time this may progress to the rephrasing and perversion of another persons comments, sarcasm or even rhetorical questions. Then watch out internet.

Sorry, I'm just teasing.



But... it does. I only care about myself and my kind. My definition of my kind just happens to extend to the human species. You do to, though where you draw the line of your definition is something I don't know you well enough to comment upon. When was the last time you cared about the personal fate of a lettuce?

Oh that's where you're wrong. So wrong. I love lettuce. Well, to be absolutely truthful, romaine lettuce.