the so fallible Bible

[Fidel_Castronaut]

you clearly didn't read what I have written. Where did I post that not giving to the poor is/should be a default? Also, define 'poor'. 'wealth', as I'm sure you'll agree, is relative. Also, define 'giving'. Money? Time? All? something else? Knowledge? What?

Sure - money and time that is currently devoted to personal pleasure.

So you think it is wrong to have pleasure as well? It really tells. I suspect this will be a debate where you disagree with me based on the fact I do not think as you do.

Again, I ask you, did you read/understand anything about the comment I made indicating that context is just as, if not more, important than the individual case study?

Don't assume that disagreement is misunderstanding.

Then explain and expand on your posts and don't just post one liners that lead to dead-ends. Until you do, I will assume you misunderstand.

It is illogical to look at the little picture and paint with a broad brush. "Give a man a fish" and all that.

You can't teach him to fish if he starves to death before the lessons.

You continue to miss the point and instead retort with irrelevancies. This comes down to me one of us looking at the bigger (contextual) picture, and the other looking seemingly to massage one's ego by claiming to act where others stand and stare.

I call that nonsense.

show your working out. I see no tangible numbers on this,

Figured anyone could work it out, but since you can't, here's an example.

Scenario 1: Man sells his clothes and car for $20,000 and gives it to the poor. Since he can't get to his job as a banker, he loses his income and becomes homeless.

Scenario 2: Man keeps his clothes, car, and job. After expenses, man is able to give $40,000 to the poor from his salary each year.

*sigh*

You know that's not what I meant. you've just made up a scenario that has no reflection on reality.

Scenario 1: I win a million pounds and give it all to charity.

Scenario 2: I win a gazillion pounds and fly into a space on a starship I've invented.

Tangible, evidence based figures, please. I understand your notion of a person keeping what is relevant to live their life. I make the claim that one's live is not simply about living day to day. It is not wrong to want pleasure. But that doesn't also equate to doing nothing about man's plight, and its own inhumanity to itself.

Is 'giving' money to the poor the best way to combat and alleviate poverty, in your mind?

For most individuals, yes, that's probably the best thing. but even if it isn't the best, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, unless you're setting up a dichotomy, which you claim isn't your intent.

No, I'm not. I'm saying there are multiple 'outs', and multiple methodologies that can be employed. simply throwing money at an issue with no attempt to remedy the context of said issue is not solving the issue. In fact in many times it's exacerbating it.

This is what's known as basic logic. If you simply cut back the leaves of a weed without cutting it out at the root, it will continue to grow. Same applies to poverty. You look at a person and they are starving. You then feed that man, and the next day he is starving, and he has told his friend you can give food. Now you have two men in the same situation, and you have doubled the logistical problems of continuing the methodology employed.

Far better to examine the root causes of the issue. Which are almost always sociological, political, economical, and often, religious (though not exclusively, naturally).

No dichotomy.

I'm curious because I take issue with the notion of throwing money at an issue in hope of eliminating it. Naturally, money helps, but in tandem with other methodologies which have proven, in many cases, to be increase the effectiveness of other strategies undertaken in tandem.

OK, if money helps, than those who think it's evil to allow suffering are evil if they don't give money that they otherwise just use for pleasure.

Nonsense. Irreverent point utilizing emotional reasoning and bias against 'pleasure' (whatever that means).

Ignored.

Let me stop you here. For one, you know absolutely nothing about any of the posters' on this forum and their contributions to alleviating poverty and helping their fellow man.

Sure I do. Plenty of members post about spending money on booze and pot. I know that, if they really cared about suffering, they could give that money to suffering people.

Irrelevant. Ignored.

I can say, almost for certain, that I have contributed through academic research more to the cause of poorer neighborhoods in inner-city communities throughout England and Wales than you have through my doctoral research. And yet, I'm not pointing the finger at others (you) accusing them of wanting to live a life of decadence at the expense of others.

Wow, research - good for you!

Nothing to say?

Good for you! Research leads the way to tangible, real benefits that actually affect people for the common good. Understanding why a Sikh religious organisation turned one of Birmingham's poorest inner-city areas into a thriving multicultural haven of prosperity and how their MO might be utilised in other communities is one way to alleviate and one day maybe eliminate poverty. I don't expect you to understand.

Nonsense. Where, exactly, is the false dichotomy? Did I ever say there was method x and method y and you can only chose one?

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

I look forward to reading where I have said this.

If you're agreeing with me that people giving money to the poor would be helpful, then we're on the same page. However, I don't really understand why you're going on about context and best methods in that case.

CONTEXT. Everything has a context. A diachronic analysis of a subject (whatever it is) is the first rule of basic inquiry when looking at the cause and/or effect of a phenomenon unless the situation demands otherwise (say, for a synchronic analysis).

Giving money to the poor can be helpful, but it is not always so, and can be very damaging. Putting money in education, infrastructure, and specifically shaping societal structures to be fluid (like human society has and always will be) is by far a better way of alleviating poverty than giving a man some bread. All you're solving is the immediate problem, the case as it is presented to you in the immediate. You are doing nothing to combat the causes of why he is there in front of you in the first place. And money isn't always the way to combat this. A simple 'idea' can often be just as effective, especially if it is planted into the minds of leaders and those who influence and shape those structures.

Now if you can just cite where I indicated a false dichotomy we can carry on.

Cite your sources, using page number, threat title, post number, and the exact words.

thanks in advance.

It becomes painfully clear, John, that you are talking about a subject to which you have little real world experience beyond the tunnel vision your biblical beliefs have imparted. That you seem unaware of any other methodologies to assisting the fostering of equality in societies (people and societies are variable, but poverty is the same) I think paints a picture that your words can never gloss over.

See? If you're not making a dichotomy here, what's your point? Sure, maybe there's plenty of other things that can be done in addition to direct charity. So what? Shouldn't people still give, if they think that it's evil to allow suffering? You seem to be making implications while trying to leave some wiggle room. Give a straight answer - if someone says it's evil to allow suffering, yet spends money on recreational drugs while others are starving, is that person a hypocrite?

You need to define suffering, and then explain in reasons other than emotional, biblical based notions (if you can) why having 'pleasure' suddenly makes you a bad person.

So I do give to charity, but cancer charities, not poverty charities (not everyone who has cancer is poor, obviously). I also enjoy playing some video games and reading great works of fiction on an evening. This gives me pleasure. I also enjoy fucking my fiancé and buying her things. that, too, gives me pleasure. By your standard I am a hypocrite, and I reject that based on your faulty reasoning.

You may simply say that yes, I am. If so, that is why you are derided, and why you will never understand the actual meaning behind giving to the poor, why they are poor, and how to stop them from being poor.

I am not going to kotow and accept your 1 dimensional box of what is and isn't acceptable. Deal with it.