New Testingstan

Negative Knub wrote:Do you want to know how much I care about helping people? I gave blood back in 2010 that triggered anemia and caused me to go to the ICU. I could have died had I not gone, which I was contemplating because I didn't have health insurance at the time. Also, I did not know I had a fissure (no health insurance to get it checked out), which was causing me to lose blood. I gave blood for selfish reasons, apparently.

Yeah clearly you wanted to die due to lack of health insurance you selfish prick.

Oxymoron wrote:But what I mean is, from what I feel of what has been said here (and I may be totally wrong), and from what I've been able to judge from real people I frequent, it seems that people tend to see selfishness, in itself, as a bad thing - or at least a shameful thing.

It might just be a simple moral system. You can go a pretty far way with defining a moral life as "live for others". I'd say that's incomplete, but it isn't a bad rule of thumb for a decent society, and is easy to teach and realistically live by. It's a great starting point.

So perhaps they learned that early on and internalized that idea without thinking any more about it.

It doesn't stop them from acting like (selfish) assholes, though.

But yeah, as a rule of thumb, "be generous / to give is to live" is a good starting point, but it's just that : a rule of thumb and a starting point. You have to refine it a bit to get something somewhat decent and not just a bad caricature that is condemned to fail.


I know it's coming from the guy who is a walking pile of emotional repression, but damn if the fact we're emotional creatures doesn't makes things complicated as far as living in society goes...

I give to make a wish every now and then. I guess because I may one day spawn Flagglets and they may get a terminal disease I'm a selfish shit.

RyanThunder wrote:

Aaron wrote:You might want to take a break from tsboti too, cause fuck me.

I'm so confused

From what I hear, Aaron has that effect on guys.

And women, for some reason.

Aaron wrote:Man Mittens donates because he has to, either pressure from the church, to make himself look good or to manipulate his taxes. Thats selfish, using the system because he wants to be Pres.

Donating to a cause when your at our financial level, whether your effected personally or not can actually be a burden, leaving you short. Thats not selfish. Its not selfish to want other people to be spared your pain.

I dunno dude, that kinda sounds like "well if you're rich you can't be charitable because clearly it's just for the tax breaks " which sounds a little unfair.

I mean maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But who are we to judge? Just 'cause somebody is rich and/or powerful doesn't mean they can't legit believe in some charitable cause or whatever.

I don't know how it is in the US, but from what I've heard, if you're rich and you live the general area of London (so that'd be South England ), it's kind of socially required of you that you give to charity - for one cause or another, but the local culture would demand you give a fraction of your fortune to causes that don't directly benefit you.


I find that pretty interesting, given it's the same people who advocate the end of public services, and dream of a world where everything is done for profit - their profit.

True enough.

I don;t think that's an off the mark interpretation of Romney's donations. We know he is filthy rich and got that way through gambling, so I don't think it's out of line he'd give to charity for tax breaks to save and earn more money.

I'm going to be perfectly honest, Mittens strikes me as a guy who will do whatever he has to to win, I think he's greasy and untrustworthy. His flip flopping on his old positions as governor to today to appeal to the GOP are...well disgusting. Now his charitable stuff may be for altruistic reasons but I doubt it.

That said, your right, and there is no way to know. I should set aside my distaste and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I should, well, I'll try.

Dude he manipulated his charitable deduction for last year to make his tax rate appear higher. Know what he can do after the election? File an amended return and get the full deduction. And you know he will. I also don't consider the Mormon church a charity.

Wait, what?

Man that charity thread. It actually kinda reminds me of that free will thread from awhile back. Sure, if you want to get all "pure logic" and go by some technical definitions you could say "giving to a cause that affects you is selfish" just like you can say we do not have "free will" because

But for pretty much the vast majority of people that really doesn't matter, charity is charity and we have free will and all that shit. And making those arguments in a general sense is just people wanting to feel all and superior and shit. Maybe it has some validity in the purely academic realm, but to the averge person? Fuck you and your self-superior bullshit.

Negative Knub wrote:I don;t think that's an off the mark interpretation of Romney's donations. We know he is filthy rich and got that way through gambling, so I don't think it's out of line he'd give to charity for tax breaks to save and earn more money.

Well I was more responding to the second part of Aaron's post about donating "at our level" (guess I should've snipped it, oh well). Just because some rich dude can better afford their monetary donation doesn't make it less charitable. They really could believe in whatever cause and want to help it out, and they happen to have the resources to make a hefty donation to that effect.

As far as Romney himself, I don't know. Maybe he's being self-serving, or maybe he just does support the Mormon church. Unless you're close personal best buds with the man, you don't know one way or the other, and TBH just assuming he's doing it for selfish reasons because hey, fuck him and his politics is going a little far. Just because he's Republican/Mormon/pandering to the base/etc doesn't mean every single thing he ever does or has done was for some nefarious purpose.

That's all I'm trying to say. There's no need to demonize the dude and try to find things to hate on him for when you can aready point to actual things to harp on. What's the point other than casting the other side as Evil or some shit?

EDIT: And just to make clear, because this place is more SDN-like (or at least certain posters are) than people would care to admit, and I know it's a common thing that if someone can 'prove' he donated to charity for the 'wrong' reasons they'll smug it up and call me stupid, etc. Even if it turns out he's gaming the system with his charitable donations doesn't invalidate the general principle that just automatically assuming anything somebody you don't like is doing is wrong just because it's that person doing it is a piss poor way of living your life and accomplishes nothing.

Well, aside from making you feel smug and stuff.

Well yeah, even though I detest the man and it's colouring my judgment doesn't mean that his charity isn't doing good. Know what I'm saying?

Aaron wrote:Wait, what?

He put out like $4 million for charity. He only cliamed like $2 million in charity. If he'd claimed the entire amount his tax rate would have been just north of 9%. But since he only claimed about $2 million it's just north of 14%. But after the election he can claim the rest as a deduction and retroactively have just paid the 9%.

14% ?! Man, that's ridiculously low already !

its less than i pay :<

Aaron wrote:Well yeah, even though I detest the man and it's colouring my judgment doesn't mean that his charity isn't doing good. Know what I'm saying?

Yep. We cool man.

so facebook. i just "liked" a comment "really rough on my sinuses!" re: the weather

but i don't so much like that it is rough on her sinuses, it is more like "i totally empathize with this statement" aka "me too"


it reminds me of one time my sister posted something like "so tired but have 24 hour sentry duty. fta" and my dad "liked" it and then she replied "there's nothing to like about this!!!!!!"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/p ... 26dlu.html

Oh dear. You know I don't think we could actually sign onto this without drastic changes to Canada's laws and a constitutional convention, we can't very well sign onto a law that violates our own.

Oxymoron wrote:14% ?! Man, that's ridiculously low already !

He paid less in 2010. It's because all of his income is capital gains.

What are those? Interest on property?

Aaron wrote:What are those? Interest on property?

Stocks.

if the government taxed capitalist profits they might not invest it which means no jobs will be created

Aaron wrote:What are those? Interest on property?

No, capital gains are basically profits from sitting on stocks and other shit that doesn't actually help grow the economy.

i couldn't stop laughing at the part where bean told a buddhist and someone else whose family emigrated from india that they should educate themselves on buddhism and indian culture