On 1/6/2013 4:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Don't take this too much literally.
I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of
wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty.
Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand
in services and education.
That's not charity, it's protecting your genes.
So my motive makes a difference in the result?
No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions.
So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect. Which is
Bruno said in the first place.
I can't talk for Bruno of course, but he said "charity" and "distribution of wealth".
The example you give is neither. When people say "distribution of wealth" they don't
usually have one's progeny in mind.
My point exactly. They think, "If I spend a million dollars on my kid, it'll be good for
him. If I give ten dollars to a panhandler he'll just get drunk." and they might be
right, so it isn't the transfer of wealth that determines the outcome. Charity and
redistribution of wealth can be good or bad.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at