On 1/6/2013 4:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

    On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

        On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to