Is charity ethical? - Make America Darwinian Again

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Joan Nyan

Joan Nyan

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Dołączono
11 Lis 2013
Opponents of government welfare programs often say that private charities should take care of the poor instead of the government but both sides make the implicit assumption that the poor ought to be taken care of. Is taking care of people who can't make it on their own ethical or should inferior people be left to fend for themselves?
 
No, they'll just become lazy charity queens. We need to bring back mass-slavery, this time instead of Blacks we enslave all the poor people.

There won't be a homeless problem if all the homeless are slaves.
 
I don't know why I'm going to bother with this being already baited trolled but let's roll with this.

Yes.

People have a hard break in life, good people. Charity is the sake of, pity. Those whom relate/love/care about you trying to help. Even if it's not direct like that to a cause. Charity is a wonderful thing, if you can give think it over. I'm all for one taking care of themselves and their loved ones first. Gun to the head in welfare programs is NOT charity.

As a kid I had house burn down, people all near by knew pops always helped around area had kids. Meals, left over clothes etc. What would you get for a beat up old button down? 2 bucks? Sure some penny stocks but the guy who would help you fix the lawn mower needed that? You do the right thing. Hell, you do the economical thing. That's how you "repay", "rebond" friendships.

Be a good person it's not about taking someone out for a steak dinner, it's about caring and charity will come. Forcing a charity won't ever work and makes people not want to take part as there's mandates for it be it insure or welfare programs.

Also the idea of a private charity it can set rules. Welfare on a public system can't set as rigid rules. But due to gov rules a charity can't even be as picky as it may want. Now, while it seems oh great no racist charity, look at the other side... there's no "help the spanish" because illegal. So some Spanish person who got raped and needed cash for a shrink an heros... blood is on the mandate. In no way does this say should just be racist. It just says, locking people out of charities no matter how small a group they care about makes people less likely to donate, add that with social welfare programs... people don't give money to them..

Then lets get into the cancer of 501c....

So yea, the problem with charity seems to be a government. Telling you you can't help people. You know the system to ...help people.
 
ICametoLurk powiedział(a):
No, they'll just become lazy charity queens. We need to bring back mass-slavery, this time instead of Blacks we enslave all the poor people.

There won't be a homeless problem if all the homeless are slaves.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Chattel slavery requires that there is financial value inherent to the slave as property. I don't know if there is a net positive financial value to the non-working poor people. Their unskilled labor might have value, but the cost of feeding them would outweigh the value of their labor in the increasingly automated economy. And even their organs probably aren't any good for harvesting after a lifetime of EBT-subsidized junk food and alcohol.
 
millais powiedział(a):
Their unskilled labor might have value, but the cost of feeding them would outweigh the value of their labor in the increasingly automated economy.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
There'll be a demand for slaves after evil technology is overthrown though so it works out in the end.
 
The quickest way to demolish a country, especially a developing one, is to just air drop them free stuff because nobody will go to a local establishment to make those things, making it impossible for them to do any in-house manufacturing, making those manufacturing jobs pointless to even learn. If you want to keep a country poor, give it your left overs. Imagine the difference between domesticated dogs and wild wolves.

On the other hand, when manufacturing and (soon) transportation are automated, lots of people won't have a job anyway.

The idea of a universal bare minimum allowance from the government is something I like to call a "pointless economy". It relies solely on the good will of big brother to support the deadbeat population.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Jon-Kacho powiedział(a):
Is taking care of people who can't make it on their own ethical or should inferior people be left to fend for themselves
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
You don't want a world where the economically disadvantaged don't get some form of assistance because our system depends on there being more of them than there are the well-to-do. If the masses had no way to survive other than violent crime, they would do it. The only reason we dont have that now is because drug trade is so lucritive.
 
Jon-Kacho powiedział(a):
Opponents of government welfare programs often say that private charities should take care of the poor instead of the government but both sides make the implicit assumption that the poor ought to be taken care of. Is taking care of people who can't make it on their own ethical or should inferior people be left to fend for themselves?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

You're assuming that anyone, at any time, who ever becomes unfit even temporarily is total garbage, even though most welfare recipients are only on it temporarily. So if we let anyone like that die, we're basically throwing away every penny we spent as a society raising them from infancy, educating them, giving them work experience, and losing any future tax revenue they might provide in the future, solely because they were out of work for a year or whatever.

That's ridiculously wasteful, especially when a lot of those cases are due to economic fluctuations those people had nothing to do with.

Sure, there should be some consideration when we're dealing with situations where you have some families who have lived in a cycle of dependency for generations, but at least part of that is for the good of those people, too, because people in that cycle of dependency quite often are unhappy about it.

For every awful "welfare queen" example there are numerous people who hit a rough patch, get some emergency assistance, and move on.
 
Charities enable those who are a burden on our society.

Instead, we should round up all the unemployed and destitute and force them into blood-sports to entertain us. The profits made from such an enterprise can then be used to house and feed the winners and their families. Over time those with a lineage that has lasted for 5+ generations will be able to reenter society as unstoppable umbermensch who will then breed and improve the genetic makeup of society.
 
1864897514651 powiedział(a):
The topic of moral economics is an essay that will illuminate on not only the moral state of the giving of alms, but also the moral state of man's ability to logically function through time and space. If I finish such an essay in a way that I find satisfactory, it will be posted in my thread.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
We eagerly await it as we assume that it will be top-notch like everything else you've posted.
 
Jon-Kacho powiedział(a):
Is taking care of people who can't make it on their own ethical or should inferior people be left to fend for themselves?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Welcome to the foundation of our species' success.

Does your tribe have a hunter who is really great but recently broke his leg? He'll probably never hunt again, but if you take care of him he'll continue to pass his knowledge down to the next generation, strengthening the tribe long term. Plus now that he's not hunting anymore he's got more time to pass on his genes.

The reason people instinctively want to take care of the less fortunate is because tribes that didn't do this inevitably died out. Hell, would you rather be part of a tribe that leaves you to die the moment you twist your ankle or defect to the tribe with a doctor?

Is this shit still applicable in a 'tribe' with literally millions of people? Fuck if I know. Probably. I hear Stephen Hawking is doing important stuff from his wheelchair.
 
Only when it involves non-people. Like doggos. Doggos are great.

You donate to helping people though such as abused women, children, cancer patients, etc you are a dumb motherfucker only contributing to the decline of all sentient life.
 
Johnny Bravo powiedział(a):
Is this shit still applicable in a 'tribe' with literally millions of people? Fuck if I know. Probably. I hear Stephen Hawking is doing important stuff from his wheelchair.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

Stephen Hawking cucked the dude who built him that thing he talks with and stole his wife. Even a gimp can be a stone cold pimp.
 
Charity is just a dogwhistle for socialism. The first thing I did when I turned six was present my mother with a volume of milk equivalent to everything I drank as a baby, plus 4% interest.
 
Musisz się zalogować lub zarejestrować, aby odpowiedzieć.
Wstecz
Top Na dole