Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
#76

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-23-2020, 06:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I can understand how trying to explain that incongruence would be annoying.

Again, there's not a significant difference between Dems and Reps on this.

Obama had his chance and just tweaked private insurance. Yet, you call the Reps heartless and give Dems a pass. 

Dems pay lip service to taxing the rich to benefit the poor. They don't actually do it in a significant way. Most of them are or aspire to be rich themselves, and hang out with rich people. If you believe they intend to really change things, you're a sucker.

Since positions on spending aren't very different between the two parties, that leaves social issues as the deciding factor, and as a Christian, I find the party that accepts abortion up to the point of birth to be the heartless one.
Reply
#77

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 02:45 PM)Percie Wrote: Obama had his chance and just tweaked private insurance. Yet, you call the Reps heartless and give Dems a pass. 

Don't give me this bull and pretend that you don't understand what really happened. Obama had an amazing healthcare plan in place, but in its usual fashion of not willing to accept anything from the other party, the Republicans watered down the bill with their useless idiocy.

The Republicans are the ones who are always unwilling to do anything for the people, plain and simple. Those who don't see that are deluded.
The following 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post:
  • Dancefortwo
Reply
#78

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-23-2020, 12:02 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: If it is statistically true that theists give more to charity than atheists, we atheists should accept reality and not be pussies about it, whining that their motivations are impure and religiously motivated or religiously self-interested or whatever.  Actions speak louder than words.  I tip my cap to anyone who gives to charity, for whatever their reason.

There are atheists, and then there are antitheists.
Reply
#79

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 02:48 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Don't give me this bull and pretend that you don't understand what really happened. Obama had an amazing healthcare plan in place, but in its usual fashion of not willing to accept anything from the other party, the Republicans watered down the bill with their useless idiocy. 

Obamacare reduced the percentage of uninsured from 16.6% to 10.4%. Yes, that's a good thing, but it's hardly "amazing" and falls far short of "Universal Health Care," which is what we're discussing.
Reply
#80

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 03:00 PM)Percie Wrote: Obamacare reduced the percentage of uninsured from 16.6% to 10.4%. Yes, that's a good thing, but it's hardly "amazing" and falls far short of "Universal Health Care," which is what we're discussing.

Well, in that case, we'd certainly have universal health care if the conservatives in government weren't so damn retarded.
Reply
#81

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 03:01 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Well, in that case, we'd certainly have universal health care if the conservatives in government weren't so damn retarded.

Dems had a chance and didn't do it.

Sanders and Warren talked it up, but Biden got the nomination.

Dems have shown by their actions that they have no intention of implementing single payer, yet you still blame conservatives.
Reply
#82

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-23-2020, 04:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 12:06 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Taxation is now..."public charity"?  Egads.

Hey, here's someone else who missed the point, even after it was laid out, no less.

Wait, it's just Jerry, business as usual.

Laid out, it's a terrible and phony point.  Including taxation in the definition of "charitable donation" is an abuse of the definition of charitable donation.  Taxation is not voluntary, you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't pay.  Taxation may go to public goods that have a charity-like effect, but it is not close enough to be considered a charitable donation.
Reply
#83

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-23-2020, 05:13 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 12:02 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: If it is statistically true that theists give more to charity than atheists, we atheists should accept reality and not be pussies about it, whining that their motivations are impure and religiously motivated or religiously self-interested or whatever.  Actions speak louder than words.  I tip my cap to anyone who gives to charity, for whatever their reason.

Religious people giving to religion charities frequently has a different end point than secular donations.  Some of that donated money is self serving.   Sometimes, but not always, proselytizing comes with the chicken soup for the homeless... because converting people down on their luck is an old religious hat trick.  "Oh, aren't you super greatful to Jesus for this ham sandwich?"   Doctors Without Borders doesn't have this catch so I've donated to them.  

Don't get me started on Mother Teresa's organization.

True but irrelevant to my point.  If I were homeless I would rather have the chicken soup and proselytizing than no chicken soup at all.  We also give to Doctors without Borders.  St Jude's is also is a good cause.
Reply
#84

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 04:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 12:06 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Taxation is now..."public charity"?  Egads.

Hey, here's someone else who missed the point, even after it was laid out, no less.

Wait, it's just Jerry, business as usual.

Laid out, it's a terrible and phony point.  Including taxation in the definition of "charitable donation" is an abuse of the definition of charitable donation.  Taxation is not voluntary, you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't pay.  Taxation may go to public goods that have a charity-like effect, but it is not close enough to be considered a charitable donation.

Okay, paying them is not voluntary, but how about enacting them in the first place, or voting in politicians to do so? Your distinction is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#85

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:27 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 04:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Hey, here's someone else who missed the point, even after it was laid out, no less.

Wait, it's just Jerry, business as usual.

Laid out, it's a terrible and phony point.  Including taxation in the definition of "charitable donation" is an abuse of the definition of charitable donation.  Taxation is not voluntary, you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't pay.  Taxation may go to public goods that have a charity-like effect, but it is not close enough to be considered a charitable donation.

Okay, paying them is not voluntary, but how about enacting them in the first place, or voting in politicians to do so?  Your distinction is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Why would those things be considered "charitable donations"?  Arbitrary would be just opening up the definition so wide anything could be considered a charitable donation.
Reply
#86

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:36 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:27 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Laid out, it's a terrible and phony point.  Including taxation in the definition of "charitable donation" is an abuse of the definition of charitable donation.  Taxation is not voluntary, you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't pay.  Taxation may go to public goods that have a charity-like effect, but it is not close enough to be considered a charitable donation.

Okay, paying them is not voluntary, but how about enacting them in the first place, or voting in politicians to do so?  Your distinction is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Why would those things be considered "charitable donations"?  Arbitrary would be just opening up the definition so wide anything could be considered a charitable donation.

If the distinction is between voluntary and involuntary, then those are included. That was the distinction you chose to make and it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Define charity in such a way that it doesn't include the desire and intention of caring for the poor and the needy through the creation of public goods via taxation.

Quote:charity, n.

4. Benevolence to one's neighbours, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences in which this manifests itself.

a. as a feeling or disposition; charitableness.
b. as manifested in action: spec. alms-giving. Applied also to the public provision for the relief of the poor, which has largely taken the place of the almsgiving of individuals.

~ Oxford English Dictionary
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#87

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:38 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:36 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:27 PM)Dānu Wrote: Okay, paying them is not voluntary, but how about enacting them in the first place, or voting in politicians to do so?  Your distinction is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Why would those things be considered "charitable donations"?  Arbitrary would be just opening up the definition so wide anything could be considered a charitable donation.

If the distinction is between voluntary and involuntary, then those are included.  That was the distinction you chose to make and it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Define charity in such a way that it doesn't include the desire and intention of caring for the poor and the needy through the creation of public goods via taxation.

You can think about it that way if you insist, it just seems outside the reasonable scope of what we consider "charity."  If the goal (and conversations change so this may not be the goal) was to examine who is more charitable, theists or atheists, allowing taxation into the conversation seems to add confusion rather than clarity.
Reply
#88

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:49 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:38 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:36 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Why would those things be considered "charitable donations"?  Arbitrary would be just opening up the definition so wide anything could be considered a charitable donation.

If the distinction is between voluntary and involuntary, then those are included.  That was the distinction you chose to make and it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Define charity in such a way that it doesn't include the desire and intention of caring for the poor and the needy through the creation of public goods via taxation.

You can think about it that way if you insist, it just seems outside the reasonable scope of what we consider "charity."  If the goal (and conversations change so this may not be the goal) was to examine who is more charitable, theists or atheists, allowing taxation into the conversation seems to add confusion rather than clarity.

See my edited post. I'm not just thinking of it that way, it's the way it is defined. You said taxation was only "charity-like." That's incorrect and your whole argument rests on arbitrary definitions which don't match the actual meanings of the words.

The question's core was whether atheists do as much as theists to help their neighbors, and the evidence strongly suggests they do. What exactly is your argument here? It seems to be that form matters more than function.

This is par for the course with you jerry, arguing semantics instead of facing the point squarely.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#89

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:53 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:49 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:38 PM)Dānu Wrote: If the distinction is between voluntary and involuntary, then those are included.  That was the distinction you chose to make and it doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Define charity in such a way that it doesn't include the desire and intention of caring for the poor and the needy through the creation of public goods via taxation.

You can think about it that way if you insist, it just seems outside the reasonable scope of what we consider "charity."  If the goal (and conversations change so this may not be the goal) was to examine who is more charitable, theists or atheists, allowing taxation into the conversation seems to add confusion rather than clarity.

See my edited post.  I'm not just thinking of it that way, it's the way it is defined.  You said taxation was only "charity-like."  That's incorrect and your whole argument rests on arbitrary definitions which don't match the actual meanings of the words.

The question's core was whether atheists do as much as theists to help their neighbors, and the evidence strongly suggests they do.  What exactly is your argument here?

This is par for the course with you jerry, arguing semantics instead of facing the point squarely.

My argument would be:  The consideration of taxation may not be an accurate barometer for determining the comparative generosity (determined by charitable donations) of population groups (theist/atheist or whatever other groups under consideration).  How is that arguing semantics?  That's clearing away clutter that may not be useful in order to clearly find what's true.  Considering taxation as charity ("involuntary charity") may give us some useful insights and it may lead us to some incorrect conclusions.  It seems like a fake factor.
Reply
#90

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 02:45 PM)Percie Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 06:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I can understand how trying to explain that incongruence would be annoying.

Again, there's not a significant difference between Dems and Reps on this.

Obama had his chance and just tweaked private insurance. Yet, you call the Reps heartless and give Dems a pass. 

Dems pay lip service to taxing the rich to benefit the poor. They don't actually do it in a significant way. Most of them are or aspire to be rich themselves, and hang out with rich people. If you believe they intend to really change things, you're a sucker.

Since positions on spending aren't very different between the two parties, that leaves social issues as the deciding factor, and as a Christian, I find the party that accepts abortion up to the point of birth to be the heartless one.

1) not all Dems accept abortion up to the point of birth; and

2) Obama couldn't install radical change in medical care because yes, a couple of Dems threw shitfits; but let's face it, you cannot name one Republican who'd even ponder that for a hot minute.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#91

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 04:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 12:06 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Taxation is now..."public charity"?  Egads.

Hey, here's someone else who missed the point, even after it was laid out, no less.

Wait, it's just Jerry, business as usual.

Laid out, it's a terrible and phony point.  Including taxation in the definition of "charitable donation" is an abuse of the definition of charitable donation.  Taxation is not voluntary, you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't pay.  Taxation may go to public goods that have a charity-like effect, but it is not close enough to be considered a charitable donation.

See, at no point did I say that taxes were charitable donations. That's why your strawmanning is pointed out and rejected. Don't like it? Address the point I've actually made. And no, don't ask me to repeat it. You can scroll up to right before your fatuous reply and see what my point was, as I laid it an hour before you bothered to misrepresent it.

Edit: I'm in a, ahem, charitable mood, so here's the exact post of mine laying out my point. I've emboldened the pertinent passage:

(12-22-2020, 11:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Assuming those stats are correct -- and the bias of your source has already been pointed out -- why would such heartfelt folk prefer such a heartless government?

Since you still ain't grokking my point, it is that incongruence that arouses my curiosity.

Again, this disingenuous crap is why you get such hard sledding not just from me but from others here too. Not that I think you'll take that advice.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#92

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 09:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 05:24 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-23-2020, 04:51 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Hey, here's someone else who missed the point, even after it was laid out, no less.

Wait, it's just Jerry, business as usual.

Laid out, it's a terrible and phony point.  Including taxation in the definition of "charitable donation" is an abuse of the definition of charitable donation.  Taxation is not voluntary, you will be fined or imprisoned if you don't pay.  Taxation may go to public goods that have a charity-like effect, but it is not close enough to be considered a charitable donation.

See, at no point did I say that taxes were charitable donations. That's why your strawmanning is pointed out and rejected. Don't like it? Address the point I've actually made. And no, don't ask me to repeat it. You can scroll up to right before your fatuous reply and see what my point was, as I laid it an hour before you bothered to misrepresent it.

Edit: I'm in a, ahem, charitable mood, so here's the exact post of mine laying out my point. I've emboldened the pertinent passage:

(12-22-2020, 11:26 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Assuming those stats are correct -- and the bias of your source has already been pointed out -- why would such heartfelt folk prefer such a heartless government?

Since you still ain't grokking my point, it is that incongruence that arouses my curiosity.

Again, this disingenuous crap is why you get such hard sledding not just from me but from others here too. Not that I think you'll take that advice.

Why do you think I was initially responding to you?  It's not all always about you, high horseman, get over yourself.  Read the thread again, the theme of govt intervention as a stand in or more effective means of charitable intervention is all over, from different people.  Great that you agree with me that taxes aren't charitable donations.
Reply
#93

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:07 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Why do you think I was initially responding to you?

Because I'm the one who brought up the difference between charitable giving and voting for a government that takes care of the less-fortunate.

(12-29-2020, 12:07 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:   It's not all always about you, high horseman, get over yourself.  Read the thread again, the theme of govt intervention as a stand in or more effective means of charitable intervention is all over, from different people.  Great that you agree with me that taxes aren't charitable donations.

Then who, Jerry, equated taxes with charitable donations? Link to that post, could you? Maybe you could bother to quote the person you disagree with in the future, if that's not too much work.

I haven't equated taxes with charity. But don't claim agreement on spurious grounds, kiddo.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#94

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-28-2020, 05:00 PM)Percie Wrote:
(12-28-2020, 03:01 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Well, in that case, we'd certainly have universal health care if the conservatives in government weren't so damn retarded.

Dems had a chance and didn't do it.

Sanders and Warren talked it up, but Biden got the nomination.

Dems have shown by their actions that they have no intention of implementing single payer, yet you still blame conservatives.
Conservatives richly deserve the blame they're getting, but so do Dems.

Both parties are now beyond meaningful reform.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • adey67
Reply
#95

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:20 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:07 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Why do you think I was initially responding to you?

Because I'm the one who brought up the difference between charitable giving and voting for a government that takes care of the less-fortunate.

(12-29-2020, 12:07 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:   It's not all always about you, high horseman, get over yourself.  Read the thread again, the theme of govt intervention as a stand in or more effective means of charitable intervention is all over, from different people.  Great that you agree with me that taxes aren't charitable donations.

Then who, Jerry, equated taxes with charitable donations? Link to that post, could you? Maybe you could bother to quote the person you disagree with in the future, if that's not too much work.

I haven't equated taxes with charity. But don't claim agreement on spurious grounds, kiddo.

Would it be worth my time to link to it?  What are my chances of getting an apology or recognition from you that you were mistaken?
Reply
#96

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:40 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:20 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:07 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Why do you think I was initially responding to you?

Because I'm the one who brought up the difference between charitable giving and voting for a government that takes care of the less-fortunate.

(12-29-2020, 12:07 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:   It's not all always about you, high horseman, get over yourself.  Read the thread again, the theme of govt intervention as a stand in or more effective means of charitable intervention is all over, from different people.  Great that you agree with me that taxes aren't charitable donations.

Then who, Jerry, equated taxes with charitable donations? Link to that post, could you? Maybe you could bother to quote the person you disagree with in the future, if that's not too much work.

I haven't equated taxes with charity. But don't claim agreement on spurious grounds, kiddo.

Would it be worth my time to link to it?  What are my chances of getting an apology or recognition from you that you were mistaken?

Probably less than the odds of you arguing in good faith. Your argument is about linking taxes to generosity? Then what the fuck was all that "that's a lame argument because taxes aren't voluntary" bullshit about? You're doing what you always do jerry, quibbling, equivocating, moving goalposts, strawmen, red herrings, lying, making bad faith arguments, etc. I don't know specifically what your problem is, but for some reason you regularly act like a worthless pieces of shit, which prompts me to suspect that things simply are as they appear, and that you are in fact a worthless piece of shit.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#97

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:48 AM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:40 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:20 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because I'm the one who brought up the difference between charitable giving and voting for a government that takes care of the less-fortunate.


Then who, Jerry, equated taxes with charitable donations? Link to that post, could you? Maybe you could bother to quote the person you disagree with in the future, if that's not too much work.

I haven't equated taxes with charity. But don't claim agreement on spurious grounds, kiddo.

Would it be worth my time to link to it?  What are my chances of getting an apology or recognition from you that you were mistaken?

Probably less than the odds of you arguing in good faith.  Your argument is about linking taxes to generosity?  Then what the fuck was all that "that's a lame argument because taxes aren't voluntary" bullshit about?  You're doing what you always do jerry, quibbling, equivocating, moving goalposts, strawmen, red herrings, lying, making bad faith arguments, etc.  I don't know specifically what your problem is, but for some reason you regularly act like a worthless pieces of shit, which prompts me to suspect that things simply are as they appear, and that you are in fact a worthless piece of shit.

So...back to Danu.  Well please roleplay decent discussion so poor Jerry can learn.  What exactly is your position on the validity of govt expenditures in relation to charity?  I don't want to strawman you or assume your position.
Reply
#98

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:53 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:48 AM)Dānu Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:40 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: Would it be worth my time to link to it?  What are my chances of getting an apology or recognition from you that you were mistaken?

Probably less than the odds of you arguing in good faith.  Your argument is about linking taxes to generosity?  Then what the fuck was all that "that's a lame argument because taxes aren't voluntary" bullshit about?  You're doing what you always do jerry, quibbling, equivocating, moving goalposts, strawmen, red herrings, lying, making bad faith arguments, etc.  I don't know specifically what your problem is, but for some reason you regularly act like a worthless pieces of shit, which prompts me to suspect that things simply are as they appear, and that you are in fact a worthless piece of shit.

So...back to Danu.  Well please roleplay decent discussion so poor Jerry can learn.  What exactly is your position on the validity of govt expenditures in relation to charity?  I don't want to strawman you or assume your position.

You first. What is the relation between whether creating welfare programs is an act of voluntary charity or we're simply back to you arguing in bad faith again by trying to deflect.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply
#99

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:48 AM)Dānu Wrote: ...I don't know specifically what your problem is...

Many people argue to make or to defend a point. For mcmasters the argument is the point. It doesn't seem to matter what the discussion is about, he'll take the minority side and commence arguing, whether he knows what the fuck he's talking about or not.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Tithes to churches or Universal Health Care
(12-29-2020, 12:59 AM)TheGentlemanBastard Wrote:
(12-29-2020, 12:48 AM)Dānu Wrote: ...I don't know specifically what your problem is...

Many people argue to make or to defend a point. For mcmasters the argument is the point. It doesn't seem to matter what the discussion is about, he'll take the minority side and commence arguing, whether he knows what the fuck he's talking about or not.

Maybe. My suspicion is that he's a narcissist who can't control himself.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)