[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

Doesn't matter, it's disposable.

I cant wait till you are a little oap women on state pension

oh how I will laugh

or would have laughed

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

I cant wait till you are a little oap women on state pension

oh how I will laugh

or would have laughed

Stop deflecting.

People give to charity what they can afford, and don't if they can't.
It's all relative.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of your respect for an old lady donating what she can afford and no respect for a millionaire donating what he can afford. They're both the same.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

Stop deflecting.

People give to charity what they can afford, and don't if they can't.
It's all relative.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of your respect for an old lady donating what she can afford and no respect for a millionaire donating what he can afford. They're both the same.

incorrect. one gives when they cant afford out of simple charity the other gives because he realizes he has to or he will be seen as a dick

and what he gives is irrelevant as its a tiny fraction of his wealth

lets see him donate say £10,000,000 then he should be applauded



massive difference

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

incorrect. one gives when they cant afford out of simple charity the other gives because he realizes he has to or he will be seen as a dick

and what he gives is irrelevant as its a tiny fraction of his wealth

lets see him donate say £10,000,000 then he should be applauded



massive difference

Not a massive difference at all. £1 is a tiny fraction of the old lady's "wealth". It's disposable income so she's not giving anything that she can't afford.

But you're refusing to see that very simple point because you don't like Sheeran.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Mentions he donates to charity - he's doing it so he doesn't look like a dick or for attention. Doesn't mention he donates to charity - he's a selfish, rich, elitist arsehole.

Jealousy doesn't suit you Isaiah.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

Not a massive difference at all. £1 is a tiny fraction of the old lady's "wealth". It's disposable income so she's not giving anything that she can't afford.

But you're refusing to see that very simple point because you don't like Sheeran.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Mentions he donates to charity - he's doing it so he doesn't look like a dick or for attention. Doesn't mention he donates to charity - he's a selfish, rich, elitist arsehole.

Jealousy doesn't suit you Isaiah.

im not sure what you are driving at as all i said was id admire the old lady rather than that ginger **** but if you cant see the difference in the scenario then either you are being deliberately dense or just being dense deliberately

i suspect the later and former..

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

im not sure what you are driving at as all i said was id admire the old lady rather than that ginger **** but if you cant see the difference in the scenario then either you are being deliberately dense or just being dense deliberately

i suspect the later and former..

What I'm driving at is what you just said. Finding some non existent noble act in the old lady and demonising Ed's donations because you don't like him.

Obviously.

"Ginger ****" Stay jealous.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

incorrect. one gives when they cant afford out of simple charity the other gives because he realizes he has to or he will be seen as a dick

and what he gives is irrelevant as its a tiny fraction of his wealth

lets see him donate say £10,000,000 then he should be applauded



massive difference

That sounds suspiciously like a hard line socialist view. I'm baffled by your judgement of the rich LT.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That sounds suspiciously like a hard line socialist view. I'm baffled by your judgement of the rich LT.

should you not be baffled by sheeran?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Isaiah 7:14

should you not be baffled by sheeran?

Jealousy looks terrible on you and yet you continue to wear it.

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Originally Posted by Mariah_Carey

Stop deflecting.

People give to charity what they can afford, and don't if they can't.
It's all relative.

I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of your respect for an old lady donating what she can afford and no respect for a millionaire donating what he can afford. They're both the same.

What are we comparing? Virtuosness or the "meaning" behind the gesture.

I would argue the virtue of charity in general is same. The meaning and sense of thought given behind the gift from someone who has hardly anything to give though is higher because they are so much closer to understanding it's possibilities. People with less have not only a higher appreciation for money, but a higher empathy for those who don't have it.

LT's points are not invalid in terms of her not being able to afford. The fact so many live paycheck to paycheck is why we have so many problems with debt as this is a large part of what drives up benefits usage. If there were no safety net, more people would put away for a rainy day as that would be common sense, but instead many people feel quite comfortable to spend what they earn almost immediately. This is a recipe for disaster, and I think even people that poor would know it by that point, but because there are so much access to welfare/charity (just in case), ppl tend to put off saving rather than to feel increasingly burdened/strangled by their consequences.

If she has a decent safety net (several months of bills saved up), then that partially negatives that example, but usually someone on a fixed income post-retirement has limited financial resources since they are not able to work to make a living and often face higher medical/cost of living due to restrictive diets (so pricier) and are more dependent on others for things like house cleaning or maybe need an in-home care assistant.

On the flip side of the coin (pun not intended), is it really the rich's job to be taking care of the poor? It's not. And just because the person with less is more empathetic doesn't make them more virtuous. So I'd say they are about even on the scale of virtue... but the person with less understands the significance behind it better than someone who literally can make it rain cash without much thought.

Even if you were rags to riches, I think when you no longer living life on the edge of disaster, you do tend to "disconnect" from life's incontrovertible hard truths. Even I'm aware of this change in state in myself from having been raised poor (and physically in bad shape for several decades because of it) to no longer not. I have the luxury now of not having to be burdened with constant worldly concerns, and while I am grateful for it, it has introduced impairments to empathy.

I think you're both making valid points is what I'm getting to.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Maru

What are we comparing? Virtuosness or the "meaning" behind the gesture.

I would argue the virtue of charity in general is same. The meaning and sense of thought given behind the gift from someone who has hardly anything to give though is higher because they are so much closer to understanding it's possibilities. People with less have not only a higher appreciation for money, but a higher empathy for those who don't have it.

LT's points are not invalid in terms of her not being able to afford. The fact so many live paycheck to paycheck is why we have so many problems with debt as this is a large part of what drives up benefits usage. If there were no safety net, more people would put away for a rainy day as that would be common sense, but instead many people feel quite comfortable to spend what they earn almost immediately. This is a recipe for disaster, and I think even people that poor would know it by that point, but because there are so much access to welfare/charity (just in case), ppl tend to put off saving rather than to feel increasingly burdened/strangled by their consequences.

If she has a decent safety net (several months of bills saved up), then that partially negatives that example, but usually someone on a fixed income post-retirement has limited financial resources since they are not able to work to make a living and often face higher medical/cost of living due to restrictive diets (so pricier) and are more dependent on others for things like house cleaning or maybe need an in-home care assistant.

On the flip side of the coin (pun not intended), is it really the rich's job to be taking care of the poor? It's not. And just because the person with less is more empathetic doesn't make them more virtuous. So I'd say they are about even on the scale of virtue... but the person with less understands the significance behind it better than someone who literally can make it rain cash without much thought.

Even if you were rags to riches, I think when you no longer living life on the edge of disaster, you do tend to "disconnect" from life's incontrovertible hard truths. Even I'm aware of this change in state in myself from having been raised poor (and physically in bad shape for several decades because of it) to no longer not. I have the luxury now of not having to be burdened with constant worldly concerns, and while I am grateful for it, it has introduced impairments to empathy.

I think you're both making valid points is what I'm getting to.

Who's job is it then? In a society that has a social welfare structure paid for via income tax then it is everyones duty to pay ... the rich obviously fall into that and pay proportionately.

What is this inference that the rich are a breed apart who can't contemplate want? Obviously Mr Sheeran can :/