E
EvangelistVictor
Guest
Well I’ve personally spoken with people like this.
- Status
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
The amount is meaningless beyond building the correlation. The point is that your logic is a very clear example of implying causation from correlation, which is demonstrably terrible logic. I didn’t even need to make an example from anything you said. I could have used any of the ridiculous examples on this site and still made the point. I just kept it relevant for the sake of discussion.
Basically, stop being so focused on the numbers of the example and just admit that your logic was demonstrably flawed.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Ordinarily yes but you asserted using the “exact same logic” which requires same amount. I’d suggest in future use broader assertion language. You boxed yourself in
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
The logic of correlation/causation is not contingent on exact numbers. It’s just reliant on the trend being the same.
Besides, I originally didn’t even say same “exact same logic”, and you still missed the point, so I seriously doubt such wording confused you.
So stop trying to get out over a technicality that doesn’t even exist.
blackforest
Well-known member
I don’t think that such a generalization is kind, charitable, or even accurate. I’m sure you’ve met some tunnel-visioned pro-lifers. I’ve been an activist in and volunteered for a lot of causes, and I meet tunnel-visioned people elsewhere, too. It can be frustrating, I’ll grant.
But most people are just focused because they need to be.
For better or for worse, it’s really easy to get swept up in a single cause you’re passionate about at the expense of other issues. For Susan Burton, it’s helping formerly incarcerated women reintegrate into society. For Father Marko Djonovich, it’s putting the homeless to work. For Serrin Foster, it’s touring the country to speak about pro-life feminist approaches to combating abortion.
These people, just like the rest of us, have limited time and resources and can’t do everything. They probably eat, sleep, and breathe their missions and ministries.
But just because somebody is focused on one thing, it doesn’t mean that they don’t care about others. Imagine having the gall to say to the Audubon Society, “Look at you people! You only care about birds! You clearly don’t care about endangered manatees!!”
The next time you hear a pro-lifer rant about abortion, you could, if you’d like, re-direct the conversation toward how to show compassion for and assist pregnant women in need. But try to cut them a little slack. They just may be doing what God called them to do.
But most people are just focused because they need to be.
For better or for worse, it’s really easy to get swept up in a single cause you’re passionate about at the expense of other issues. For Susan Burton, it’s helping formerly incarcerated women reintegrate into society. For Father Marko Djonovich, it’s putting the homeless to work. For Serrin Foster, it’s touring the country to speak about pro-life feminist approaches to combating abortion.
These people, just like the rest of us, have limited time and resources and can’t do everything. They probably eat, sleep, and breathe their missions and ministries.
But just because somebody is focused on one thing, it doesn’t mean that they don’t care about others. Imagine having the gall to say to the Audubon Society, “Look at you people! You only care about birds! You clearly don’t care about endangered manatees!!”
The next time you hear a pro-lifer rant about abortion, you could, if you’d like, re-direct the conversation toward how to show compassion for and assist pregnant women in need. But try to cut them a little slack. They just may be doing what God called them to do.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Abortion kills more human life than all other types of death combined.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
Oh please! Spare me. Taxation is theft? This is exaxtly the attitude I am discussing. When you live in a democratic society you will just need to accept that some of your taxes are going to go to a cause you don’t agree with.
Do you really think people would become more charitable when they are not taxed as much? History would suggest otherwise. Look at countries with very low levels of poverty. Their tax levels are VERY high. Interestly they have low crime rates compared to their counterparts.
To suggest private charities would be more efficient is just plain incorrect. Look at the popular charities currently (world vision etc). Their overheads are huge. Only a small % goes towards the actual cause.
Do you really think people would become more charitable when they are not taxed as much? History would suggest otherwise. Look at countries with very low levels of poverty. Their tax levels are VERY high. Interestly they have low crime rates compared to their counterparts.
To suggest private charities would be more efficient is just plain incorrect. Look at the popular charities currently (world vision etc). Their overheads are huge. Only a small % goes towards the actual cause.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Oh. I stand corrected.
Nonetheless, can you prove causality between the two? I’ll agree that govt spending caused increased poverty if it can be proven with evidence gathered through the scientific method.
Nonetheless, can you prove causality between the two? I’ll agree that govt spending caused increased poverty if it can be proven with evidence gathered through the scientific method.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
It could be that private schools have a lot of the same problems but the students have families with the resources to help.
Shifting govt money from public schools to private/Catholic will simply shift the problems. I mean, it will shift the students with problems.
I’d rather build classrooms than jail cells. But that’s just me.
Shifting govt money from public schools to private/Catholic will simply shift the problems. I mean, it will shift the students with problems.
I’d rather build classrooms than jail cells. But that’s just me.
C
Camehome4john6
Guest
At my parish we always, as in baskets are permanently in the vestibule, collect for homeless shelters and a women’s shelter. The poor boxes are for St Vincent de Paul and there are collections at times. We have our own food pantry, Once a month we supply a soup kitchen in the city with casseroles. We have bins to collect clothes. The youth groups regularly do things for the homeless. I’m new there so I probably don’t know the half of it.
And we also support many pro-life activities and charities.
We are a mid-sized parish in the suburbs, right on the edge of a city in great need. We are not rich. And we are not alone in doing this.
So it’s not as if these other things don’t get addressed. The reason a post will get more attention if it has the word abortion in it is because of a visceral reaction to helpless babies being burned or torn apart in the womb.
As for the the argument sometimes brought up here that we tend to be pro-birth not pro-life, all of the CPCs I’ve ever known have programs to help the mother and baby after birth. We collect for these programs, too.
And we also support many pro-life activities and charities.
We are a mid-sized parish in the suburbs, right on the edge of a city in great need. We are not rich. And we are not alone in doing this.
So it’s not as if these other things don’t get addressed. The reason a post will get more attention if it has the word abortion in it is because of a visceral reaction to helpless babies being burned or torn apart in the womb.
As for the the argument sometimes brought up here that we tend to be pro-birth not pro-life, all of the CPCs I’ve ever known have programs to help the mother and baby after birth. We collect for these programs, too.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Taking by force is theft. I hate to sound elemtary
Yeah like Venezuela
FedEx is more efficient than Post Office, easiest example that private sector less wasteful than public sector. The reason is logical - ACCOUNTABILITY. If private sector (including a private charity ) doesn’t perform , they will lose investment to one that does. Govt has no competition so no incentive to be less wasteful
That’s just plain statistics and logic - people with more money will tend to donate more on average.
Last edited:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Sadly, not everyone is against violence carried out on against innocent, vulnerable person in his or her mother’s womb. Some believe that people should have the right to carry out such violence, some even seem to want to proclaim it and some seem to want to almost celebrate it. Sadly, not everyone is against violence.
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
The govt own words was a “war on poverty” so the causality is self-conceded. If they called it a “war on climate change”, you’re correct one would need to prove the causality w poverty stats. But even if there was no causality that means Govt was so inept they were spending money on a “war on poverty” on things that couldn’t help poverty. Like someone takes your $1000 donation for campaign to “feed homeless” and you find out they used it to take a vacation. That’s result if no causation - govt lied to people and used $21T tax money on “war on poverty” for non-poverty spending. If there is causation they made poverty worse. So either way they’re obviously inept at tackling poverty. Hence only logical to let Private Entity tackle it & people would donate far more if they have less income stolen via overtaxation due to these inept poverty programs
Last edited:
B
boclucky14
Guest
Actually, reduced taxes are more important for the poor and middle class, as “the rich”, as you call (which includes everyone in the country), can afford to pay any amount of unjust tax the government wishes to impose on them.
But then the poor and middle class will end up paying those taxes too.
But then the poor and middle class will end up paying those taxes too.
G
gazelam
Guest
Reduction in taxes. Keeping more of your own money.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Keep in mind that prior to World War II, only the super rich paid any income taxes. In fact, there was a time when John D. Rockefeller was the only person in the US that qualified for paying income tax at the highest marginal rate. So reducing taxes for the middle class while raising them for the super rich is not entirely new.
Last edited:
Y
YourNameHere
Guest
Fair taxation. Those who have more should pay more.
The working class pays property tax, sales tax, and all sorts of user feels.
The rich pay tax consultants to find new loopholes in the tax codes.
But let those rich prosper now. They will get their just reward in the future.
The working class pays property tax, sales tax, and all sorts of user feels.
The rich pay tax consultants to find new loopholes in the tax codes.
But let those rich prosper now. They will get their just reward in the future.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Reduction of taxes = Reduction of theft
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your namesake says otherwise.
Last edited:
B
boclucky14
Guest
No, it’s not, but I think explicitly progressive taxes are immoral. Although sales tax is considered regressive, it’s not through intention.
Not to mention the untold amounts of taxes on businesses. And that you have City taxes, county taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes. And typically not just one tax per type.
I can’t prove this right now, but I think the modern tax system has caused higher prices in almost everything. Now I’m going to start researching this. How much markup does Walmart have to pay for taxes.
Not to mention the untold amounts of taxes on businesses. And that you have City taxes, county taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes. And typically not just one tax per type.
I can’t prove this right now, but I think the modern tax system has caused higher prices in almost everything. Now I’m going to start researching this. How much markup does Walmart have to pay for taxes.
- Status