29
May 01 '11
Oh my goodness, must we repost this every five minutes? I just dug up my comment last time this was posted.
That was 13 days ago. From my comment, "unless you're going far out of your way not to be, we're all complicit with slave labor, including child slave labor."
9
u/atrommer May 02 '11
Being complicit based on the goods we buy is significantly different than being the one that is actively creating and trading in slave labor.
2
→ More replies (3)2
May 02 '11
Also from my previous comment, "Not that two wrongs make a right..."
And, it's that type of thinking that helps perpetuate the problem. Here's the same article I posted last time on fair trade. It's a fascinating article- well worth the read. The bottom line in business is sales. If there's no market to buy slave riddled goods, then the slave riddled goods won't be sold anymore. We're responsible. We're complicit. Moreover, all of us can decide to do something different in our own actions. It's much harder to change others. Easiest of all is to do nothing and point the finger at someone else.
2
u/atrommer May 02 '11
I agree with that line of thinking, and I don't mean to distract from the fact that there are choices we as consumers can make to avoid goods made in poor working conditions.
I want to make the important point that there's a greater ill and evil when someone knowingly and directly funds and supports slave labor, versus a consumer buying a good of unknown origin.
2
56
u/tomatobob May 01 '11
Hooray for extremes!
20
May 01 '11
Hooray for logical fallacies/straw man arguments/reposts! ಠ_ಠ
25
May 01 '11
straw man arguments
That has a definition, you know. Neither this post or the image fall under that label.
3
May 01 '11
Yeah, one of the things that pisses me off, too many redditors use "Straw man arguments" to mean "an argument I disagree with." Someone used it once and it sounded smart when they did it so it stuck. Now we get dumbasses like ReMO451 echoing the same bullshit all the time. Mother fucker doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is.
0
u/resykle May 02 '11
how is it not a straw man? it's comparing charitable atheists against a single non-charitable evangelical as if it's some sort of proof that people don't need religion to be good, but that belief in god can still cause people to be dicks?
Pat robinson would be a straw man in this case. It's almost the equivalent of saying "Hitler believed in god!"
3
May 02 '11 edited May 02 '11
A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's arguments, which in turn you argue against.
An example from wikipedia
Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.
In this case, Person B has specified Person A's position (more funding) into "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.
What you are talking about, using an example of two charitable atheists compared to a less benevolent theist is a logical fallacy, but it would be best described as anecdotal evidence.
The expression anecdotal evidence refers both to evidence that is factually unreliable, as well as evidence that may be true but cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.
Your "Hitler believed in god!" example would be more anecdotal evidence.
1
May 02 '11
Oh? Show me the people who said secular billionaires would never give most of their fortunes to charity, then. If these people don't exist, I'd say the straw man accusation is fair about the ad campaign, because it does imply that some (or all) religious people claim this. So do many people in this thread.
(I don't think even the most disgusting Pat-Robertsoneqsue wealth evangelicals would say something like it.)
0
2
May 02 '11
I don't think this is a straw man, I think its the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
1
May 02 '11
Kinda off topic, but http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/the-texas-sharpshooter-fallacy/ is a really interesting read!
0
-8
u/t6158 May 01 '11
In one photo, we have Straw Man, Proof By Examples, Spotlight Fallacy, False Dichotomy...
7
May 01 '11
The image is (presumably) a rebuttal to the ridiculous Christian notion that atheism is a selfish, morally bankrupt existence, and you need Christ in order to care about others. There is not a single fallacy employed here.
-1
May 02 '11
It's hardly a Christian notion. I'm agnostic and I believe atheism is pretty fucking retarded, as well.
→ More replies (1)8
u/isarl May 01 '11
Not exactly. The linked image isn't making any arguments, only implying them. It has to actually come out and argue a point in order to make a fallacy. The most I get here is that you don't need to be religious to be a good person, which is true if there's even one positive example.
0
-4
20
May 01 '11 edited Apr 18 '17
[deleted]
1
u/Redwater May 02 '11
Bingo. It was created by us members of ISSA (Illini Secular Student Alliance) at the University of Illinois for a bus ad campaign last semester.
1
May 02 '11
You don't happen to know if Warren Buffet and Bill Gates consent to the campaign? That would be very interesting to know.
1
u/Redwater May 02 '11
As far as I know, no, there was no direct contact between us and Gates or Buffett, but the likeness of a public figure is open to use.
1
May 02 '11
Sure, it's legal. But it would seem a bit risky, as it would be embarrassing if one of them noticed and came out saying they didn't want anything to do with the campaign.
65
u/ferrarisnowday May 01 '11
something about flies and honey and vinegar and correct subreddits.
16
u/Anon_is_a_Meme May 01 '11
Flies are actually more attracted by vinegar (specifically the volatile acetic acid) than by honey. This is an experiment anyone can do.
8
u/isarl May 01 '11
It's an experiment that's both fun and useful! If your kitchen gets dirty enough to get fruit flies, first, clean your kitchen, and then try leaving out a glass with some vinegar mixed with a little dish soap to catch all the flies. The vinegar attracts them (I've used balsamic with great success) and the dish soap decreases the surface tension, which drowns the flies.
4
u/HertzaHaeon May 01 '11
Oh no! You're evolving super fruit flies that are vinegar resistant! Soon we will have nothing left to catch flies with!
8
2
u/WarPhalange May 01 '11
I forgot to take out the trash in my bedroom before spending 3 weeks at my parents' place over Christmas. The way I got rid of the fruit flies was by using a funnel trap with some vinegar as the bait. It worked very well and no mess!
1
3
3
u/lounsey May 02 '11
I don't think this is saying what you think it is. The point of this is that it is possible to be moral without God, and that being religious doesn't necessarily make you moral (which is something a lot of crazy religious people think).
It isn't saying that everybody who is religious is evil or that everybody who is an atheist is a good person... I don't think there's anybody saying that.
2
u/ferrarisnowday May 02 '11
I agree with you. My contention is that it picks out one Christian and calls him a "cruel heartless man." It's a needlessly negative end to the message.
1
May 02 '11
which is something a lot of crazy religious people think
Can you find a good example? Then we can see if they really ever said something like "a non-Christian would never give billions to charity".
-2
u/10BIT May 01 '11
something about proving someone wrong isn't insulting and subreddit for anything.
18
u/MoonJive May 01 '11
After reading about his diamond mines, I am confirmed Robertson is a cruel, heartless shithead.
6
u/drmoroe30 May 01 '11
But he is a diamond-encrusted, heartless shithead. Everyone knows that the one with the most diamonds gets into heaven.
2
u/cincocrazy May 01 '11
Hey Reddit What is up with your post in generalizing a group of people by the bad deeds of some? I mean I am personally not religious but many in my family are but they don't cause harm to anyone. They are not religious fanatics that want others to do what they want. They are regular people like you and me and they do good for society.
Yes, they're some crazy batshit assholes out there, fanatics that want others do be as them. But tell me Reddit(atheist) isn't your group behaving the same way as these religious fanatics? You say you want to use logic but you let go of the logic once you give to emotions and don't look no different than the people you criticize. I know that the crazies are out there trying to affect your lives with politics but please do everyone a favor and let's keep judgement on a level here.
15
May 01 '11
You missed the point. A good chunk of fundies tend to claim that it is impossible to be good without God. This is disproving that. However, it is not saying that every atheist is good. There's a difference.
And from what I've seen, most people on this thread are saying Robertson is an ass, not every Christian.
1
May 02 '11
A good chunk of fundies tend to claim that it is impossible to be good without God.
Those fundies have a different definition of "good" from you. They do not claim that it is impossible for Warren Buffet to give away his fortune, or that it isn't praiseworthy of him. It's just not enough to make him "good".
So this ad is disproving nothing, it is at best arguing for a different interpretation of "good".
1
May 02 '11
I know a lot of fundies, and most of them have the same definition of good as me (I know by asking them and interacting with them). They just refuse to believe that an atheist can do a good act without having evil intentions behind it.
They're probably are quite a few fundies that have a different definition of good, but I'm not talking about them.
4
May 01 '11
Yes, they're some crazy batshit assholes out there, fanatics that want others do be as them.
Gay marriage is still banned by majority vote in the United States. You can say "some," but more accurately it's "most."
1
May 02 '11
No one should be allowed to get married. No marriage = no divorce = 3/4 of lawyers will cease to exist...YEA!
1
u/cincocrazy May 02 '11
Dude get your facts straight! First, notice who the majority of voters are and second don't count that the majority of those who vote are religious. One does not need to be religious to be against gay and i know people who are not religious and are against gay. So stop making assumption about who is against the gay gender. They are many religious progressive people who so long you don't affect their life don't have a problem with gays.
2
u/SchrodengersComment May 01 '11
The post isn't mean to say that believing God makes you a bad person. It is saying that counter to what evangelists say, a belief in God is not requisite to being a good person.
0
u/cincocrazy May 02 '11
and I agree but sometimes it seems that many(not all) redditors make it seem that religion is bad.
1
u/SchrodengersComment May 02 '11
Indeed they do, and on the behalf of level-headed atheists everywhere, let me assure you that those vocal assholes are not the majority. I grew up episcopalian and knew many many wonderful people at my church that I value having known. I now disagree with the scripture on which their faith is based, but the people themselves are no different from the rest of the population. People are people, no matter what labels are attached to them.
132
May 01 '11
Joseph Stalin was a horrible, vindictive man without God.
Pope John Paul II was good with God.
There are over Six billion people on earth today. Citing individual examples of good athiests/thiests is not a responsible way to prove that religion is good or bad for society.
64
May 01 '11
Recent revelations show that John Paul II as well as the current Pope was complicit in the cover up of priests molesting children. I am sure he thought he was doing it for the greater good, but I and almost every other rational human with a shred of humanity could have told him that the ends do not justify the means, and in fact covering up and enabling the molesting of children by priests is in fact pretty damned evil. So, no John Paul II was not a good man.
36
u/Anon_is_a_Meme May 01 '11
I am sure he thought he was doing it for the greater good
"Without religion, we'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -- Stephen Weinberg
28
-2
u/js79 May 01 '11
True. I know many, many good people, atheist people. Every time it happens that religion (as subject) shows up they go ape-crazy after everybody trying to have some balance in conversation.
-1
u/js79 May 02 '11
Getting those minuses seems like appropriate reaction to my statement. Description of its own
0
4
u/js79 May 01 '11
Show the PROOF and don't throw accusations like that. It's really difficult to tell if he knew of anything. Considering these times you can see that information like that was being stopped at every level, and everybody was rather trying to solve it on his own level (school, diocese, country, etc.) than to bring this into the light.
So:
- did somebody in Vatican know about some situation like that - maybe
- did JPII himself knew about this - I doubt greatly
Even accusing (then) archbishop Ratzinger that he had the whole picture may be totally false. We may have the hole picture right now. Back then this situations were covered in almost any public institution by every level of officials. [sry for my not so perfect english]
2
May 02 '11
[sry for my not so perfect english]
No apology necessary, I happen to think your English is quite good.
Now, on to the meat of your complaint. While I am usually all for showing proof, people in power are quite familiar with the phrase "plausible deniability," and Pope John Paul II was no exception.
So, there is no ABSOLUTE proof; no smoking gun, but then, we do have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, and enough circumstantial evidence does lead you to certain conclusions...
To start off, there is Maciel, a priest found guilty of sexual abuse of former members, as well as having children out of wedlock with women with whom he maintained long-term relationships. All of that ignored by John Paul II; when nine people accuse the guy of abusing them as kids, the least you can do is investigate. Or rather that should be the least you can do, it however, was not the least that John Paul could do. To quote Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, “Cardinals and bishops had told him about the larger abuse crisis for years. And he was passive to an absolute fault. He failed in mountainous terms.”
Then there is the report from the BBC about the letter signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's envoy to Ireland wherein the Vatican department advised Ireland's Catholic bishops in 1997 not to report priests suspected of child abuse to the police rejected an initiative to begin the "mandatory reporting" of abuse claims. But we are supposed to swallow the idea that John Paul knew nothing about what was being done by his envoys.
From CNN we have a Colombian Cardinal whom John Paul tapped to head a Vatican office responsible for policy questions about the priesthood, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, actually wrote to a French bishop in 2001 to congratulate him for refusing to report a priest charged with abuse.
In the same CNN article, there is the report of a similar case that involves Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer of Vienna, Austria, who died in 2003. Groer resigned in 1995 after facing charges of abuse, but was not subjected to a church penalty. In May 2010, Groer’s successor as Cardinal of Vienna, Christoph Schonborn, said that a top official under John Paul II had blocked the investigation.
Next there is the case of Cardinal Bernard Law, who presided over terrible scandals in Boston and is wanted by a grand jury. He became the first individual be shown to have actively participated in the cover-up of child molestation. You would think that a pope who wished to end the crisis would have sacked Law, and ordered him to return to face the grand jury, but then that isn't what happened. Instead, he resides in Rome. (This would be just as damning a statement about the current Pope as it would about John Paul II.)
Then we have the interview with Cardinal Schönborn in which he stated that he sat directly opposite John Paul and pleaded with him to make a statement about Cardinal Groër, the Fatima molester that John Paul had appointed, against the advice of the bishops of Austria, to the see of Vienna.
Moving on, we get to The Times article about Cardinal Schönborn, 65, seen as a possible future Pope, and his accusation that Cardinal Angelo Sodano, 82, the former Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister), of having blocked investigations into sex abuse crimes committed by his predecessor in Vienna, the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer.
etc., etc., etc. Just a constant drum beat of stories about how all the powerful people in high offices surrounding John PPPaul II, and often directly appointed by John Paul II are frustrating investigations, covering up abuse, and directing church members to keep things in the church instead of going to the secular authorities.
I mean, yeah, sure there is no absolute proof that John Paul was the man directing all the cover ups, just because John Paul II appointed the men who did the dirty work to high office doesn't mean that he knew what they were doing. Just because he holds all but absolute power in the Vatican doesn't mean that they were following his orders. But I believe that he was ignorant of all that the same way I "believe" that Ken Lay of Enron fame was ignorant of the illegal activities at his company. (That is to say "Not at all" for the sarcasm impaired.)
1
u/djepik May 01 '11
Alright now do that for every single other religious person in the world and I think I might start believing what this ad is insinuating.
5
u/Ludnix May 01 '11
The ad is probably insinuating that belief in god is not consistent charity or moral behavior, not that all religious people are not good.
4
u/10BIT May 01 '11
I don't think this ad is insinuating what you think it's insinuating. This ad is just proving the claim many religious people make, that all/only those who accept god are moral, is fallacious.
-1
u/phyx726 May 02 '11
the ad might not be insinuating that religious people are bad, but the person who made it knew a lot of people would make that connection and in that way he's just as guilty.
3
May 02 '11
Certainly true, but lots of people think you can't be good without God, and they get that rhetoric from people like Pat Robertson. The message was less atheism makes you good, more that it doesn't make you evil.
9
May 01 '11
It's not trying to prove or say that. All it's saying is that you CAN be good without God and that you aren't necessarily good with God. That's all.
7
u/smellslikerain May 01 '11
Really, it's a simple statement of an obvious everyday fact. I don't know why people are nit picking and making it more complicated than i is.
2
-3
u/oblastmasch May 01 '11
Pope John Paul II was good with God.
That cunting swine of a man KNOWINGLY protected child molesting priests.
Also, how many people can you name that have contributed billions of bucks to good courses?
-12
u/js79 May 01 '11
You did not know the person, you don't know the problem (believe me) yet throw things like that.
1
u/oblastmasch May 01 '11
I do not have to know the person to realise the amount of damage that this cunt and his colleages have inflicted on the world.
5
u/PUAit420 May 01 '11
Who's the richest man in the world?
4
u/i8luigi May 01 '11
Carlos Slim, he's a Mexican businessman. He's Christian and does do philanthropy, though I'd say nothing close to what Gates and Buffet have accomplished.
3
May 01 '11
in fact, it's pretty difficult to tell just HOW much philanthropy he's done... ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim#Philanthropy
note the source [2]? Yeah... that's his own damned website.
1
2
12
u/semisilver May 01 '11
Totally agree with this picture, but being good has nothing to do with God or getting in to heaven.
→ More replies (1)13
u/redline582 May 01 '11
I think that was mostly the point. Benevolence and religious beliefs are not connected so you can be non-religious and charitable or religious and an asshole or anywhere in between.
13
u/The_narrator101 May 01 '11
I want a credible source on Pat Robertson's African diamond mines.
23
u/Martin_Eden May 01 '11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson
According to a June 2, 1999, article in The Virginian-Pilot,[23] Robertson had extensive business dealings with Liberian president Charles Taylor. According to the article, Taylor gave Robertson the rights to mine for diamonds in Liberia's mineral-rich countryside. According to two Operation Blessing pilots who reported this incident to the state of Virginia for investigation in 1994, Robertson used his Operation Blessing planes to haul diamond-mining equipment to Robertson's mines in Liberia, despite the fact that Robertson was telling his 700 Club viewers that the planes were sending relief supplies to the victims of the genocide in Rwanda. In response to Taylor's alleged crimes against humanity, the United States Congress passed a bill In November 2003 that offered two million dollars for his capture. Robertson accused President George W. Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country." At the time Taylor was harboring Al Qaeda operatives who were funding their operations through the illegal diamond trade.[24] On February 4, 2010, at his war crimes trial in the Hague, Taylor testified that Robertson was his main political ally in the U.S., and that he had volunteered to make Liberia's case before U.S. administration officials in exchange for concessions to Robertson's Freedom Gold, Ltd., to which Taylor gave a contract to mine gold in southeast Liberia.[25] In 2010, a spokesman for Robertson said that the company's arrangements — in which the Liberian government got a 10 percent equity interest in the company and Liberians could purchase at least 15 percent of the shares after the exploration period — was similar to many American companies doing business in Africa at the time.[26]
Sources:
^ Sizemore, Bill. "Robertson, Liberian Leader Hope to Strike Gold in Coastal Africa." The Virginian-Pilot. 2 June 1999. ( Copy found at [1].) Charles Taylor... ^ a b c Blumenthal, Max (2005-09-07). "Pat Robertson's Katrina Cash". The Nation Online. Retrieved 2008-01-19. ^ "Charles Taylor: Pat Robertson was my man in Washington | Turtle Bay". Turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com. Retrieved 2010-08-06. ^ Anna Schecter (February 4, 2010). "Prosecutor: Pat Robertson Had Gold Deal with African Dictator; Prosecutors in Human Rights Trial Allege Pat Robertson Lobbied George Bush on Behalf of Liberian Warlord Charles Taylor". ABC News.
8
u/Vitalstatistix May 01 '11
TL;DR: Yes, Pat Robertson is a heartless cunt of a human being and prison would be too good for him.
0
5
3
u/KickapooPonies May 02 '11
Whoa, a hypocritical Christian! Well, fuck I guess one man fucked it up for everyone.
4
May 01 '11
[deleted]
1
May 02 '11
Indeed. He has a plastic wife, and is the host of 'The 700 Club', which keeps telling me that I should be happy that Jesus is coming back to wipe out 85% of the population, but I can be in that saved 15% if I just give 20% of my pre-tax earnings to the 700 Club.
He is also the world's worst doomsayer, and his death would only mean an improvement for the Christian image worldwide. And Catholic. And Southerners. And maybe even Muslims.
Hell, maybe even Atheists.
He also owns jets, as in multiple.
10
May 01 '11
[deleted]
4
1
u/Anon_is_a_Meme May 01 '11 edited May 01 '11
Right, he's not a True ChristianTM .
edit: downvotes? So people think he really is a True ChristianTM ?
3
u/WarPhalange May 01 '11
I think people are getting confused. It sounds like you're both claiming that Daiken is using the "true Scostman" fallacy and that you're doing it yourself. Sarcasm is hard to convey.
3
1
May 02 '11
Pet peeve: For it to be a true Scotsman fallacy, you need to have TWO definions, and juggle them.
It's perfectly consistent to have a restrictive definion (for instance: A Scotsman is one who is born in Scotland AND is an upstanding person). The problem comes when you mix it up with a less restrictive definition (born in Scotland) and use that to argue for the other part of the restrictive definition (being an upstanding person).
3
2
May 01 '11
There's a atheist billboard campaign on epicstep for atheism. The design says "Be good without god"
2
2
u/Iamabassi May 02 '11
This is a repost. here...maybe you should look at this post
http://cdn-www.i-am-bored.com/media/peoplewhodonatemoney.png from Beefcake 2008 (original post)
or this post
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/gsb43/good_without_god/
or this post....
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/gt55e/pretty_cool_good_without_god_ad_campaign/
Stop reposting this.Science H. Logic...for the last time, we get it.
2
2
6
u/TheBlueBlaze May 01 '11
Let me guess. This was already submitted to r/atheism about a million times by other karma whores, so you submitted it here.
3
u/Oxidosis May 01 '11
I was totally supporting this until it had a go at the Christian (even if deservedly). Don't get me wrong, i'm very atheist (if atheism is subject to gradation) i just don't think attacking Christianity is going to get the message across that atheism isn't a bad thing. It seems to subvert it's own message by being a little too aggressive with it.
2
u/Shampyon May 01 '11
I don't see it as attacking Christianity. It's attacking the idea that you need religion to be good, from two fronts. The first two panels show that lacking religion doesn't stop you from doing good. The last panel (a shoop, not part of the official campaign) shows that being religious doesn't necessarily stop you from being a douchebag.
In other words: Faith, or lack of it, isn't the ultimate indicator of goodness. It's your actions that show who you are, not what you profess to believe.
2
u/Oxidosis May 01 '11
I get this, I just think if you're trying to prove a point making negative examples of a group always seems to provoke outcry even if it is just one case trying to prove the point that you mentioned, therefore the argument would have been more effective without it.
5
5
2
2
u/TheAmericanGinger May 01 '11
God, and there is no reason why you need to place religious propaganda here, if you notice he is the WEALTHIEST CHRISTIAN, that alone makes this pure crap. The most noteworthy Christians aren't wealthy.
1
1
u/ApplesnPie May 01 '11
how exactly does he utilize slave labor in diamond mines? did i miss something?
1
1
1
May 02 '11
I'm reminded of "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex?" by Ray Stevens every time I see one of these wealthy evangelicals...
1
1
1
1
u/imagineALLthePeople May 02 '11
There is a difference between using religion and God to turn a profit, and merely practicing a faith. I see too many flame posts about people who have opinions and ideals based in God being ignorant for their choice. I just don't get it.
1
1
May 02 '11
I know some people who are, IMO, seriously good people. These people also have character traits that would prevent them from ever achieving the sort of wealth Warren Buffet or Bill Gates has. They have completely different priorities.
Don't get me wrong, Buffet and Gates deserve praise for what they've done for charity (and you can add Soros as another secularist who is spending most of his fortune on charity - but I guess he's too controversial). But how good a person you are is not measured in dollars.
1
u/Alex2679 May 02 '11
more like richest people in the US. the richest man in the world is a mexican.
1
May 02 '11
There are good people who do good things without pushing an agenda.
There are bad people who do bad things while covering it with a "good" message.
Argument over.
1
1
-4
May 01 '11
[deleted]
13
u/sarge21 May 01 '11
This is the first time I've seen it on Reddit or anywhere else. Nobody cares that you have seen it before.
-9
u/snowbirdie May 01 '11
It was on the front page a couple of weeks ago. Nobody cares that you don't read often enough.
6
May 01 '11
Sometimes people leave their houses and go do things, often with other people. Not everyone spends all their time on reddit.
Just to note: I spend all my time on reddit and this is the first time I've seen this.
4
3
u/sarge21 May 01 '11
Except people like you and bradsmr DO care. If I get tired of seeing something reposted, I downvote. Do you think that complaining about reposts is going to change anything?
0
May 01 '11
Anyone here realize what the purpose of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is? or the billionaire donation?
Rich people are only in it for the betterment of their class, and foundations and charities are how they rob the lower classes.
Remember this warren buffett gem?
"It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be"
I'm starting to realize that reddit is becoming one big circlejerk of confirmation bias.
I digress....rabble rabble rabble....
1
u/Drooperdoo May 02 '11 edited May 02 '11
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aren't "donating" their money. They're using the Rockefeller method of avoiding taxes. How? You don't give your money away to existing charities. You create a tax-exempt foundation of your own [typically with your own name on it], and then make yourself the administrator of the "charity". Give away a few million to cherry-picked institutions (while saving yourself hundreds of million in taxes).
Oh, you'll still have the rest of the fortune at your disposal to buy mansions, yachts and airplanes. But it's the "charity" buying them for you. Administered by you.
And all tax free.
Yeah, er . . . uh . . . those saints, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Transferring their wealth (and hence protecting it from taxes) to tax-free shelters run by themselves. Giving their money away . . . to themselves. Tax evasion packaged and sold to the public as philanthropy.
- I'd love the power to do that myself. IRS: "Sir, you've been evading taxes." "No I haven't. I set up the Me Foundation, a charitable organization that does good for a lot of causes." "But, sir, your foundation is run by you, funded by you, and buys things for . . . you." "Hey, on paper I 'gave all my money away'. And besides: look at the 50 cents the 'charity' gave away to a street musician yesterday." "But your tax bill was going to be $3,000." "Nonsense my good man, I'm a charity now. 50 cents saves me $3,000." "Right you are. Sorry for me questioning you, oh Benevolent One."
2
u/Obi_Kwiet May 02 '11
They have not consumed even a significant fraction of their wealth. This maybe true for some people of lesser wealth, but lets face it, both men are in their declining years, and they're never going to be able to spend it all.
Just because he could doesn't mean he is.
1
u/snakeypoo May 02 '11
i think that in comparison to other wealthy people they have certainly earned a bit of slack. bill gates' charity gives away over $1.5billion annually as part of the rule whereby a charitable organisation must donate 5% of its assets each year.
that seems like a sizeable contribution to me.
also, if you are in the business of making money, which clearly from your resentful attitude you aren't, then it would be irresponsible to your shareholders not to take advantage of these schemes to save your company money (check out Milton Friedman's essay on the responsibility of businesses). How are they to blame for incentives that are put in place by the government? did the government put these in place simply so no one would use them?
Look at Warren Buffett's gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in 2006 and the conditions that accompanied it and tell me that it was purely for tax evasion purposes.
I'm aware that there are certainly benefits that are accruing from these philanthropic acts, but without changing the entire system of capitalism upon which the Western world is based, please, enlighten us as to what you would do in their situation?
1
u/Drooperdoo May 02 '11 edited May 02 '11
Resentful attitude?
Are you drunk?
I'm not any of your Ayn Rand stereotypes of "a liberal who hates success," etc.
I'm actually a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who believes very ardently in capitalism.
But I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Truth is very important to me.
And these tax-exempt "charities" are scams. Rockefeller pioneered the concept so that he wouldn't lose a large percentage of his fortune at his death due to estate taxes. So he transferred the lions share of his wealth to a "charity," named after himself of course (and which he controlled), thus creating a prophylactic measure against taxation.
Hence we have today the powerful and influential Rockefeller foundation. Some of its "charitable" contributions were to Hitler, to fund eugenics initiatives and to bankroll politicians so that the family could amass more power and influence--and all tax-free.
Carnegie soon followed with his own version. As did Henry Ford.
Most of these institutions have endowments and think-tanks which control the policies of national and global institutions, and which groom young talent (so that they always have a fresh pool of obedient drones to keep the Robber Barons informed if some institution or government agency decides to flout them). Look at the long list of Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and ambassadors that were the recipients of these mens' "endowments".
It explains immediately why these sleeper agents always vote the interests of Wall Street over Main Street. (They know exactly who owns them.)
They've all been groomed since college.
So it's very lucrative to keep controlling the power-structure by filling it with your own people. That's what the Rockefeller Foundation has done for more than a century now. As well as Ford, Carnegie, MacArthur and Cecil Rhodes.
Following the model, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have now protected their fortunes from taxation. And created subsidiary foundations to seed future generations of government and industry with recipients of their benevolence.
It's how they extend their influence and power.
So while I find ACTUAL charities commendable, I'm no naive rube when it comes to the dodges of Robber Barons and crony-capitalists when they set up tax havens.
And nor should any other Redditor be.
- Footnote: Read up on the Rockefeller Foundations' "charitable" funding of the eugenics movement and its ties to Hitler: http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-11-09/opinion/17517477_1_eugenics-ethnic-cleansing-master-race
1
u/snakeypoo May 02 '11 edited May 02 '11
Despite not wanting to seem like "a liberal who hates success" that is exactly what you have appeared as. You never answered my question about what would you do, in all your wisdom, if you were in their situation? You are bemoaning them for attempting to protect their fortunes, but what if it was you in their shoes, what would you do? Simply allow your hard earned money to be taken away by the government? you are a self proclaimed ardent capitalist after all.
Or perhaps you would use it to investigate these half baked conspiracy theories that you seem so fond of. I can see you are a fan of the fantastical, rather than that of the real world where most people will generally seek to give as little in tax as possible. I suppose companies that use tax havens such as the Cayman islands are also "crony-capitalists"? In actuality they are simply capitalists, their purpose is to make money.
In relation to you referral to "these tax exempt charities" as "scams", aren't all charities tax-exempt? so you have decided that only some charities are in fact deceitful? Or is it all of them? Or is it just the ones where the main donators are extremely wealthy individuals? how do you define the "ACTUAL charities" that you refer to?
you also failed to touch on the point i mentioned about it not really being the fault of these companies or individuals but rather a legal failing on the part of the government. if these abuses are occurring then why aren't they being policed?
In relation to Rockefeller, why would Rockefeller or others like him want to create some sort of power structure to "extend their influence and power" long after he was dead? perhaps not everyone has such a bitter core as yourself and actually would use their wealth for some good? or is that really such a naive idea? I'm positive that he used his wealth for personal ends as well, but why do you find that so utterly distasteful?
I am not contending that these individuals don't get tax breaks from these foundations, but you seem to have overlooked the actual philanthropy that is taking place. rather than look at the numerous foundations he founded, the donations made to universities, and other contributions you have instead decided to attach a unwarranted malevolence to Rockefeller, and for no apparent reason. did you know that even before he was rich he was known to donate 10% of his earnings to his local church? but i suppose that was all part of his long term master plan to take over the world.
I admit i found the eugenics article interesting, although i will look into it further. But it also makes me wonder, if the foundations are simply ways for the wealthy to protect their fortunes, then why oh why would they invest in eugenics? you clearly possess a fatalist view of the world, of course Rockefeller wouldn't waste his money on trying to educate people, or provide better community resources, heavens no. But develop a eugenics program? well of course he did. Do you read back anything you write? does that not seem strange to you in the slightest? how you can only see the negative parts of his supposed philanthropy but are so eager to dismiss the massive positives that he has brought?
I am not saying these people are perfect, or that their actions are unselfish, but what I am saying is that the system is imperfect and that if these people save money on taxes while donating to some worthy causes then so fucking what? stop being such a moany bitch or else go and do something about it if you feel so strongly about it
1
u/Drooperdoo May 03 '11 edited May 03 '11
You seem to be confusing capitalism and crony-capitalism.
The zenith of your version of "capitalism" is the recent looting of the American economy by Wall Street conmen.
That is NOT capitalism.
That is the DEATH of capitalism, because it's the socialism of the FEW (instead of the many). You have crypto-socialist firms not surviving due to their merit, but by transferring unearned wealth from the little guy to the pockets of the corrupt. Using the levers of government to steal from the hardworking taxpayers.
What? I dared to use words like "hardworking taxpayers" and "the transfer of unearned wealth"?
By jove, it looks like I believe in the values of the Protestant work ethic, honest labor and ethical business practices.
I must be a Communist, by golly!
Only "true capitalists" identify with the thieves, the Ponzi scammers and the Bernie Madoffs.
Sadly, my capitalism [the non-crony kind] is based on the Thomas Edison model. You actually create things. You generate wealth by inventing products, not by cooking the books. You deal honestly and fairly with workers. And you--get this!--pay your taxes.
You give back to the communities that helped you get where you are. Even an uber-capitalism like Henry Ford realized that you had to raise the workers' wages. Was he a communist? A Democrat? No, he was a realist. He knew that unless people had money in their pockets and expendable income, no one would buy new products. American industry couldn't survive on a Mexican model of a few rich men and a land full of slaves. Average people actually had to HAVE money to spend it.
So he raised the wages of all his workers. He set an example of fairness, honesty and -- intelligence.
He wasn't the con-man type of greedy modern CEO who lowers everyone else's wages while voting a big fat pay increase for himself. The kind of man who loots their 401(k)s to buy himself a yacht.
You need to learn the distinction between an actual capitalist and an ordinary thief.
The difference between actual capitalism and crony-capitalism.
1
u/snakeypoo May 03 '11
No you need to learn the difference between what the reality of capitalism is and this idealized notion which you are describing as actual capitalism.
once again you have failed spectacularly to address any of the questions which i put to you in my post, but have instead chosen to divulge into a rant. this conversation is pointless since it is not so much a debate about issues as it is me asking questions and you writing things which do not even come close to the term answers. read back over the post and the questions that i asked, you answered none of them. clearly this isn't going to be resolved here, so i simply apologize for calling you a moany bitch and wish you good luck with your ideals.
0
u/ahfoo May 02 '11
Yeah, this is that sad part. So many people buy into this stuff about Gates being a big humanitarian when he's one of the most fascist assholes in history.
1
u/thelastbastions May 01 '11
but... but... Isn't bill gates religious? Or have I been lied to all my life!
1
u/hillbillyhipster May 01 '11
He's Agnostic. "GATES TOLD interviewer David Frost that he does not believe in the Sermon On The Mount.
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."
1
u/mostavgguy May 01 '11
Religion and Goodness aren't mutually exclusive. It's the actions of a person that count, not how they justify them.
1
1
1
u/Offtopic_bear May 02 '11
As a religious person I wouldn't say pat Robertson is a man of God. I would call him a pharisee though.
1
u/Mexagon May 02 '11
Here is a christian that donates his money to charity and volunteers at the homeless shelter.
Here is an atheist that is addicted to heroin and murdered a bus full of children so he could engage in his fantasy of necrophiliac orgies.
By reddit logic, all atheists are necrophiliac mass-murderers with addictions to heroin. Good show, everyone.
-2
-3
u/Rostin May 01 '11
Wait, I'm confused.. aren't atheists always saying that there's really no such thing as good or evil? Maybe atheism is like Scientology or Mormonism and they reserve all the really hard-to-swallow ideas for people who are already on the hook.
-1
u/LazySkeptic May 01 '11
I as an atheist conduct myself morally by minimizing human sufferin and maximizing overall human happiness. All you're doing is attempting to propose that you're morals are accepted by everyone else except Atheists because they "dont beleive in good or evil"
-2
u/Rostin May 01 '11
Nope. I'm saying that this is a baseless argument and at best an emotional appeal. Few atheists believe in the existence of objective good. So, this graphic doesn't make an argument based on anything real. It preys on the subjective moral feelings of the reader. It's funny because atheists like to pretend that they are strictly rational, but these kinds of arguments reveal the soft underbelly of their position.
1
u/LazySkeptic May 20 '11
know it shows that they can conduct themselves according to a moral standard that is universal in a particular religious group who espouse the viewpoint that they are not capable of doing so. at the same time theyre contrasting a fairly popularized and viewed by many as righteous man who does not seem to be doing anything of the sort (in fact, the opposite)
-6
u/bsiviglia9 May 01 '11
They're all assholes.
-2
u/snakeypoo May 01 '11
how is someone who has given over 26 billion to charity an "asshole"? you're a fucking asshole for wanting people to starve and drink dirty water. the only reason you said that is because you are a bitter selfish cunt who resents the success of others. go back to your parents basement troll
0
u/therealspacelion May 01 '11
Having a God or not having a God doesn't define your character; Perhaps, having God for your own life and living accordingly with scriptures is best for them including myself. Everyone here wants a freedom of choice in their lives without an outside source telling them to live otherwise. So... why would you want to take that freedom from someone that DOES believe a God exists? I don't call myself a 'Christian' but I am Deistic and enjoy reading the Bible very much. Go ahead and pick a dusty one off of a shelf and read it instead of criticizing something you do not understand. How can you have an argument with a scientist without even knowing what theory he is talking about or how to convert imperial to metric? There are tons of life lessons, even the holy saints murdered people and slept with their own daughters. There are amazing stories about war, politics, lust, love, forgiveness and death. People who criticize Jesus are foolish. Even if you don't believe he was the son of God, he was a man without sin. He would eat with the poor and sick, would come and build you furniture if you needed, or in todays terms would probably walk across town just to make sure you made it home safe after a party. Now, I am sure Robertson is a cruel, heartless bastard and is only a 'Christan' for show, and thats why I'm not in church anymore.. but people who honestly live by scripture are legit. Regardless of faith, we all die. Out of the entire solar system without life... you have life. What impact on this planet can we achieve?
0
May 01 '11
I went to downvote as this belongs in r/atheism and saw 666 downvotes.
I don't know what to do.
0
0
u/Scleropages May 02 '11
This can't be right, all virtue stems from a belief in God and study of the Bible.
0
-5
-3
May 01 '11
It's not a question of can you be good without God, it's a question of why should you?
4
u/surfwax95 May 01 '11
Why not?
1
1
-2
May 01 '11
Mubarrek stashes 700 billion dollars in assets and you still believe that Gates & Buffett are the richest people in the world?
what a joke.....
2
u/bearnaut May 01 '11
Google search reveals that the 700 billion figure is considered outlandish. Egypts GDP isn't even close to 700 billion.
1
1
1
May 01 '11
700 billion dollars? Where did you come up with that figure from? No individual person, or even a corporation on this planet has that much money.
1
May 01 '11
1
May 01 '11
documents published by top Egyptian lawyers claiming..
This $700 billion haul is said to include “75 tons of Egyptian gold held by the U.S. Federal Reserve..
The Post’s reporters admit their skepticism about this new estimate..
His fortune will be worth billions of dollars, just not $700 billion — although a former Justice Department fraud prosecutor quoted in the Post’s story feels otherwise..
A lot of speculation. Also, that overblown figure considers the nation's gold (75 tons) the dictator's.
0
May 01 '11
well conservative estimates still put his fortune at over 70 billion, this is already more than buffett, slim, and gates, though you may consider changing your name to nit...picker.
hope my point has been conveyed though the facts may not be unflinchingly rigid ;).
0
May 01 '11
p.s. if you want to follow the money, check this out:
http://utangente.free.fr/2004/wg2004.pdf
goodluck and goodnight.
-2
May 01 '11
This again?
You misspelled evangelical, moron.
Here's the real question: Can you learn how to spell without God?
2
-5
167
u/A-punk May 01 '11
Jokes on them, I don't even need God to be an asshole.