Are you a humanist?

[Deleted member 184953]

Where do you draw the line that determines whether someone is "decent" or not because of how much money they have and how little someone else has?

Everyone draw his own line.
Where did you draw it, you ?

What about $10,000, or just $1,000?

You want to be funny? You succeed!

 

[mjda]

Everyone draw his own line.
Where did you draw it, you ?


You want to be funny? You succeed!

If everyone draws their own line then who are you to say that someone isn't decent if they win $100 million and give up none?

I wasn't trying to be funny. It was a serious question. You're saying someone with $100 million needs to give up 98% of their money to charity. I'm just asking who else should give up 98% of their money?

 

[Deleted member 184953]

If everyone draws their own line then who are you to say that someone isn't decent if they win $100 million and give up none?

Well I judge based on the line I drew. This is called a personal opinion, it is not intended to be universal and as everyone draws their line where they want, everyone judges accordingly. Afterwards, if we average the lines, a certain majority emerges, and there we can see where we position ourselves in relation to it. But here too it is subjective, the average is not an absolute truth either.

You're saying someone with $100 million needs to give up 98% of their money to charity

I didn't say that, I asked the question. And I myself replied that I would think about it.

I'm just asking who else should give up 98% of their money?

No, no, don't transform things, it's not giving 98% of your capital accumulated throughout your life through hard work, it's 98% of a jackpot won by luck... It's not the same thing at all.

 

[mjda]

No, no, don't transform things, it's not giving 98% of your capital accumulated throughout your life through hard work, it's 98% of a jackpot won by luck... It's not the same thing at all.

You asked if it was decent if a person to have millions while others have nothing. There are people who have millions who didn't win any jackpots. Also, people win jackpots under $100 million all the time. In your opinion, should those folks also give away 98% of their winnings in order to be decent?

 

[Deleted member 184953]

Do you always only answer questions with questions?
And do you read your interlocutor's answers before asking a new one?

 

[Mike Fara]

What if you could invest the $100 million to help more people than the $98 million would by employing people or adding to the economy... it would not have an instant impact of donating $98 million immediately, but it might uplift more people from poverty than donating the 98 million.

 

[mjda]

Do you always only answer questions with questions?
And do you read your interlocutor's answers before asking a new one?

I've read everything you've said. You're judging people based on whether, or not, they'd donate 98% of their jackpot winnings to charity if they win $100 million but you won't even answer whether you'd do it or not.

There are much better ways to help people than donating to charity, where a lot of times a majority of the money doesn't even go to help the cause. I'm just curious as to why donating to charity your measuring stick for determining if someone is a humanist?

There are people in the world with much more than $100 million already. Why not judge them for not giving most of their money to charity? If someone wins $100 million, how are they now any different from someone who already had $100 million in the bank, other than one of them has had it longer?

There are people who win lesser amounts than $100 million. I'm curious where you, personally, would draw the line between folks who should donate 98% and those who shouldn't, in order to be considered a humanist or a decent person.

I've answered your question, the original one. My answer is no. You asked the question and you won't even answer it with anything other than "I'll think about it".

Then you say you wish the one person who said yes to win without knowing what any of the other folks who said no would do with it. Do you truly wish the person who said yes would win $100 million before you do? I doubt it...

 

[imno007]

I've read everything you've said. You're judging people based on whether, or not, they'd donate 98% of their jackpot winnings to charity if they win $100 million but you won't even answer whether you'd do it or not.

Apparently not everything, because he did already say that he voted no. I don't think this is about how he is personally judging people, and maybe there's some problem with the wording of the question, but he seems to mainly be simply curious. Your other questions about how much does a person have to have and still be expected to give away 98 percent to qualify for this "humanist" label seems fairly easy to answer to me: a person with only $1000 probably couldn't afford to give away 98% of their money and still provide for themselves and any dependents, whereas presumably a person with two million dollars could still live comfortably off that.

I suspect the poll would get more "yes" answers if the giving amount weren't so extreme. I agree that there's no reason anyone would need to keep only 2% for themselves to qualify as a "humanist." If you had 100 million dollars and gave, let's say, only 25 million of it away to charities, or toward whatever other good causes, wouldn't that still make you pretty damn generous?

 

[mjda]

Apparently not everything, because he did already say that he voted no.

And it's not me, I voted that I should think about it.

If he changed his answer then, yes, you're right. I missed something.

 

[imno007]

If he changed his answer then, yes, you're right. I missed something.

Right, you're right, but I guess that's because in my mind I automatically categorized that as an almost certain no. I would bet that less than one percent of the people on this earth, given a 100 million dollars, would give away 98 percent of it. Because selfish motives aside (selfish, like, you know, how many millions it might cost us to get the best medical treatments as we get old), our primary charity should be our own families. Again, though, it's the framing of the question that's the issue.

 

[mjda]

Right, you're right, but I guess that's because in my mind I automatically categorized that as an almost certain no. I would bet that less than one percent of the people on this earth, given a 100 million dollars, would give away 98 percent of it. Because selfish motives aside (selfish, like, you know, how many millions it might cost us to get the best medical treatments as we get old), our primary charity should be our own families. Again, though, it's the framing of the question that's the issue.

To be fair, I never took issue with the question itself. I didn't take issue until he said that he only wished the person who voted yes would win, which I thought to be silly. I don't figure there are many folks out there wishing anyone would win $100 million before themselves.

Then, again, I took exception when he asked if it was "decent" for someone to have $100 million while others live poorly. At that point the entire conversation was no longer really about someone who won $100 million, and really more about anyone who had $100 million.

Again, I never had an issue with the original question. It was more about what I determined to be the intent of the question once other things started being said.

 

[Suzanne O]

To be fair, I never took issue with the question itself. I didn't take issue until he said that he only wished the person who voted yes would win, which I thought to be silly. I don't figure there are many folks out there wishing anyone would win $100 million before themselves.

Then, again, I took exception when he asked if it was "decent" for someone to have $100 million while others live poorly. At that point the entire conversation was no longer really about someone who won $100 million, and really more about anyone who had $100 million.

Again, I never had an issue with the original question. It was more about what I determined to be the intent of the question once other things started being said.

Everyone thinks differently to each question that is asked.

I think the OP is a Frenchman so to be fair we kind of have to let things slide a bit because of his poshness.
He's a bit strict too. But let's not bring him down over it.

He might get really upset over it and cause this thread to be locked.

 

[Baby Community]

If you win $100 million in the lottery, would you be willing to give $98 million to charities?

If I won $100 million in the lottery, I wouldn't give $98 million, but I would give $50 million to strange people who have nothing in life.

That money didn't exist before you won the lottery! What happens if half or 70% of it disappears after you win?

 

[briansol]

no, cuz take home would only be 48 million and that would put me in the hole quite a bit

 

[mjda]

If I won $100 million in the lottery, I wouldn't give $98 million, but I would give $50 million to strange people who have nothing in life.

That money didn't exist before you won the lottery! What happens if half or 70% of it disappears after you win?

I can't speak for other countries, because I simply don't know, but if you win that much in the US, and depending on what state you live in, almost half of it will disappear after you win...for taxes.

 

[Baby Community]

I can't speak for other countries, because I simply don't know, but if you win that much in the US, and depending on what state you live in, almost half of it will disappear after you win...for taxes.

There are also high taxes in the country I live in. I don't think it's fair for the tax rate to be that high.

 

[Baby Community]

I can't speak for other countries, because I simply don't know, but if you win that much in the US, and depending on what state you live in, almost half of it will disappear after you win...for taxes.

In the country I live in, the government does not want us to consume foreign products. For example, I have been using an iPhone for years. I want to buy an iPhone 16. You have to pay 2.5 times more in Turkey than the sales price of an iPhone 16 in America..! It is an excess money tax.! It applies to cars and other products..! The government supports domestically produced products.!

I think this is a separate problem from excessive taxes.

If only you knew the taxes taken from my income and extra earnings.

 

[javakhir]

when you have no money, you are kind & honest person who dreams, after having millions, devil takes control of you!
so whoever had a millions, know this!
stop flooding forum with useless posts! don't you have other things to do? respect your time! you can not buy it even for billions!

 

[Rusty Snippets]

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

 

[Dragapult]

If you win $100 million in the lottery, would you be willing to give $98 million to charities?

No.