Solaris
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 10,317
- Reaction score
- 4
You've misunderstood what he was saying. His point is that feeding the poor makes them content with their condition, content to live off the "crumbs from the rich mans table". It demoralises them and forces them to think of the richer members of society as their betters through their generorsity.Hey, I like Oscar Wilde and all (obviously), and he has a very good point, but just because he was an intelligent man doesn't mean some of his ideas had holes.
To have that sort of mentality is silly. "Hhmp, I am not going to give to charity because society needs to be changed, thats the problem." Sure, but what exactly is it that you have done recently to change that?
You have to take into account that your young self isn't going to change society in a life time, never mind the world's problem of poverty.
There is direct action, and social action, while social action is the ultimate goal, it doesn't mean you can't do direct action at the same time.
That's like saying "I'm not going to donate money to someone who has cancer in my community and can't afford treatment, because the real problem is finding a cure", no crap we have to find "the cure", but by the time you find that cure the person will be long dead, when you could have just donated some money for treatment that may have saved his life. The fact is we don't have time to only look for "the cure", we need direct action now to sustain them for the time being.
Social action is very important, but to remove direct action is stupid.
I'm an American.I know we allz ain't dum.
Read the bit about slave owners, how the worst of them were those who were kind to their slaves and therefore prevented those slaves wishing to rebel.