How exactly did Professor Brooks become a 'philanthropy expert'? Did he go to philanthropy school? Did he learn philanthropy statistics? Could Brooks have been a little bias in his hypothesis and results based on his own personal experience? Would I prefer a study by a non-bias independent agency, you bet.
Surprised no one has brought this up yet. The WASP churchgoers HAVE more. I would also like to know if this was based on gross gifts or percentages of income. If someone making $1M gives $10,000, can it REALLY be considered giving "more" than someone making $50K giving $5,000? The latter gave 10% of income as opposed to 1%.
I believe Jesus talked to his disciples about this very issue.
...but who gives a crap what Jesus says about philanthropy; he's just a 1st century carpenter with no access to academic polling data.Mark 12:41-44
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
From the original post:
Read....irrespective of income.
Also, Dan:
Does this mean we can count you as an ally in the debate against the scientists who keep coming up with global warming theories? I mean MIGHT they be biased by there own experiences?
The article briefly lists the guys credentials; seems legit. Data has been accujmulated over a decade from many sources. Your dismissing is, in a word, typical.
Wow, I just read this. I just want to say one thing.
Biased, ignorant source without question.
To use the claim that he was educated in the liberal arts as a way of illustrating his leftist leanings is absurd and pathetic.
Liberal arts does not mean Democratic. Liberal Arts does not mean socialist. Libert arts does not mean Progressive. Liberal arts is a type of bloody education which is supposed to lead to a well-rounded individual, regardless of political leanings. A liberal arts education is meant to teach you all subjects, not just math for math majors, or english for english majors.
What unbridled ignorance.
"Child of Academics"
Trust me, as a man who has a professor for a wife; dude had plenty of liberal influences.
Article obviously touches a nerve with you libs, huh?
Guarantee, if you could find a study that found the opposite result, you wouldn't have to find it buried on Drudge; it would be trumpeted pretty much everywhere.
But again, this is simply a report on a book which is to come out. Are y'all willing to wait till the book is actually published before you condemn it? Or is that just too threatening to your world view?
My qualm is not with what this man claims, it has no bearing on me nor my everyday life. My problem is with the article that discusses the man, which is obviously biased.
It attempted to use his liberal education as a way of saying that he was not hardline conservative...but you get a liberal education at Christian/parochial schools.
Again, do not lump me with "libs", it is a stupid mistake and does not do either of us justice. The fact that I disagree with a topic does not make me a party member, drop the partisanship.
Oh, and btw...what, exactly, is my world view?
Please enlighten me!
I don't doubt the statistics, I doubt the labels.
Elitist and narrow-minded.
In several threads (especially ones regarding same-sex marriage) you have made it abundantly clear that only a bigoted neanderthal could possibly have a position divergent from you own.
Also, your lecture in this thread on a "liberal arts" education, as if any poster on this board didn't already know what that meant, was condescending.
The statistics are attached to labels. Please explain.
Please note: I wrote this before I read your Michael Savage thread.
I am elitist for what reason?
Btw, I am lower middle class...a college student who is not at the top of his class...and the first person in my entire familys history to have any form of a college education.
That sounds textbook elitist to me...yep. Dumbass.
I have the position that only a bigoted neanderthal could have positions divergent from mine when it comes to the subjugation of others based on classifications outside of their control, or the hatred of others based on them having traits different than your own.
Other than what I just mentioned, I have never, and will never, look down on somebody else for their views. If you knew me at all you would know that this is true.
Oh yes, and my rant on elitism was also condescending, has nobody ever defined something that was thought to be common knowledge just to make a point? Am I the only person who has even thought to do that? The article, or the person that wrote that article, either did not know what a liberal arts education is, or else they did, and wanted to snowball ignorant readers who did not. They used it as an attempt to make people associate this person even more with the left for credibility. A weak move.
Elitist has a more broad definition jackass.
Elitist does not equate to Aristocratic.
To be an elitist I have to believe that I have some quality that makes me better than the average person. Or I have to believe that there is a group of people that are better than the average person.
Again, I'm not wealthy, so I am not elite in that sense.
I come from a long line of highschool dropouts, so I am not elite in that sense, either.
I also am struggling to stay near the top of my class, so I am not elite in that sens as well.
I am a simple college student who has been alloted a very mediocre amount of intelligence, and do my best with that.
In no sense of the word can I be considered elitist. No matter what screwed up definition you use.
Jackass.
Elitist means that you think for yourself, and don't parrot talking points from Rush.
An Elitist who underachieves, wow i've seen it all.
Well, you may not be an elitist by your standards Jackass, but let's not bring up the Lebron James/Tim Duncan thread, inwhich you basically prove my point.
Thank you for making that clear for me.
Then, yes, I am a bloody elist.
Except that you just DID bring it up. which proves mine: you're a dumbass.
Well, for starters, I could hardly be said to underachieve. Just for the sake of proving a point, I stopped doing school in 5th grade, so before college I had a 5th grade education, and my GPA as a junior is around a 3.6-3.7, and over the past 1 1/2 semesters it has been a 3.95 or so. So, take that for underachieving.
And, as for what i said regarding Timmy Duncan, that was not elitism unless you consider looking down upon the select few cave-people as elitist.
I claimed, following my experiences at University of Tennessee football games where fans cursed, booed, and berated opposing players, that anybody who practices such levels of fanfare is a backwards tribal caveperson.
Simple as that.
Unless it is elitist to think that somebody who hates for no reason other than the support of another team, then you are mistaken.
OMG!!! :rofl
"I'm not a bigot, why black people are just fine athletes."
Is it elitist to say that racists are ignorant? Is is elistist to say that people who want a segregated society are foolish? Is it elitist to say that any group of people who act based on hate are ignorant? No!
I have a problem with them because they act on hate. They cheered a players injury from the other team. They chanted " you Florida." They did not act like civilized human beings. They acted like...wait for it....cave-people.
Yes,
People were being racist on the LEborn/Duncan thread.
I totally missed that.
By the way the qoute i used of a person using defending his actions by in the same sentence contradicting himself was an example of your previous post.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
