Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
>> See, I don't think that is at all relevant. 
> 
> I could see why you think that, but I disagree.  Even bad people can do 
> good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds 
> starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having those 
> people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed.  But before supporting a 
> program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for alternatives that 
> didn't have that baggage.
> 
All I can say to this is.. If it was the **only** group doing it, I 
might provisionally agree with you. Yet, it usually isn't, and if 
anything, its the ones with an alternate agenda that promote themselves 
so much its not always "obvious" that an alternative even exists. Good 
example of a case where good is intended, and done, but not as much as 
"should be", which is a similar case, is "breast cancer awareness". 
There are thousands of groups that collect "specifically" for breast 
cancer research, but they are overshadowed, and nearly unheard of, 
because of one highly visible group, who spends close to 80% of 
everything they take in, "advocating" for the group, instead of giving 
it to the research projects. So.. What happens when such a highly 
visible group has "little or no" intention of helping "anyone" beyond 
promoting their own appearance of "goodness"? Say.. most mega-churches. 
People that help feed the poor, not because they, as a group, really 
want that, but because "appearing" to do so helps bring in more 
supporters, and more money.

Its like the old days with the church, in Europe. Take in the equivalent 
of millions, if not billions, build a lot of temples, but.. when 
feeding, clothing or "helping" the poor or hungry, buy the cheapest 
cloth, the poorest food, etc. Feed them what the clergy wouldn't touch, 
and the not "quite" so poor wouldn't feed their pigs.

We can thank "secular" systems for making it so that the modern 
equivalent to this is almost a feast by those days standards, but it 
doesn't change the actual "intent", or "thinking" of those in charge, 
one bit. Just makes it harder to call them on it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message