Bringin' them up

Everyone knows "what" is wrong with the world and its people, but if you have little children in your home, how they're being brought up every minute, every day, you'd see more clearly of "why", "how" and "when" it starts. 0-3 years is mostly the age of "whats". And that's where the screwing up starts. It's because people feed all kinds of bullshit to their minds in the name of "whats". So don't do that. Do this instead:-

Feed your children only the facts. Tell them what *is* and not what *you* think it is. When you don't know what it is, tell them you don't know or are not sure what it is and then try to find an answer and be sure. Whatever you do, just don't push your *beliefs and opinions* down their little throats. If you can't find the answer, help them keep the question alive, maybe one day they will find it on their own. Let them find the answers of questions you don't know of, let them build their own knowledge-base based on facts and not on your deeply ingrained whims and fantasies (by your parents); let them form their own opinions and ideas overtime instead of trying your best to hard-code your own into their vulnerable little brains.

Break the cycle of centuries of conditioning and let them get on the path of being the BS-free human beings (superhuman even) they have the potential to become.

The Futility of Debate with an "unequal"

I'm sure he doesn't even know what my "theory" is, forget about his counters and arguments and his special interest in rejecting and shooting it down with his so called "practical" generalities. My simple theory that underlines my unwillingness to participate at all or else to minimize any dealing or interaction with intellectually mediocre, morally flexible and run of the mill "aam aadmi" with an externally conditioned conscience. The theory which gives him an automatic but false sense of being right and victorious because of my said unwillingness to wit-wrestle at length with such limited and lesser minds in what is obviously an endeavour ending in futility.

Charity and Respect

The more one gives in charity, the more one deserves respect. Right?

Wrong.

I knew you'd say that. But why?

It's not important how much he gives to others but how much he keeps for himself.

Well doesn't it mean the same? The more he's giving away, the less he is keeping for himself.

The question is, "How less?"

So you're saying the less one person has, the more he deserves respect?

I'm saying, a person who has less than what he needs himself because he gives away too much doesn't deserve my respect. I'm saying the fact alone that he gives too much, doesn't earn him my respect. How much he keeps for himself is equally important. 

So you're saying that in order to deserve your respect, he should keep more?

He should keep enough so that he can maintain a decent, comfortable life for himself.

And how do you define a "decent, comfortable" life?

The one that doesn't require charity.

That was easy! But coming back to the subject, I thought Charity was all about giving and not keeping.

It's about both. And that's what decides whether a person should be respected for it or not.

Explain to me how.

Sure I will. First let me lay down some ground rules:

1. Charity, as such, is not an indication of a person's character. A person who gives is not necessarily good and a person who doesn't isn't necessarily evil. You cannot call a person "morally challenged" if he earns his money honestly and doesn't give any to charity. Charity is a matter of prerogative and not moral obligation.
2. Closer to the subject at hand, i.e., on the question of how deserving respect for Charity is also about keeping, and not just the obvious giving, let me safely say that we can put a philanthropist in one of the two categories:

• One who keeps more than (or equal to) he needs himself
• One who keeps less than he needs himself

We'll restrict ourselves to the second category here.

Why not the first?

Because he is excluded by the first rule, which is altogether a different subject.

Alright, let's stick to the subject then. What about the second?

I think it's simple to understand now. If a person donates more than he needs himself (and hence suffers hardships), he is nothing but a self-loathing masochist. No points for that. Moreover, what he is doing by indulging such level of "altruism", is bringing himself down to the level of the person who he helps, i.e., the person who lives on charity. Though the latter is not necessarily brought down to that level himself, but the former, i.e. the donator in this case, is. In another words, he is just passing his burden onto somebody else, in process of relieving his own conscience. And while the fact that he does it unknowingly is a reflection on his low intelligence level (because seriously?), the fact that he does it knowingly makes it still more abominable. Therefore, no respect.

So, the bottom-line...

It's not important alone how much one gives in Charity, but also how much he keeps for himself.