/lit/ - Literature

>>11464632
There is a lot that can be said about poverty.
As a Christian, I believe everyone is morally obliged to help these who lack. And at the same time I believe no one has the right to take anything from anyone else. If they refuse to give, let them be. At the same time, I don't take this to Rothbard levels, which would result in an anarcho-capitalist society, because Western culture is simply not compatible with such lifestyle. I believe in a conservative society with limited State with an institutionalized religion that promotes charity and voluntary help.
However, I just wanted to say that you are a faggot. Yes, people are to blame for their own poverty.
You know what is the difference between a poor man and a rich man? It's their brain, not their money. Rich people get broke all the time, and they always recover. Poor people, on the other hand, will always be poor no matter how much they are handed. It's not rare to see people earn millions at casinos and then go poor just a few years after that. It's also not rare to see people build millions from nothing -- or even worse, from debt.
Being rich is not easy. It requires a very specific mindset that only very few people have. It is also a mindset that is not taught in schools. You need financial education, and the ability to delay instant gratification for long term success, and these abilities have been increasingly less palatable for current society. The rich teach these skills to their children. That's why the rich will become richer, and why their social status usually passes on to the next generations, while the poor become poorer and so does their children.
What I'm saying from all this is that the world is not as simple as you think. Poverty is not entirely to blame on "social injustice". As a Christian, and a conservative, I believe poverty is just a fact of the human condition, much like hunger. We need to fight it daily. Employing ideological speeches to "erase" it will never be possible.

>>10343695
Kant did not even reply to Anselm's ontological argument. Instead, he replied to Descartes', which is quite shittier.

Aquinas replies to Anselm, but misses the point.

It is still untouched.

>>10342591
>>10342614
>>10343549
>>10343556
I made this on /lit/ thinking you faggots would have read the books.

The movie was awful. When watching a movie that has a book as a source, I am usually quite liberal with it, but this time they stretched it.

The first half was brilliant. I especially loved the part where Poirot says: "I see the world as it should be, therefore inconsistencies stand out just like a nose on a face. It makes life unbearable, but it's really convenient for solving a crime. And no matter what someone tells you, there is always a 'right' and a 'wrong', nothing in-between". Especially because that's pretty much the textbook definition of "conservatism".

However, as the movie goes, Poirot seems to regret this philosophy of life, and in the end he is some liberal that does not believe in truths or in rights and wrongs, which made me really despise his character in the end. And I hate how what made him change his mind was simply a revenge-seeking lynch. Come on, he is an old guy, he must have seen much worse cases then that one.

There's also all the unnecessary focus on Daisy Armstrong. It's not near as tearjerking in the books, and it was quite a chore to watch in the movie. He is also way too stupid in the movies, accusing people over irrelevant bullshit.

[cont in next post]