- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
No, it doesn't. He's saying that he personally feels he has an obligation to try and help people. You are projecting.Greg Sestero said:"but the fundamental reason why I gave is because it was the right thing to do, regardless of who he was. I feel that I do have an obligation to better and enrich the lives of those around me, and to leave the world a better place than I found it."
Quite a high horse to climb off of. It implies a lack of moral fortitude in people like me that apparently don't live up to the obligation to do the right thing.
If you were to donate money to an organization that provided temporary shelter to people who had recently lost their homes, they would have purchased the same sort of things I did for them. Maybe he was afforded more luxuries than the average beneficiary, but that's because of how many people have been exposed to Chris.Greg Sestero said:"If you disagree with him receiving charity and feel that his attitude or actions don't warrant it, then you have a fundamental problem with charity in general..."
I'm a socialist. I applaud personal charity and believe in huge systems of obligatory social charity for every human society.
You also don't really follow this point up. Are you saying you support charity, therefore agree with his point? That can't be it. Are you saying that you support charity unless it goes to Chris? Why doesn't Chris deserve help?