“Your problem is that I am honest. “
Finally, a post from you that doesn’t try to attribute ill-will towards this patient that was never expressed.
You are learning to be honest. Practice makes perfect.
“I haven’t changed my point. “
Perhaps, but I asked you haven’t answered the question, which was “Are there limits and should there be limits to charity?”
“My point is still the same as it was when you first asked.”
No, when I first asked, you had no point, other than to articulate a personal attack - that really was pointless because I was not the poster you thought I was.
“You can change the subject, throw in strawman arguments, and play childish games, but my point will remain the same, and it will continue to be true.”
I pointed out a moral quandary - one that is very relevant to this issue.
It is not a strawman argument, and the question “Are there limits to charity” is a relevant one which you either refuse or can’t answer.
It is a difficult question to be sure - because there is no good answer. It is still a relevant question that hospitals and society must answer.
No, you did not point out a moral quandary that actually exists. You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in God’s commandment not to murder. I answered your question. No, I don’t see it. Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. But then, it isn’t designed to, is it? If I answer your silly question, will you get back on topic? I doubt it, but what the heck, here goes. Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. Now, back to the topic at hand. I still don’t think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt. And I still don’t see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.