Dude making a difference?

[LDAHL]

Good question! I think it varies. From what I have read, Daniel Suelo just plans to go out like a wild animal. Perhaps Rob has a different plan.



Would you say this of Saint Francis of Assisi?

Further complicate it: Sometimes (often times?) one's method of supporting oneself is pretty dang horrible and exploitative. So simply supporting oneself does not provide the foundation for a moral high ground.

You've got me there. I'd be inclined to make an exception for saints, if not bloggers (although I'm not aware if Francis ever broke into an unoccupied house). I also doubt retirement planning was much of an issue in the 12th century. Nor was there a well-founded expectation that the taxpayers would keep you from starving, so the "money-free" life would have involved much higher stakes than it does today.

The people we're talking about here, have much more of a safety net to back them up than the saints of old. They're not risking much more than going on the dole. Holding oneself out as an example to emulate to some of the very same people who will someday be supporting you is a nice bit of Chutzpah, but is it really all that admirable?

[Ultralight]

You've got me there. I'd be inclined to make an exception for saints, if not bloggers (although I'm not aware if Francis ever broke into an unoccupied house). I also doubt retirement planning was much of an issue in the 12th century. Nor was there a well-founded expectation that the taxpayers would keep you from starving, so the "money-free" life would have involved much higher stakes than it does today.

The people we're talking about here, have much more of a safety net to back them up than the saints of old. They're not risking much more than going on the dole. Holding oneself out as an example to emulate to some of the very same people who will someday be supporting you is a nice bit of Chutzpah, but is it really all that admirable?

I wonder what naysayers thought of the Franciscan monks back in their era.

But I also wonder about how people like Rob Greenfield fit in with Franciscan philosophy. Like for instance, Rob is giving you something. He is giving you the opportunity to be charitable to him. Seems rather Franciscan, in a way.

Could deeming him a crumb bum and denying him charity be violating this old code? "What you do onto the least of my people, you do unto me." (Who was it that said this? I can't recall...)


Furthermore, when I read into Rob's plan to be home-free with 111 possessions he said he can live without leaning on others, though he does trade labor and such for what he needs sometimes.

[LDAHL]

I wonder what naysayers thought of the Franciscan monks back in their era.

But I also wonder about how people like Rob Greenfield fit in with Franciscan philosophy. Like for instance, Rob is giving you something. He is giving you the opportunity to be charitable to him. Seems rather Franciscan, in a way.

Could deeming him a crumb bum and denying him charity be violating this old code? "What you do onto the least of my people, you do unto me." (Who was it that said this? I can't recall...)


Furthermore, when I read into Rob's plan to be home-free with 111 possessions he said he can live without leaning on others, though he does trade labor and such for what he needs sometimes.

I wouldn't characterize these people as "bums", necessarily. I would look at them more as the perpetual starving artist, professional student, etc. It's great to follow a dream or live your values, but it's even greater to do so while supporting yourself now and in the future.

[catherine]

You've got me there. I'd be inclined to make an exception for saints, if not bloggers (although I'm not aware if Francis ever broke into an unoccupied house). I also doubt retirement planning was much of an issue in the 12th century. Nor was there a well-founded expectation that the taxpayers would keep you from starving, so the "money-free" life would have involved much higher stakes than it does today.

The people we're talking about here, have much more of a safety net to back them up than the saints of old. They're not risking much more than going on the dole. Holding oneself out as an example to emulate to some of the very same people who will someday be supporting you is a nice bit of Chutzpah, but is it really all that admirable?

I definitely want to follow up on this, but I'm too busy today making money.

I'll be back.

[Ultralight]

I definitely want to follow up on this, but I'm too busy today making money.

I'll be back.

I bet you do! This is right up your alley!

[Ultralight]

I posted the video so that the tangent we're on made more sense -- I did refer to the Blasphemy Challenge. That is all really.

[rodeosweetheart]

Oh, I see, my bad, I get it now, thanks!

[Ultralight]

Oh, I see, my bad, I get it now, thanks!

But as for the folks in the video. Perhaps they were simply moved to speak. Why judge them?

[Ultralight]

Was genuinely mystified why someone who did not believe in something would expend energy proclaiming that they did not believe something.
Why trouble oneself with something that one believes does not exist?

Why trouble oneself about ones troubling themselves with something that aforementioned ones do not believe exist?

[rodeosweetheart]

Why trouble oneself about ones troubling themselves with something that aforementioned ones do not believe exist?

I thought you wanted to promote discussion. that is why I commented on your post, UL.