this entire time

cause the noun is a legal entity

subject to all the typical corruptions

but 'charity' is typically about the reasoning for giving

definitionally ma is correct

and you don't expect to receive anything back

having reasons by definition means it is not unconditional

and you HOPE it will make the situation better

it is simply not on the condition of expecting something in return directly

but you don't place conditions on that charity

but, for example

welfare has entry and exit criteria

you are either elligble or not

you may choose not to prioritize those who are not reliable or are dangerous

that is describing the noun again

not the act

there is the noun, the act, and the quality of people

but the quality of people isn't a factor in the act

Do charity organisations actually do what they should be doing?

only the noun

Not usually

because it's on an INDIVIDUAL basis

and that's the point of my arguement

the organization deals with groups of people

you can collectively do charity and it isn't necessarily worse off because of it

and so does welfare; but the individual is charitable

you are purposing that the individual replace the organization

but that can't work

because it changes the dynamic

Welfare is abjection of responsibility

Should be at a community level

it's also abject to individual circumstance

It is, as are all other forms of social safety nets

"safety net" is a misnomer

are we debating theory or implementation?

It isn't it shows the intended role

seriously, left-wingers have had to come up with a lot of newspeak to advertise their silliness

how is that relevant?

we aren't lefties

Safety net isn't newspeak in my eyes