> No, that's not what I said. I said people pay the Red Cross to do what it does: but the amount paid in must be at least as large as the amount spent by the Red Cross or they won't be able to continue doing what they're doing.
that's still not profit. That's breaking even.
> Was the local fire department a for-profit corporation?
A for-profit corporation. a privatised fire service. Because socialism is evil, supposedly, in this rural town, paying the fire fee is a voluntary choice, not an involuntary tax, and thus the fire service made sure nobody was going to die and then stood by and watched the house burn down. Because the family had opted not to pay the monthly subscription fee.
> So you missed the part where I explicitly said that people pay the Red Cross to help other people.
when what you wrote is right there and you haven't even bothered to edit it to fit this lie, saying something like this is a bit on the absurd side.
I'll put what you actually wrote, here again, for your own benefit.
> In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling the service of helping people.
and so
> You know that it is very dishonest to put words in other people's mouths and accuse them of taking positions they have not taken, sir.
It's dishonest to switch your positions at your convenience and make an accusation like that. It's stupid to do this when there's a visible record of you having done so.
OF COURSE you can say explicitly that you've changed your position, and that you've realised you were mistake in your view of the word "profit"
but somehow I don't think this is going to happen.
You failed to quote the next two sentences: "The likelihood that, averaged over time, the amount they take in is exactly the amount they spend is miniscule. So practically speaking, they must be making a profit, in the sense of taking in more money than they spend, in order to continue functioning."
A for-profit corporation. a privatised fire service.
Reference, please? The article you linked to doesn't say this, and as I noted, it implies the opposite, since the city mayor defended the fire service. Also see below.
supposedly, in this rural town, paying the fire fee is a voluntary choice
"Supposedly"? Did you actually read the article you linked to? It says: "Residents in the city of South Fulton receive the service automatically, but it is not extended to those living in the greater county-wide area." In other words, the city (not town) only charges the fee to people living outside the city limits, who don't have the same expectation of receiving city services anyway.
I'll put what you actually wrote, here again, for your own benefit.
Sure, I'll even quote it again: "In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling the service of helping people."
Does that say "selling helping services to people"? No, it doesn't. It says "selling the service of helping people". By which I meant, as I clarified in subsequent posts, that people can pay the Red Cross to help other people, instead of helping those other people directly.
Was what I originally said ambiguous? Yes. But that means you ask for clarification; it does not mean you assume that I meant whatever is most convenient for you.
that's still not profit. That's breaking even.
> Was the local fire department a for-profit corporation?
A for-profit corporation. a privatised fire service. Because socialism is evil, supposedly, in this rural town, paying the fire fee is a voluntary choice, not an involuntary tax, and thus the fire service made sure nobody was going to die and then stood by and watched the house burn down. Because the family had opted not to pay the monthly subscription fee.
> So you missed the part where I explicitly said that people pay the Red Cross to help other people.
when what you wrote is right there and you haven't even bothered to edit it to fit this lie, saying something like this is a bit on the absurd side.
I'll put what you actually wrote, here again, for your own benefit.
> In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling the service of helping people.
and so
> You know that it is very dishonest to put words in other people's mouths and accuse them of taking positions they have not taken, sir.
It's dishonest to switch your positions at your convenience and make an accusation like that. It's stupid to do this when there's a visible record of you having done so.
OF COURSE you can say explicitly that you've changed your position, and that you've realised you were mistake in your view of the word "profit" but somehow I don't think this is going to happen.