General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Well, let's face it, if you were an idiot, you wouldn't have known that.
Jebus wrote:When, in the lack of knowledge of a study, I like to use something called common sense.
So, your common sense tells you giving money to charity is likely to help poor people, my common sense tells me it's not. Why would your common sense be any better than mine is?
teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:32 amWell, let's face it, if you were an idiot, you wouldn't have known that.
Yes, so what?
teo123 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:32 amSo, your common sense tells you giving money to charity is likely to help poor people, my common sense tells me it's not. Why would your common sense be any better than mine is?
Because I am smarter than you.
Anyway, I'm not sure of what you are trying to get at. It would really help if you replied to my earlier questions before this discussion becomes circular.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
Didn't read the discussion, because at a glance it didn't look very productive. I do agree with the original post though.
I would add that it is inconsistent to criticize someone that gives money to Notre Dame if you wouldn't criticize a rich person that doesn't give to charity at all.
Suggest at first applaud the idea of doing altruism itself, but then talk about how it should be directed. Whoever made all the money and then gave it to Notre Dame perhaps has done more good in the world than you and I.
There is another good argument against giving to Notre Dame, which is that given the high interest in rebuilding it from both government and private sector, and the large donations already coming in, it seems extremely likely that sufficient money will be raised to rebuild it. Therefore giving a donation at this point will have no effect on whether or not it is fixed up/rebuilt. It might improve the standards of the rebuild, or perhaps even will have no effect at all, simply meaning that someone else who would have donated will now no longer need to donate.
Why do you think that's the case? To me it seems like you and I simply happen to know different things. Could you make a web-app that converts arithmetic expressions to assembly? I doubt it. Could you make an alternative interpretation of the names of places in your country, so that you can contact the most famous linguist in your country and that he or she takes you seriously? I doubt it. On the other hand, you have more knowledge about psychology and American history than I do.
Jebus wrote:It would really help if you replied to my earlier questions before this discussion becomes circular.
I think your questions are slightly missing the point. My point is that giving money to charity, without knowing where that money actually ends up going to, just to make yourself feel good, may actually be a cruel thing to do. There are quite a few plausible scenarios in which that money would be better spent on something else, or even ends up hurting exactly the people it's supposed to help, and it's very hard to estimate if the probability of any such scenario happening with your money is greater or lower than 50%.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:21 pm
Why do you think that's the case? To me it seems like you and I simply happen to know different things.
You said the same thing when you were defending flat earth.
Well, yes, I said that when I was defending the Moon-Landing-Hoax theory, back when it wasn't true. And I've educated myself a lot since then, so it's probably true now. What, you think you know linguistics and computer science better than I do now?
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:51 pm
Well, yes, I said that when I was defending the Moon-Landing-Hoax theory, back when it wasn't true. And I've educated myself a lot since then, so it's probably true now.
You've said that before as well.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:51 pmWhat, you think you know linguistics and computer science better than I do now?
No, I am not saying that.
You're falling for the Dunning-Kruger effect; you think that since you have expertise in one area, it translates well into another area, when in reality it doesn't translate well.
But I'll let Jebus handle this discussion.
Learning never exhausts the mind. -Leonardo da Vinci
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:21 pmTo me it seems like you and I simply happen to know different things. Could you make a web-app that converts arithmetic expressions to assembly? I doubt it. Could you make an alternative interpretation of the names of places in your country, so that you can contact the most famous linguist in your country and that he or she takes you seriously? I doubt it. On the other hand, you have more knowledge about psychology and American history than I do.
I think you are confusing knowledge and intelligence. The two are not entirely positively correlated. Anyway, you might be a smart guy. You might have excellent memory and excellent ram. However, I think you struggle with the critical thinking element of intelligence.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:21 pmTI think your questions are slightly missing the point.
Questions can't be off target. Only answers can be off target. My questions were designed to clarify your opinions. As you failed to reply, I am still not clear on what and why you believe.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:21 pm My point is that giving money to charity, without knowing where that money actually ends up going to, just to make yourself feel good, may actually be a cruel thing to do.
Ineffective altruism is very common. The original purpose of this thread was to highlight an example of inefficient altruism. However, when done correctly, altruism can have a positive impact on the world.
teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:21 pm There are quite a few plausible scenarios in which that money would be better spent on something else, or even ends up hurting exactly the people it's supposed to help, and it's very hard to estimate if the probability of any such scenario happening with your money is greater or lower than 50%.
I don't know what you mean by something else. Are you trying to make the point that altruism is always ineffective?
If yes, you are truly an idiot. A harmful idiot to boot.
If no, I don't see why it is even an issue. Just donate to the causes you know are good, efficient causes.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
Jebus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:21 pm
I don't know what you mean by something else. Are you trying to make the point that altruism is always ineffective?
If yes, you are truly an idiot. A harmful idiot to boot.
You'd be disappointed, unfortunately, a lot of people not only believe this, but also believe that altruism is in and of itself harmful. That's a view promulgated by Randroids, who are often extreme libertarians or even anarcho-capitalists, and given Teo's track record on this forum, is not a view I'd be surprised to see him hold.
Learning never exhausts the mind. -Leonardo da Vinci
Not quite @Red, Randroids believe that spending your own money on whatever you want to spend it on is morally neutral. They don't care about people giving to charities, or donating money to a puppy torture factory; it's all the same to them.
What they consider evil is the government taking your money (through tax) and then spending that money on charitable aims.
No, I am not saying that.