News

EDIT: In this weeks episode of "Where Keeping It Real Goes Wrong."

This is a good point, and it brings to mind something I ignored from my previous post.

A lot of the people in congress can be "bought" for so little while in congress because the actual "payday" they get is when they leave office and enter into a cushy job where they're paid to do not much at all, because they've already done the job of getting bad legislation passed.

Scott is not in a position to be offering them cushy jobs at Amazon once they leave, so one of the main ways to "pay off" this class of politician is actually out of reach for her as an individual instead of as the head of a business.

It's easy to get lost in frustration with having to rely on charity, but it's good to step back and think about it a little more clearly for a minute. Cheers, mate.

Exactly. Why are the students in debt for lunch anyway? They're children!

It's literally the Orphan Crushing Machine. "We saved these orphans from being put in an Orphan Crushing Machine" while no one questions what the entire point of the Orphan Crushing Machine is to begin with.

Georgia... Sad state

FTFY.

What I think of when I think of "philanthropists."

I don't necessarily agree with Singer's points either, but I think Singer is running on the reality that we can really only judge intent when it comes to ourselves, it's nigh-impossible to judge intent when we cannot know the contents of another humans mind. They can tell us how they feel, but some people are not honest about how they feel, and that can even come from things like social pressure or fear of rejection and other valid areas of feeling that are outside of "I am trying to deceive you for my own gain." However, despite that, often giving into social pressure or fears of rejection often result in people making decisions that make things worse, not better. Despite the intent, the "deception" still ends up causing issues among a group of people.

So while I agree intent matters, I believe the position Singer is starting from is "with literally billions of humans, it's impossibly to know intent of all of them and thus makes logical sense to judge by action."

I think it would be more effective to critique his idea that evil exists as he describes it. Nature, from whence humans came, is brutal and unforgiving and many animals in nature eat their mates or their children for survivals sake. He would call those actions "evil" although they are, in the context of nature, merely survival instinct. In this sense, it's easier to critique that he is essentially indicting nature itself as evil. Evil is a concept created by humans through our idea of "justice," which is also a concept humans created. I just think that's a more thorough way to debunk what he's saying.

I think it's an interesting idea to explore, but it doesn't mean we have to agree with it.