The Moral Order of Panera • Hacker News Board

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#61

Post by freshm087 » Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #60

freshm087 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments. But you are welcome to present some sarcasm instead, even if very general.

"Doubt it" is pretty much a clear invitation to present arguments. Present an argue against what? “Is not!” doesn’t give a lot to work with. “Doubt it” does a fine job of presenting one’s biases, but it is most certainly not an invitation to stimulating discussion, quite the opposite.

To sum it up.

Starting point: A produces more good then B.

Me: A can produce more good than B, but not necessary more per dollar spent, and I think it's not the case.

--Here was a place to to try to prove it's more per dollar spent--

You: You are biased!

Me: You are invited to present arguments.

You: You are biased!

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#62

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #14

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…

I can't find it now, but in the last few years there was a "well but what about churches?" story as public services for street problems were being cut, and they themselves said that they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.

> ...they'd prefer not to have to take up the slack, certainly aren't prepared to take up all the slack, and that they aren't pros like the people who had just got their funding cut.

Churches literally aren't able to address "street problems" like violence and mental health problems. Governments are the best place to deal with problems where push actually has come to shove.

There might be some creative way to make sure charity-oriented churches are better supported by social service organizations, police departments, etc., but if that sort of setup exists now, it isn't routine or well publicized.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#63

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

panarky wrote: post #54

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, charities and churches are rarely "run well". Many charities have become a cash cow for their executives and office staff (“Hey, look, we can direct a lot of these donations to paying us extremely generous salaries”), with actual generosity to those in need almost seeming an afterthought. I saw this firsthand when I volunteered in the central office of a charity, and it rather shattered my idealism. Chu…

When churches help people, they have an ulterior motive -- to convert the people they help to the church. Why should people who need help have to contend with this? Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

I don't think it's an ulterior motive that churches want to help people be more spiritually healthy... it's part of the core function of the organizations.

> Why can't we just help them without a competing agenda?

It's only a competing agenda if you assume they're wrong. If better spiritual health complements the other efforts, it would be foolish not to promote it.

Your perspective is that proselytizing is undesirable is valid, but it does take quite a bit as granted.

Re: The Moral Order of Panera

#64

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 4:13 AM UTC

jkingsbery wrote: post #41

> If he did, he may have had to admit that Panera Cares was nothing but an elaborate branding exercise, a solution to a problem we already know how to solve. I would expect there to be a lot less food insecurity if we actually knew how to solve it.

Yeah, I would consider "get everyone to agree with me on topic X" to be a very unsolved problem.