241–250 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalist medicine is to blame, when you can vote with your money you can pick the doctor who does what you want, not what's best for you.
Are you saying patients should not have any say in their own treatment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalist medicine is to blame, when you can vote with your money you can pick the doctor who does what you want, not what's best for you.
If people are idiots, why deny them the possibility to realize their potential?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people are recognized for doing good without needing to tell people they're doing good. If you feel you're doing good and not being recognized for it then maybe the kind of good you're doing isn't really necessary. It's called being humble.
I'm sure all those people who didn't die of malaria but otherwise would have disagree on whether said intervention was necessary. If the virtues of being "humble" mean another billion people die of easily preventable diseases, fuck being humble.
If you're joe millionaire the only reason you're putting your name on something is because you have status anxiety. You know it, the people you're giving the money to know it and the public knows it. This goes 1000x more for the $20 donation you brag about on facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure all those people who didn't die of malaria but otherwise would have disagree on whether said intervention was necessary. If the virtues of being "humble" mean another billion people die of easily preventable diseases, fuck being humble.
Are you Bill Gates? Then by all means use your high profile to promote your cause. If you're joe millionaire the only reason you're putting your name on something is because you have status anxiety. You know it, the people you're giving the money to know it and the public knows it. This goes 1000x more for the $20 donation you brag about on facebook.
Painting givers who want to discuss as selfish narcissists, as you have, is unkind. More importantly, it means more people die preventable deaths.
A more measured argument than my own is at Giving What We Can: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2016/08/its-good-to-tal....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you Bill Gates? Then by all means use your high profile to promote your cause. If you're joe millionaire the only reason you're putting your name on something is because you have status anxiety. You know it, the people you're giving the money to know it and the public knows it. This goes 1000x more for the $20 donation you brag about on facebook.
Or maybe people want to be allowed to talk about the charity they do because it's important to them and talking about it encourages other people to join in. Painting givers who want to discuss as selfish narcissists, as you have, is unkind. More importantly, it means more people die preventable deaths. A more measured argument than my own is at Giving What We Can: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2016/08/its-good…
It's not exactly a secret that donating money is often about more than altruism or stopping "preventable deaths."
Even if you believe in the cause you're donating to in the purest most altruistic sense you should know that the conversation is tainted for any rational person living in the real world. No one but people either kissing your ass or trying to get their hand in your pocket is going to hear "I give 10% of my income to save lives" no matter how dignified you think that sounds.
Or as your link says:
>You can't have a good friendship if you hide your true beliefs or feelings, including about effective giving.
I wouldn't be a good friend if I didn't say everything I said above about the "10% donation" proposal. The question is would you be a good friend to someone who disagreed? Or are your friendships predicated on "when I share something I feel strongly about you either agree or are basically complicit in killing 40 people?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe people want to be allowed to talk about the charity they do because it's important to them and talking about it encourages other people to join in. Painting givers who want to discuss as selfish narcissists, as you have, is unkind. More importantly, it means more people die preventable deaths. A more measured argument than my own is at Giving What We Can: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2016/08/its-good…
Notice that these are two distinct things; talking about a charity (even saying you gave) and telling people how much you gave. Sometimes you don't even have to say how much you gave because your name on the Harvard dining hall speaks for itself. It's not exactly a secret that donating money is often about more than altruism or stopping "preventable deaths." Even if you believe in the cause you're donating to in the…
By no means do I think people should pretend the stigma isn't there. What I take issue with is the George Steinbrenner quote that's pasted every other discussion on charity, as if there was anything remotely noble about constantly reminding people that if anyone else so much as happens to hear about their actions, people would judge them for it.
It is hard to take your last question in good faith. Why do you still feel the need to paint me with that brush?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, naming it after yourself cheapens it, dead or alive. Someone else has to do it.
Kinda hard to name something after yourself when you're dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is nearly everywhere. New Zealand, USA and Brazil allow it.
If its allowed in NZ, its rare, and limited to headache medicince, asthma remedies and the like. I'm always astonised when I'm in the US at the medical ads on TV. It seems bizarre that companies target advertising at the consumer for products that should really be selected on their behalf by a medical professional. And those disclaimer/warning crack me up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its allowed in NZ, its rare, and limited to headache medicince, asthma remedies and the like. I'm always astonised when I'm in the US at the medical ads on TV. It seems bizarre that companies target advertising at the consumer for products that should really be selected on their behalf by a medical professional. And those disclaimer/warning crack me up.
Are you saying the ideal state is when physicians are the sole keepers of all medical knowledge? Patients couldn't possibly play a role in their own health?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its allowed in NZ, its rare, and limited to headache medicince, asthma remedies and the like. I'm always astonised when I'm in the US at the medical ads on TV. It seems bizarre that companies target advertising at the consumer for products that should really be selected on their behalf by a medical professional. And those disclaimer/warning crack me up.
Are you saying the ideal state is when physicians are the sole keepers of all medical knowledge? Patients couldn't possibly play a role in their own health?