6 ms·

> For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world. What?

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes. It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  That's quite a bigoted perspective you have.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    How bigoted I am is completely irrelevant as to how terrible the Salvation Army is. I'd much rather learn why you think my beliefs about the Salvation Army are wrong, or why you think my beliefs about what constitutes "good" are wrong.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      Well, I'm a Christian, so that probably answers your question. If you want to talk more specifically, I'd be happy to. But while I'm sure I don't agree with everything the SA does or all of its methods (keeping in mind that it's a huge organization, spread around the world, with many different chapters, people, etc--so it's not like a monolithic organization where everyone walks and talks the same), I certainly recognize the enormous good they have done throughout their history. For you to say that their work is a net-negative is quite shameful.
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative. Second, the Salvation Army isn't responsible for all the good they have done. They're responsible for the difference in what would have been done if they didn't exist, compared to what they did. This difference is some combination of converting poverty-relief effort into evangelical christian proselytization and changing how much effort gets spent relieving poverty. The relative moral weights of these is an open question that is completely un-answered by knowing how much total poverty relief they do. Like, if you choose to become a doctor, you shouldn't get kudos for every life you save. You should get kudos for every life that got saved because you chose to become a doctor instead of your next best option. Other people would have been doctors if you weren't interested, and other doctors would have treated your cases if you weren't a doctor. The good that a choice does can only be measured in terms of opportunity costs. Finally, I'm never going to feel ashamed to say what I think is right. No matter what. If donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place, I want to say that donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place. If it doesn't, then I don't want to say it. If I'm wrong, help me understand how I'm wrong. If you just want to suppress an opinion because it's a particular kind of opinion, fuck you.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Being a Christian means you favor religious proselytization? I know plenty that keep to themselves.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Christ commanded his followers to go into the world and make disciples, teaching them everything that He commanded. Paul wrote that people have different gifts, lending some to teaching and such more than others, but making disciples and spreading the good news is more than knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets; quietly living a faithful life is also a form of evangelizing. After all, you know that they are Christians, so I suppose they aren't keeping it entirely to themselves, right? However, Jesus said that, those who are ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of. So I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by keeping to themselves.

It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes. It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.

alphapapa 10y ago
That's quite a bigoted perspective you have.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  How bigoted I am is completely irrelevant as to how terrible the Salvation Army is. I'd much rather learn why you think my beliefs about the Salvation Army are wrong, or why you think my beliefs about what constitutes "good" are wrong.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Well, I'm a Christian, so that probably answers your question. If you want to talk more specifically, I'd be happy to. But while I'm sure I don't agree with everything the SA does or all of its methods (keeping in mind that it's a huge organization, spread around the world, with many different chapters, people, etc--so it's not like a monolithic organization where everyone walks and talks the same), I certainly recognize the enormous good they have done throughout their history. For you to say that their work is a net-negative is quite shameful.
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative. Second, the Salvation Army isn't responsible for all the good they have done. They're responsible for the difference in what would have been done if they didn't exist, compared to what they did. This difference is some combination of converting poverty-relief effort into evangelical christian proselytization and changing how much effort gets spent relieving poverty. The relative moral weights of these is an open question that is completely un-answered by knowing how much total poverty relief they do. Like, if you choose to become a doctor, you shouldn't get kudos for every life you save. You should get kudos for every life that got saved because you chose to become a doctor instead of your next best option. Other people would have been doctors if you weren't interested, and other doctors would have treated your cases if you weren't a doctor. The good that a choice does can only be measured in terms of opportunity costs. Finally, I'm never going to feel ashamed to say what I think is right. No matter what. If donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place, I want to say that donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place. If it doesn't, then I don't want to say it. If I'm wrong, help me understand how I'm wrong. If you just want to suppress an opinion because it's a particular kind of opinion, fuck you.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Being a Christian means you favor religious proselytization? I know plenty that keep to themselves.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Christ commanded his followers to go into the world and make disciples, teaching them everything that He commanded. Paul wrote that people have different gifts, lending some to teaching and such more than others, but making disciples and spreading the good news is more than knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets; quietly living a faithful life is also a form of evangelizing. After all, you know that they are Christians, so I suppose they aren't keeping it entirely to themselves, right? However, Jesus said that, those who are ashamed of him, he will be ashamed of. So I guess it depends on what exactly you mean by keeping to themselves.