5 ms·

Your entire argument boils down to "billionaires know better because they're billionaires." You completely ignore the whole, "Working on the problem for far lon

Your entire argument boils down to "billionaires know better because they're billionaires." You completely ignore the whole, "Working on the problem for far longer" part, and assume that charities themselves are an appeal to authority. You're not discussing things in good faith.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> Your entire argument boils down to "billionaires know better because they're billionaires." There's nothing in what I've said whatsoever to support this. You've completely imagined that. What I've said is that I don't think charities know better simply because they're charities. You've sort of transposed that to the opposite side of the argument and are making out that I said another argument, which is 'billionaires know better'. 'I don't think A always knows any better' does not mean 'I think B knows better'. > assume that charities themselves are an appeal to authority I do think charities are in general a bit of an appeal to authority. People just say 'charity' and everyone assumes it must be a worthwhile cause and people doing the right thing. Just because you are have the magic sticker of being a charity does not mean: - you have worked on a problem for a long time - if you have been working on a problem for a long time, then that you have made any progress - that you even understand the problem better than someone else does - you are working more efficiently than someone else could - that you are doing anything useful whatsoever > You're not discussing things in good faith. Well you're claiming I said "billionaires know better because they're billionaires" which I really think you'd struggle to back up with anything I've said, so neither are you. It baffles me that people say 'give it to charity instead'. You might as well say 'give it to anyone who can fill in IRS Form 1023', because that's all you're guaranteed to get from a charity.
- maym86 8y ago
  > It baffles me that people say 'give it to charity instead'. You might as well say 'give it to anyone who can fill in IRS Form 1023', because that's all you're guaranteed to get from a charity. This is not 'all' that charity means and you're willfully ignoring all the other answers that are explaining it to you.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "There's nothing in what I've said whatsoever to support this. You've completely imagined that." No. Your entire rant where you mention people who can fill out an IRS form clearly shows that you are not arguing in good faith. You are assuming that we're saying any charity is good, which, if you were listening, no one ever said. Once again, the entire thrust of your argument is, "What makes people who have actually studied things, people who are actually involved with the problem they're trying to solve, think they know more than me, a rich person who's read something on Twitter?"

chrisseaton 8y ago

> Your entire argument boils down to "billionaires know better because they're billionaires." There's nothing in what I've said whatsoever to support this. You've completely imagined that. What I've said is that I don't think charities know better simply because they're charities. You've sort of transposed that to the opposite side of the argument and are making out that I said another argument, which is 'billionaires know better'. 'I don't think A always knows any better' does not mean 'I think B knows better'. > assume that charities themselves are an appeal to authority I do think charities are in general a bit of an appeal to authority. People just say 'charity' and everyone assumes it must be a worthwhile cause and people doing the right thing. Just because you are have the magic sticker of being a charity does not mean: - you have worked on a problem for a long time - if you have been working on a problem for a long time, then that you have made any progress - that you even understand the problem better than someone else does - you are working more efficiently than someone else could - that you are doing anything useful whatsoever > You're not discussing things in good faith. Well you're claiming I said "billionaires know better because they're billionaires" which I really think you'd struggle to back up with anything I've said, so neither are you. It baffles me that people say 'give it to charity instead'. You might as well say 'give it to anyone who can fill in IRS Form 1023', because that's all you're guaranteed to get from a charity.

maym86 8y ago
> It baffles me that people say 'give it to charity instead'. You might as well say 'give it to anyone who can fill in IRS Form 1023', because that's all you're guaranteed to get from a charity. This is not 'all' that charity means and you're willfully ignoring all the other answers that are explaining it to you.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"There's nothing in what I've said whatsoever to support this. You've completely imagined that." No. Your entire rant where you mention people who can fill out an IRS form clearly shows that you are not arguing in good faith. You are assuming that we're saying any charity is good, which, if you were listening, no one ever said. Once again, the entire thrust of your argument is, "What makes people who have actually studied things, people who are actually involved with the problem they're trying to solve, think they know more than me, a rich person who's read something on Twitter?"