7 ms·

Posing hypotheticals like this and passing judgment on their character for their answer is not a good-faith way of discussing a topic. It's just not a realistic

Posing hypotheticals like this and passing judgment on their character for their answer is not a good-faith way of discussing a topic. It's just not a realistic scenario and someone's answer to the hypothetical indicates nothing about how they would actually act in a real situation where they were able to help someone.

ddrdrck_ 8y ago
You did not understand my point. My point was that you cannot pretend to not value life just because you prefer to buy a new computer rather than giving 2000$ to a charity. There is no direct connection, if it would be that easy then Bill Gates would be the savior of humanity.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Sure. I mean I think the whole discussion, right back to the root comment, is an unrealistic hypothetical. The $2,000 refers to the estimated average cost of saving a malaria sufferer in certain countries. But that's based on the cost of running a comprehensive program in which many people donate, many people help on the ground and many lives are saved. In some other contexts it could cost much less to save a life. In others, no amount of money could save a particular person's life. But many people give something to humanitarian charities from time to time and most people are comfortable that some of their taxes - probably more than $2000/year for most people in rich countries - are used for medical services, welfare systems and aid programs that save lives. What I've written above is a reality-based comment on the way most people actually do expend funds that lead to lives being saved. And I think it's related to the point you were trying to make at the start of your comment. But veering into implausible hypotheticals about child hostages, and then passing character judgment based on an answer, starts turning a silly discussion into a toxic one.

7 ms·

Posing hypotheticals like this and passing judgment on their character for their answer is not a good-faith way of discussing a topic. It's just not a realistic

by tomhoward 8y ago

ddrdrck_ 8y ago
You did not understand my point. My point was that you cannot pretend to not value life just because you prefer to buy a new computer rather than giving 2000$ to a charity. There is no direct connection, if it would be that easy then Bill Gates would be the savior of humanity.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Sure. I mean I think the whole discussion, right back to the root comment, is an unrealistic hypothetical. The $2,000 refers to the estimated average cost of saving a malaria sufferer in certain countries. But that's based on the cost of running a comprehensive program in which many people donate, many people help on the ground and many lives are saved. In some other contexts it could cost much less to save a life. In others, no amount of money could save a particular person's life. But many people give something to humanitarian charities from time to time and most people are comfortable that some of their taxes - probably more than $2000/year for most people in rich countries - are used for medical services, welfare systems and aid programs that save lives. What I've written above is a reality-based comment on the way most people actually do expend funds that lead to lives being saved. And I think it's related to the point you were trying to make at the start of your comment. But veering into implausible hypotheticals about child hostages, and then passing character judgment based on an answer, starts turning a silly discussion into a toxic one.