3 ms·
Equating banning plastic bags to feeding the hungry probably makes it harder for someone to not see you as an amoral monster. And if we do believe you are an a
by wbronitsky 7y ago
Equating banning plastic bags to feeding the hungry probably makes it harder for someone to not see you as an amoral monster.
And if we do believe you are an amoral monster, which I do not, what does that say about what we believe about people worse than you?
If you are near our best, which you probably are, how else can we hope to help people than by leveraging government? It should be quite clear to everyone that personal donations do not even come close to covering need.
- hpoe 7y agoI apologize if my point on that was misstated. I was using that to illustrate that when California banned plastic bags they actually saw an increase in the amount of plastic and waste generated because there were many things the grocery plastic bags were being used for that people didn't think of. I was illustrating the idea that just because something sounds like a simple and easy idea there is often a lot of nuance and complexity and that is involved that isn't being considered. In general I'd say the more simplistic an issue appears to be, the more obvious the solution and the more villainous the other side seems, the less of a grasp an individual actually has on really understanding an issue.
- wbronitsky 7y agoMy point is that there is no comparison to feeding the hungry, and we have all the proof we need that your and everyone else's private donations are not enough. So, is there a solution in there that doesn't leverage government, or are we going to continue to complain about the baldly positive sides of government because "government bad, situation too complex"? I very much agree, we don't have a complex understanding of the issue here, so maybe we should stop attacking it.