I'm someone else, but I'll bite. The article starts out by begging a question, ie. by skipping over an argument, and then bases most of the rest on the validity

I'm someone else, but I'll bite. The article starts out by begging a question, ie. by skipping over an argument, and then bases most of the rest on the validity of the part it doesn't argue. The second to fourth sentences read: «It is sadly thus that the very human impulse to help others and the mantra of Charity Navigator since its inception—that people should become informed donors and give with their heads as well as their hearts—have been infused with logic so cold that even Mr. Spock would cringe upon hearing it. One iteration of this tendency is in the idea of “effective altruism.” We believe a more accurate phrase for this concept is “defective altruism” and will therefore use that term for the remainder of this article.» I restate that: Choosing altruistic action as a result intellectual deliberation instead of on an impulse renders the altruism defective. The article avoids arguing that core point, and instead just bases a lot of secondary points on its being true. For example, below, it says one effect of effective altruism is that «experts decide where the money goes», and that's bad because… I don't get that part. Because experts do rational deliberation, I think, and because an EA proponent says it's «not necessarily morally superior». I'd love to hear a thorough argument of why rational deliberation renders the resulting action bad or defective. Partly because IMO people who want to make that argument should try to make a rational argument to support their opinions, and someone has to listen.