Sfdebris.net

No, really, they are.

The emotional narrative is that, well, there are people out there doing online fundraisers for the medicine or surgery they need to live, and most of those fundraisers are supported by other poor people who go "well, I can't spare much, but this person needs it more than I do, so maybe I'll go back to the rice, potatoes, and ramen diet for a week and pass up that lunch at mcdonalds so I can help this person live." And there are BILLIONAIRES, people who make more money in from interest alone than all these little people pitching in a a few bucks for a chemotherapy fundraiser will ever see in their entire lives, who could fund the whole thing with no appreciable change in their lifestyle, and they'd rather spend that money on gold-flecked champagne-infused gummy bears (Which are, sadly, a real thing.)

Here's the science to back it up: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ompassion/

When is it OK to treat people as members of a category rather than as individuals? And where is the science to back that up?

You didn't know? Treating people as demographics and not individuals is very progressive.

Darth Wedgius wrote:When is it OK to treat people as members of a category rather than as individuals? And where is the science to back that up?

I...I gave you the link. It's right there in the opening post. "How Wealth Reduces Compassion".

Here's another study on it: https://planetsave.com/2013/12/23/a-rig ... ted-video/ Science.

Neither of you is engaging with the content of the original post.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:

Darth Wedgius wrote:When is it OK to treat people as members of a category rather than as individuals? And where is the science to back that up?

I...I gave you the link. It's right there in the opening post. "How Wealth Reduces Compassion".

Neither of you is engaging with the content of the original post.

I'm pretty sure his second question is "Where's the science to support 'the time where it is right to treat people as a category'".

I'll address the topic. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and if it does, it needs to be clear which way the causation goes. Who's to say that the answer isn't really, "Evil people are rich"?

Oh, that makes it a little clearer.

I don't have science to back up treating people differently based on the category they are in when they are in that category because of a specific behavior they choose. They could use their vast fortunes to help humanity, instead they mostly sit on it, make tax-deductible donations they won't even miss, and lobby to acquire more wealth and limit the wealth of others.

I think the Monopoly Experiment gives a stronger cause for causation. That said, from a moral/philosophical standpoint I can make a pretty good argument that it is cruel and wicked to still be a billionaire when there are so many people, some you pass by the street every day, whose lives you could dramatically improve, or even save, in a way that will have no discernable effect on your well-being. There is no excuse for retaining more money than you could ever reasonably spend in your entire lifetime.

Sure there is - because it's yours to do with as you please.

And of course to create a landed gentry class. Damn founding fathers fucking that up for us by not making us a monarchy.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:Oh, that makes it a little clearer.

I don't have science to back up treating people differently based on the category they are in when they are in that category because of a specific behavior they choose. They could use their vast fortunes to help humanity, instead they mostly sit on it, make tax-deductible donations they won't even miss, and lobby to acquire more wealth and limit the wealth of others.

I think the Monopoly Experiment gives a stronger cause for causation. That said, from a moral/philosophical standpoint I can make a pretty good argument that it is cruel and wicked to still be a billionaire when there are so many people, some you pass by the street every day, whose lives you could dramatically improve, or even save, in a way that will have no discernable effect on your well-being. There is no excuse for retaining more money than you could ever reasonably spend in your entire lifetime.

If your opinion is that it is evil to be rich, that's fine. That's your opinion, and everyone is entitled to one.

SuccubusYuri wrote:And of course to create a landed gentry class. Damn founding fathers fucking that up for us by not making us a monarchy.

A form of government that lost ground all over the world in recent history...