Why don't you donate all your money to Malaria prevention programs in Africa?

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, yetineti said:

And if I did not? Imagine throwing a fit over grammar because your post title is a vague question and then throwing a second one because you still have to clarify your underlying point, which wasn’t made universally clear, and which you did clarify, in concession.

That is lazy AND you did more work haha.

Who are you?

If there are no consequences, the question is pedantic. Split the 5%.

You can now exit the thread since you don't want to add anything of value. Or you could just, you know, clarify what your spontaneously aborted fetus of a sentence actually meant.

[yetineti]

@Carl-Richard

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can now exit the thread since you don't want to add anything of value. Or you could just, you know, clarify what your spontaneously aborted fetus of a sentence actually meant.

Are you done throwing a fit? My sentence was obvious enough that you already clarified your point and I responded to it.

You’re the one taking away value at this point.

Enough with the insults.

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:17 PM by yetineti

[yetineti]

The reasonable answer is probably somewhere between donating everything and assuming that spending it on whatever you personally value needs no further justification.

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

@Carl-Richard

Are you done throwing a fit? My sentence was obvious enough that you already clarified your point and I responded to it.

No it was not. I still don't know what you meant by "them" in your sentence.

[yetineti]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

No it was not. I still don't know what you meant by "them" in your sentence.

“Them” meant the person with malaria. I agree the original sentence was poorly worded, but this seems like a disproportionate amount of attention for a minor discrepancy. Especially after you clarified your point and I responded to it already.

 

[Carl-Richard]

On 9.9.2026 at 9:12 PM, yetineti said:

“Them” meant the person with malaria. I agree the original sentence was poorly worded, but this seems like a disproportionate amount of attention for a minor discrepancy. Especially after you clarified your point and I responded to it already.

It was not a minor discrepancy and it did not help that I clarified my point or that you responded to it already, because I still had to ask what you meant.

As for "it seems although you're suggesting curing somebody's malaria could actually lead the people who are cured down a wrong path away from a creative future more worth living", I'm suggesting that if nobody made music, art or other creative things that people enjoy and make life more rich, life would be less worth living for those that enjoy that. And then the question or ethical conundrum becomes: would you want such a world or do you want more people buying Malaria nets? I'm pointing out there is a tension in values there, not necessarily that you should do one or the other.

But what I'm suggesting as a solution (which may have holes or exceptions, e.g. psychopaths, but I'm mostly speaking to people who have an ethical impulse or would want to entertain such a question sincerely) is you should do what you're called to do, because then you do it the best, and you will provide other humans those things the best, and additionally, if you truly feel called to do it, odds are other humans will appreciate it (as that is a big part of what creates the experiencing of meaningfulness in what you're doing, and if you feel called to do something, odds are it's because it nourishes you in some way as a human and it likely will nourish others in a same way).

Doing what you're called to do, as a person with an ethical impulse, is tapping into the human impulse and you're creating life for humans. Life for humans is not just one thing. It's not just survival at the bare minimum, it's the exploration, the transcendence, the beauty, the love for life in all its forms.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Schizophonia]

Business idea: start a charity, make money through regular actualizd topics, then keep it all for myself hoping my nationality discourages people from taking legal action against me.

[Carl-Richard]

On 8.9.2026 at 8:56 PM, Scholar said:

That's not really the argument.

Then you would clarify what the argument is.

 

On 8.9.2026 at 8:56 PM, Scholar said:

Those who have an identity tied to being logical and ethically consistent, which to some degree most people do. However, see next point.

Well, yes. That didn't really add much.

 

On 8.9.2026 at 8:56 PM, Scholar said:

Rational thinking is a tool deployed by identity. In this case, I pointed out how identity engaged in rationalization of it's own behavior. We don't really start with a set or ethical premises and then work out from that all conclusions that follow from that, and then abide by those rulesets. We constantly adjust our own moral rationalizations to fit moral intuitions (which are tied to identity).

(I fail to see how "however, see next point" was supposed to be a logical bridge from the previous statement [which was simply a re-wording of my statement], but anyways:)

But you can think logically about them and make them consistent. That's what we do here. If you want something else (if you want to go "meta" on thinking about things logically), you can do that somewhere else.

There is something I'll coin "meta-garbage": unsignalled/unprovoked leaving comments in a discussion that go meta on the discussion instead of engaging within the discussion.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Carl-Richard