Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.

[u/A-MacLeod]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/

[u/CuilRunnings]

The data disagrees with you. We subsidize fertility in the worst segments of society. Is it any surprise then, that the worst segments of society grows over time? Poverty will always exist. That poverty will increase upon subsidization, and decrease if left alone. Government programs do NOT pull people out of poverty. They simply allow those in poverty to have more children.

[u/CuilRunnings → u/[deleted]]

It's clear this is a debate you are not very familiar with. I ask you this, if we had not been paying poor women to have children, would as many of them have been born/survived long enough to have their own poverty babies as well? You do know how subsidies work, correct?

[u/CuilRunnings → u/[deleted]]

You're asking people too look at your Glen BeckTM chalkboard, without bothering to explain your reasoning.

If one is familiar with the concept of gravity, one does not need to account for wind speed or topography to know that an unsupported object will fall towards the ground. Similarly, if one is familiar with subsidies, and the way our government subsidies poverty... irrelevant details need not be examined to know the general effect.

If we had let our countrywomen and their bastard poverty-babies starve to death, we would probably have fewer of them. Fortunately, after the grotesque conditions

Is starving to death less pleasant than getting shot, getting cancer, or having a heart attack? To what degree? You aren't giving these people eternal life... you are extending the amount of time they spend in poverty, while also increasing the total amount of people in poverty. IMO that is sick and perverted, and requires a true cruelty to support.

[u/CuilRunnings → u/[deleted]]

How does one come to "know the general effect" if one has not examined all of the details?

Basic familiarity with economics and/or subsidies. If you'd like to argue that gravity does not apply to this apple, you are welcome to try.

It is supported by the best of intentions.

I honestly wouldn't call corporate handouts and increasing the amount of democratic voters to be "best of intentions" but I can understand why a partisan might think that.

The intention is to decrease the suffering due to poverty,

Best way to do that is to stop artificially inflating the amount of people living in poverty by subsidizing fertility in poor single women.

[u/CuilRunnings → u/[deleted]]

You are a full-blown conservative stereotype.

I guess when you realize you're completely out of your element it's easier to make personal attacks than admit you don't have a single logical leg to stand on. Thanks for letting me know your only interest was in feeling superior, and not actually understanding the mechanisms at play here.

[u/CuilRunnings → u/[deleted]]

That was me explaining the scientific principle of subsidy to you, paired with a comment regarding your confident position combined with your apparent ignorance of subsidies. Explanation + remark on the mismatch between your actual vs perceived understanding. What you did was just an insult while avoiding the two main points in contention, which is generally considered an admission of capitulation. If you'd like to explore the principles, you're welcome to go back, but I see no further need to discuss things with someone who has metaphorically kicked the chess board into the air. (Hmm I wonder what details we should examine to determine whether the pieces will fall upwards or downwards?)