Pathological Altruism

[Emily Lake]

Nobody in this thread has made this claim.

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Helping people <> formal charitable organizations

There's a difference between helping people and giving money to charities. Your quotemining is dishonest in that it attempts to make Loren Pechtel's quote seem to say something that it did not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Helping people <> formal charitable organizations

There's a difference between helping people and giving money to charities. Your quote mining is dishonest in that it attempts to make Loren Pechtel's quote seem to say something that it did not.

He was flat out asked if donating money to charities was bad. His answer was "mostly yes".

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to trying to find that cure for ALS instead of donating money to a charity.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Helping people <> formal charitable organizations

There's a difference between helping people and giving money to charities. Your quote mining is dishonest in that it attempts to make Loren Pechtel's quote seem to say something that it did not.

He was flat out asked if donating money to charities was bad. His answer was "mostly yes".

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to trying to find that cure for ALS instead of donating money to a charity.

Jimmy Higgins, is it your claim that donating money to charities encompasses the entirety of helping people?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Helping people <> formal charitable organizations

There's a difference between helping people and giving money to charities. Your quote mining is dishonest in that it attempts to make Loren Pechtel's quote seem to say something that it did not.

He was flat out asked if donating money to charities was bad. His answer was "mostly yes".

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to trying to find that cure for ALS instead of donating money to a charity.

Jimmy Higgins, is it your claim that donating money to charities encompasses the entirety of helping people?

Odd, and you seem to be upset that someone else was taking Loren out of context. Loren said thatgiving money to most charities was bad. You'll need to forgive me because I left my compassionate conservative translation book in my other jacket. Seeing that Loren hasn't actually stated what level of help would be good, you seem to be reading more into his statements than the context he has presented himself.

Regardless, you'll need to excuse me because I am in the lab working on a cure for Ebola, so I can distribute it myself in Liberian hospitals.

 

[ksen]

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Helping people <> formal charitable organizations

There's a difference between helping people and giving money to charities. Your quotemining is dishonest in that it attempts to make Loren Pechtel's quote seem to say something that it did not.

 

[Emily Lake]

Odd, and you seem to be upset that someone else was taking Loren out of context. Loren said thatgiving money to most charities was bad. You'll need to forgive me because I left my compassionate conservative translation book in my other jacket. Seeing that Loren hasn't actually stated what level of help would be good, you seem to be reading more into his statements than the context he has presented himself.

If nothing else, you certainly excel at snark, don't you? For reference:

Certain people here have claimed that helping people is worse than not helping people

Nobody in this thread has made this claim.

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Setting aside your condescension, I will point out that it seems to be your reading comprehension that is in question here. I'm not reading more into Loren Pechtel's post; I'm criticizing ksen's response to my own post, which used Loren Pechtel's as "support". It did so by 1) trimming out the remainder of Loren Pechtel's post so that it seemed to say only one thing without qualifiers and 2) it created a false equivalence between "helping people" and donating to charity, as if those two things were perfectly equal rather than one being a subset of the other.

You then jumped on the bandwagon in support of ksen's mischaracterization and fallacious word games. Then you proceed to condescend and mock me, and to insult me by attempting to cast me as a "hated" party (in this case a "compassionate conservative"), which is particularly entertaining as I'm quite far from being a conservative. From this I surmise that your skill at actual logic and rational discourse is elementary at best, and that you rely on mocking and arrogance to bludgeon people to your way of thinking. You're in it to "score points".

If this allows you to feel good about yourself, then by all means, go forth and mock away sir! If, however, you value integrity and rational discussion, then I prefer that refrain from such tactics.

 

[ksen]

If nothing else, you certainly excel at snark, don't you? For reference:

Certain people here have claimed that helping people is worse than not helping people

Nobody in this thread has made this claim.

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Setting aside your condescension, I will point out that it seems to be your reading comprehension that is in question here. I'm not reading more into Loren Pechtel's post; I'm criticizing ksen's response to my own post, which used Loren Pechtel's as "support". It did so by 1) trimming out the remainder of Loren Pechtel's post so that it seemed to say only one thing without qualifiers and 2) it created a false equivalence between "helping people" and donating to charity, as if those two things were perfectly equal rather than one being a subset of the other.

You then jumped on the bandwagon in support of ksen's mischaracterization and fallacious word games. Then you proceed to condescend and mock me, and to insult me by attempting to cast me as a "hated" party (in this case a "compassionate conservative"), which is particularly entertaining as I'm quite far from being a conservative. From this I surmise that your skill at actual logic and rational discourse is elementary at best, and that you rely on mocking and arrogance to bludgeon people to your way of thinking. You're in it to "score points".

If this allows you to feel good about yourself, then by all means, go forth and mock away sir! If, however, you value integrity and rational discussion, then I prefer that refrain from such tactics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If nothing else, you certainly excel at snark, don't you? For reference:

Certain people here have claimed that helping people is worse than not helping people

Nobody in this thread has made this claim.

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Setting aside your condescension, I will point out that it seems to be your reading comprehension that is in question here. I'm not reading more into Loren Pechtel's post; I'm criticizing ksen's response to my own post, which used Loren Pechtel's as "support". It did so by 1) trimming out the remainder of Loren Pechtel's post so that it seemed to say only one thing without qualifiers and 2) it created a false equivalence between "helping people" and donating to charity, as if those two things were perfectly equal rather than one being a subset of the other.

You then jumped on the bandwagon in support of ksen's mischaracterization and fallacious word games. Then you proceed to condescend and mock me, and to insult me by attempting to cast me as a "hated" party (in this case a "compassionate conservative"), which is particularly entertaining as I'm quite far from being a conservative. From this I surmise that your skill at actual logic and rational discourse is elementary at best, and that you rely on mocking and arrogance to bludgeon people to your way of thinking. You're in it to "score points".

If this allows you to feel good about yourself, then by all means, go forth and mock away sir! If, however, you value integrity and rational discussion, then I prefer that refrain from such tactics.

So I take all that as meaning you couldn't actually demonstrate that the context of LP's statement was consistent with taking an opinion that LP thinks helping people is a good thing.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your quotemining is dishonest in that it attempts to make Loren Pechtel's quote seem to say something that it did not.

You used Loren Pechtel's response in regard to one specific method of helping people (donating to organized charities), and you quotemined it to remove the qualifications that he provided for his response. You then used that response as if it were a rebuttal to my observation that nobody in this thread had claimed that "helping people is worse than not helping people".

In truth, Loren's response is a response only to one specific type of help, not to the entirety of "helping people". It still stands as true that nobody in this thread has claimed that helping people is worse than not helping people. That is a gross mischaracterization, and I believe a willful distortion, or the content of this thread.

Clever smileys and wittiness don't make your post any less false.

- - - Updated - - -

So I take all that as meaning you couldn't actually demonstrate that the context of LP's statement was consistent with taking an opinion that LP thinks helping people is a good thing.

Do you understand how logic works, Mr. Higgins?

 

[ksen]

Clever smileys and wittiness don't make your post any less false.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So I take all that as meaning you couldn't actually demonstrate that the context of LP's statement was consistent with taking an opinion that LP thinks helping people is a good thing.

Do you understand how logic works, Mr. Higgins?

I've read the magazines, yes.

Using logic means taking what someone says, in the context of posting along side them for over a decade and drawing a conclusion. Granted, you've only been posting along side LP for about, what 7 years, but still, you should know better.

 

[ksen]

Jimmy, do you know how many people have died from MRSA while you're busy with Emily? Back to the lab!

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you understand how logic works, Mr. Higgins?

I've read the magazines, yes.

Using logic means taking what someone says, in the context of posting along side them for over a decade and drawing a conclusion. Granted, you've only been posting along side LP for about, what 7 years, but still, you should know better.

7 years?

On the immediate topic of logic:

A) Certain people here have claimed that helping people is worse than not helping people

B) Question: So, donations to charities, bad or good?
Answer: Actually, mostly bad.

C) Discussion...
Helping People consists of far, far more than just donating to charities. This is supported by the fact that Loren Pechtel says in that same post:

The problem is the high percentage of "charity" money that goes to funding the charity rather than doing good works. All in all it's a very inefficient way of providing help.

It is implicit in his post that there are other ways of providing help that he prefers to charities. Thus logically, he does not appear to be claiming that in general, helping people is worse than not helping people. This is fairly straightforward reasoning.

Beyond that, you then leap well over the actual topic at hand, and presume to skewer me for not proving that Loren's post is consistent with him believing that helping people is a good thing? This, however, doesn't logically follow from lpetrich's claim.

lpetrich's claim is that some people in this thread have claimed that helping people is WORSE THAN not helping. lpetrich's claim is false. Neither you, nor he, nor ksen can provide proof that supports that claim.

The closest you can come is Loren Pechtel's qualified comment that charities are inefficient ways of providing help. I am not currently capable of telepathy, nor do I expect to develop that skill at any point in the near future. I can, however, surmise that Loren Pechtel appears to believe that helping people is not worse than not helping.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've read the magazines, yes.

Using logic means taking what someone says, in the context of posting along side them for over a decade and drawing a conclusion. Granted, you've only been posting along side LP for about, what 7 years, but still, you should know better.

7 years?

My bad, nearly 10.

 

[Emily Lake]

7 years?

My bad, nearly 10.

10? I am curious who you think I am.

 

[laughing dog]

.....
The closest you can come is Loren Pechtel's qualified comment that charities are inefficient ways of providing help. I am not currently capable of telepathy, nor do I expect to develop that skill at any point in the near future. I can, however, surmise that Loren Pechtel appears to believe that helping people is not worse than not helping.

Your surmise is not supported by logic. All one could reasonably surmise from LP's quote is that he thinks efficient ways of providing help are preferred over inefficient ways of providing help. That does not mean that he supports or believes helping is a good idea or not. Perhaps he thinks helping people is opening a Pandora's box but if one is going to do so, one should do it "efficiently".

Of course, LP's conclusions is based on the questionable generalization that a high percentage of charity money goes to funding the charity rather than doing good works.

 

[Emily Lake]

.....
The closest you can come is Loren Pechtel's qualified comment that charities are inefficient ways of providing help. I am not currently capable of telepathy, nor do I expect to develop that skill at any point in the near future. I can, however, surmise that Loren Pechtel appears to believe that helping people is not worse than not helping.

Your surmise is not supported by logic. All one could reasonably surmise from LP's quote is that he thinks efficient ways of providing help are preferred over inefficient ways of providing help. That does not mean that he supports or believes helping is a good idea or not. Perhaps he thinks helping people is opening a Pandora's box but if one is going to do so, one should do it "efficiently".

Of course, LP's conclusions is based on the questionable generalization that a high percentage of charity money goes to funding the charity rather than doing good works.

You are correct, in that there are other reasonable interpretations of Loren Pechtel's post, and I errantly assumed only one. I maintain, however, that his post does not support a conclusion that he believes "helping people is worse than not helping". That requires assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody in this thread has made this claim.

So, donations to charities, bad or good? Making certain grandma doesn't freeze or boil to death, bad or good?

Actually, mostly bad.

Because you don't understand the point.

The problem is there is a considerable disconnect between "charitable contributions" and "helping people". I'm not saying that helping people is bad, I'm saying that most charities are a pretty poor way of accomplishing this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But Item A2 causes us concern and worry. Actions Intended to Help Which Actually Harm is something that makes most normal humans stop and evaluate the situation. "What went wrong?" is probably the first thing that comes to mind. A significant element of childhood is learning from one's mistakes, learning from accidents, so that that they aren't repeated. And the emphasis of that lesson is on being able to foresee and expect those negative outcomes.

So then, Item A2 actually has two subdivisions to it:
Actions Intended to Help Which Actually Harm
... Which we believe could have reasonably been foreseen as harmful
... Which we believe could not have reasonably been foreseen as harmful

If the outcome could not have reasonably been foreseen as harmful, then it is an accident. We're expected to learn from it and carry on. But if it is reasonable that the harmful outcome could have been foreseen, it is either ignored or dismissed, then that's an entirely different situation. At this point it is effectively negligence and recklessness.

And this is where the article's terminology comes in to play. We could certainly quibble about whether the technical term "pathological" is appropriate to use. It may not be. But I think that the sentiment being expressed is valid: That there exist some people, especially in the realm of politics, for whom the desire to take an Action Intended to Help is so strong that the desire overrides concerns and risks associated with the action that would make it reasonably foresseable as a harmful action.

Their DESIRE to take action in a helpful way, their desire to help, is so strong that it subsumes all objections and causes them to dismiss reasonable concerns of harm.

Thus they may still be acting from a motivation of altruism - they truly desire to help. But they would effectively be allowing that desire to lead them into negligence and recklessness.

I think pathological is a reasonable term here. All too many altruistic acts fall into the A2a category. It's far more about feeling good about providing help than the results.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your surmise is not supported by logic. All one could reasonably surmise from LP's quote is that he thinks efficient ways of providing help are preferred over inefficient ways of providing help. That does not mean that he supports or believes helping is a good idea or not. Perhaps he thinks helping people is opening a Pandora's box but if one is going to do so, one should do it "efficiently".

Of course, LP's conclusions is based on the questionable generalization that a high percentage of charity money goes to funding the charity rather than doing good works.

You are correct, in that there are other reasonable interpretations of Loren Pechtel's post, and I errantly assumed only one. I maintain, however, that his post does not support a conclusion that he believes "helping people is worse than not helping". That requires assuming facts not in evidence.

I did not attempt to address whether helping was good or bad--it's pretty obvious that it's good. I was questioning the means by which the help was provided, a means with a historically quite poor track record.