blog banner
Status quo bias, charity, and the trolley problem

Status quo bias, charity, and the trolley problem

The excuses for supporting the Salvation Army,
rather than one of the many non-discriminatory charities out there, are becoming progressively
more flimsy. But even after I’ve addressed a number of objections to a boycott of the
Salvation Army, there are still a few arguments that are *very* persistent. And while some
of them may not actually need to be refuted, I do hope to at least disfigure them beyond
recognition. Some people have cited the Salvation Army’s near-ubiquity in providing social services,
the relative accessibility of donating to them, and really just the sheer scale of their
operation. But none of these constitute a reason why the Salvation Army should be considered
more preferable than other charities. Even if the Salvation Army is responsible for the
largest portion of charitable activities, it doesn’t mean you get more bang for the
buck, so to speak, from giving to them. Your money isn’t necessarily doing more good for
the dollar when it goes to the Salvation Army instead of another charity. Besides, it’s
not like charities are competing in some kind of first-past-the-post election, where whichever
one provides a plurality of all charity services should receive *all* of the funding that would
have gone to other charities. They may be the largest, but that doesn’t mean we have
to support them, and it doesn’t mean the rest should be ignored. They’re only the largest
because we support them, and if we stop supporting them, eventually they may not be the largest
anymore. And even if a certain charity places people practically everywhere to collect donations,
that’s still not a very good reason to give to them instead of another group. Really,
would you give your money to just any people who go to the trouble of putting a collection
plate in front of you? Convenience alone is hardly the most relevant factor in choosing
which charity you should support. And the entire purpose of drawing attention to the
Salvation Army’s anti-gay beliefs is to reach people who want to make an informed decision
about where their money is going and what it’s being used for. Others claimed that the
Salvation Army wouldn’t be prepared for a significant drop in donations, and that a
major reallocation of funding from the Salvation Army to other charities would incur a great
deal of administrative overhead that would ultimately take away from the actual charity
services that they provide. But it seems obvious that an organization the size of the Salvation
Army already has to be prepared to absorb shortfalls in funding that can result from
a declining economy or just periodic fluctuations. This is the kind of thing they’d have to deal
with regardless of whether we boycott them. Likewise, it’s not as though other charities
would be completely unprepared for more donations than usual. If anything, they would almost
certainly welcome this. They’re not going to be totally clueless about what to do with
it all. Do you think they’ll have no choice but to spend it on Ferraris for everyone?
Perhaps the most enduring argument against a boycott is the claim that poor and homeless
people would freeze to death or suffer some similar fate, and that we’re responsible for
this if we choose not to give to the Salvation Army. People really love to tell me this,
over and over. It’s easier to understand this argument if we split it up into two separate
parts. First, there’s the attempt to persuade us with a vivid example of people dying in
the streets for lack of food and shelter if we don’t support the Salvation Army. The second
part, which is usually left unsaid, is the implication that we should consider this a
compelling reason to keep giving to the Salvation Army. It’s important to distinguish between
these two points, because I can fully acknowledge that depriving them of our money could actually
mean that more homeless people will die this winter. I just don’t see why I should care.
And I’ll explain why. While the problem of poverty and homelessness is definitely something
that needs to be addressed, this just isn’t a good argument for why we should give to
the Salvation Army and not other charities. It relies on the kind of dramatic emotional
appeal that could be made in favor of practically any cause. If this is supposed to be a valid
reason to support the Salvation Army, someone else could just as easily say, “If you don’t
support *this* charity, children in Africa are going to starve to death, slowly.” Would
we then be compelled to give to that charity instead? The argument being made here is identical.
Of course, someone else could then respond with another striking example of families
going hungry if we don’t give to the Salvation Army, and then we’d once again have to donate
to them. So, would this ever-escalating exchange of emotional appeals force us to keep bouncing
back and forth between giving to one charity, or another, or another? That seems kind of
absurd, and it’s easy to realize that this isn’t a sound basis for deciding which charities
we should support. And once we understand that this isn’t so persuasive after all, it’s
plain to see why this argument doesn’t work for the Salvation Army either. So when someone
tells me, “Homeless people are going to freeze to death and it’s your fault!”, I can feel
completely confident in saying, “So?” I have nothing against the homeless, of course –
just like I don’t have anything against the myriad other causes that I haven’t donated
to. But in this case, the Salvation Army simply isn’t special. What’s interesting is that
even once I’ve pointed this out, people are still reluctant to choose not to give to the
Salvation Army. Even when they’ve been doing essentially the same thing all along by choosing
not to give to other charities, they still insist that we should support the Salvation
Army only. Somehow, supporting the Salvation Army at the expense of other charities is
good, but supporting other charities at the expense of the Salvation Army is bad. But
there’s really no reason why the Salvation Army should be considered exceptional here,
any more so than any other charities. Many of them do just as much good, usually with
equal or greater efficiency. It seems that for some people, their perspective here isn’t
derived from the actual outcome of giving to one charity and not another – which is
roughly equivalent – but rather based on another factor entirely. I suspect that there may
be some, to use the technical term, “weird stuff” going on in their heads. Obviously,
feeding a starving child in India is in no way inferior or less valid than feeding a
starving child in America. People are people, and people are equal. There’s no particular
reason to prefer giving to the Salvation Army versus another charity, so there’s nothing
wrong with choosing a group that doesn’t endorse openly homophobic religious views. So why
do people still insist on supporting the Salvation Army, even to the point of claiming that anyone
who gives to another charity is basically killing the homeless? I’m inclined to think
that they consider donating to the Salvation Army to be a sort of default state, almost
like something that’s been chosen for them ahead of time, and they don’t seem to act
like they have as much responsibility for that. But once we make the decision to give
to another charity instead, it’s like we might as well have unleashed a pack of rabid wolves
on families in poverty. What’s up with that? It seems like there’s something about actually
thinking about this, and then making an intentional choice, that makes people more uncomfortable
with the results of this, and causes them to feel more personally and directly responsible
for the ultimate outcome. Even if that outcome is effectively identical. This is actually
a well-studied phenomenon in the field of ethics. There’s a certain thought experiment
known as the trolley problem which helps illuminate the differing attitudes toward making choices
like this. For example, just hypothetically, would you prefer for one person to die, or
five people to die? Most people would say that one person dying is preferable. Now suppose
that a train is speeding out of control, and there are five people on the track directly
ahead of it who can’t get out of the way. However, there’s another track with only one
person who can’t get out of the way. You have the opportunity to pull a switch that will
divert the train onto the other track, killing one person but saving the other five. Should
you pull the switch? In this situation, not as many people are willing to choose for one
person to die rather than five, when they’re the one who’s actually pulling the switch.
For another scenario, suppose you’re standing on a bridge above an oncoming train that’s
about to run into five people. There’s also a very large man next to you, large enough
that if you push him off the bridge, his body will stop the train and save the other five
people. Should you push him off the bridge? In this case, even more people refuse to do
it, regardless of the fact that it would have the same result: one person dies instead of
five. Overall, the trolley problem isn’t really about figuring out what the right choice is,
so much as it’s meant to demonstrate the interesting variations in people’s decisions under different
circumstances. It seems that people aren’t as concerned about the actual results of their
actions as they are with their perceived degree of personal involvement: from making an abstract
choice, to pulling an actual switch to kill a person, to actively pushing someone in front
of a train. Even when the outcome of taking action would be objectively better, many people
still don’t want to have anything to do with this. And something similar seems to be going
on here. For some people, continuing to give to the Salvation Army like they always have
is viewed as the equivalent of just not touching the switch. They see it as something that
was already going to happen, and they don’t want to make an active choice to change this.
But when we do consciously decide not to donate to the Salvation Army, they see us as becoming
more personally involved, like throwing someone in front of an oncoming train. And that’s
when they tell us that we’re effectively leaving homeless people out in the cold because we
chose another charity instead. All of a sudden, we somehow become morally culpable in a way
that they seem to think they aren’t. What they’ve failed to realize is that they’re
already just as involved as we are. They flipped that switch when they decided to let children
around the world die for lack of food or clean water or medical care, so they could give
to the Salvation Army instead. Yet this doesn’t seem to bother them. So how can they expect
us to be persuaded by the same argument that they themselves don’t find convincing? They’ve
made practically the same choice already. Why is it okay for them, but not for us? Again,
the Salvation Army is not special. There’s no reason to think that they’re the best charity
out there or the only good option, and as I’ve explained, there are actually plenty
of reasons not to give to them. And we don’t have to feel bad about supporting other charities
instead. Someone’s probably going to die no matter what. But someone is going to be cared
for, too. So don’t be afraid. Pull the switch.

  • I am on the poor end myself but I think because of what the Salvation Army is doing, I have given more to other charity coffers in total just because of that. My conscious just wouldn't let me give to a charity that would purposely exclude a percentage of the needy so that they could be tormented by watching others being helped yet they had to stand out in the cold and suffer.

    I couldn't live in the utopian city that existed due to the torment of one person.

  • ZJ, I see it over and over again; you're wasting your time on obtuse people who will always have another 'But…' no matter how much you respond to them. You ought to consider spending less time focusing on dissent by people who will never agree with you, and more time encouraging those who DO agree with you, and further inspiring them. You're setting yourself back, IMO, responding to obstinate people.

  • @yakult244 Some variants of the exercise (my source is a lecture by Dan Dennett here) say the guy is a very large person, and/or is wearing a heavy backpack…it's assumed that the guy /would/ stop the train for the sake of the exercise. Try not to think too much into it πŸ˜‰ Save that brain for important stuff! n.n

  • @PixelSlayer247 The thing is, how do we seperate the unsalvagable obstinate people, from the obstinate ones who might actually change? Plenty of times I've been convinced someone would not change, only for another to approach them, in a different way and actually change their mind.

  • Another good video ZJ. I don't know if you read all these comments, but I always enjoy it when one of your vids is sitting in my subscription box.

  • I have stopped giving to the SA after watching your vids and looking into the matter a bit myself. I have felt twinges of guilt as some people suggested I am forgetting the actual people they help. I'm not. For once in my life I'm clear on what I'm doing and why. I have found other places (a local soup kitchen in particular) which are very glad to get the help. Thanks for educating us.

  • @yakult244 : In this train story, the guy (you push) does not stop the train because of the size of his body, but because the train driver sees him and brakes, too late to save the guy, but soon enough to save the other five people.

  • Attempts to repeal a ban on openly gay men and women serving in the US military received a serious setback on Thursday when a key vote failed.

    The senate voted 57-40 to block debate, thus preventing a vote on the issue itself. Democrats needed 60 votes to overcome Republican delaying tactics.

  • That was an amazing argument. I'd never heard of the trolley problem but I can see now how my decisions affect the world. I was raised to give generously to the Sallies because they took very good care of relatives that had gone to war (WWII Vietnam). But I have too many good friends in the Gay community to be a part of the Sallies discrimination. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

  • @JaydeeVonJ Yeah, a typical teen troll. Fake picture on profile, no user generated content. Still I prefer scum like him on YouTube than standing outside shops on street corners abusing people. YouTube is a fairly harmless outlet for their need to be noticed.

  • @Intiom I guess it's just that i'd rather see ZJ focus on rallying the troops than responding to trolls. It's more inspiring and a better use of the talent on this channel. It's like listening to Pat Condell or Thunderfoot reply to YT trolls…the vids just aren't as good and you have to hear the stupid things that get said. It's a little disheartening and there's no end in sight. If I ever start making videos I probably won't reply to criticism, I wouldn't have time for much else if I did!

  • @DeathofSpeech I don't really understand where you're trying to go with this. I did not state nor imply that the problem is ZJ's message. His videos are perfectly fine and I support what he does, if that was not obvious from my original comment.

  • I found it interesting the Salvation Army doesn't think their Anti Gay stance is causing homless people to go hungry and or die. If they really believed the BS coming out of their mouths, then THEY are the ones that really don't care. If they did care, I don't see it would be too hard to change their anti gay stance.

  • Ease of access and size WOULD easily factor in to whether or not "The Salvation Army" is preferred or not. Where is your logic?

  • @ergopenin I never was a Christian, nor did any priest wrong me in any way personally. Also I'm not a faggot (or were you signing the remark as "faggot" yourself?). So I missed 1 point and you missed 3. I'm glad to see that you're spreading peace as a subscriber to the "religion of peace".

    Oooh I bet you really want to call me names now don't you, you sweet friendly Muslim!

  • why do I have to push the fat guy? for one if he's big enough to stop a train I doubt I could push him off a bridge, why doesn't the selfish bastard jump and save everyone?
    there are plenty of local charities that do more help for your local community than large organizations like the Salvation Army.I prefer to give to a local homeless veteran charity because it is run by the VFW and local veterans many who live in and help run the veteran shelters. I know where the money is going.

  • "salvation" sounds ambiguous. Because youre donating to evangalize the poor people to Jesus "the jew" christ. Better give to secular ngo's, I think.

  • Here is another, slightly less on topic but still valid, reason to dislike the Salvation army. If the donated items they receive do not agree with their Christian beliefs they will dispose of them and not donate them to other charities. Harry Potter and Twilight are banned, but toy m-16's are just fine. I haven't included a link, the articles are easy to find with an online search. Help people or don't. Don't discriminate.

  • Sorry ZJ, I loved you in the past, now you bore me, I grew up in the Salvation Army, and they helped me and other too. And I became christian soldier myself and help others. Wake up and stop bringing down the Salvation Army.

  • @bluecollarcanuck
    I've spent time volunteering there. The standards they had were just fine. Any donation place has to go through very strict standards of what can be used and what cannot. Most of the stuff that gets thrown out is probably totally fine, BUT if something is just barely off, for safety purposes, you have to throw it out.

  • @thisismymoniker "Those are conservative religious views, hardly uncommon throughout the world."

    Great, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to materially support them in any way. "A lot of people believe this crap" does not lead to "it's somehow acceptable now, so give them your money". It can still just be crap, you know.

  • @thisismymoniker Being a charity isn't about merely breaking even on the good you do versus the harm you inflict. That's ridiculous. There's no excuse for a charity inflicting any degree of harm. Their own motto is "doing the most good", not "doing enough good to compensate for the harm we do". Do you really think that's a valid or meaningful standard to judge a charity by?

  • @thisismymoniker Haha, seriously? A given demographic of people is not the equivalent of a charity and is not comparable. I'm surprised you would even attempt such a parallel. The "gay community" is NOT a charity, and is most certainly NOT operating as an organization with the stated goal of providing charitable services. But organizations which DO take on such a mission are held to quite a different standard, and rightly so.

  • @thisismymoniker The only responsibility here is the responsibility of society as a whole to recognize and accept basic rights for all people, without objecting on the basis of facile and irrelevant points like drug use or promiscuity, which are not legitimate. It is not the responsibility of any minority to impress a bigoted majority, because rights are not something that must be earned by anyone. You reveal your underlying prejudices when you make such suggestions.

  • @thisismymoniker "What, to the question whether gay couples should adopt children?"

    Yeah, actually. You don't see anyone outside of the KKK arguing that black people shouldn't have children for that reason. Adoption is judged on a case by case basis, not on the assumption that all members of a demographic must be categorically excluded.

    And while groups like the Salvation Army may have their religious freedom, we likewise have the freedom to choose not to give our money to them.

  • @murderface84 Hey, they can be as homophobic as they want – it's their choice. But they also have to take what comes with that: people deciding not to donate to a group that represents such values. They can't have it both ways.

  • @ZJemptv – I would say that they aren't worried about that stance. And I still don't quite understand how you believe a total boycott is the solution? What is your problem with people donating clothes and toys versus money? It is painfully obvious in the video I posted that there are many children being helped by their organizational efforts. I agree donating money is probably not the best solution, but neither is an overall boycott.

  • @murderface84 If you've watched the very video you're commenting on, you would see why "look at all this stuff they do" isn't a compelling argument. You could do the same with any other charity, and then I could tell you that you should support them instead. It's really irrelevant.

  • @murderface84 That's the thing. Someone can go to Charity A and say "hey, look at all those bags!" Then someone could go to Charity B and be like "wow, look at all the bags!" And so on. How is this meant to determine which charity we're supposed to give to?

  • @thisismymoniker No, but their parishes do indeed often participate directly in anti-gay political measures, under the direction of the dioceses. And so do officially Catholic charity and social services organizations, which often explicitly discriminate against gay people to the extent of closing down their charity work rather than treating gay people equally. So, there's really no reason to materially support such churches, or Catholic charities either.

  • @thisismymoniker "Is there a political party which does only good? No."

    But we can pick the one that does the least harm. Just like we can support the charities that aren't homophobic. There's no need for a compromise there – we can have the best of both worlds.

    "The Salvation Army's views aren't its own, they come from traditional exegesis of the bible."

    They are its own. They are the ones who chose to endorse such beliefs, and they are responsible for that.

  • @thisismymoniker
    "But it does prove they are not campaigning against gay people in a completely prejudiced way – rather they fear sex outside marriage as being damaging to society in some way."

    If this were the case, the Salvation Army would be PRO same sex marriage. Since they obviously aren't, we know your argument is false. They discriminate against gay people twice: once to deny them their right to get married, then because they have sex outside of marriage. Just doesn't make sense.

  • @thisismymoniker "But they do so on the basis of biblical exegesis and tradition."

    So? They're still responsible for the beliefs they choose to endorse, just as any of us are. We don't get to defer to "well, it's just tradition!" as some kind of absolution from our involvement in choosing to agree with such beliefs.

    "No reason to dismantle their entire infrastructure in order to try and influence their views."

    But this does give them a very direct and compelling reason to change.

  • @thisismymoniker "because it vindicates – in their minds"

    That's exactly it, actually – they're just wrong. And this doesn't make it acceptable for them to generalize everyone in a given demographic based on post-hoc fitting of statistics as a means to support their preexisting prejudice. It's not our fault they're bigots. It's their responsibility to stop being bigots. This is why everything you cite about STDs is irrelevant here. They're simply wrong to apply their religion to this.

  • @thisismymoniker "it nevertheless pays to have sympathy for traditionalists"

    No, not really. If they're wrong, they're wrong. No point in putting on the kid gloves for that and pretending their wrongness is actually right in some way.

    "Not doing so is tantamount to furthering harm."

    Um, no. Safe sex practices are everyone's responsibility. Marginalizing minorities with widespread prejudice against them IS furthering harm, though. How can you even say equality is FURTHERING HARM?

  • @thisismymoniker "I think it does come to sex ultimately, rather than desire"

    It doesn't matter. There's no valid reason to be against same-sex-oriented individuals having sexual relations just as everyone is permitted to. You yourself admit that this is needless.

    "But it doesο»Ώ prove they are not campaigning against gay people in a completely prejudiced way"

    So what? A bigot who pretends to be nice is still a bigot. This doesn't make them any better. Their fears are NOT justified.

  • @thisismymoniker "I think that is a pretty loaded question. I can neither jointly affirm nor jointly deny the seven constituent assertions."

    Yeah, except you quite easily could. It's not difficult. Do you agree or not?

  • @ZJemptv – So the way I understand that, is because you don't care about bags full of useful items donated by generous people, they mean nothing? Again I would like to state that I am against just handing over money to them, I know how blinded with your own words/and videos you get, and that might have not gotten through.

  • @murderface84 People could do the same with any other charity. Would all their bags persuade you not to support the Salvation Army, then?

  • @thisismymoniker One attitude that can be inferred is that of unquestioning obedience. When a person is willing to adopt literally any belief that someone tells them to, merely because of "dogma", that says a lot about them – even moreso when they're unwilling to apply even the most basic doubt or scrutiny to it.

  • @thisismymoniker If that's the kind of analogy you're going for, you may as well compare heterosexual relationships to "smoking". Why? Lesbian relationships have the lowest rate of disease transmission.

  • @thisismymoniker No, what really concerns me is that people might *downplay* the importance of safe sex practices among other groups – as if to tell them: oh, don't worry, you're not the ones at risk. That's a bad idea all around. What's inconsistent about your position is that you think this is "to skirt reality in pursuit of the ideal of equality". The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, this is completely unrelated – STD rates have no bearing on the correctness of equality.

  • @thisismymoniker The point is that for anyone to use this as any kind of political or moral argument is badly misguided and obviously bigoted. Some demographics having certain health concerns is never an excuse to treat them as less then equal. You enable this kind of prejudice when you pretend there's some valid point buried in there.

  • @thisismymoniker We have cause to be defensive when people misleadingly use this as some kind of argument against equal rights. We have reason to be suspect of it when people start to bring it up in the context of basic equality as if that has any bearing on it. And we have reason to discourage this when people are indeed inclined toward misusing it in such a way – as a rhetorical device, as stigma, to stir up hatred for a minority that, if anything, could use some help here.

  • ZJ, what would you say about your cause to someone who was personally brought up from the streets and made financially whole again from a cold, hungry existence? I speak from personal experience that this is a great way to lose friends.

  • Ah, but convenience is essential. Nobody is going to go through the trouble to find one of these other hard to find charities. Why would someone drive an extra 100 miles, spend gas, time , and effort that would not normally be given? Sorry, but boycotting the Salvation Army isn't going to help the homeless more. Why not try talking to people in the Salvation Army to change their position on homosexuals?? Ever think of engaging in conversation first???

  • @MedievalWerewolf

    This is a problem anyone with opinions or trying to advance this or that social position (or just having the gall to you know actually think) runs into. If my friends disagree with my position on anything they should just boycott me and hope I change. πŸ˜‰

  • Dude, remove yourself from humanity, you're a disgrace, to your family, country, TO LIFE ITSELF, FUCK OFF

    You're a mix of lady gaga and michael jackson, PLEASE DIE

  • Interesting, the trolly problem makes me uncomfortable but it is definitly food for thought.

    The only choice you have is to give, or not to give. Giving is 'good'. Not giving is 'bad'.
    Giving and making sure your money ends up somewhere it can be used the best is better.

    The salvation army does 'good', there is no question about that (right?). but other organisations do the same 'good' aswell. Except they don't have possible homophobic and religious strings attached.


  • The salvation army disappoints me as an organization, most especially their religious zeal.

    This month especially, having attended a funeral service hosted by them, which was very insulting to the family and friends of the deceased; the whole thing has left me with a distaste for them.
    I'm too poor to donate anything beyond used clothes anyways, so I'll just do what I usually do, and give those to 'big brothers', since I like their 'mission statements' better.

  • gahh next lady gaga but you talk alot and sorry lady gaga we tought your a guy your not this lady gaga is a guy haha thumbs up if you agree

  • Thanks for addressing the fact that they are anti gay. I won't be donating to them anymore. I'll just donate to some other local charities that don't discriminate. BTW, I love your channel, very thoughtful and intelligent.

  • I was trying to listen to you while waiting for a message on facebook. I found your monotone turned to "white noise" and didn't notice when it ended. This is to say, stop with the monotone or your message wont be remembered twenty minutes later.

  • yes i agree with TheDano1947 as well when it comes to charities being a scam. We don't have control over how they are spending the money and most people who donate have no idea how all of the money is being used. I'm not sure about all of them, but certainly many. What should we do about this problem? There are so many things that need to be dealt with. Do any of you have a suggestion or plan as to how we should deal with such high levels of corruption that are clearly widespread?

  • When I have interacted with the persons in charge of one of their homeless shelters, I found them to be on a power trip, happy to control the lives of people who could not complain.

  • What if the single person on the rail were Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the five were Bill O'Reilly, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

  • lol im just flipping through your videos and you went very manly to womanly woah such big chance hahaha πŸ˜€

  • About the people who insist on giving to The salvation army and why they do that, there is another aspect to it that you didn't mention. It has been shown in studies that people who have done something for someone else are far more likely to both continue doing things for that person and to justify those actions to themselves.

  • About the people who insist on giving to The salvation army and why they do that, there is another aspect to it that you didn't mention. It has been shown in studies that people who have done something for someone else are far more likely to both continue doing things for that person and to justify those actions to themselves. This, of course, applies to businesses, charities, and other organizations as well.

  • There are plenty of charities that help the homeless other than The Salvation Army. Look for soup kitchens, food drives, and charities in your area. I'd also like to say that if people care about the homeless as much as they profess to, then why do they donate time and money only around the holidays? There are plenty of homeless people facing starvation and inclement weather right NOW in April!

  • the salvation army is not as insane here in denmark but i rarely, if never, donate to anyone anyway. If i am to donate to a charity organization in the future i will of course choose MSF over the salvation army anyday

  • This is an amazingly boring video. I'd like to know who has been telling ZJ that the homeless will starve unless we give to the Salvation Army. Although I personally have no issue with the organization, I usually give to one of the many other local charities that happen to exist here. Anyway, this video just rambles on and on making the same points about 14 times. I think that you could have made all of your points in about 90 seconds.

  • Many of the comments on this message board are scary. Charities are a scam? Really? What about government funded charities that are funded by taxes that are stolen under the threat of fines, harassment, property confiscation, and/or imprisonment? Is that a scam? A food bank scandal in San Diego was quickly rectified when donors stopped funding it. Unfortunately, you can't just stop funding government.

  • @Theflames451 LOL hes a dumb fuck? look in the mirror dipshit oh and you HOPE he goes to hell um hes to gorgeous to to hell he will most definately go to Heaven but neither of them exist sooo oh well πŸ™‚ have a good day SIR.

  • Hehehe, that last part about somebody dying anyway and pulling switches kind of reminded me of Saw. (I am a ZJ fan)

  • People forget so easily how capitalism works. You don't like the group/company/organization you stop giving them your money and give it to one you do like. In my city the largest housing organizations are churches, oddly. Two are very nondiscriminatory or forceful in religious views, TSA has two shelters, and they're run like crap, and have no desire to help them get housing.

  • @star3catcherSEQUEL However, for the sake of respect, when someone is appearing as female they should be referred to as such. πŸ˜‰ It's also a REALLY good habit to get into.

  • The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

  • Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing Girl George. I suggest 3rd-World populations are exploding quite happily even without food or water aid. Starving, homeless, needy children in 1st-World countries are more worthy of food than those in the 3rd World because each of the latter will irresponsibly produce 10 more starving orphans. The 3rd World needs an absence of war and presence of hygene and basic health care. I suggest those are the real factors of improved life expectancy, not food. Often still rubbish Nestle food at that.

  • Whenever I confront the trolley problem, one detail is usually omitted: the identities of the victims. Am I the only person whose answer would change based on who the people were?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *