RE: Feed the hungry or feed political ads?
November 13, 2020 at 12:45 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2020 at 12:52 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I don't even know where doritos live !
(in seriousness, this touches on another comment in thread - if we did everything right, we would all still need alot of help just to survive - that's what doing things right is, for us - that's the kind of animal we are. We'd be getting what we needed.)
Oh I do, I do. It's a wildcard - and it keeps me on my toes all day every day in a professional capacity.
It hits those marks for reasons. There's a circumstance or context involved that, if we could shift it to these more productive avenues, would hit those marks for the same reasons. Outreach outreach outreach. I think that's probably the argument for feeding political ads, too.
As to the other thing, discouraging immediate accessible giving is, in a very important sense, discouraging the problem, again. We spend enough, we do enough, we have enough...for everyone to have enough. We're doing the work, we're just not getting the reward.
(in seriousness, this touches on another comment in thread - if we did everything right, we would all still need alot of help just to survive - that's what doing things right is, for us - that's the kind of animal we are. We'd be getting what we needed.)
(November 13, 2020 at 12:45 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I think you need to consider the human element as well.
Oh I do, I do. It's a wildcard - and it keeps me on my toes all day every day in a professional capacity.
Quote:People are more likely to engage in charitable action that is more accessible and for which they can generate a strong emotional reason for doing. Donating a bag of groceries hits both, whereas donating money toward the purchase of a refrigeration unit doesn't. One might decry the irrationality of preferring the first to the last, but that difference has an effect on behavior. So discouraging immediate, accessible giving in favor of more effective but less immediate solutions might in fact worsen the problem of food insecurity, rather than help it.Right, and that's context and framing.
It hits those marks for reasons. There's a circumstance or context involved that, if we could shift it to these more productive avenues, would hit those marks for the same reasons. Outreach outreach outreach. I think that's probably the argument for feeding political ads, too.
As to the other thing, discouraging immediate accessible giving is, in a very important sense, discouraging the problem, again. We spend enough, we do enough, we have enough...for everyone to have enough. We're doing the work, we're just not getting the reward.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
