I downvoted it because not only is the content stupid, everyone here should already know it’s stupid. If the comments tell me anyone would take this argument seriously, I’ll change my vote.
I take this argument seriously—in fact, I’ve been discussing it in my own journal and that of some friends recently. I’ve yet to hear a good counterargument, so I look forward to hearing yours.
I take this argument seriously. I first saw it a year ago, and it caused me to change my behavior.
ETA: I don’t take the economics of it seriously. I take seriously the argument that it if is wrong to let someone die whom I could save (and my morality says this), then I ought to give a lot of money to efficient charity.
I downvoted it because not only is the content stupid, everyone here should already know it’s stupid. If the comments tell me anyone would take this argument seriously, I’ll change my vote.
I take the argument seriously. Please explain why you think the content is stupid.
I take this argument seriously—in fact, I’ve been discussing it in my own journal and that of some friends recently. I’ve yet to hear a good counterargument, so I look forward to hearing yours.
I take this argument seriously. I first saw it a year ago, and it caused me to change my behavior.
ETA: I don’t take the economics of it seriously. I take seriously the argument that it if is wrong to let someone die whom I could save (and my morality says this), then I ought to give a lot of money to efficient charity.