I guess there’ll be a fair bit of traffic coming from people looking it up?
Well xkcd just reminded me that I have an account here, so there’s that. Not that I want to waste time on this crackpot deposit of revisionist history, stolen ideas, poor reasoning and general crank idiocy.
edit: and again I disappear into the night
I didn’t answer your question because it was loaded and ridiculous. Quit feigning ignorance to bait for attention, you sad little boy
I suspect if you took a look at your life, there are a lot of things you don’t understand.
Having something done to yourself VS doing something to other people, there’s really no comparison here. The science is sound.
Not that people with grade school equivalent knowledge of politics are worth arguing with (I mean you by the way). Dunning-Kruger alarm bells ringing. Don’t worry, you’ll get laid one day
I don’t think very many people who are “pro-choice” are actually pro-abortion. The crux of the issue is that people will be getting abortions whether they are legal or not, so there should be a safe option for those people (as opposed to backroom doctor, coat hanger, etc) which requires it to be legal and regulated
I should know better than to explain anything to homeschooled randroids
Most of the freedom and prosperity in the world is due to the military dominance of the entire Anglosphere.
Mind explaining your reasoning? Or is it just jingoism?
edit: option 2 it is, then
I would probably be able to get the same amount of work done in a 30 or even 20 hour week, given the amount of time wasted on meetings/email/waiting for data in an average office. Boss wouldn’t want to pay me the same for a 20hr work week though.
The entire community is extremely insular and is weighed down with it’s own established ideas. Most of the writers speak with total conviction, absolutely convinced of their own conclusions, despite the entire point of the endeavor being the pursuit of ever increasing amounts of correctness, thus making them ‘less wrong’.
It consists mostly of extremely narrow demographics, cutting it’s objectivity off at the knees by creating a culture that is perfect for serving as echo chambers despite their criticism of one another. It has also engaged in censorship of ideas, something that CANNOT be allowed in a group that is trying to further rational thought.
Aside from that there is also the personality cult surrounding Eliezer Yudkowsky. Objectivity is impossible if people weight the merit of your arguments by your popularity, which is inevitable in such a situation.
Vitamin D, since sunshine is in short supply all winter where I live
That’s completely unrelated to my point? How is a habit the same thing as a tool at all? Besides, that’s not even remotely a widely-held definition for religion. I never really understood why anybody upvotes your posts, every single one of them is nonsensical to the point of idiocy.
An order of magnitude is a power of ten.
I’m not sure if you are trying to be sardonic, but I wanted to know where you get the idea that some charities are actually orders of magnitude more effective. It sounds completely fabricated to enforce your point.
I didn’t say that, top level commenter did. I wish their evaluations of all charities were at least as detailed as that.
This sounds familiar. Are you aware of other similar concepts previously communicated elsewhere? I feel certain I’ve read something along these lines before. By all means, claim it’s original though.
Rationalism is a toolset with which to approach problems, not a belief system. If you had a functioning brain, you would know that.
This Thanksgiving I am thankful for the 10 minutes and multitude of brain cells I lost due to this post.
Based on the phrase “change which charities I donate to” I had assumed he or she was already donating to multiple charities, presumably including action in subsaharan africa.
Also can you explain the “magnitude” thing? I’m not sure I follow your definition of “effectiveness”.
They don’t publish very long write-ups, it’s more like a checklist of their particular criteria.
You might be (probably are not) right, but it is definitely something that requires research instead of just taking their word for it.
Amnesty, UNICEF, Bill and Linda Gates Foundation, as far as mainstream charities go. I believe they all have specific Canadian divisions if you are worried about tax reasons.
Some others you might check out are Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canada Without Poverty, Equiterre, Canadian Council For International Cooperation, Tides Canada, CoDevelopment. I had a longer list but misplaced it.
I also strongly suggest you research each charity on your own instead of depending on whether or not a ranking website tells you it is good.
Russia hasn’t nearly as negatively impacted as Canada, so far. Look at the Canadian dollar plummeting compared to USD. I always thought Russia was more known for natural gas than oil, granted I haven’t researched that at all.
Seriously, compare Russia to where they were 10 years ago, then do the same for Canada. Stuck in Western media talking points & cold war mindset