This is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.

If that helps you sleep at night.

Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection.

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.

So your argument is that anyone who has a reaction that differs from yours is just a defective human?

Persuasive.

No, my argument is that statements like this -

"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."

Are both massively ignorant and quite sickening, and that if you aren't reacting at least a little bit to that sort of statement too, you may have a serious lack of empathy.

Anyway, good luck in life, I have no interest in carrying on a conversation on this matter any further. If you're not seeing it you're not seeing it, I just hope you never get anywhere you can make policy.

Your comment is pure emotion. There's no argument or information presentation whatsoever.

A word, you are a good man. The people you are arguing with are broken.

Can you address my arguments? My post is based on the ethical principles of dignity and self-determination.

Your post is bullshit.

"If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."

Just wow. Ignorant and awful.

Sounds like you’re just having an emotional reaction instead of engaging his point in good faith. If you’re so empathetic, maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.

There's not really a point there, just ignorance on display. People throughout history have starved in gutters for want of money for food, yet here he is espousing the idea that if you just want it hard enough, you'll find the money to eat, regardless of price gouging, shortage or whatever else. This is just factually wrong.

And if you end up going without, that's your issue. Not only that, but that's the best and fairest system, the way it should be! This is a pure expression of "Fuck everyone else, I got mine"

> maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.

Yes, totally, because saying their posts are ignorant and cruel is totally the same as treating them like something other than human.

My intent, like the sister post claims, is to help the folks who are in the most dire straits, with the least access to food or money.

If we arrange the rules of human behavior, such that there is an incentive to create a surplus of food and money, then the poor will be much better off.

Those who have tried to simply make a law that says "no one is allowed to die of huger" have created monstrous regimes which led to the starvation of millions.

There actually was a point. His point is that, while it might seem counterintuitive, allowing suppliers to price with demand may improve the situation for the majority of people, even if that permits a minority of individuals to fall by the wayside. He’s making a plea to look at this from a systemic angle. You totally missed that because you jumped to demonizing him for even suggesting the idea.

If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection. You’re obviously putting words into his mouth. That seems cruel to me and counterproductive.

You should be more empathetic when you discuss with people on the internet, assume good faith.

I have assumed good faith, I have not once assumed them of being dishonest or disingenuous. I believe that they believe what they are writing. Neither am I demonising someone for suggesting the idea that demand pricing may improve supply. I'm pointing out that their statements are inaccurate and their attitude cruel. If I'm demonising them it's for their attitude to other humans.

> If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection.

  "If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it."
  "The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash."
  "Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals"

You can take it I disagree with your assessment.

Good faith is just as much about assuming good intent as it is about assuming genuineness. All of those statements are a far cry from “fuck everyone else.” The underlying intent could just as easily be “this can help more people.” It’s an unfair exaggeration that only serves to justify your indignation.

The underlying intent may well be that, but it is couched in both ignorance and callous disregard for others.

At this point we're just going round in circles.

> The underlying intent may well be that, but it is couched in both ignorance and callous disregard for others.

Nope, that’s just your projection. You’re callously disregarding him.