yogthos

joined 4 years ago
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Your meme specifies: In a truly free market, voluntary charity would help the poor - indeed that’s a fact.

The poor are the product of the free market operating. The free market is what's creating the problem in the first place.

So you’re saying philanthropists cause cancer in children? And that’s why they donate to children’s cancer hospitals…?

Now that's just a straw man you're using to derail the argument.

His arguments countered.

🤣

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (15 children)

quite a word salad you got there bro, keep seething

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Philanthropy doesn't actually do anything to address the issues in tangible terms. Not only that, but the problems that it's meant to address are actually caused by the very people using philanthropy as PR for themselves. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2018/12/the-problems-with-philanthropy

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 months ago

imagine lacking the brainpower to understand a 4 panel meme

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

this vapid comment was written without any hint of irony 😂

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago (9 children)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So, doesn't actually change the stats above since they were reported in the end. Meanwhile, US team be like

Also

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) responds to a Reuters story of 7 August 2024 exposing a scheme whereby the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) allowed athletes who had doped, to compete for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules.

This USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect. By operating it, USADA was in clear breach of the rules. Contrary to the claims made by USADA, WADA did not sign off on this practice of permitting drug cheats to compete for years on the promise that they would try to obtain incriminating evidence against others.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-statement-reuters-story-exposing-usada-scheme-contravention-world-anti-doping-code

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (17 children)

There's just one problem with your dumb fuck logic there which that GDP growth restarted despite the sanctions in 2020. In a few years Venezuela will be completely independent of the US dollar and with a complete industry of its own. chart showing the collapse of GDP after sanctions, and the economy stabilizing after 2020

Can't wait to see what next imbecilic argument you're going to attempt.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago

They just test Chinese athletes disproportionately.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

What I'm saying is that regardless how you frame this, what it comes down in tangible terms is trickle down. The argument is that it's fine for the wealth to become concentrated with a small minority of the population because they will share it voluntarily. This is demonstrably not the case in practice.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What I wrote directly relates to the points presented, but if you don't understand how that's fine. It appears you are not the one to have that discussion with.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The free rider problem is most definitely not made up.

It is because real world societies have simple and well known mechanisms to deal with it.

Every tribal society on earth exists within a State. As I wrote before, there have always been States after the birth of nations.

It very much does not.

There isn’t currently a voluntary market society, since all societies also exist within States, States that are run by governments.

Wait till you find out how and why states form.

The two original arguments exist within a theoretical vacuum which is my point. Unless you have some kind of a priori argument that solves either one, you haven’t provided actual “proof” of anything.

Actually, it's your arguments that exist in a theoretical vacuum utterly divorced from the real world.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
view more: ‹ prev next ›