6 ms·

You can disagree with someone while still treating them the best they can. A Doctor shouldn't leave a patient mid-surgery simply because he found out he's an An

You can disagree with someone while still treating them the best they can. A Doctor shouldn't leave a patient mid-surgery simply because he found out he's an Anti-Vaxxer or votes a certain way. Similarly I have no doubt the Food Banks have people who hold such views. But it doesn't matter if they are still willing to give food even to homeless, possibly even homeless people who are homosexual (statistically homosexual people are more likely to be in poverty or homeless). It's still a net positive action if they are giving food to those they deem as against their beliefs. Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity.

UncleMeat 14d ago
A doctor refusing to heal a bigot is not even remotely the same thing as refusing to work for a megacorp because of their direct involvement in military action that kills children.
- Huarache1 13d ago
  It seems as though you're misconstruing what I said, I'm talking about the Foodbanks, not the Megacorps.
  - UncleMeat 13d ago
    Then I have no idea what you are talking about.
Timon3 13d ago
While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something good or neutral, only to use it in ways that cause comparatively greater harm. > Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity. At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.
- Huarache1 13d ago
  I think Foodbanks giving food to the poor, regardless of who the poor genuinely are (arguably not caring about what they believe or vote for, but still choosing to help them), is still a net positive action. Actions often speak louder than words.
  - Timon3 13d ago
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that giving food to the poor is almost always a good action! My objection is strictly with the "net" part, because IMO calling almost anything on its own a "net positive action" is a category mistake. To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded. This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.

UncleMeat 14d ago

A doctor refusing to heal a bigot is not even remotely the same thing as refusing to work for a megacorp because of their direct involvement in military action that kills children.

Huarache1 13d ago
It seems as though you're misconstruing what I said, I'm talking about the Foodbanks, not the Megacorps.
- UncleMeat 13d ago
  Then I have no idea what you are talking about.

Timon3 13d ago

While the action itself maybe be positive, that does not mean the net sum of their actions is positive. It's entirely possible to earn money doing something good or neutral, only to use it in ways that cause comparatively greater harm. > Praying for your "enemies", both real or imagined, is a tenet for Christianity. At the same time, a lot of Christians find great satisfaction in the idea that their enemies will be damned to an eternity of suffering. Not the majority of Christians, but I'd be very surprised if it's less than 10%.

Huarache1 13d ago
I think Foodbanks giving food to the poor, regardless of who the poor genuinely are (arguably not caring about what they believe or vote for, but still choosing to help them), is still a net positive action. Actions often speak louder than words.
- Timon3 13d ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you that giving food to the poor is almost always a good action! My objection is strictly with the "net" part, because IMO calling almost anything on its own a "net positive action" is a category mistake. To give a fictional yet IMO realistic example, what if the food bank is specifically created by investors to squash locally-owned businesses in very poor neighborhoods, only to then be closed down once everyone has to buy everything externally again? Those food banks would be a net negative action if they succeeded. This is not meant as a critique of real food banks, it's just meant to show that the context must be taken into account to judge the "net effect" of any action.