Not sure what you mean. What would the No True Scotsman argument be in this case? It would need to make the same generalization while excluding the ones I mentioned, I dont see how that would work.

I send money to their funds directly, they distribute it according to their ranking. I got 2 reminder mails (last year and this year) and 1 mail with the donation receipt earlier this year.

Lots of charities focus on solving basic problems in developing countries, like building infrastructure or fighting corruption. They dont necessarily cause a dependency. Not saying you are wrong though, it is a complicated matter.

I thought the same until last year. Give https://givewell.org a look, they rank charities by efficiency and provide lots of insight.

Not all charities are like that, there are many that operate very transparently and actually make a difference. Just because some people take advantage of the system behind it does not make donating less impactful if you do a bit of research.

I started donating last year, 2 years into my first job. I was unsure then because my impression of charities was that the money probably doesnt go where they are saying, or just a small portion does.

Then I stumbled upon the GiveWell( https://givewell.org ) foundation. Their goal is to identify the most efficient charities using a range of criteria. I decided to start with 100€/month distributed 50/50 to fighting poverty and climate change respectively. I also decided that for every raise I get at my job Id raise the amount by 100€ and have done so once by now. I read that its easier to part with future money than with what you already own and it makes a lot of sense.

What are you even talking about?

Yea. Really sad to see the price theyre paying for making the right decision once is 20% of their stock price...

Stop spamming please?

Drum'n'Bass

In your ecample, doing something that aligns with your values still gives you something in return, for example a sense of accomplishment or pride. That was the point

You do realise none of the examples you brought up are actual communism. Theyre all bad attempts that were taken advantage of.

Thats like saying religion in general is bad because christianity ruined it

That was the point and I think you know it.

Play this argument in your head: 'You need calories to survive' - 'You can get calories from concrete and sand'

In that situation, would you seriously argue that those actually contain nutrients at 0.0001 kcal per 100g? This was not very far from that.

Pretty sure everyone else understood the meaning behind the sentence 'you can get protein from lettuce and apples'. You need a certain amount of daily protein intake for a healthy diet and the comment implied you can get those from lettuce and apples. It is technically kinda true if you take it literally, but eating 5kg of lettuce is not practical.

Thats why I never leave out the /s

When SD card is the only criteria for a 'high end' phone

SpongeBob, obviously

I dont think they generally deny what you are saying

Free speech doesnt mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. People have the right not to be insulted, you cant violate that with your free speech. Pretty sure insulting anyone is illegal (at least here in Germany it is, I would be surprised if it isnt in the US), it usually cant be enforced immediately though.

10% reduction in emissions? So climate friendly! That makes it only 9 times as harmful for climate as the vegan alternative.