You obviously don't understand the phrase "ethical obligation."

You quoted the entire phrase yet seem to have missed the important qualifier without materially affecting in the cases you cite donations would materially affect the life.

And no where does he say you must, or even have an ethical obligation, to give all.

There is no must about it.

Go read Singer, rather than summaries of his positions, before continuing to harangue me with your ignorance here. Or use the email link I've provided to continue this off Slashdot's line.

You don't know me well enough to make that statement.

I've been self supporting for over 30 years. My family didn't provide anything - not even introductions.

You seem to be missing the underlying point of "for those that can." No where in my or Singer's statements do we advocate that someone go hungry in order to provide cash to assist another.

The lowest bracket in the poll is $1 to $50. 33% are still responding Zilch. The time value of $1 for someone on minimum wage is about 12 minutes net, just over 8 minutes gross.[1] I don't think anyone working for minimum wage has anything to spare. Maybe at twice that income level - which would put a $1 donation at 4 to 6 minutes of worktime to earn. That's just a maybe though. I expect it takes a higher earning rate than that for a US person to have monies that they could give away inconsequentially.

"money is meaningless" does not equal "a few dollars are [as] inconsequential". A donation that's equal to approximately 5 minutes of employment time to earn qualifies as inconsequential.

[1] at minimum wage it takes 8 1/4 minutes to earn a dollar. To cover the time to earn a dollar after taxes the the expenses of being an employee my calculation assumes the wage earner needs 12 minutes of job time to have a dollar in pocket.

I find my time to be very valuable.

A few dollars are as inconsequential as a few moments.

If you would ignore a child wandering into a street with traffic - and not pull her to safely ...

If you would not help someone drowning by throwing a lifeline ...

If you would not help an elderly person across the street, through a difficult to open door or up a flight of stairs ...

Then no, you have no ethical obligation to assist those in need with that oh so fluid resource called money. You have no ethical impulse or basis to act from.

If however you would help people in the described situations there is a responsibility to consider the plight of the unfortunate and act in accordance with your ethical beliefs.

I don't think you should skip paying the bills or rent to donate. Singer does not advocate doing so.

Sad to see the stress from your situation is coloring your views enough to label me an arrogant prick.

Singer's stance, which I wholly support, is those who can give without materially affecting their lives have an ethical obligation to do so. That doesn't seem to be the case for you.

In the over 6,400 people who have indicated Zilch so far I'm strongly suspect there are hundreds (thousands?) who have the means but lack the ethical framework to save lives and relieve misery through charitable contributions.

Really, my comment was aimed at the majority. Not people like you.

They also seem to lack the self interest to support organizations like the EFF and ACLU, but that's a different topic.

aw c'mon I was happily enjoying some food until you posted that.

sharepoint - to file sharing as Excel is to databases

washboard road. That's where these shocks could generate some serious juice.

Or for fun test these shocks on the corduroy roads this country had as an early form of paving.