Hacker News Reader

Comment by jnsie | Hacker News Reader

I know this will sounds like a random interneter virtue signaling or karma whoring...but I'm pulling for them buddy, truly!

View on HN

Thanks!

I think their concern is whether the public healthcare system will actually cover the cost. I think they should and will. Certainly cheaper than all the other treatments over the course of their lifetime.

I think it’s possible folks may protest against it for cost reasons but also for the eugenics-slippery-slope argument. I hope that doesn’t happen.

... Who hurt you?

You can say express your empathy and care without it being compromised.

"virtue signaling" is typically used as a pejorative by people who are unable to experience empathy for others, or at least others who aren't like them. They assume, by projection, that it's disingenuous.

(not a commentary on your parent comment)

Virtue signaling is a common thing and also used as a pejorative.

What I find interesting is there is some cultural tension around how much to discourage such public displays. Donations can do good even if the gift giver is simply trying to improve their image. Ex: "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.“ Notice how there’s zero implication that the behavior is negative and even an acknowledgment that doing so brings rewards, just the suggestion that it’s just not pious.

I think you're misunderstanding the verse you're quoting. The part you quoted basically says they already got their crappy reward and that's all they'll get. They won't be getting the good stuff. Don't be fake, do what's right even when nobody is looking.

Your description fits my understanding, though I would say social rather than crappy. My point was the implication is you can’t double dip, not that such practices are evil.

In the context of the verse, you're comparing the concept of heavenly rewards with shallow appreciation. I think crappy is appropriate. The verse wasn't teaching that you get an reward either way, but instead that you get a real reward or a worthless 'reward'.

Not teaching you that you get a reward either way, but it does acknowledge the existence of a reward and it also suggests no penalty. Therefore, if someone was happy to spend money for the social rewards then doing so isn’t discouraged.

You're very off base on your interpretation here-- seeming to try and squeeze the wrong meaning out of a straightforward warning. But it's your right to be wrong, so I'll leave you to it :)

The simplest interpretation isn’t false because a passage includes a deeper meaning.

There’s many things you can take from the crucifixion, but part of the message is being crucified is fatal. And you’re like obviously, but being obvious doesn’t mean something is false.

>used [...] by people who are unable to experience empathy for others

The irony of this statement seems to be lost on you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com