I didn’t really react too differently to the author’s texts. One can still be a both helpful and happy member of society. I respect the fact that it’s saying all these people should make these changes and if these changes are met then the world will be a better place, but I am confused on why they are targeting the common man. A majority of wealth in the nation is focused on a top few percentage of individuals, and if each of those people were to attribute a percentage of their income to any of these causes, then it could immediately give immense help to any of the organizations EA is associated with. I feel like they’re targeting the wrong people by pressuring the common man to throw away simple pleasures, or even a life’s work, to help others when asking the same of the rich would make much more sense. Obviously the rich would more than likely not want to give up their funds but that shouldn’t mean that the poorer people who lose more from donating should have to pay up. Again, when I’m in the position to I will donate to charities and try to do my part to be a helpful member in the world community, but I still think EA should shift their focus to pressuring the wealthier members of society to contribute rather than just the common man.
I think your argument got WAYYY more specific and powerful between your two blog posts. Nice work! Continue to hone and consider translating these ideas so they fit inside the prompt for your first paper.