It seems counterintuitive to think that “buy-one-give-one” companies like Toms actually may not be helping as much as one might think, however that seems to be the problem.
Certain companies, such as Toms, have a system where whenever a good is bought, another one of those goods is given to a child in another country. This is great… In theory. However, it turns out that not only does transporting the items (such as shoes in the case of Toms) destroy the environment, but most of the times those items simply are not needed. The shoe distributors in these other countries generally give the shoes to students of school systems. This sounds great until you realize that these children already have shoes (as if they did not they would not be able to even enter the school). So on that front no one is helped. On another front, when a large tsunami struck Indonesia, aid from all over the world (food primarily) came in. Yes this sounds very helpful… Until you realize that the people not immediately on the coast (which is where most farms were) were not affected at all. In an attempt to help, we hurt farmers in the mainland who now could not sell their rice and goods because it was given out for free by “helpful” other countries.
Perhaps we would be more helpful if we asked what was needed before we assume what is needed.
It may seem counterintuitive to tree drug addiction with free drugs, however in some ways it makes sense.
Very close to some of the tourists sports in Vancouver, Canada is a are called the “Downtown Eastside” which has a large drug problem and is actually the drug epicenter of Vancouver. In the city a safe zone called Insite was established. This is a safe place for those who qualify to inject heroine with clean needles, and high quality heroine. This is for those who did not take to alternatives in an attempt to get clean; they are addicts who cannot get clean. The reason for this area is quite genius. If someone NEEDS heroine they will do anything to get money to buy it: prostitution, breaking into cars, or even robbery. So to cut down on crime, why not just provide those who cannot get clean with free drugs. This cuts down on crime, and allows the addict to continue on life without having to worry about where to get their next fix. Indirectly, the city is killing these users, thus indirectly cleaning up their streets.
Perhaps this is a strange way to take care of the problem, but the logic, once you get over the idea of giving addicts free drugs, is quite sound.
It seems counterintuitive for something like a multivitamin to do more harm then good, however that exactly what they might be doing.
In all actuality most people get all of their necessary vitamins from the foods they eat, unless you are a picky eater or anorexic. Well, so what if you keep eating multivitamins? To much of a vitamin cannot hurt right? Wrong actually. To much folic acid, for example, can lead to lesions. The main problem is that the FDA does not regulate the labeling of supplements, so false claims are everywhere. That, and some supplements have more then the needed dose of certain vitamin. Honestly, we should all just forget about vitamins. Link to a pictures of cats
Feedback was requested.
OK, Publicdisplayname, Let’s go!
Let’s examine that first sentence. “It seems counterintuitive to think that “buy-one-give-one” companies like Toms actually may not be helping as much as one might think, however that seems to be the problem.” How many people are required to bring this scene to life?
“It seems counterintuitive [to Person 1, call her publicdisplayname] to think that “buy-one-give-one” companies like Toms actually may not be helping [Person 2 thinks they’re not helping much] as much as one [Person 3 who represents common knowledge] might think, however that seems [to whom? Could this be Person 1 again, or do we need a 4th?] to be the problem.”
It’s not counterintuitive to think that there might be a range of opinion on Toms’s benefits. Maybe you mean: It seems counterintuitive that the “buy-one-give-one” company Toms shoes might be doing more harm than good.
You’ll say, rightly, that my version doesn’t mean the same as your version, but we all know what mine means. Yours gains complexity but loses clarity. Can you be both complex and clear? Maybe:
“It seems counterintuitive, but is probably true, that “buy-one-give-one” companies like Toms help less than they claim and less than their customers believe.”
But that one isn’t as counterintuitive. Companies and customers always overestimate the quality and value of brands they adopt.
Your “in some ways” sounds like a claim, but it falls short. If you can deliver on this promise, tell us the “ways” here. I think your analysis provides one way, not several:
It may seem counterintuitive to treat drug addiction with free drugs; however, it keeps chronic addicts from robbing and prostituting themselves to earn their drugs.
In the quoted Toms sentence, I made bold some vague statements that created harmful ambiguity in your sentence. In your heroin entry, you use far too many vague pronouns, mostly “this.”
This is a safe place for those who qualify to inject heroine with clean needles, and high quality heroine. This is for those who did not take to alternatives in an attempt to get clean; they are addicts who cannot get clean.This cuts down on crime, and allows the addict to continue on life without having to worry about where to get their next fix. Perhapsthis is a strange way to take care of the problem, but the logic, once you get over the idea of giving addicts free drugs, is quite sound.
“Downtown Eastside,” the drug epicenter of Vancouver, is very close to popular tourist spots, and also home to a safe zone for addicts called Insite. Addicts who have proved incapable of kicking their habits any other way can qualify to inject high-quality heroine here with clean needles under medical supervision. The genius of this program is that addicts will do anything to get their fix: prostitution, breaking into cars, or even robbery. Providing them with free drugs eliminates crime, and allows the addicts their best chance at “normalcy.” Indirectly, the city is killing these users, thus indirectly cleaning up their streets. The logic of cleaning up the streets by slowly killing these users (with kindness) is quite sound.
Do you see that pronoun openings (This is, That means, There are) can be eliminated by making better subject and verb choices?
Helpful, publicdisplay? Reply, please.