• howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t see how donating it is any less morally wrong. Between what he did and what you propose, both involve using the money to fix the same problem. The difference is just

    1. whether he provides the services himself or someone else does and
    2. whether we fix it through prevention or treatment after the fact.
    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      How are both using the money to fix the same problem? The $700 was spent on random bills as far as we know. Not to help more kids.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        And what happens when you donate the money? It’s used to pay some other dude’s wages, which then goes towards their bills.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Bills that go towards the goal of keeping someone alive. That someone being either a person who helps victims of conversation therapy through an organization, or a person doing the same thing independently. What makes the former more deserving of compensation for their work than the latter?

            • dev_null@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Both are deserving of compensation. Both shouldn’t get to decide who’s money they take in secret as a means of getting it.