this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
821 points (98.8% liked)
Greentext
4502 readers
885 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
And what happens when you donate the money? It's used to pay some other dude's wages, which then goes towards their bills.
Bills which go towards some goal if you donate it to a charity.
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?
Both are deserving of compensation. Both shouldn't get to decide who's money they take in secret as a means of getting it.