• bdonvrA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    4 months ago

    These are the possible choices:

    1.) He should’ve said nothing as he wasn’t willing to do the conversion therapy and therefore quite possibly let the kid go to a real conversion therapy “camp” of which usually inflict lasting harm.

    2.) Actually have done the conversion therapy as asked.

    3.) Lie as described in the OP

    You said “good for the kid” indicating that you think that conversion therapy is a bad thing but also somehow came to the conclusion that 3. is the least moral choice? What? Baffling.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      No, the option I’m thinking of is lie to the parents and don’t keep the money. Either donate it to victims of “real” therapy or give it all to the kid at least. As it stands, he scammed the family out of the $700. The good deed of saving the kid doesn’t cancel it out.

      Your option 3 is far better than the others, but it’s not the only option.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Donating stolen money doesn’t make the money not stolen.

        And the guy did spend time with the kid, an hour a week for 10 weeks, plus expenses (Xbox games, snacks, etc). So he was absolutely providing a service for the kid, it just wasn’t the service the parents expected. I don’t see any reason for the guy to not expect some form of compensation for that.

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

          I think taking the money was in a good cause, but keeping it wasn’t. But I agree he deserves some compensation.