821
Anon comes out to his religious parents
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
821 points (98.8% liked)
Greentext
4384 readers
1448 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
What a wholesome story
4-chan greentext almost is ALWAYS trolls and things-that-never-happened.
The story is all kinds of weird shit. I do not want to know what the actual story is anyways.
Of a guy stealing $1000 and not doing the job he we hired for? Good for the kid, but it doesn't change the fact he stole $1000. And put the kid in a morally ambiguous situation of having a $300 that he knows were stolen from his parents.
Edit: I think people are missing my point. There are three options:
I'm advocating for option 3, not as people seem to think, option 1.
Stole $1000 (likely from someone who wouldn't realise it's even gone) to prevent untold trauma. I understand it's a grey situation but knowing how damaging conversion therapy can be to a person, I'd say theft is certainly the lesser of two evils.
It sure is better, but still an unnecessary evil. He should have donated the money to conversion therapy victims or gave it all to the kid.
You are saying as if stealing the money is inseparable from the good deed he did. He could do it without also helping himself to the money.
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.
Parents were upset kid said he was gay.
Parents paid dude to get kid to say he wasn't gay.
Dude convinced kid to say he wasn't gay.
Dude 100% delivered, and is entitled to the negotiated fee.
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.
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.
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.
I think taking the money was in a good cause, but keeping it wasn't. But I agree he deserves some compensation.
There are no government standard conversion therapy treatments.
Staying in the closet is the intended outcome and they received that service.
Ha, well I can't argue with that.
Stealing from bigots isn't the moral evil you seem to think it is.
Oooo. A loophole. I love loopholes.
Can I defraud the Westboro Baptist Church with a clear conscious?
I don't know if you're being serious or sarcastic.
Yes, please do.
Yes.
Any others?
Two wrongs don't make a right is what I'm thinking.
Okay Mr. Moral Arbiter
You do you, some people care about others. Even though sometimes they don't deserve it.
You can't purchase a belief. You can only purchase a claim. They can't buy their kid's sexuality, but you don't have to be straight to claim heterosexuality.
Neither of the two acts is a "wrong" in any legal sense, so any concept of "fraud" is off the table. There is no established set of relevant shared standards or expectations adopted by the affected individuals, so ethicality is also off the table. That just leaves morality to determine right from wrong, and morality is personally subjective: it's only a moral "wrong" if the individual perceives it to be a wrong.
Aside from situations where legally or ethically compelled to speak the truth, I think that deceiving bigots is a moral imperative. They should be lied to everywhere it is legal and ethical to lie to them.
They want to pay me to lie to them? That's a win for everyone involved.
Imo option 3 is basically what he did - keeping $700 means he basically took $35/hour as a babysitting fee. Not sure what’s standard for babysitting rates (child free for life), but I sure as shit wouldn’t take responsibility for a child for that much lol. The amount aside, rather than theft I see the situation as him inflating the value of the service he was providing - still a shitty thing to do in other circumstances, but one we collectively accept as not illegal theft when it’s by brand names and “luxury” stuff.
In other circumstances I’d fully agree with your point that the kid’s in a morally ambiguous situation with money he knows was ~~stolen~~ scammed from his parents, but from both the kids perspectives at the time thinking anon really was gay, he was in a vulnerable position with a very real chance of being cut off by his parents and needing to support himself. That removes any ambiguity imo, even ignoring the fact that his parents are bigots who more than deserved what they got
"Real" conversion therapy likely would have been damaging and more expensive. Also, that cash may have given anon some leverage to do things without his parents knowing, also a good thing in the situation described.
A bit of a scam, sure, but it's not like "real" conversion therapy isn't, while also inflicting trauma on the recipients.
Of course real conversion therapy would be far worse, and of course it shouldn't have happened. Doesn't change the fact the guy helped himself to a $700. If he donated the money to conversion therapy victims, or at least given it all to the kid, it would have been fine.
Let's recontextualize this - my neighbor wants to spend $5k to remove a safety feature from their car, because they saw a dumb tick tock. Let's say it's ABS breaking, they're just absolutely convinced it's bad
Now I hear about this, and I don't want their stupidity to kill their whole family. I offer to do it for $1k, and instead I actually change their brakes.
Is this ethical? In the end, I didn't honor the words of our agreement, because it was very stupid. It would've been unethical, likely illegal, to do what they asked
I did save them money and prevent them from finding someone who would've done what they asked. I also did work on their car, just not what they thought I did. They're happy with the result, and no longer seeking to remove a system they don't understand
It depends on your ethical framework, but it seems like a stretch to call this theft. The guy in the post provided babysitting and mentorship, which is part of the agreed services. They would probably not have paid so much for what they actually got, but a certain amount of markup is needed to sell the ruse
I'd say the intent is important here. If he did it to help the kid, I'd say you are right. If he did it to scam some people out of money for playing Xbox, then it's not an excuse. Since this is a made up story, we can discuss either.
Well taking the greentext at face value (otherwise what are we even discussing), it did help the kid. It prevented traumatic unscientific "treatment", as well as offering a supportive ear - that's helping the kid
Now let's say the intent was to scam - let's say you were scammed into a self help program, and it gives you the confidence to succeed or helps you heal from past trauma... I'd argue that you weren't scammed, because it worked (even if the intent was predatory)
Psychics come to mind - if people walk out better than they came in, I don't think you've done anything wrong. If they don't, then you're taking advantage of them - to me, outcomes matter more than intent.
I think of them like unlicensed therapists - even if you get a license, if you're causing more harm than help you're acting unethically, even if you've done the paperwork and have good intentions
Outcomes matter more than intent, they're what we have to live with
Probably almost definitely overall a wholesome story.
I think the kids morally ambiguous situation was better than the situation their parents were putting them in so it's a net win.
It is better, no question about that
I don't see this as stealing, as conversation therapy is a fraudulent and cruel practice in the first place. Bro actually did a form of conversion therapy in a safe and mentally supportive environment. Granted the "conversion" part may have been inadvertent, but he did help someone deal with a potentially traumatizing situation and saved him from harm. Which gave OP the time and space to really look at himself and discover who he truly is. I think that's worth the $1K that would've gone toward a far more evil practice.
Sure, that's a valid perspective.
Read till the end he cured him
Conversion therapy isn't real though; you can't make someone not be gay. From the parent's perspective, their problem is likely that they think they have a religious obligation to not accept homosexuality (perhaps their place in their community depends on this), but also want a relationship with their son, and don't want to have to choose between these. So probably what they really want is for their son to go back in the closet in a way that is plausible, and the service they are paying for offers that plausibility and creates the greatest possible chance of it happening (being nice to anon and letting him know he has an undo button without feeding him bullshit or being pushy).
So on second thought, maybe it's not unambiguously wholesome, because it is lies and could be enabling a homophobic culture. But on the other hand it's probably for the best that this sort of conflict be put off until anon is no longer a teenager who is totally dependent on their parents. Whether the money was earned honestly I think is less of a big deal here ethically, it's basically in the same category as paying for a consultation with a psychic, the sort of thing where they are all but explicitly paying for the fiction.
That's why I put "real" in quotes
I figured, but seems relevant that what they're buying is bullshit no matter what