First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative. Second, the Salvation Army

First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative. Second, the Salvation Army isn't responsible for all the good they have done. They're responsible for the difference in what would have been done if they didn't exist, compared to what they did. This difference is some combination of converting poverty-relief effort into evangelical christian proselytization and changing how much effort gets spent relieving poverty. The relative moral weights of these is an open question that is completely un-answered by knowing how much total poverty relief they do. Like, if you choose to become a doctor, you shouldn't get kudos for every life you save. You should get kudos for every life that got saved because you chose to become a doctor instead of your next best option. Other people would have been doctors if you weren't interested, and other doctors would have treated your cases if you weren't a doctor. The good that a choice does can only be measured in terms of opportunity costs. Finally, I'm never going to feel ashamed to say what I think is right. No matter what. If donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place, I want to say that donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place. If it doesn't, then I don't want to say it. If I'm wrong, help me understand how I'm wrong. If you just want to suppress an opinion because it's a particular kind of opinion, fuck you.