3 ms·

The plan presented to GFM by the organizers called for excess funds to be given to charities. How is it fraud for GFM to follow the organizer’s plan? The only t

The plan presented to GFM by the organizers called for excess funds to be given to charities. How is it fraud for GFM to follow the organizer’s plan? The only thing they refused to do was fund the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa.

jtbayly 5y ago
To equate giving all of the funds to other charities and not allowing any of it to be used for its given purpose with giving the rest of the money after its intended purpose has been met is... well, not right. Like, consider a non-profit that you want to support its vision. Most of the money goes to its mission, the rest pays its execs. They decide to use 100% of it for the execs. According to your argument, that's just fine.
- PierceJoy 5y ago
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying the nations capitol" nor am I surprised that GFM won't fund it. Regardless, your response was a non-sequitur. You really need to deal with what I actually said. To help you along, I also wouldn't be surprised for a charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives. But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending.
    - PierceJoy 5y ago
      > I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying the nations capito People who live in Ottawa disagree. > To help you along, I also wouldn't be surprised for a charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives. But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending. This is a textbook strawman. We're talking about a specific situation here, so stop trying to invoke entirely different situations to defend it. The fact is that this has turned into an occupation. It's not reasonable to expect GFM to fund that.
      - jtbayly 5y ago
        Look, I've already explained that I'm not surprised. You are claiming I'm lying? Or what? Also my example is not a straw man. It's a simple analogy. This will be my last comment. The thing I'm trying to address is your claim that it's just fine and dandy for them to redirect all the money to charities because that's equivalent to what the original organizers were going to do anyway. It's not. It's so obviously not appropriate that GFM immediately realized they could never get away with that and changed their minds and decided to refund all of the money instead. So I don't know why you're even bothering to defend their original plan. You're probably literally the only person in the world who thinks it's fine. edit: removed potentially inflammatory analysis.
        PierceJoy 5y ago
        > The thing I'm trying to address is your claim that it's just fine and dandy for them to redirect all the money to charities because that's equivalent to what the original organizers were going to do anyway. It's not. Not just any charities, charities that were going to be chosen by the organizers, which is in line with the agreement the organizers accepted. I honestly don't understand how you can believe something nefarious was going on when they were following the agreement that was made with the organizers. > It's so obviously not appropriate that GFM immediately realized they could never get away with that and changed their minds and decided to refund all of the money instead. So I don't know why you're even bothering to defend their original plan. That's one interpretation. A much simpler interpretation is that they realized it's 100x easier to just refund the money instead of having to vet every charity chosen by the organizers to make sure the money wasn't being embezzled or used for actual nefarious purposes. Go head and look into the organizers of this protest. They're overt white supremacists.
        nec4b 5y ago
        > They're overt white supremacists. Do you have proof of that?
        PierceJoy 5y ago

jtbayly 5y ago

To equate giving all of the funds to other charities and not allowing any of it to be used for its given purpose with giving the rest of the money after its intended purpose has been met is... well, not right. Like, consider a non-profit that you want to support its vision. Most of the money goes to its mission, the rest pays its execs. They decide to use 100% of it for the execs. According to your argument, that's just fine.

PierceJoy 5y ago
- jtbayly 5y ago
  I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying the nations capitol" nor am I surprised that GFM won't fund it. Regardless, your response was a non-sequitur. You really need to deal with what I actually said. To help you along, I also wouldn't be surprised for a charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives. But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending.
  - PierceJoy 5y ago
    > I neither believe it is truthful to call it "occupying the nations capito People who live in Ottawa disagree. > To help you along, I also wouldn't be surprised for a charity to redirect 100% of its income to its executives. But that wouldn't mean I would say it was fine for them to do that, even though the reason I gave the money was for clean wells in Africa. That's what you're defending. This is a textbook strawman. We're talking about a specific situation here, so stop trying to invoke entirely different situations to defend it. The fact is that this has turned into an occupation. It's not reasonable to expect GFM to fund that.
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      Look, I've already explained that I'm not surprised. You are claiming I'm lying? Or what? Also my example is not a straw man. It's a simple analogy. This will be my last comment. The thing I'm trying to address is your claim that it's just fine and dandy for them to redirect all the money to charities because that's equivalent to what the original organizers were going to do anyway. It's not. It's so obviously not appropriate that GFM immediately realized they could never get away with that and changed their minds and decided to refund all of the money instead. So I don't know why you're even bothering to defend their original plan. You're probably literally the only person in the world who thinks it's fine. edit: removed potentially inflammatory analysis.
      - PierceJoy 5y ago
        > The thing I'm trying to address is your claim that it's just fine and dandy for them to redirect all the money to charities because that's equivalent to what the original organizers were going to do anyway. It's not. Not just any charities, charities that were going to be chosen by the organizers, which is in line with the agreement the organizers accepted. I honestly don't understand how you can believe something nefarious was going on when they were following the agreement that was made with the organizers. > It's so obviously not appropriate that GFM immediately realized they could never get away with that and changed their minds and decided to refund all of the money instead. So I don't know why you're even bothering to defend their original plan. That's one interpretation. A much simpler interpretation is that they realized it's 100x easier to just refund the money instead of having to vet every charity chosen by the organizers to make sure the money wasn't being embezzled or used for actual nefarious purposes. Go head and look into the organizers of this protest. They're overt white supremacists.
        nec4b 5y ago
        > They're overt white supremacists. Do you have proof of that?
        PierceJoy 5y ago