Beneficiary 1 has suffered tremendously under the tyranny of a delusional mother. At least partially because of that, Beneficiary 1 has developed symptoms from several mental disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and bipolar disorder. Fortunately, Beneficiary 1 has met another person on the Internet, Beneficiary 2, who has given great comfort to Beneficiary 1, and so developed a relationship with Beneficiary 2. It has gotten to the point that Beneficiary 1 has regarded Beneficiary 2 as another mother. The two beneficiaries have hatched a plan for Beneficiary 2 to travel to the place where Beneficiary 1 lives. After which, Beneficiary 2 would help keep Beneficiary 1 emotionally stable, keep the mother off Beneficiary 1's back, and take care of Beneficiary 1. From my point of view, this breaks the monopoly that the delusional mother has on being the motherly caretaker of Beneficiary 1, essentially bringing in competition.
This raises an interesting point: is an action considered to be fighting Adultism only when the action itself tries to compensate for the loss that people suffered from due to a specific discrimination from Adultism (shortened as the first way below), such as being unable to find a job; or also when the action tries to empower people that has no choice but to be oppressed by Adultism by making them capable of seeking alternatives (shortened as the second way below)? If the former is the case, this plan does not count as fighting Adultism as there is no specific discrimination from Adultism being fought against; but if the latter is the case, this plan counts as fighting Adultism as it made Beneficiary 1 capable of seeking Beneficiary 2 as the alternative of the delusional mother as their motherly caretaker. I would argue that the latter is the case for the two following reasons.
First, by empowering people with choices and alternatives to being oppressed by Adultism, the influence of Adultism would diminish. In a war, wouldn't it always be beneficial to reduce the enemy's influence? The same applies to the fight against Adultism. A person now with choices other than being oppressed by Adultism is a victory in the fight against Adultism. Therefore, I am justified to claim that using the Anti-Adultism Fund to fund the plan of the two beneficiaries is classified under the fight against Adultism.
Second, that is the only way I could have justified the donation of the Anti-Adultism Fund in Donation 1 anyways. In this donation, the Anti-Adultism Fund sponsored the beneficiary to move out from their birth parents by purchasing various items that would aid the moving out. The reason why such a donation could be counted as fighting Adultism could only be that the moving out itself provides an alternative to the beneficiary to continue living with their birth parents, oppressed by Adultism. There is no other way how it could be justified. And this is also the way that I remember I used to justify this donation when the Anti-Adultism Fund did it. This means that the validity of the second way of fighting Adultism is justified by a historical precedent, making it necessary for me to obey this ruling on religious principles. And so using the Anti-Adultism Fund to fund the plan of the two beneficiaries, by the merit of fighting Adultism the second way, is also fighting Adultism as the second way has been established as valid above.
Yet, fighting Adultism the first way is more direct than doing so the second way because the first way ultimately targets a specific discrimination by Adultism, making it undeniably an attack on the discriminatoriness of Adultism; while the second way empowers people with complex lives and variable situations, whereas how much of those people's sufferings are originally caused by Adultism is always up to debate to a certain extent. Therefore, if there are two beneficiaries that need the help of the Anti-Adultism Fund at the same time, and one could be helped the first way, one could be helped the second way, the funds of the Anti-Adultism Fund should help the first beneficiary rather than the second to fight Adultism more directly than otherwise.
Back to the case of Beneficiary 1 and Beneficiary 2, however, Beneficiary 2 does not have the funds to go to where Beneficiary 1 lives because they were discriminated against due to Adultism until only less than a month ago, preventing them to get a job and earn the funds it takes to travel. Yet, this is an invalid justification on why helping Beneficiary 2 travel is fighting Adultism, because Beneficiary 2 has expressed on multiple occasions that they are very unwilling to get a job. Hence, even if Adultism does not exist, it is not certain whether they would then have a job and the funds to go to where Beneficiary 1 lives. This negates the idea that helping Beneficiary 2 travel can fight the discrimination of them not being able to find a job in particular. But if this is not the case, using the Anti-Adultism Fund to fund their travel would fight against the specific discrimination of not being able to find a job, making it so that funding the travelling part of the two beneficiaries' plan also fights Adultism the first way.
In conclusion, using the Anti-Adultism Fund to fund the plan of the two beneficiaries fights Adultism the second way, while if not for the fact that Beneficiary 2 is very unwilling to get a job, using the Anti-Adultism Fund to fund Beneficiary 2 to travel to where Beneficiary 1 lives also fights Adultism the first way. Therefore, the Anti-Adultism Fund should be spent to fund the plan of the two beneficiaries in general, without any emphasis on specifically funding Beneficiary 2 to travel to the place Beneficiary 1 lives, because Beneficiary 2 is very unwilling to get a job. This would be the most appropriate way to help people in accordance with the ultimate aims of the Anti-Adultism Fund to fight Adultism.
A total of 7218.70 HKD was spent in this donation.
|9th of April, 2022||1 Western Union Transfer Fee||362.00|
|17th of April, 2022||1 Airplane Ticket (partially paid for by beneficiary 2 as well)||6856.70|
|The money was donated to beneficiary 2 through Western Union, so a certain part of the money was spent for the transfer fee.|