Fwiw, anyone who knows me know I don't have a holier-than-thou attitude (though I took one for this post). This was mostly meant as an edgy/controversial twist to the social experiment: how do peoople react when someone takes the money (which is a public good) and imposes their own morals on it (even if it's for good)?
I work for a charity/non-profit but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the value in a shared good experiment.
Asides from the myriad of other issues in your post, the most important one is that you completely ignore the fact that many people may donate quite a bit to charity, but also may wish to involve themselves in a thing like Jonathan's card. The two are not mutually exclusive, and deriving value from the latter may encourage someone to do more of the former. It looks like you were too short-sighted to actually think any of this through though in your attempt to make a selfish point.
What's wrong with thinking about an experiment that hacks the original experiment? I thought this was Hacker News.
That something is that it is pretentious as fuck.
That's as illogical as it is self-righteous.
Not well?