Well I've provided the basis of my understanding of EA, which is more than you or the author. If we're meant to have a conversation on the merits of EA then we need to be clear about our terms.
To try to mind read, if everyone's simply saying: "it's wrong for someone to do immoral things and justify them with the promise of future charity" then I suspect there's not much to say except, "Yes, duh."
I think it's safe to assume that people talking about EA this month are thinking more in terms of MacAskill and longtermist EA; the EA of "earn to give" and AI defense.
To try to mind read, if everyone's simply saying: "it's wrong for someone to do immoral things and justify them with the promise of future charity" then I suspect there's not much to say except, "Yes, duh."