Ethical dilemmas: do aspies react differently? (+ gambling)

Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Sparhawke
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 311

14 Sep 2011, 5:38 pm

I see nothing wrong with telling him that now you have fully considered the idea you will have to turn him down, for whatever reasons you wish to cook up.

Most websites do not have your level of ethics, just take a quick glance to the left on this very one and you will see scams constantly being advertised.

What is the worst he can do to you?

If he is an agent, does he have any alternatives or is he an agent for the site in question?



trappedinhell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 625
Location: Scotland

14 Sep 2011, 5:47 pm

Marcia wrote:
The second situation related to my dog who has damaged her cruciate ligament. My insurance covers treatment up to £1,000 and I choose that maximum limit as I don't think it is right to spend a lot of money on an animal. I know that seems harsh and it's not everyone's choice, but that has always been my opinion. This is the first time I've had a pet which had a serious injury, and so the first time I've had to really deal with this principle of mine. However, surgery is not essential and not 100% effective, and it would cost a minimum of £3,000. The vet gave me the hard sell, and did seem taken aback when I told her that I considered it immoral to spend so much money on a dog and that if I was going to be giving that amount of money to anyone I'd rather donate it to the East Africa appeal. Interestingly, the vet then told me that at the PDSA surgery, which provides free care for the pets of people on benefits, most dogs recover just fine without the surgery! Fancy that!


I wish more people were that way. I love animals, and it pains me that people would rather spend thousands on one animal then that same money could save many animals. I know an elderly lady who spends a fortune keeping her sick cat alive. The poor animal is in pain - he just wants to lie down in a corner and go to sleep for the last time. But she keeps taking him to the vet, paying vast amounts, and prolonging the cat's pain. Meanwhile there are stray animals (many no doubt sick) right outside her door who could all be saved for a fraction of that. As with your vet and my elderly friend, "being kind to animals" is often a code for making their OWN lives more comfortable.



Dgosling
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2010
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 131
Location: Utah

14 Sep 2011, 6:39 pm

Well you could always tell them you are interested but don't like what they're advertising.

Maybe they have another thing they can advertise and if not then they at least know that you were interested. :D



trappedinhell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 625
Location: Scotland

15 Sep 2011, 6:06 am

It's worse than I thought.

I've been an idiot and it's my own fault No, I haven't done anything since yesterday, but, well read on.

Continuing the aspie theme, I hate reading emails unless I feel very safe. When there is an obligation I do not feel safe. So yesterday I only read half the email. Today, about to email back and say "no," I read the whole thing. It turns out that they put a lot f work into it. Now I feel awful.

Last week when they emailed I didn't know what company it would be for, so I said I was interested. I was naive. They said it would be something suitable. What they meant was that they would put a lot of work into making it LOOK suitable. In a deceptive way.

Because of what I said, the company went away and put a lot of effort into making an ad that is specifically designed for my site. I bet they are a new start up advertising agency, because this is a very clever and labor intensive idea. That's why I feel bad.

My site is about classic novels, and their client's product is party poker. They are very clever: they discuss the classic, and quote relevant philosophers, and this is their angle: a lot of famous authors would meat at salons or parties or meals and discuss their work. There would be cards and alcohol and smoke and lots of mixing, and that is exactly what their product offers! Plus there are many kinds of classics, and their game is a classic! And my site is about games based on classics, so it's a natural fit. right?

They put in so much effort. But the logic is wrong. Attending social gatherings does not make you like a writer. Also, I make games based on classic books. Not classic games. You may as well say "I wrote a book about football, and football is classic, so it belongs on your site." But they put in so much work, because of what I said.

It is my fault because I should have known better. I know that most advertisers are liars: they prove it very day. Here are the current ads showing on WrongPlanet:
[img][800:738]http://enterthestory.com/other/advertisers.jpg[/img]
I do not blame alex for taking these ads: WrognPlanet is literally a life saver, so the good he does outweighs the harm of these ads. And everyone knows these ads are lies, so it is our choice if we click. But the fact remains that the biggest advertisers are liars and it is no secret:
Ad 1: 1 trick for a tiny belly.
This is a lie. One trick: eating acaca berries - will NOT give you a tiny berry. Colera might. Worms might. Eating less would, but that is not a trick. Details: http://searchfaction.com/weight-loss-ac ... -tip-fraud

Ad 2: over 1000 46 inch LED TVs in Kelty for a silly low price.
Kelty is a random Scottish town. A different name is chosen each time. Do I really need to travel to Eklty, or any other town, to demonstrate that nobody would sell a 46 inch TV for that price, and they certainly don't have 1000 of them,

Ad 3: 57 year old Mum looks 25
I have seen TV shows where they make you look 10 years younger. That is possible, with a LOT of changes. It only works for people who look older than they are. E.g. if you are 57 and look 62 they can make you look 52. But A single £5 treatment that makes a 57 year old look 25? Yes, it would "anger doctors" because if there is even the slightest possibility that it is half true, it would be very dangerous to your health.

Ad 4: I make £437 a day working from home
and
Ad 5: the Internet pays me £76 an hour
This is the old "get paid to make links on Google" scam. Or some new variation. How can they afford to have al these ads? Simple. The poor victims of these ads pay a fortune for the false promises.
http://dayjobnuker.com/2009/07/24/dont- ... jobs-scam/
There ARE legitimate sites where unskilled people can make money - cashcrate was one, though I don't know if it still operates. But GBP£76 per hour? That's $120 an hour. An outright lie, based on an earlier lying $76 ad - they just changed dollars to pounds. If something seems too good to be true it probably is, and these things go of the scale.

Sorry to go on and on. I seem incapable of writing a short post. But the thing is, I have got myself in an ethical dilemma and it is my fault. I knew online advertising is mostly lies, but I agreed to it, so they put in a lot of time and now I feel an obligation.

Or maybe I will just tell them what I really think, and apologize for being so naive.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

15 Sep 2011, 6:30 am

trappedinhell wrote:
Or maybe I will just tell them what I really think, and apologize for being so naive.


It's probably best if you just say, "I have decided not to accept your offer" and don't tell them why. Since they so skillfully designed ads targeted at your specific customers, they will also skillfully make counter-arguments to any explanation, declaration or apology that you write to them. You will be sucked into further e-mail exchanges and get even more stressed. End this now with a quick, non-explanatory e-mail. That's what I would do.



DGuru
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 283

15 Sep 2011, 7:26 am

Willard wrote:
xmh wrote:

A text advert is unlikely to make people start gambling in a big way


All addictions start somewhere, and few people jump in feet first knowing they're making a huge mistake. It always seems innocent and harmless in the beginning.

"If I don't sell it to them, someone else will" is the amoral logic of the drug dealer. It may be true, but it doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility for supplying it.


What about the personal responsibility of the person who buys it? Even if the person is an addict he started it and there are resources available if he needs help to quit, although I can see how a casino operator or drug dealer who knows someone is an addict and has a choice to deny it to them should not make the sale but even then it gets tricky, what if the drug dealer expects that the addict would die without his fix?

Gambling and drugs are not bad. Gambling is just an activity. Drugs are just tools.

People who dive into these things unprepared and reckless give these things a bad name.

Gambling may look silly, but it provides the user an experience and it can be a positive one, in a few rare cases extremely positive. It's the trill of knowing "hey I could be just a few seconds away from being filthy rich" that drives gambling. As it's a positive emotion it's understandable to want to gamble. If you're responsible and place a spending limit and stick to it it doesn't turn into a problem.

Drugs are even more understandable. Exploring another state of mind can help people to understand themselves and to understand other things from whole different perspectives. But people who do drugs should plan ahead for managing the high including if a "sitter" will be necessary, and they should also set a limit including a reusing limit to prevent addiction.



tomboy4good
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,379
Location: Irritating people everywhere

15 Sep 2011, 10:37 am

DGuru wrote:
Willard wrote:
xmh wrote:

A text advert is unlikely to make people start gambling in a big way


All addictions start somewhere, and few people jump in feet first knowing they're making a huge mistake. It always seems innocent and harmless in the beginning.

"If I don't sell it to them, someone else will" is the amoral logic of the drug dealer. It may be true, but it doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility for supplying it.


What about the personal responsibility of the person who buys it? Even if the person is an addict he started it and there are resources available if he needs help to quit, although I can see how a casino operator or drug dealer who knows someone is an addict and has a choice to deny it to them should not make the sale but even then it gets tricky, what if the drug dealer expects that the addict would die without his fix?

Gambling and drugs are not bad. Gambling is just an activity. Drugs are just tools.

People who dive into these things unprepared and reckless give these things a bad name.

Gambling may look silly, but it provides the user an experience and it can be a positive one, in a few rare cases extremely positive. It's the trill of knowing "hey I could be just a few seconds away from being filthy rich" that drives gambling. As it's a positive emotion it's understandable to want to gamble. If you're responsible and place a spending limit and stick to it it doesn't turn into a problem.

Drugs are even more understandable. Exploring another state of mind can help people to understand themselves and to understand other things from whole different perspectives. But people who do drugs should plan ahead for managing the high including if a "sitter" will be necessary, and they should also set a limit including a reusing limit to prevent addiction.


Your logic assumes that the person who chooses drugs or gambling won't have an addictive personality. Unfortunately, many people who decide to try either or both become addicted from their first or 2nd try...a few may take a little longer. What the advertiser/dealer hopes is that the person becomes a permanent client & continues to use the product(s). The advertiser/dealer doesn't care what happens to that person, they only care about making the sale. If that person loses their job, home, life....the blame will always fall on the addict, not the supplier.

I have lived with a gambling addict (I moved out years ago), & that person has only gotten deeper into gambling & debt. It's quite likely that he will continue to gamble until he has nothing left. I've warned him about his habit, but he makes excuses & continues to lose more money. I hope you don't know anyone like this...because it's quite painful to watch.


_________________
If I do something right, no one remembers. If I do something
wrong, no one forgets.

Aspie Score: 173/200, NT score 31/200: very likely an Aspie
5/18/11: New Aspie test: 72/72
DX: Anxiety plus ADHD/Aspergers: inconclusive


AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas

15 Sep 2011, 2:32 pm

Marcia wrote:
. . . if I was going to be giving that amount of money to anyone I'd rather donate it to the East Africa appeal. . .

Good for you. I have also read about and thought about the famine in East Africa (primarily Somalia, also surrounding countries). Might be the worse famine in 60 years, more people might die than from the Iraq War, or not. All depending on whether or not we do the possible.

After the Dec. 26, 2004, Indonesia Tsunami, I sent a $30 check to the American Red Cross. It took them about six weeks to cash it. I later decided I didn't do them any favors, for they had to first open a paper envelope and then process a paper check. This time if I give, I'm going to do it in a more streamlined electronic way.

And I might only give a little bit from a Christmas job, it's something I need to feel good about, including the electronic method.

I feel reasonably good about Doctors without Borders. I don't know much about the East Africa appeal, but I would like to know more as well as about other groups. Ideally, I would like to have three organizations I feel good about donating to.