▲ 1307 ▼ Should this be in unethical life pro tips (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 157 points 2 years ago (6 children) If I didn't have ethics, I could con so many religious people... permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 85 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think about this sometimes I could go to school and build a career for myself, or I could make way twice the money in half the time doing shit like this. Sometimes I hate that I have a sense of guilt. Life would be so much easier if I were a psychopath permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world [S] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children) But psychopaths never feel love permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* They either completely lack or struggle with recognizing emotional empathy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think that's true? They have a dysfunctional guilt/shame system but they still have other feelings, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Baku@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That suits me just fine permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) If it makes you feel any better, it's probably hard to figure out when to get out. You'll always feel like you can do just one more because the last one worked out so well, but each time you cash in, more people will see the truth and might want in on it until you find yourself in a situation where you can't stop even if you wanted to because then the others who you are propping up will turn on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago There were likely some Mormons and definitely some fellow Freemasons in the angry mob that killed Joseph Smith. He was in way too deep to just walk away, even if his brand of narcissism would have allowed him to contemplate that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) As the other commenter mentioned, things could get violent. Being wrong about a prediction means that the leaders look as dumb as the followers, but saying outright that you scammed the followers means you deliberately made them look stupid. But even if they aren't mysteriously angry about it, it's still illegal. I wonder if the prosecutors going after Trump plan on going after him again from that angle once they prove his election steal claims were fraud because he used those claims to solicit donations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Talaraine@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago Oddly specific haha permalink fedilink source parent [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is completely ethical to remove the funding power from those who would cause others to suffer. Just sayin, you have options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but you're not really conning the higher-ups, you're conning the grannies who are going to church and giving away their social security money. And they really don't deserve to be conned even if it would be easy to con them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) They're going to be conned. Might as well be by someone who can help them with that money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad lgnorantiam permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad pessimism, actually permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blackout@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago If that is unethical then all of religion is unethical hey wait a second... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I long ago came to the conclusion that a slice of the American Dream is still out there to be had, as long as you don't mind cutting it out of a bunch of suckers and rubes. Alas, my petty sense of morality is stopping me from joining the ranks of the wealthy elite, but at least I can sleep at night knowing my lifestyle isn't directly financed by the misery of people I made a conscious choice to hurt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago That's almost universally true at the multimillionaire and above level unless you inherited it all. You don't get that rich without stepping on everyone you can to get there. Elon Musk has ruined a ridiculous number of people on his way to the top and he continues to do it. permalink fedilink source parent [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't think a 'less harmful' con makes the con any more ethical. And I don't want to take poor people's money. A lot of people giving to televangelists are people living on social security and the like. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Conning religious people isn't unethical /s? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 85 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think about this sometimes I could go to school and build a career for myself, or I could make way twice the money in half the time doing shit like this. Sometimes I hate that I have a sense of guilt. Life would be so much easier if I were a psychopath permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world [S] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children) But psychopaths never feel love permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* They either completely lack or struggle with recognizing emotional empathy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think that's true? They have a dysfunctional guilt/shame system but they still have other feelings, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Baku@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That suits me just fine permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) If it makes you feel any better, it's probably hard to figure out when to get out. You'll always feel like you can do just one more because the last one worked out so well, but each time you cash in, more people will see the truth and might want in on it until you find yourself in a situation where you can't stop even if you wanted to because then the others who you are propping up will turn on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago There were likely some Mormons and definitely some fellow Freemasons in the angry mob that killed Joseph Smith. He was in way too deep to just walk away, even if his brand of narcissism would have allowed him to contemplate that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) As the other commenter mentioned, things could get violent. Being wrong about a prediction means that the leaders look as dumb as the followers, but saying outright that you scammed the followers means you deliberately made them look stupid. But even if they aren't mysteriously angry about it, it's still illegal. I wonder if the prosecutors going after Trump plan on going after him again from that angle once they prove his election steal claims were fraud because he used those claims to solicit donations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Talaraine@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago Oddly specific haha permalink fedilink source parent
[–] STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world [S] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children) But psychopaths never feel love permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* They either completely lack or struggle with recognizing emotional empathy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think that's true? They have a dysfunctional guilt/shame system but they still have other feelings, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Baku@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That suits me just fine permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* They either completely lack or struggle with recognizing emotional empathy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think that's true? They have a dysfunctional guilt/shame system but they still have other feelings, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Baku@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Baku@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That suits me just fine permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) If it makes you feel any better, it's probably hard to figure out when to get out. You'll always feel like you can do just one more because the last one worked out so well, but each time you cash in, more people will see the truth and might want in on it until you find yourself in a situation where you can't stop even if you wanted to because then the others who you are propping up will turn on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago There were likely some Mormons and definitely some fellow Freemasons in the angry mob that killed Joseph Smith. He was in way too deep to just walk away, even if his brand of narcissism would have allowed him to contemplate that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) As the other commenter mentioned, things could get violent. Being wrong about a prediction means that the leaders look as dumb as the followers, but saying outright that you scammed the followers means you deliberately made them look stupid. But even if they aren't mysteriously angry about it, it's still illegal. I wonder if the prosecutors going after Trump plan on going after him again from that angle once they prove his election steal claims were fraud because he used those claims to solicit donations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Talaraine@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago Oddly specific haha permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago There were likely some Mormons and definitely some fellow Freemasons in the angry mob that killed Joseph Smith. He was in way too deep to just walk away, even if his brand of narcissism would have allowed him to contemplate that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) As the other commenter mentioned, things could get violent. Being wrong about a prediction means that the leaders look as dumb as the followers, but saying outright that you scammed the followers means you deliberately made them look stupid. But even if they aren't mysteriously angry about it, it's still illegal. I wonder if the prosecutors going after Trump plan on going after him again from that angle once they prove his election steal claims were fraud because he used those claims to solicit donations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago There were likely some Mormons and definitely some fellow Freemasons in the angry mob that killed Joseph Smith. He was in way too deep to just walk away, even if his brand of narcissism would have allowed him to contemplate that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) As the other commenter mentioned, things could get violent. Being wrong about a prediction means that the leaders look as dumb as the followers, but saying outright that you scammed the followers means you deliberately made them look stupid. But even if they aren't mysteriously angry about it, it's still illegal. I wonder if the prosecutors going after Trump plan on going after him again from that angle once they prove his election steal claims were fraud because he used those claims to solicit donations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's not the legal status (fraud is already illegal), it's proving that it is indeed a scam rather than some dumb shit they actually believed, as well as knowing that it's more likely to trigger a persecution complex and doubling down than improve the lives of the victims (because if it's a plot to harm their religion, they don't have to feel like idiots for giving the scammer money). It's a different story if the religious scammer openly admits that it was always a scam and just doesn't care what anyone thought of it. Easier to prove and the victims are already angry and feeling like idiots for falling for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 child) It is completely ethical to remove the funding power from those who would cause others to suffer. Just sayin, you have options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but you're not really conning the higher-ups, you're conning the grannies who are going to church and giving away their social security money. And they really don't deserve to be conned even if it would be easy to con them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) They're going to be conned. Might as well be by someone who can help them with that money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad lgnorantiam permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad pessimism, actually permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, but you're not really conning the higher-ups, you're conning the grannies who are going to church and giving away their social security money. And they really don't deserve to be conned even if it would be easy to con them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) They're going to be conned. Might as well be by someone who can help them with that money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad lgnorantiam permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad pessimism, actually permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) They're going to be conned. Might as well be by someone who can help them with that money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad lgnorantiam permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad pessimism, actually permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stranger@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad lgnorantiam permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad pessimism, actually permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Argumentum ad pessimism, actually permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aremel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you explain what that means, and what the other guy said please? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) He called me an idiot. I said no, I'm a pessimist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stranger@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* My intention wasn't to call you an idiot (which me misusing that Latin phrase would make ME the idiot lol), it was to point out the "If I don't do it someone else will" moral justification / fallacy that a lot of people, such as drug dealers for example, use to skirt the moral responsibility of their actions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blackout@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago If that is unethical then all of religion is unethical hey wait a second... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) I long ago came to the conclusion that a slice of the American Dream is still out there to be had, as long as you don't mind cutting it out of a bunch of suckers and rubes. Alas, my petty sense of morality is stopping me from joining the ranks of the wealthy elite, but at least I can sleep at night knowing my lifestyle isn't directly financed by the misery of people I made a conscious choice to hurt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago That's almost universally true at the multimillionaire and above level unless you inherited it all. You don't get that rich without stepping on everyone you can to get there. Elon Musk has ruined a ridiculous number of people on his way to the top and he continues to do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago That's almost universally true at the multimillionaire and above level unless you inherited it all. You don't get that rich without stepping on everyone you can to get there. Elon Musk has ruined a ridiculous number of people on his way to the top and he continues to do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't think a 'less harmful' con makes the con any more ethical. And I don't want to take poor people's money. A lot of people giving to televangelists are people living on social security and the like. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago I don't think a 'less harmful' con makes the con any more ethical. And I don't want to take poor people's money. A lot of people giving to televangelists are people living on social security and the like. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago Conning religious people isn't unethical /s? permalink fedilink source parent
