5 ms·

> But I don't see it as morally repugnant. It is not seen as morally repugnant, it is seen as economically repugnant. If you were the server admin for a busine

> But I don't see it as morally repugnant. It is not seen as morally repugnant, it is seen as economically repugnant. If you were the server admin for a business and an old lady came in off the street asking if you would help her fix her computer, it is likely your boss would step in to put a stop to that too. The employer doesn't want to pay you to do things for other people. If the old lady came to your house instead, nobody would give a rat's ass. Likewise, if 'Emily' were a real assistant and people were asking her out on dates using her personal email address, that'd be her problem. But when someone is paying you for your undivided attention...

akoboldfrying 3y ago
If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? If so, this is a really interesting argument that I've never come across before. I do agree that it wastes company time, but I would think in such small quantities that it had very little impact -- on par with having a 5 minute chat with your office mate about their weekend. I still have the impression that for many people who do object to this sort of thing, their objection stems from a feeling that being asked out at work is an uncomfortable or even frightening thing, something a person should not have to be subjected to.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense. The quote is written from an economic perspective. If 'Emily' were real and a random person the author had never met, there would be no concern or attempt to stand in. Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly. The cost in the case in the bot, despite being the exact same act, is so small it is immeasurable. As such, we get a 'funny anecdote' instead.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly. So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right? If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along? If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?
      - akoboldfrying 3y ago
        I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?" AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.
        randomdata 3y ago
        That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the discussion?
        tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        Because your argument, if you are aware that you made it, is that it is “economically repugnant”. That is what you said, and that was your previous argument. You are now arguing with your own argument, saying “No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.” That is what it has to do with the discussion, that you are inconsistent and refuse to elaborate on your previous position by claiming it is other people’s position and that you “don’t care”.
        akoboldfrying 3y ago
        Couldn't have said it better myself -- thanks!

akoboldfrying 3y ago

If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? If so, this is a really interesting argument that I've never come across before. I do agree that it wastes company time, but I would think in such small quantities that it had very little impact -- on par with having a 5 minute chat with your office mate about their weekend. I still have the impression that for many people who do object to this sort of thing, their objection stems from a feeling that being asked out at work is an uncomfortable or even frightening thing, something a person should not have to be subjected to.

randomdata 3y ago
> If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense. The quote is written from an economic perspective. If 'Emily' were real and a random person the author had never met, there would be no concern or attempt to stand in. Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly. The cost in the case in the bot, despite being the exact same act, is so small it is immeasurable. As such, we get a 'funny anecdote' instead.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly. So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right? If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along? If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?" AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the discussion?
        tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        Because your argument, if you are aware that you made it, is that it is “economically repugnant”. That is what you said, and that was your previous argument. You are now arguing with your own argument, saying “No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.” That is what it has to do with the discussion, that you are inconsistent and refuse to elaborate on your previous position by claiming it is other people’s position and that you “don’t care”.
        akoboldfrying 3y ago
        Couldn't have said it better myself -- thanks!