"Dirty Selling Trick"

Polimedia,

Well I allowed you and I thank you for your interest in my benefit. Unfortunately I find your analysis lacking, so the intended benefit did not occur.

Basically I see your analysis as making gobbledygook out of Aristotle in order to turn it into a justification for sleaze.

Before we should even discuss proximate genus (or genus in general), we should at least agree on the definition. I don't agree with the one you presented for the popular meaning of "lie." Since we are on a forum where the language used is popular, using a sourced popular definition is a fitting standard. (Frankly, I am not too sure I agree with your definition as an abstraction, either, but that is another discussion.)

Let's take a popular source for definitions, one that is available to all, the Free Dictionary (lie):

I don't even need to throw up a pseudo philosophy-babble smokescreen to see that both statements apply to the initial case at the start of the thread.

"A false statement was deliberately presented as being true": "Oops..I thought the order was for 2."

"Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression": an extra chocolate drink was presented to deceive or give the wrong impression that an honest mistake had been made.

Both are lies according to the above definition.

But let's look a little further. You stated: "The technique described meets one of the two criteria (it is wilful) but not the other (of fact)."

Yet you did not present the "fact" you were talking about. The fact in the example is a mistake in taking an order. No mistake was made, yet a mistake was presented as fact. That's a lie and you know it, even by your proximate genus gobbledygook.

But let's look even a bit further. I discussed virtue in my post. You intentionally left that out to post some lame attempt at intimidation by hairsplitting a subjectively-chosen definition using ancient logic rules. That way you can ignore virtue, which is what people are objecting to here. There is category of logical fallacy for that: ignoratio elenchi. This is also called "red herring" in the popular form. "Strawman" is another.

I would like to take you seriously, but from your stated values and intellectual demeanor, I would not buy a new car off of you, much less a used one.

I cannot buy into your ideas, either. They are logically incorrect and presented outside of context in addition to any other evaluation I might have (which is not very flattering). I am no fan of sleaze and you have attempted to sanction it with respectability.

I find that effort sleazy in itself. Certainly it is not virtuous.

But hell, who needs bickering? Go sell some used cars or get-rich-quick schemes or something. There's a sucker born every minute so there's a lot of profitable work for you out there. I don't think you will find many marks on this forum, though.

Michael

Polimedia,

That's a little too elitist for my palette. (I come from hillbillies.) Certain popular notions of ethics (do unto others..., etc.) have served me too well to snob them. I find that when certain popular notions of ethics are not followed corruption ensues.

Anyway, got any ideas on making money on the Internet?

I always see two poles where free enterprise is involved: trade value for value or fleece the suckers, and all gradations in between.

I understood this thread initially to be in this ballpark.

Michael

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffery
The shame of it all. Were any orphans subject to your tactic?

Do not know what the University rules were, but you could have made tons more money selling your beverage served by famous celebrities without doing anything immoral. All proceeds to charity!

Your money would have come from the media rights to the event!! Funny photos of customers and celebrities together with chocolate mustaches on a hot day.

The chance of a lifetime for invited orphans. Never ending goodwill and you go home at night feeling good about yourself.

I'm pretty sure that your Uni Professor would love to see this thread? Why not ask him/her to visit this thread and be the judge - the final authority?

Jeffery 100% :-)

Lol.Am i stupid enough to cheat orphans??

You used the word "cheat" - not me - in response to my question..
"The shame of it all. Were any orphans subject to your tactic?"

In answer to your question "Lol.Am i stupid enough to cheat orphans??"
I can only take from your posts that your customers were fellow college
students. You used the word "cheat" - not me - so, I can only guess
that if someone would "cheat" their fellow college students that they
might even "cheat" friends and maybe even orphans subject to your
tactic.

I am not insinuating you are a bad person or anything of that nature.
However, the tactic may have worked at your chocolate stand, but in
most parts of the USA, college students would politely pay for one cup
and if they thought you were pulling a tactic they would not be polite.

Jeffery 100% :-)

P.S. Look, I understand that this was a college assignment to come up
with something creative. You may have stumbled on the tactic in the
go of things and contributed it to the assignment.

I am still curious about what your Uni Professor thinks about it?

Jeffery 100% :-)