Striker@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 10 months agoShould this be in unethical life pro tipslemmy.worldimagemessage-square76fedilinkarrow-up11.33Karrow-down125cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.31Karrow-down1imageShould this be in unethical life pro tipslemmy.worldStriker@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 10 months agomessage-square76fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareAbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·10 months agoCould easily rationalize it. Suckers are going to find a religion to con then no matter what. You could provide a less harmful option. I’m not saying you should, but you could find a way to justify it. It’s pretty easy money.
minus-squareFlying Squid@lemmy.worldMlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·10 months agoI 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.
Could easily rationalize it. Suckers are going to find a religion to con then no matter what. You could provide a less harmful option.
I’m not saying you should, but you could find a way to justify it. It’s pretty easy money.
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.