41–50 of 75 posts
I had a quick interaction with Lon on TC about the situation. To me is sounds like "Sam" is doing this for personal gain. It feels like promoting, marketing. Because in all the posts about this, referrals are thrown to his business and his brothers. Which to me is wrong in the first place, as it was about the card not their damn business. Secondly, it was theft wasn't it? The card wasn't his, it was a good that was l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Sam's charity giving your own money away is charity, redirecting somebody else's money isn't a charity, it is management at best theft at worst
So all the charities setup that either a) give away money by a rich donor - e.g. Carnegie, etc. or b) request donations (e.g. for a major crisis) and allocate it how they see it fit, would be considered what?
Not sure if you genuinely misunderstood, or you're just being quite boringly pedantic
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.
Of course, there are several other ways of contributing to charity but I know the itch to scratch when you dreamed up this "awesome" scheme might have been too much to resist.
"make sure he's OK" - so you emailed jonathan before you put your script in action, didn't you?
"I was saddened by his reply" - One would expect someone who is so easily saddened to have some empathy for his own victims .. or maybe not. Maybe next time, when yuppies buy each other coffee you can keep out or do charity on your own dime?
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
I join others' in disappointment with Odio's abusing the card beyond it's original stated intent per Johnathan. He may feel it's justified but that's up for each person on their own to decide for themselves and he doesn't seem to understand that. And yes, people are giving up control. But when people give money to a school with the intent of it going to a new building and the school does something else with it, you (the giver) have a right to be pissed.
How about if you gave to one cause and someone routed it to a different one they felt was more worthy. Even though most people will argue that Odio's charity IS more worthy, it still doesn't give him that right to decide. If it were money going to WWF and he rerouted it to The American Cancer Society, again, you'd be pissed.
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
what he did was within the bounds of the experiment I still don't understand how this is supposed to make anything okay. The experiment was set up to see how people dealt with a system inherently fueled by some combination of altruism and curiosity. I personally assume this means that, among other things, it is looking at some measure of morality. Thing of it is, you can't really construct an experiment about moralit…
Your "secondly" part isn't exactly correct, because the US law is not an experiment that people are voluntarily participating in. Its purpose is not to see how things would work. Its purpose is just to work. People don't like it when it doesn't.
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Guy: Hey, look at me guys! I did a sorta hack where you can put money on a card and people with smart phones can get free coffees!
Guys: Wow, that's... cool for some reason! It feels good when putting money into this card to think that people with smart phones somewhere can get a free coffee.
Guy#2: Hey! look at ME, guys! I hacked that hack thing that was somehow cool and good. AND I gave peoples' money to CHARITY! Pretty awesome of me huh?
Everyone: Wow dude. Saddened and appalled. You have ruined an altruistic and somehow cool enterprise.
Guy#3: Pfft, all a bit melodramatic don't you think.
Everyone: [scowls. downvotes guy#3]
Later...
Guy#4: Hey guys, look at this article about how iPhone/Android is better than Android/iPhone.
[normality resumes]
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
I routinely have such discussions with my two ASD sons. They are not wired to readily comprehend social expectations. I do a lot of explaining. There is research out there on how "social contracts" get enforced as a moral issue and how violating the socially expected thing gets really extremely negative reactions even when the way the (typically) unstated social contract is violated falls clearly within the explicitly stated rules of a system. My best explanation is that most people don't do a good job of constructing effective rules so the social mechanism for attempting to enforce order anyway is to express moral outrage -- ie make it dangerous -- when someone violates the implied social contract, never mind that it isn't a violation of the actual stated rules. The friction inherent in this situation is part of why laws are enforced by judge and jury -- ie human judgment has to take over to make up for gray areas not explicitly covered by the stated rules.
Anyway, I apologize as I am sure I am butchering my point. I am sharing the observation for your edification because I largely agree with the logic of your post (edit: I agree with your logic even though I am someone who thinks what Odio did is asinine -- my innate wiring is that of a hippie tree hugger, much to the amusement of my sons who aren't wired that way at all, so I do find such things unpalatable, yet I think the solution is "make better rules, damnit" not "react with moral outrage when someone who is wired different from you plays by the rules but does something you wouldn't have done"). I don't imagine my observations will go over any better than yours, so the post is basically intended for you and I hope it is good food for thought for your purposes.
Peace.
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Jonathan doesn't even discuss what Sam made of the experiment, but just hands him to the Facebook mob.