Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Way of entering into contracts

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:09:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You enter into a contract with a person mired in poverty, wherein you get some of your work done, paying the person peanuts for it.

You get hold of a compromising piece of evidence that will be potentially damaging to a person, and then get the person to sign a contract to do some work for you, paying peanuts for it.

What's the difference?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:11:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:09:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
You enter into a contract with a person mired in poverty, wherein you get some of your work done, paying the person peanuts for it.

You get hold of a compromising piece of evidence that will be potentially damaging to a person, and then get the person to sign a contract to do some work for you, paying peanuts for it.

What's the difference?

I assume you're asking for the moral difference?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:13:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:11:33 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:09:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
You enter into a contract with a person mired in poverty, wherein you get some of your work done, paying the person peanuts for it.

You get hold of a compromising piece of evidence that will be potentially damaging to a person, and then get the person to sign a contract to do some work for you, paying peanuts for it.

What's the difference?

I assume you're asking for the moral difference?

Let's keep morality out of it.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:50:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:13:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:11:33 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:09:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
You enter into a contract with a person mired in poverty, wherein you get some of your work done, paying the person peanuts for it.

You get hold of a compromising piece of evidence that will be potentially damaging to a person, and then get the person to sign a contract to do some work for you, paying peanuts for it.

What's the difference?

I assume you're asking for the moral difference?

Let's keep morality out of it.

They are the same in that the worker is being obligated by circumstances. However, the difference is that in case one, you are not causing those circumstances, while in case two, you are.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 12:11:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:50:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:13:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:11:33 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:09:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
You enter into a contract with a person mired in poverty, wherein you get some of your work done, paying the person peanuts for it.

You get hold of a compromising piece of evidence that will be potentially damaging to a person, and then get the person to sign a contract to do some work for you, paying peanuts for it.

What's the difference?

I assume you're asking for the moral difference?

Let's keep morality out of it.

They are the same in that the worker is being obligated by circumstances. However, the difference is that in case one, you are not causing those circumstances, while in case two, you are.

How did I cause the person in case two to create that circumstance? The circumstance was created by the person, I'm just taking advantage of the circumstance.

Did I have a hand in making the person poor? No. I am just taking advantage of his poverty.

Did I have a hand in making the person do an embarrassing act? No. I am just taking advantage of his embarrassment.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 12:19:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 12:11:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:50:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:13:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:11:33 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:09:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
You enter into a contract with a person mired in poverty, wherein you get some of your work done, paying the person peanuts for it.

You get hold of a compromising piece of evidence that will be potentially damaging to a person, and then get the person to sign a contract to do some work for you, paying peanuts for it.

What's the difference?

I assume you're asking for the moral difference?

Let's keep morality out of it.

They are the same in that the worker is being obligated by circumstances. However, the difference is that in case one, you are not causing those circumstances, while in case two, you are.

How did I cause the person in case two to create that circumstance? The circumstance was created by the person, I'm just taking advantage of the circumstance.

Did I have a hand in making the person poor? No. I am just taking advantage of his poverty.

Did I have a hand in making the person do an embarrassing act? No. I am just taking advantage of his embarrassment.

The threat of releaseing it is the act on your part (assuming that you've lead him to believe that if he doesn't work for peanuts, the embarrassment will be made public).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"