[randomdata]

> 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]

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]

> 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]

>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]

Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?

[akoboldfrying]

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]

That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the discussion?