[SkyBelow]

Is it that absurd?

We have many expectations in society which often aren't formalized into a stated commitment. Is it really unreasonable to have some commitment towards society to these less formally stated expectations? And is expecting communication presented as being human to human to actually be from a human unreasonable for such an expectation? I think not.

If you were to find out that the people replying to you were actually bots designed to keep you busy and engaged, feeling a bit betrayed by that seems entirely expected. Even though at no point did those people commit to you that they weren't bots.

Letting someone know they are engaging with a bot seems like basic respect, and I think society benefits from having such a level of basic respect for each other.

It is a bit like the spouse who says "well I never made a specific commitment that I would be the one picking the gift". I wouldn't like a society where the only commitments are those we formally agree to.

[cschep]

I do appreciate this side of the argument but.. do you think that the level/strength of a marriage commitment is worthy of comparison to walking by someone in public / riding the same subway as them randomly / visiting their blog?

They seem world's apart to me!

[SkyBelow]

I find them comparable, but not equal, for that reason.

Especially if we consider the summation of these commitments. One is obviously much larger, but it defines just one of our relationships within society. The other defines the majority of our interactions within society at large, so a change to it, while much less impactful to any one single interaction or relationship (I use them interchangeably here as often the relationship is just that one single interaction) is magnified by how much more often it occurs. This does move towards making the costs of losing some trust in such a small interaction as having a much larger cost than it first appears, which I think further increases how one can compare them.

(More generally, I also like comparing things even when the scale doesn't match, as long as the comparison really applies. Like apples and oranges, both are fruits you can make juice or jam with.)

[Brian_K_White]

That is how illustrations work. If someone doesn't see something, you amplify it until it clubs them over the head and even an idiot can see it.

And sometimes of course even that doesn't work but there has always been and always will be the clued, clue-resistant, and the clue-proof. Can't do anything about the clue-proof but at least presenting the arguments allows everyone else to consider them.

This fixation on the reverence due a spouse is completely stupid and beside the point of the concept being expressed. As though you think there is some arbitrary rule about spouses that is the essense of the problem? The gift-for-spouse is an intentionally hyberbolic example of a concept that also exists and applies the same at non-hyperbolic levels.

The point of a clearer example is you recognize "oh yeah, that would be wrong" and so then the next step is to ask what makes it wrong? And why doesn't that apply the same back in the original context?

You apparently would say "because it's not my wife", but there is nothing magically different about needing to respect your spouses time vs anyone else's. It's not like there is some arbitrary rule that says you can't lie to a spouse simply because they are a spouse and those are the rules about spouses. You don't lie to a spouse because it's intrinsically wrong to lie at all to anyone. It's merely extra wrong to to do anything wrong to someone you supposedly claim to extra-care about. Lying was already wrong all by itself for reasons that don't have anything special to do with spouses.

This idea that it's fine to lie to and waste the time of everyone else, commandeer and harness their attention of an interaction with you, while you just let a robot do your part and you are off doing something more interesting with your own time and attention, to everyone else who isn't your spouse simply because you don't know them personally and have no reason to care about them is really pretty damning. The more you try to make this argument that you seem to think is so rational, the more empty inside you declare yourself to be.

I really can not understand how anyone can try to float the argument "What's so bad about being tricked if you can't tell you were tricked?" There are several words for the different facets of what's so wrong, such as "manipulation". All I can say is, I guess you'll just have to take it on faith that humans overwhemingly consider manipulation to be a bad thing. Read up on it. It's not just some strange idea I have.

[cschep]

I think we are having a fundamental disagreement about "being tricked" happening at all. I'm intelligent enough to follow the argument.

I see that, in the hyperbolic case, you are actively tricking your wife. I just don't agree that you are actively tricking randomly public visitors of a blog in any real way? there is no agreement in place such that you can "trick" them. Presumably you made commitments in your marriage. No commitments were made to the public when a blog got posted.

It's equally baffling to me that you would use one case to make the point of the other. It doesn't make any fucking sense.

[Brian_K_White]

Why was it wrong in the wife case? What specifically was wrong about it? Assume she never finds out and totally loves the gift. Is purely happy. (I guess part of this also depends on the answer to another question: What is she so happy about exactly?)

[cschep]

oh my god. I am a fucking idiot.

I thought we were talking about BUYING THE SECRETARY A GIFT. E.g. breaking his commitment to his wife through some implied/emotional cheating?

Having the secretary buy the gift? My god who cares. I have no argument against that at all.

Sorry I feel like I should delete all my comments but.. such is the internet.