Serial Switching for Rewards. Not good.

masonic

scgf wrote: »

It's my opinion which gives it no more validity than your opinion. When it comes to morality and ethics there are indeed shades of grey and I admit I see fewer shades of grey than others might. I have a sense of right and wrong and it's always difficult to argue a moral stance - you can only do it from your own perspective and even then you set yourself up for attack. On the other hand I really believe we should stand up and speak out about issues we feel are not right - whether that be Trump's racism, Boris Johnson's lies and duplicity, or Corbyn's friendship with known terrorists. I fully appreciate that in each case there will be supporters who take a completely opposite stance.

I am not a Christian, but to answer your question the first thing Jesus would do is talk about the plank in my own eye. I get it. I try, though, and I'm absolutely not prefect and I'm not looking down on others from a height. Jesus cast out the merchants and money-lenders from the temple so I suppose he did have something to say about these things.

I'm not a Christian either, I was just editing in a further insight more relevant to your Buddhism when you replied to me - sorry that edit crossed with your post, but it seems we are in agreement regarding moral relativism.

I also agree, if one has all of the relevant facts, one is quite entitled to publicly express one's opinion about specific events or actions of a public figure, especially a representative of the people. But it is against forum rules to do so about other forum members here, as any opinions would necessarily be specific to an individual and a personal attack on that individual.

He wouldn't be happy about the banks and their practices, however he wouldn't support a contrary reaction which is immoral.

Oops, maybe we do disagree about moral relativism. I don't think there is any value in discussing it further, though.

System

masonic wrote: »

I also agree, if one has all of the relevant facts, one is quite entitled to publicly express one's opinion about specific events or actions of a public figure. But it is against forum rules to do so about other forum members here, as any opinions would necessarily be specific to an individual and a personal attack on that individual.

If we take away the right of an individual to generalise we change the whole landscape of rhetoric and debate. I appreciate that for every generalisation there are exceptions (usually anecdotal) but it is surely not wrong to say that a person's actions suggest something about their character.

Zanderman

scgf wrote: »

I am not a Christian, but to answer your question the first thing Jesus would do is talk about the plank in my own eye. I get it. I try, though, and I'm absolutely not prefect and I'm not looking down on others from a height. Jesus cast out the merchants and money-lenders from the temple so I suppose he did have something to say about these things. He wouldn't be happy about the banks and their practices, however he wouldn't support a contrary reaction which is immoral.

For someone who's 'not a Christian' you seem to set great store by what Christians say Jesus did. And what you think Jesus would say or support. The whole Jesus scenario is a Christian story - not necessarily true (all religious stories are hand-me-downs over generations, established to reinforce that particular belief). If you're not a Christian, Jesus (if he existed) was just a bloke from down the road and the stories are just fairy-tales. You might as well quote Hans Christian (no pun intended) Anderson.

masonic

scgf wrote: »

If we take away the right of an individual to generalise we change the whole landscape of rhetoric and debate. I appreciate that for every generalisation there are exceptions (usually anecdotal) but it is surely not wrong to say that a person's actions suggest something about their character.

I believe it is wrong to judge others based upon limited knowledge of their actions. I have no issue with condemning the actions themselves, but condemning the person or their character is crossing the line. The only exception is when that person is yourself, and even that is arguable.

System

masonic wrote: »

I believe it is wrong to judge others based upon limited knowledge of their actions. I have no issue with condemning the actions themselves, but condemning the person or their character is crossing the line. The only exception is when that person is yourself, and even that is arguable.

You're absolutely right. I have crossed the line and I apologise. I condemn the actions but know nothing about the individuals who carry out those actions.

DCFC79

Nothing wrong with serial switching, the banks are giving free money so why not make use of it.

masonic

scgf wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I have crossed the line and I apologise. I condemn the actions but know nothing about the individuals who carry out those actions.

I'm glad we can agree on this point. Perhaps we can pivot this discussion... In condemning the actions, presumably you believe they have some form of negative impact, cause harm in some way or will lead to negative consequences in the future. I've previously expressed the view that the money used to fund such incentives comes out of a corporate advertising budget, would otherwise have been spent on more conventional promotional activities, so exploiting such offers is of little consequence. But that's not to say there are no negative consequences. Perhaps this is money that would otherwise go elsewhere - to shareholders, staff or (cough) customers. I'd be interested in hearing your view.

Andystriker

scgf wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I have crossed the line and I apologise. I condemn the actions but know nothing about the individuals who carry out those actions.

I condemn the actions of the Banks and Insurance companies and other providers who continue to offer financial rewards, and better deals to new customers only.

Newly_retired

You could view your rewards as opportunities for charitable giving, if you so chose.

Sea_Shell

scgf wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I have crossed the line and I apologise. I condemn the actions but know nothing about the individuals who carry out those actions.

Consider this...

What if that "serial switcher" then gives their incentive payments to charity?? Directly or indirectly.

What do consider "serial"? Twice, 3 times, 12 times? And over what timescale?