Practical business ethics: when is it appropriate to disclose one's vested interests?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Nov 18, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Moderator note: This thread was split from the following thread - a discussion on the merits or otherwise of Bitcoin as an investment:

    https://www.sciforums.com/threads/cryptocurrencies.164025/


    The issue of the circumstances in which it would be ethically appropriate to declare one's own vested interests, for example when promoting a product or service, came up in that discussion. However, complaints were made that the issue of business ethics was irrelevant to the discussion of Bitcoin.

    Therefore, that part of the discussion was moved here.
    ----------------------------------------------


    That's because you have a differing opinion. You think my statements are an advertisement and Sarkus must be working for the crypto industry. That's a different style of discussion but if it works for you...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2023
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    About whether you might be advertising?
    You post reads like an advertisement, to me.

    Do you have a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?
    Good.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Your posts read like trolling, to me.

    Do you have a vested interest in trolling Bitcoin or is it just truly ignorance?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Thanks for declaring your vested interest in promoting Bitcoin.

    So far, Sarkus is unwilling to join you in that disclosure.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Because, as explained already, a number of times, JamesR, it is an irrelevancy. Whether or not I have a vested interest makes no difference to the accuracy or veracity of what I have said, which stand or fall on the words themselves. Why are you struggling to understand that relatively simple notion, such that you are continuing to ask this irrelevant question? Stop asking irrelevant questions which you should know by now I have no interest in answering.

    Tell you what, JamesR, you tell me what you want me to say, what answer you want me to give. Do you want me to say that I am heavily invested in the cryptoworld and have made a comfortable future for myself off the back of it? Do you want me to say that I have no investments at all, and would never consider such, even if I think it an interesting technology which people clearly find beneficial? Do you want me to say that I have lost thousands of dollars in the technology? Millions, perhaps? Or made thousands? Millions? How about if I say that I'm employed by one of these exchanges at the developer level? Or that I actually launched my own exchange? Or perhaps launched my own coin? Or maybe I'm employed by a lobby-group to promote the tech. Or perhaps none of the above?

    So you tell me what you want me to say, okay. You tell me what will make you happy and what will fit the fantasy that you're wanting to create, okay?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    You are declaring your bias interest in having no knowledge in the subject that you are discussing. This is a petty position to take even for you.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    As I have explained, it is relevant.
    I have asked no irrelevant questions.
    Here's an idea: you could try being honest. Might be too high a bar for you, it seems.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    I have made no such declaration.

    Did Sarkus tell you to write that?
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Didn't you suggest that Sarkus and I are the same person?
     
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    James, since I assume that you don't own a spaceship shouldn't you disclose that bias?
     
    exchemist likes this.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    At one time in the past, I thought you might be.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    If it's relevant to trying to promote Bitcoin, I guess. Of course, whether one is invested in Bitcoin seems more relevant to this topic than the question of whether one owns a spaceship.
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    How so?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    *sigh*

    Is it not obvious to you that if somebody owns lots of Bitcoin, or is paid by somebody to promote Bitcoin, or whatever, then knowing those facts would put people in a better position to evaluate that person's enthusiastic promotion of Bitcoin as the bestest investment in the world?

    If not, I don't know how I can help you.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2022
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    You have merely asserted that it is relevant. No explanation as to why it is. Whereas I have quite clearly explained why it is not.

    The closest you have come to explaining why you think it relevant was in post #165:
    "Do you believe a possible vested interest would be an irrelevant strawman here? Explain it to me. Because, to me, it would seem to be obviously relevant that a person who has a vested interest in keeping Bitcoin up and running might be motivated to argue stridently to keep it up and running - even dishonestly, possibly.
    Why is this a straw man? Explain. Tell me why the vested interest wouldn't matter in this case.
    "

    It is only relevant to the fallacious ad hominem you're wanting to argue - i.e. against the person and not the points they have actually made. That is why it is irrelevant. Argue the points the person has made, not the person. How does any vested interest the person has change the accuracy or veracity or logic of what they have argued? If it doesn't, then how is it relevant? Answer: it's not. If you think someone is being dishonest, has lied about something, then point out that lie, point out their error, etc. That's how it should work, JamesR.
    You clearly have, as explained numerous times: a vested interest does not alter the veracity or accuracy of someone's argument. It is thus not relevant. It is a fallacy of relevance.

    To quote from your own sticky: Logical Fallacies:
    (emphasis mine for highlighting purposes).
    Spot the similarity with your "relevant" question here?

    Need any further explanation as to why your question is irrelevant?
    I am being honest: your question is irrelevant, as it as an argument against the person, not the points that have been made, which has been releatedly explained to you. You could try addressing those points rather than who made them, I guess. That would help put Little Miss Irony back in her bottle that you otherwise keep seeming too eager to release.
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    Seemingly all it takes is to be at the same website, post in the same forums, and, occasionally, take a similar stance on a matter that JamesR disagrees with, and both of you to be insulted by his misrepresentations, say, for JamesR to then think that you might be the same person. I mean, that's far more likely, right? Rationally speaking? Right??
    Meh, why am I replying to myself, anyway?!!?
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    I think you have not been open and honest about any vested interest you might have in promoting Bitcoin.

    Full disclosure, please!
    I'm no longer interested in engaging with your arguments about Bitcoin. For all I know, you're a paid promoter just trying to advertise.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    I took more than that.

    To be clear, I don't now believe that you and Seattle are the same person.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    I have not been open because it is not relevant, and remains not relevant. There is nothing dishonest about not sharing a matter that is not relevant to the discussion.
    Why? What relevance does it have to what I have said? Explain the relevance, if you can. Show how it is not simply an ad hominem strawman. Show how whether I have a vested interest or not changes the veracity or accuracy of what I have said, rather than such things being based on what I have actually said. Can you do that?
    So you're unable and/or unwilling to address what I have actually written, then? Fair enough, at least you're being honest about your dishonesty

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    Whether or not I have a vested interest is utterly irrelevant to the points I have made, which fall or stand on their own merits. Your continuing to argue such an ad hominem strawmen is simply indicative of your inability to argue the matter with honesty. Can't argue what has been said, so let's argue the person instead. Let's dismiss what he has said because I don't know whether he has vested interests... which don't actually affect what he has said.

    If you weren't a moderator your approach here would have been reported for blatant dishonesty. But there's little point in reporting a moderator for such, right?
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    That you even thought it was the case at all is telling. But, hey, whatever.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page