Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

Grandpa Kim http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I liked your dissertation on "duty";
===========================================
Do not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.
But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with leech who wants "just a few minutes of your time, please-- this won't take long." Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time-- and squawk for more!
So learn to say No-- and to be rude about it when necessary.
Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you.
(This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)

=============================================

The fundamental issue here is "Who has the right to decide your actions".

We often do the kneejerk reaction when someone accuses us of not doing our duty or of being selfish. If we do, then we accept the premise that the person has the right to control us.

But we can pause and think about the accusation. We can acknowledge that we have the right to say "No" to the person claiming we are selfish. And if the person continues on the "selfish" tact or some other ploy, then that person is being manipulative as he/she will not accept 'no' for an answer.

A good way to question that person perception of his right to control or manipulate your actions is to ask "What part of 'No' do you not understand."

The hard manipulator will totally ignore the question and continue to manipulate which should tell you something about him/her.

In such a situation, you then have a number of choices.
1) Remove yourself from the situation
2) Ask the question again and again until he/she addresses it.

The soft manipulator will pause and then try to divert it or explain it away, but still avoiding the issue that you have a right to decide the issue for yourself

The answer to the soft manipulator is "I have the right to say 'No' to anything I do not like. I choose to say 'No' now."

If the soft manipulator continues, go back to "What part of 'No' do you not understand?"

Unfortunately, the inability to say 'No' is part of the 'please disease'.

We do not want to offend, so we repress our own needs in preference to the other's.

We then run the danger of establishing a relationship where the other person's needs are paramount and our needs do not count.

In such a situation it can become very difficult to re-establish an 'equal' relationship as the manipulator (consciously or unconsciously) does not want to relinquish the power he has over the other person.

It does help to say to yourself when you are accused of being selfish "No, I am not being selfish, I am being selfull."

It also helps to acknowledge "When I am empty, I have nothing to give to others. So, I need to look after myself first and when I have done that, I can choose where and how I want to help others."

It is only when a person acknowledges that s/he (and nobody else) has the right to make her/his own decisions and acknowledges that s/he is accountable for them that the person can reclaim the right and the power to decide things for himself.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

I had a telemarketer try this on me.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My understanding is that a lot of telemarketers are trained not to accept "No" as an answer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If they can keep you on the line, their odds of succeeding increases of finding a 'chink' they can exploit.

Much more difficult to sell you something when you have hung up (removed yourself from the situation). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But the area in which we have the most difficulty is our personal life. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

A parent, sibling, friend or boss may be using similiar tactics to get their way.

We can be quite blind to the tactics used by these people since we may prefer to believe they "care" deeply about us.

If so, we are probably in denial that someone we love/like/dependant upon would use us in such a way.

And if we try to questioning it, we are brought face to face with the possibility that s/he may not love or like us.

For a lot of people that can be incredibly painful.

The need to be loved or liked can be so great that it aborts any 'real' attempt to take control of their lives and change their situation.

In such a situation, the please disease is in full operation.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

Glad you liked the quote, tbontob. Its not mine, of course, but it fits my philosophy.

Another reply to the subhuman who just won't quit: "If you want it so badly, you do it!" Many variations on this reply: "If you think I need it so badly, then you pay for it.", "It doesn't interest me so I won't waste my time on it... but since it interests you, you can spend your time on it."

If they still persist, start writing out an invoice for your time. And don't forget the zeros!

Kim

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

The solution to telemarketers is to have a 900 number. No two ways about it. Get rich for listening to them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROFLOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

My latest technique on telemarketers, especially those asking for charity donations (like Florida Highway Patrol Sympathy Fund or whatever it is) is to ask the caller how much they have personally donated to the cause. When they stutter and stammer, I politely inform them that they shouldn't call back until/unless they have given to the very important causes they are promoting. I also love finding out an ATT telemarketer (who probably lives in town here and very rarely actually works for ATT) has Sprint for his long-distance carrier, or vice-versa. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

"My understanding is that a lot of telemarketers are trained not to accept "No" as an answer."

I worked very briefly (translation: two weeks) as one, and yep, that's the case. I was told to not accept no for an answer until the -third- time I gave a counter and was turned down.

One of the reasons I quit. I have a very simple strategy for dealing with telemarketers. As soon as I figure out who they are, I hang up. It's not rude because A. they're interuptting MY day, so if anyone is rude they are, and B. I'm not going to buy anything, so the faster they get off me the faster they can move on to someone else. At least where I worked a lot of the pay is commission.

Phoenix-D

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

That's a good point. I have never hung up on a telemarketer; I have difficulty doing that. But I really should. I have gotten into debates with them about why I should or shouldn't buy their insurance or newspaper subscription or whatever, and it was not pleasant, as some of these people were really good at arguing and countering my objections. I'd keep saying no, but since I wasn't prepared for a debate like they were, my arguments seemed weak compared to theirs, and I felt awkward, but eventually they'd give up. I got tired of this and I came up with a method to deal with them: don't try to reason with them normally. I would talk like I'm super sleepy, and I'd pause a long time to answer, and I'd mumble my answers slowly, pretend that I don't understand, and act like a complete dummy. They quickly get frustrated talking to me and they go away. Maybe I should just hang up on them instead.

By the way, I haven't met anybody who's worked as a telemarketer who didn't hate the job. They said that the computer automatically dials the next number the instant you finish a call with someone, and it's really stressful because you have to keep going, one call after another with no pauses in between.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

I hate telemarketers. I have 2 ways of dealing with them:

1> I repeatedly explain to them that I have a personal policy *never* to buy anything from telemarketers, and that I consider their call an invasion of my privacy. I then ask them to remove my details from their lists (I doubt they ever do) and hang up.

2> I put them on "hold". Since I don't actually have a hold button on my phone, this means just putting the phone by my stereo and playing funny and/ or offensive and/or bizarre music. In the past I've come back to them after 15 minutes or more and found them hanging on...

I'd like to think that on those telemarketting lists they circulate, my name has got a big black "Don't waste your time phoning this guy" warning next to it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

I ask to speak with a supervisor and I get thier office number and have them send me written confirmation of removal. I also get their names.

The only companies I found that have their own telemarketers is places like Sears, Macy, Wall Street Journal, and the US Energy Dept.

When I signed up for a do not promote list by my state I found a lot of people sign themselves up for it. Like those little vacation info things at the mall or the car give-aways, and such. Some buy the information from creditors which really peeve me.

I actually met once person who said he liked his job. He also said he had a bubbly personality and was extremely rude to me. Then he started asking if my name was greek (but I said it was a wrong number http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif and never said my name)....

btw, the Highway patrol one is a scam.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

What I have found to be extremely effective is to interrupt their chatter and ask "Are you selling something?"

Almost invariably, there is a pause and an affirmative answer. I then say, it is my policy never to buy anything over the phone and hang up.

I have never had a telemarketer lie to me that he was not selling something. If they did, I would probably just tell them it is my policy to never buy anything from liars and cheats. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Occasionally a telemarketer will be evasive and not answer the question. That is a tip off to me that s/he is selling something and I take the evasiveness as an affirmation that they are in fact selling something and then go into my speel about my policy to never buy anything over the phone and hang up.

I do have some difficulty when charitable organizations call. I have my favourites to support but can't support them all and some of them are a bit off the wall.

How do you guys handle charitable request? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

I deal with telemarketers by screening all my calls through my answering machine. 9 out of 10 won't even leave a message, and the ones that do are usually computerized recordings anyway.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

I like toying with the people that call. There was this one company that kept calling us. But I forget what the name was. But anyways, they would go on their spew and I would basically repeat it and act all excited and stuff and be like "Wow! That is a great deal!" or something like that and they would continue on. Then I would find a flaw in their promotion and exploit it and do different stuff.
It is rather fun and they stutter around trying to reply to some of the stuff you come up with.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

E. Albright http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The quote was not mine but Grandpa Kim's although he got it from somewhere else.

However, like him, I do endorse it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And you do bring up a good point.

The issue is who has the right to decide our actions.

Grandpa Kim and I believe we should not have a knee-jerk reaction to someone claiming a person has a duty to do something.

That opens the door to a manipulative, conniving person to control the actions of a person.

I believe we have the right to examine whether or not there is a overriding or overwhelming duty.

I believe that even if there is a duty, there may be overriding considerations which may make the duty less compelling or commanding.

An example is the Viet Nam war. Conscripted kids had a duty to report to the military and participate in the war. Some of them questioned it, fought it and ultimately won in the long run.

The hard-liners of duty would have us believe we should do our duty without question.

But duty changes with the times. And to demand we be hard-wired to it, is IMHO neither healthy or advantages to the person or to the nation.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One thing really troubles me about GK's quote. If one takes it seriously, it eliminates the possibility of the existence of ethical standards, or at least prescriptive ones. If one mustn't do what others want you to do, one cannot accept their behavioral rules (i.e., morale codes). And if you claim that the statement has nothing to do with ethics and/or ethics are a special case, you've essentialy subverted your argument, as any request can be turned into one based on morality. Or should you argue that one can accept such things, but one must freely choose to do so, well... Like I said, this kills prescriptive morality; one no longer has any basis for demanding any sort of behavior from anyone else...

Admittedly, if one refuses to accept the concept of objective ethics, the preceeding is less than meaningless.

E. Albright

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

E_A: If I inderstand your comment correctly...

If you are doing something becasue it is morally/ ethically right, then it makes no difference whether someone has asked you to do it or not, and a different set of rules apply.

[ January 14, 2003, 12:49: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And I do so refuse.

I refuse to give anyone or any group the right to force their concept of ethics on me. Most likely they won't come up to my standards anyway.

(BTW, this quote is from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" by Robert A. Heinlein.)

Kim

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

There have been some chain e-mail Messages going around on the topic of stopping drunk driving. They try to manipulate you into forwarding the message to everybody by saying that it's an important cause and that if you don't do this simple thing, you're being incredibly selfish. I received multiple copies of the same thing from different people within a few days so obviously people are following the instructions. I find chain letters annoying and I never forward them to anybody.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Problem: morality doesn't evolve in a void. Most (though admittedly not all) people recieve their concept of what is "right" directly from others, and thus to do what is "right" can generally be viewed as doing what you're told, though by whom changes from one instance to another.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I was aware it wasn't your statement. See thread subject and the phrase "GK's quote" in my prior reply. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

And yes, blind obedience is IMO a "bad" thing. "Bad" rather than bad because...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I too reject the concept of objective ethical standards, albeit for longwinded metaethical reasons. My view of right and wrong is purely my own, and admittedly purely arbitrary. As is, IMO, everyone else's (excepting perhaps the admittedly part).

So I don't expect people to agree with me about what is right, and full well expect that people can, will and must radically disagree with my personal standards of ethics. So what's the rub of this? Well, I can't really judge other people in any kind of compelling way. When I say "I think that what you're doing is bad", it's like I've said "'Boo!' for what you're doing", and if I say it's good, I'm saying "'Rah!' for what you're doing" (this outlook is called emotivism, BTW).

IMO, the rejection of objective ethics reduces my ability to judge the actions of others to a capacity to state purely personal opinions as to the value of their acts, comparable to statements regarding my preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate, or vice versa. I can't in good faith say "You ought to do that"; I must instead say "I think you ought to do that", or better still, "I would like you to do that", whether "that" is not punching people like me in the face, avoiding cheating on your spelling test or restraining from deep-fat-frying your neighbor. Anything else smacks to me of hardcore hypocrisy...

E. Albright

[ January 15, 2003, 10:39: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

Hmmmm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The only real point I was making is that every individual should have the right to question anything which attempts to remove his right to decide things for himself.

So, if someone says I have a duty to do something, I should have the right to question whether in fact such a duty does exist, instead of doing a knee-jerk reaction to comply.

Or if someone says I am selfish when I want to do or not do something, I should have the right to question whether in fact I am selfish, instead of doing the knee-jerk reaction to comply.

Duty and the accusation of selfishness are only two of an arsenal of weapons a manipulator can use to get what he wants.

But until we accept that we have the right to question whether there is in fact a duty or whether we are in fact selfish, we will be susceptable to the manipulations of unscrupulous people.

The person's ethical system as well as the ethical system of the society he lives in will play a major part in that person's decision whether a duty (or selfishness) exists or not.

If a person decides he doesn't owe a duty and acts on it, it is possible he may contravene a law of the society in which he lives or becomes the object of censure by his neighbours.

As such he may be "wrong" according to the morays of society and be punished for it. But that is the chance he takes in making the decision to decide things for himself. He is responsible for his actions.

It is my personal choice that I would much rather run the risk of making a "wrong" decision by choice than by making a "wrong" decision" by virtue of a knee-jerk reaction.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

Duty: Obligations of behavior or conduct in relation to others or to God which have a stronger claim on a person than his self-interest. Or, the work someone is expected to do because of his vocation.

It is the duty of the telemarketers to try and sell you the product, because that is what they are geting paid to do.

and as for how I deal with them, I let them ramble on and on and on, and make them think they are getting somewhere. They call me and invade my time. bad idea as I have lots of time. i find it funny, as most of the time, you can tell the newer marketers as they are quite proficient in the early part of the script, but they don't make it to page two all too often and they start talking in monotone, because they have not commited that part to memory yet. thats when I say things like "you have not been doing this long, have you?". Or once I am bored with wasting their time I tell them after much consideration, I have to decline at this point" and hang up. Keeping in mind, the longer they spend on a no-sale call, the more incompetent it makes them look. time wasted=less calls=less money=new vocation choice. and that is what we all hope for, is that they all get new jobs anyway.

You also can get their name, and tell them to take you off their call-back list. If they don't, you have the right to sue. You just have to remember to get the company name, and the caller's name (or EE number) and document the date/time they call. Personally, I find my way more fun.
Computer calls, I just hang up. And charitable calls like the sherriff's department are not excepted from the method. Usually they will want to send you a sticker or some other bobble, I tell them i already got my sticker for this year, matter of fact got it the other day. I have yet to have one smart enough to ask for my CONTINUED support of their worthy cause, but I have a responce for that too.... anything to keep THEM on the line. It's all just a matter of perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And pray tell, what would be your response to "continued support"? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

I always have a charity mail me thier paper work, I won't donate over the phone because of the number of charity scams running now.

For example, the 9/11 fund scams.

Re: Grandpa Kim on the topic of duty
 

Simple, I whine about my limited income and explain that my Last donation was beyond what I really should have afforded, but to feel free to call back next year.

The victory in this game, is to get them to thank me for my time and have them hang up on me. lol

(edited for typo and additional thought)

[ January 15, 2003, 12:05: Message edited by: couslee ]