No, it's not false. You harassed me to tell you if I had any vested interests or not. Now you are merely saying that is unethical if you have vested interests not to state them. I agree with the latter, as I have always done despite your misrepresentations, and I continue to not kowtow to the harassment to provide the former. Do you get it yet? I suspect you still don't.Your claim that I "completely changed tack" is false. I have been consistent throughout about why I asked both of you the question, and why I believed it was important, in the context of your hearty endorsements of Bitcoin, that you answer it.
I didn't call you stupid. I asked if you were really as stupid as that. Are you? You seem to miss the obvious difference, so I thought I'd ask. To wit:Your calling me stupid is just another pointless ad hominem - the sort of thing I have come to expect from you. You used to be capable of far better than this. Why not try to do better?
Exchemist had no issue in identifying it, so why can't you?There is no difference.
To break it down for you:
1. It is ethical to disclose the vested interests you have when promoting something.
2. You should disclose whether or not you have any vested interests.
1. says that IF they have any vested interests then the ethical course would be to disclose - i.e. the result is only a disclosure if it is a positive disclosure of a vested interest. There is no need under this to disclose the absence of vested interests, or to disclose anything unless promoting - and "promoting" needs to be more than just expressing a casual opinion. At least in my view. Or maybe you want everyone disclosing vested interests before expressing opinions.
2. somewhat different, in that it is an insistence (through means such as continued harassment, for example) on disclosure of having no vested interests, if that is the case.
Do you yet see the difference? Or is it still beyond your grasp?
After all what? After you've changed the position you're taking?What? No disagreement now? After all that?
I haven't disclosed whether I have or not, and I am not kowtowing to your harassment, out of principle, that I disclose whether I do or not. Now, it is up to you whether, having hopefully understood the distinction above, you believe I am acting in good faith and ethically, or not. If you don't, well, that's on you, not me.Okay. Let's try one more time:
Do you have a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?
I'll let you know if and when I ever "promote" Bitcoin to the level I feel warrants such disclosure. I have opinions, as I do on SpaceX, on Star Trek etc. Your standard would require everyone having an opinion to make such a disclosure. That's why it's nonsense.To be clear: I am asking you directly whether you stand to gain financially by promoting Bitcoin, either here or elsewhere. Do you, for example, own Bitcoin? Is it part of your paid employment to sell or promote Bitcoin?
Yes, and it is a very different position than just stating that it is ethical to disclose vested interests. Eyes open to the difference yet?This is the same question I asked you at the start of all this.
You did ask, and I am not answering, as I did not then, because it is/was not relevant to the points I made. I am not "promoting Bitcoin" in a manner that warrants it, and you have yet to demonstrate in any way that I have. Otherwise, as Tiassa highlighted to you, and as I have done in the past, that your standard requires anyone having an opinion on anything to disclose whether or not they have a vested interest.I asked you directly. The answer to the question "Do you have a vested interest in promoting Bitcoin?" is a simple "Yes" or "No".
It would James. I have never disagreed with that. It would also depend on what "promoting Bitcoin" entailed, as, so far, your standard of "promotion" is having a positive opinion of it. Like with SpaceX, or Star Trek. Or bananas. You have yet to show anything I have said warrants falling under this ethical duty.If the answer is "yes", then your ethical duty, when promoting Bitcoin, would be to disclose your vested interest.
I'm not answering one way or the other out of principle. Because your standard is nonsense, as explained multiple times and which remains unaddressed. And because there is a difference between someone choosing to declare a vested interest, and someone being harassed to answer whether they have one or not. But you seem to be blind to this difference.If the answer is "no", then I can rest easy, knowing that your enthusiastic promotion of Bitcoin on sciforums is just that: enthusiasm for Bitcoin, unsullied by a hope for personal advantage.
And I am also not sharing an opinion with you to make you "rest easy" or not about what I say. You either accept it on its merits or you don't. For all you bang on about ad hominems you still can't get past that elephant in the room, can you.
You haven't shown anything that warrants the level of "promoting Bitcoin" for ethical consideration. You've flustered and blustered about it, as if having a positive opinion alone warrants it. A nonsense standard. And as to refusing to answer, that is out of principle to highlight your ongoing harassment about it.Refusing to answer the question, while still promoting the merits of Bitcoin, raises suspicions about your motives, as it should. Making a big song and dance about refusing to answer the question raises the red flag higher.
Simply put, you failed to really counter any points made about Bitcoin at the time, you don't understand it, you can't see why people have a positive opinion, so you assume, or at least look for, an alterior motive. That's all about you, James.
You have. I have highlighted above when you have been so. So please stop lying.Why don't you stop the ad hominems? They do you no favours. I have not been dishonest.
???I'm not talking about hypothetical vested interests.??? Where on earth have you dug that from??At no time did I ask you if you had any hypothetical vested interests. I asked you to disclose any actual vested interests you have.
Ah, I see. "in people needing to declare not the vested interests they might have..." Alas this is a misunderstanding on your part. I was referring to your standard requiring people to declare interests they might have (since I don't know whether they do or not, "might" is the correct word).
Harassment is a means of trying to impose your will upon the other person.I have not tried to impose any standard.
You're (a) suggesting a nonsense standard that you haven't yet supported, that would require anyone with an opinion to declare whether they have a vested interest or not, and (b) you've been harassing me to disclose. It's not a gun, no, but it's not exactly "take it or leave it", is it.I have suggested an ethical course of behaviour you (generic 'you') might like to follow in your life, if you care about such things. Take it or leave it. I'm not holding a gun to your head.
So you say. The relevance of his criticism of your standard is quite clear, even if you take offence at his examples. And the criticisms remain unaddressed by you.Tiassa's nonsense about me imposing standards barely refers to this current discussion. To the extent that it does, he has failed to engage with the relevant ethical issue at all. Instead, he has merely told some lies and made some wildly inappropriate personal attacks.
You're now being delusional, I'm afraid. You have switched, from harassment to declare whether I have a vested interest or not, to a general notion that one should ethically declare vested interests if they promote. You can't see that difference, so I guess that's technically not dishonesty, just stupidity on your part. You have imposed, or tried to, through harassment. That much is clear for everyone to see. But then the dishonesty also comes from you still failing to show that anything I have said warrants ethical consideration, beyond being an opinion, the likes of which would see disclosures required for views on Star Trek, or SpaceX, or bananas, while continuing to harass.Wrong again. No dishonesty. No switching. No imposing. Three times demonstrably, factually wrong.
Okay, so you're also blind. And I guess that's deliberate, so that again speaks to your honesty, eh. Ah, well.There is no mistake that I am aware of. None that you have identified.
You still don't get it, do you. Seriously, how stupid are you, really? I mean that with all sincerity as I'm not sure I can go much slower.I await your disclosure, if you now accept my position on the duty to disclose.
I apologise for continuing to not kowtow to your harassment. I apologise for continuing to pick apart your posts to show them for what they are. Sure, my own behaviour isn't beyond reproach, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour, does it.I'm not aware of anything I need to apologise to you for, regarding this matter. Your own behaviour has reflected very poorly on you. Maybe you should consider apologising, after you finally come clean about your interests in Bitcoin (if you have any).
You have failed morally. You have made egregious errors here, but remain blinkered to them, seemingly deliberately so, which would be another moral failing, I guess.I don't really care what you expect, at this point. My own moral compass points me towards trying to do better whenever I fail morally. Taking responsibility for one's own actions and behaviours is an important part of that. I regularly do that.