Alright, let me get at this point by point.
Both the military and LEOs fully know what their job entails and they take it based on that knowledge. Just as telemarketers should. If they can't accept the down side, then they shouldn't take the job. All of them need to go into their job with their eyes open and fully prepared to take what they can expect to receive from it and because of it.
I agree, so long as this logic holds true all around, and not just for one side of this. Let's switch out some words.
People fully know what having a phone entails and they get one based on that knowledge. If they can't accept the downside, then they shouldn't get a phone. All of them need to get a phone with their eyes open and fully prepared to take what they can expect to receive from it and because of it.
Does it still hold there? If you say no, then I call that hypocrisy.
As far as telemarketers are concerned, no, having a phone doesn't implicitly grant them my permission to use it to throw sales pitches at me, nor restrain me from not appreciating it and letting them know about it.
Last time I checked, a person did not need your permission to call you. The laws of this land do not forbid them from doing so, and thus, grant them permission to do so. As I said before, you can respond to them in any way you wish.
Just as my having a door to my house that might happen to be unlocked be an implicit invitation to anyone inclined to just walk in and make themselves at home in my house.
This would be a viable comparison if someone calling you on the phone could legally be considered trespassing. As is, it is not viable.
I am paying for the phone service for MY use, not theirs.
And their employer is paying for its phone service for their use.
Further, to say that they may have no other option for employment and should be tolerated because of it, is pure nonsense.
I agree, especially since I didn't say this. In response to the comment that if they don't like being insulted constantly, they should do something else, I said that sometimes there isn't something else for them to do, due to any number of reasons. This pretty much makes the rest of that paragraph moot, but I want to look at one comparison.
So one of these poor souls threatening me with a tire iron should be simply handed over my wallet in recognition of their pitiful financial state? And such a person might be aghast that I would resist their overture for separating me from my money, or would they expect it and understand it comes with the territory?
In the case of telemarketing, it would be more akin to a bum on the street asking for money as opposed to someone forcibly taking your money, as you have a choice as to whether to give your money to telemarketers. Now, when that bum asks you for change, do you start yelling at him, telling him that he is worthless, and what the hell is he asking you for money for on Sunday morning? Do you tell him to do such and such or to meet you here, do you hold your hand with money in it out the window and then drive off just before he gets it, and then laugh about having made him waste his time and energy?
If a person doesn't like the necessities of a job they have chosen, then they need to change the job, not expect the rest of the world to change in order to accomodate what they want.
I agree, but that still doesn't justify someone being a jerk to a telemarketer simply because someone had to go pick up the phone. Rich, I have called you a few times, and did not send you one dime, and the time spent talking to me produced nothing extra, and probably impeeded other things getting done, if only for an hour or so. I, personally, have wasted more of your time than probably all the telemarketing calls you have received in the past two months. Why was I not the target of some scathing verbal onslaught?
Ritchie, and everyone else that has used this as justification for hurling insults at telemarketers, no one is forcing you to stay on the phone. If you say not interested and they keep talking, why not hang up? Because it's rude, you say? More rude than lobbing personal insults?
As I have said, it's ok to be annoyed at telemarketing calls. But to be told that it is ok to verbally lambast a group of people simply because they should expect it is a load of crap. Does America expect another terrorist attack to happen? I think most Americans do. Does that make it ok? Hell no.
This comparison works for both sides of this issue. Should you expect to be bothered by telemarketers? Yes. Does that make it right? No. Should they expect many people to be jerks? Yes. Does that make it right? No.
One might say, "But we are going after the terrorists." That's right. And you can do this with the telemarketers too. You can lobby congress to make telemarketing illegal. Being an ass to them on the phone, however, is comparable to spitting on your Muslim neigbhor because you don't like terrorists. It acheives nothing, with the exception that it makes you a jerk.
After this long post, I am really losing the motivation to continue debating this, as what I say will probably not change anyone's mind, and that's ok. What bothers me is here are these people who I respect, and they are saying it is ok to lump together this group of people, based on one trait that doesn't really define them, and declare that this group is deserving of poor treatment due to that trait, but that it is not ok to do this based on some other trait, such as owning reptiles. This is the whole reason I am debating this, not because I care whether or not you cuss out some telemarketer, but becuase the justification seems so hypocritical to me. If you are just a jerk, then I'm fine with that, but don't give me some rationalized, bullcrap reasoning about they should expect it. For me, this issue isn't about telemarketers, or people in general, it's about you guys.
