All the long text for...nothing.
I qualify now by your standard. Thanks for the guidance in qualifying based on your conditions.
It's not about
my standard, it's not about
my conditions.
It's about objectively verifiable standards. And I think it's quite a verifiable double standard to oppose gambling heavily (which is a legitimate opinion) but to advertise it on the other hand while even getting paid for that handsomely.
No need to pretend now, that you like gambling because you don't like it. It's okay if you don't like it but then, please stick to your standards.
If you are convinced, that gambling is bad, no need to participate in a signature ad campaign to get paid for it.
Otherwise, you'll have to live with people pointing out that double standard.
That's all fine.
There is only one thing that is the problem with what you are saying.
If people want to be a part of signature campaigns, they generally have two choices
Gambling
Mixers
Both are quite similar, in the sense that you can find an ethical problem with both based on their history.
With gambling, it is exploitation of human greed, and on top of this, mistreatment of players, unfairness of games, and as you can all see quite often, unjust KYC enforcement in order to profit from locked balances.
With mixing, it is simply that there have been so many scams. Much less mixers have closed legitimately in comparison to scamming, so one could consider mixers to be somewhat of a time bomb based on the data.
So thus leads to the problem in this part of what you are saying ...
It's about objectively verifiable standards. And I think it's quite a verifiable double standard to oppose gambling heavily (which is a legitimate opinion) but to advertise it on the other hand while even getting paid for that handsomely.
No need to pretend now, that you like gambling because you don't like it. It's okay if you don't like it but then, please stick to your standards.
If you are convinced, that gambling is bad, no need to participate in a signature ad campaign to get paid for it.
Otherwise, you'll have to live with people pointing out that double standard.
Your post is mostly reasonable but there is one flaw in the reality of it, which can be highlighted with two questions...
1. Do you think that for other people like me (who like this forum, and enjoy the bonus of having a paid advertising opportunity) should pretend if they want the opportunity?
2. Do you think there are pretenders here? If so, do you think that is a problem in itself?
Another question slightly related
Is it wrong to want the opportunity despite going against beliefs? Because at the end of the day, does myself participating in a campaign really make an impact on the gambling industry? If it is not me in the campaign, someone else will be...maybe someone who is pretending...isn't that worse?
I would like to have a conversation from here forward, I am happy to participate in the conversation with you if we can minus the attacks, and if we can just be civil...as I am sure you can agree, everything before these two posts has been too inflated with our own mutual distaste, caused by our difference in opinion.
I hope you can answer the 2/3 questions there and we can dig deeper into the topic!