I'm so happy the author is an ethical SEO scammer and will not stoop to these tactics.
replies(2):
Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/07/haggling-about-price.htm...
He was a failed military commander pre-PM, even ridiculed after the failed landing at Gallipoli:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign
Yet we most remember him as a fierce leader from the top, and he did so while under extreme stress due to U-boat attacks strangling shipping to Britain, and puzzlement from the German alien-level advanced technology (V-2 hypersonic ballistic missiles, long-range radio navigation, etc.)
(His scientific advisor told him the above technologies were disinformation, and couldn't be real.)
It's important to realize that while French and British public opinion became soft on the value of their culture and nationhood, Churchill knew better. Just like the pernicious impact of cultural Marxism today in the US, which must be fought as a war on every front.
2. There is a qualitative difference between life-changing money and day-job money.
3. "I won't risk my life any amount" is a dumb ideal, because everything has a risk of death.
2. Is one’s sense of right and wrong for all things driven by the amount of money involved? Are there some things money can’t buy?
3. Would you elaborate on this assertion? I don’t quite understand.
Sleeping with someone isn't exactly in the realm of moral repugnancy. It's not about right and wrong, the implication is that she is a whore. But she's not, because she wouldn't take money for sex as her job.
> Would you elaborate on this assertion? I don’t quite understand.
The article you linked is claiming that "the very real possibility of being killed" should disqualify the job, no matter what the pay. But that's an extremely myopic way of evaluating risk. Would he refuse on principle to commute an extra 15 minutes, even if it adds up to the same risk after 20 years? It doesn't look like it. But to take that risk all at once in exchange for 20 years of pay or even 50 years of pay means you've been "corrupted".
He's decided that some risks to yourself are fine and some risks to yourself are unacceptable based on arbitrary measures and not what actually keeps you safest.
Overly hard stances for risk mitigation lead to a lot of really bad conclusions and contradictions.