5 ms·

Similarly, if a woman pretends not to be a gold digger, lies to a man for 6 years and ruins his life, maybe she should also owe him compensation? Perhaps she co

Similarly, if a woman pretends not to be a gold digger, lies to a man for 6 years and ruins his life, maybe she should also owe him compensation? Perhaps she convinced him to get a vasectomy under false pretenses to avoid the existence of other heirs, if you feel childbearing ability is the crucial factor. It's the same act, just for a worse motive (grabbing his wealth rather than stopping terrorists). Yet few would suggest the law should get involved.

jacquesm 11y ago
I got the impression from the article that this person was doing this because they were part of a government operation, and not because they took a fancy to the victim for any other reason. If you see any 'golddiggers' (male or female) doing such a thing under a false identity with the express goal of getting close to this person at the orders of their superior then yes, that too should be a crime. But somehow I think that's not what you had in mind.
- rmc 11y ago
  Yes, he was doing it as part of his job as a police officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_%28police_officer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_%28police_officer...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  So doing it on your own rather than under orders is fine? If mark stone just wanted a shag and kept things from his superiors then this would be OK?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    If Mark Stone had a relationship with a woman outside of his profession then he should be entirely free to do whatever he wants, within the limits of what that particular society feels is acceptable. The fact that he's doing this as a deception at the orders of his boss makes this relationship a-symmetrical and causes the lady to lose a number of years that she'll never have back and will likely cause her grave trust issues for many years to come. The fact that it lasted for 6 whole years makes it a lot worse. How big a chunk of someone's life wasted is 'acceptable damage'? 10? 50? All of it? You don't mess with people like that, especially not when you're nominally tasked with protecting people. Pretending to be someone else as a private individual would be deplorable behavior, setting this up as a government institution makes it actionable and in my opinion this sort of operation should be illegal unless there is a very clear and very present danger related to that particular person, I see no evidence of that. Note that the lady was never charged with anything whatsoever, she was simply used as a tool for a substantial chunk of her life and then discarded the moment the game was up.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      She would lose 6 years and trust issues if he were a private actor also. Again - would this be OK if he just wanted a shag while undercover and his bosses were unaware? If not, then the boss thing is a red herring. Is sending a sexy lady cop go seduce anti-gay terrorists also unacceptable? Particularly if it turned out that they weren't actually gay bashing but instead just protesting gay weddings, pushing employers to fire gay employees, and other assholeish but legal behavior?
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        > She would lose 6 years and trust issues if he were a private actor also. Yes, and that would be a very bad thing. > Again - would this be OK if he just wanted a shag while undercover and his bosses were unaware? He's an undercover cop, what his bosses are or are not aware of is immaterial. He's on 'company time' so to speak and if he does things while on 'company time' when interacting with people the company tasked him to interact with and he does not tell them about it that does not absolve them, especially not if that lasts for 6 years. That would make them dangerously incompetent if they weren't aware of it. > Is sending a sexy lady cop go seduce anti-gay terrorists also unacceptable? To seduce them per-se: absolutely not acceptable, especially not if she sexy lady cop is the one taking the initiative. To gather evidence: to pretend to be their friend (not to seduce them) for a limited time, maybe, if the crimes those people are engaged in are serious enough and that is the only way that evidence can be gathered. A police officer being ordered by their superior to have sex with a subject is already crossing a whole pile of lines. After all, the police is supposedly there to serve the public, not to get off on the public. > Particularly if it turned out that they weren't actually gay bashing but instead just protesting gay weddings, pushing employers to fire gay employees, and other assholeish but legal behavior? See above. It's all about proportionality.
        blfr 11y ago
        What if he was a salesman seducing women on the job using the nice company car. Perhaps leveraging requirements of his job to maintain more than one relationship. Would the company employing him be responsible for the loss of (reproductive?) years then?
cstross 11y ago
Show me a State-directed gold digger and I might consider accepting your false equivalence. Hint: this wasn't just a relationship between two people, one of whom was deceiving the other about their intentions: it was a relationship that existed because a government agency wanted to spy on the target and their friends.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? Or is there no principle, but this just seems unpleasant and the lady seems like a sympathetic person with a good cause? (I too don't think it was an effective use of police resources.)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gutnor 11y ago
    > That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Well, that's generally the case. Free speech is essentially a restriction of government power. Also you are purposefully ignoring the scale. It is ok to jail someone for a few days, even weeks until their innocence is proven. If you jail them for decades, that's another story. So pretend relationship is fine, 6 years of pretend relationship is not ok.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - akiselev 11y ago
    》So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Yes. That's the entire point of the United States Constitution. The State has an overwhelming amount of power and resources relative to any of its citizens, including the richest ones. Our entire union is based on a document that outlines limits to that power, limits that often don't apply to citizens and corporations. That's why the state can only rarely stifle speech or actively exclude minorities (at least jn theory) but private organizations like the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate against legally protected groups and corporations can fire employees at the drop of a hat if they say something publicly that the employer disapproves of. 》Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? On a sting or a short term undercover op to catch someone who is actually dangerous to the public? Sure, it would be acceptable. This isn't an issue with an absolute answer, but six years of subversion that cause immense emotional pain to an environmentalist who clearly poses no threat (assuming they were competent it should maybe take 6-12 months to figure that out)? Are we talking about US Law enforcement or the Soviet era KGB?
omginternets 11y ago
The point of an analogy isn't to be exactly identical to the thing it's describing. If people are suggesting the law get involved in this particular case, it's because a state actor is involved. If a state actor ruined a man's life in the manner you describe, I think almost everybody of sane mind would want to see heads roll.

jacquesm 11y ago

I got the impression from the article that this person was doing this because they were part of a government operation, and not because they took a fancy to the victim for any other reason. If you see any 'golddiggers' (male or female) doing such a thing under a false identity with the express goal of getting close to this person at the orders of their superior then yes, that too should be a crime. But somehow I think that's not what you had in mind.

rmc 11y ago
Yes, he was doing it as part of his job as a police officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_%28police_officer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_%28police_officer...
yummyfajitas 11y ago
So doing it on your own rather than under orders is fine? If mark stone just wanted a shag and kept things from his superiors then this would be OK?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  If Mark Stone had a relationship with a woman outside of his profession then he should be entirely free to do whatever he wants, within the limits of what that particular society feels is acceptable. The fact that he's doing this as a deception at the orders of his boss makes this relationship a-symmetrical and causes the lady to lose a number of years that she'll never have back and will likely cause her grave trust issues for many years to come. The fact that it lasted for 6 whole years makes it a lot worse. How big a chunk of someone's life wasted is 'acceptable damage'? 10? 50? All of it? You don't mess with people like that, especially not when you're nominally tasked with protecting people. Pretending to be someone else as a private individual would be deplorable behavior, setting this up as a government institution makes it actionable and in my opinion this sort of operation should be illegal unless there is a very clear and very present danger related to that particular person, I see no evidence of that. Note that the lady was never charged with anything whatsoever, she was simply used as a tool for a substantial chunk of her life and then discarded the moment the game was up.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    She would lose 6 years and trust issues if he were a private actor also. Again - would this be OK if he just wanted a shag while undercover and his bosses were unaware? If not, then the boss thing is a red herring. Is sending a sexy lady cop go seduce anti-gay terrorists also unacceptable? Particularly if it turned out that they weren't actually gay bashing but instead just protesting gay weddings, pushing employers to fire gay employees, and other assholeish but legal behavior?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > She would lose 6 years and trust issues if he were a private actor also. Yes, and that would be a very bad thing. > Again - would this be OK if he just wanted a shag while undercover and his bosses were unaware? He's an undercover cop, what his bosses are or are not aware of is immaterial. He's on 'company time' so to speak and if he does things while on 'company time' when interacting with people the company tasked him to interact with and he does not tell them about it that does not absolve them, especially not if that lasts for 6 years. That would make them dangerously incompetent if they weren't aware of it. > Is sending a sexy lady cop go seduce anti-gay terrorists also unacceptable? To seduce them per-se: absolutely not acceptable, especially not if she sexy lady cop is the one taking the initiative. To gather evidence: to pretend to be their friend (not to seduce them) for a limited time, maybe, if the crimes those people are engaged in are serious enough and that is the only way that evidence can be gathered. A police officer being ordered by their superior to have sex with a subject is already crossing a whole pile of lines. After all, the police is supposedly there to serve the public, not to get off on the public. > Particularly if it turned out that they weren't actually gay bashing but instead just protesting gay weddings, pushing employers to fire gay employees, and other assholeish but legal behavior? See above. It's all about proportionality.
      - blfr 11y ago
        What if he was a salesman seducing women on the job using the nice company car. Perhaps leveraging requirements of his job to maintain more than one relationship. Would the company employing him be responsible for the loss of (reproductive?) years then?

cstross 11y ago

Show me a State-directed gold digger and I might consider accepting your false equivalence. Hint: this wasn't just a relationship between two people, one of whom was deceiving the other about their intentions: it was a relationship that existed because a government agency wanted to spy on the target and their friends.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? Or is there no principle, but this just seems unpleasant and the lady seems like a sympathetic person with a good cause? (I too don't think it was an effective use of police resources.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gutnor 11y ago
  > That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Well, that's generally the case. Free speech is essentially a restriction of government power. Also you are purposefully ignoring the scale. It is ok to jail someone for a few days, even weeks until their innocence is proven. If you jail them for decades, that's another story. So pretend relationship is fine, 6 years of pretend relationship is not ok.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- akiselev 11y ago
  》So what is your underlying moral principle? That the state cannot take actions perfectly legal for citizens to engage in to prevent crime? Yes. That's the entire point of the United States Constitution. The State has an overwhelming amount of power and resources relative to any of its citizens, including the richest ones. Our entire union is based on a document that outlines limits to that power, limits that often don't apply to citizens and corporations. That's why the state can only rarely stifle speech or actively exclude minorities (at least jn theory) but private organizations like the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate against legally protected groups and corporations can fire employees at the drop of a hat if they say something publicly that the employer disapproves of. 》Would it also be wrong for the state to send a sexy lady cop to seduce a gay basher/abortion doctor killer/female genital mutilator/other unpopular terrorist group? On a sting or a short term undercover op to catch someone who is actually dangerous to the public? Sure, it would be acceptable. This isn't an issue with an absolute answer, but six years of subversion that cause immense emotional pain to an environmentalist who clearly poses no threat (assuming they were competent it should maybe take 6-12 months to figure that out)? Are we talking about US Law enforcement or the Soviet era KGB?

omginternets 11y ago

The point of an analogy isn't to be exactly identical to the thing it's describing. If people are suggesting the law get involved in this particular case, it's because a state actor is involved. If a state actor ruined a man's life in the manner you describe, I think almost everybody of sane mind would want to see heads roll.