3 ms·

Yeah, let's eliminate all regulations. Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take /s I mentioned it to another, but have some humanity and emp

• danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  The empathy goes both ways. Many people who oppose regulation like this don't oppose it because they are happy for "dumb people" to lose money. They truly believe that there is so much regulation these days that people aren't faced with conmen often enough to wise up to it. A person offering you "product insurance" at the checkout is conning you. The car dealer is trying to con you. Anyone suggesting you can double your money fast is conning you. If you are a woman, there is a decent chance the random guy buying you a drink is just trying to bed you. It's useful to come across enough folks trying to con you so you realize it's a thing. Then when the guy proposing some complex financial proposition knocks at the door, you don't need to know anything about finance to know there is a good chance it's a con.
  • diob 4y ago
    That's not empathy though. The thing is, a lot of folks will get conned over and over, especially as the times change and the cons evolve. You're still thinking of it as something people can learn, but psychology / history says otherwise. This is why I say empathy is important. For you, it's obvious. For others, it's not. In addition, there are other factors at play, like desperation (when you're living paycheck to paycheck, you _want_ to believe there's a way out). Everyone has different experiences / situations to grapple with, and as a society we should try to help folks find the happy path and protect them. Especially so for those of us who recognize cons! So I guess I wouldn't understand the "empathy goes both way" statement.
    • danielmarkbruce 4y ago
      I'm saying you need to empathize with folks who want less regulation, ie they are largely well meaning, and it's a valid position. Your points are certainly valid. I don't think either way results in something perfect or even that good.