5 ms·

I'm equally confused, but in the other direction! He was acting without any special knowledge, so the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility

I'm equally confused, but in the other direction! He was acting without any special knowledge, so the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. That's usually legal, no?

matwood 3y ago
Talking your own book is basically CNBC in a nutshell.
autoexec 3y ago
> the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. Like every conman, snake oil salesman, scammer, and fraudster. Why treat him any differently? He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. I can't imagine what this could possibly mean. What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards?
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards? If the problem was "posting messages on message boards" we'd all be just as guilty, but obviously that's not the case. That's like saying that someone who stabbed a person to death got punished for "using cutlery". People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email or the "pig butchers" who use SMS/MMS/social media.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. Mugging and scamming are definitely not the same. Being robbed is not the same as giving your money away voluntarily. But I also don't think muggers should be "tarred and feathered and run out of town" either. They should be tried for theft, because the money/goods weren't handed over voluntarily. > He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email I'm not saying he's better or worse than anyone. I'm asking what tarring and feathering should actually mean.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > Being robbed is not the same as giving your money away voluntarily. "2 a : to deprive of something due, expected, or desired" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbed https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbed You can argue semantics, but if I convince you that the beans I have for sale are magic and you voluntarily pay me for them only to find out that they aren't magic, it'd be fair to say you've been robbed. > But I also don't think muggers should be "tarred and feathered and run out of town" either. They should be tried for theft The specifics don't matter all that much. I'd also prefer that justice be handled in courtrooms, but what actually matters is that victims are made whole where possible and criminals who prey on others are punished. Society has always had ways to deal with parasites that hurt people by scamming them.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > You can argue semantics Yes - absolutely. Semantics is about meaning, and meaning is central to discussion. > if I convince you that the beans I have for sale are magic and you voluntarily pay me for them only to find out that they aren't magic, it'd be fair to say you've been robbed Colloquially yes, but not really robbed. Possibly a victim of false advertising. But to establish that you'd have to prove they aren't magic, first. The problem would be that if you think beans can be magic, or stock picks can be guaranteed, then things will go wrong. No one can protect you from yourself as well as you can. > Society has always had ways to deal with parasites that hurt people by scamming them. This is an odd and unnecessary thing to say, though. Just like the tarring and feathering.
dehrmann 3y ago
It's interesting how the ethics of this change depending on how you frame it.

matwood 3y ago

Talking your own book is basically CNBC in a nutshell.

autoexec 3y ago

> the only thing he was taking advantage of was the gullibility of the general public. Like every conman, snake oil salesman, scammer, and fraudster. Why treat him any differently? He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. I can't imagine what this could possibly mean. What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards?
- autoexec 3y ago
  > What should actually happen to him for posting messages on message boards? If the problem was "posting messages on message boards" we'd all be just as guilty, but obviously that's not the case. That's like saying that someone who stabbed a person to death got punished for "using cutlery". People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email or the "pig butchers" who use SMS/MMS/social media.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > People who intentionally hurt others for profit should be treated as such, no matter if they're mugging their victims or scamming them. Mugging and scamming are definitely not the same. Being robbed is not the same as giving your money away voluntarily. But I also don't think muggers should be "tarred and feathered and run out of town" either. They should be tried for theft, because the money/goods weren't handed over voluntarily. > He's no better than a Nigerian prince who uses email I'm not saying he's better or worse than anyone. I'm asking what tarring and feathering should actually mean.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > Being robbed is not the same as giving your money away voluntarily. "2 a : to deprive of something due, expected, or desired" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbed https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robbed You can argue semantics, but if I convince you that the beans I have for sale are magic and you voluntarily pay me for them only to find out that they aren't magic, it'd be fair to say you've been robbed. > But I also don't think muggers should be "tarred and feathered and run out of town" either. They should be tried for theft The specifics don't matter all that much. I'd also prefer that justice be handled in courtrooms, but what actually matters is that victims are made whole where possible and criminals who prey on others are punished. Society has always had ways to deal with parasites that hurt people by scamming them.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > You can argue semantics Yes - absolutely. Semantics is about meaning, and meaning is central to discussion. > if I convince you that the beans I have for sale are magic and you voluntarily pay me for them only to find out that they aren't magic, it'd be fair to say you've been robbed Colloquially yes, but not really robbed. Possibly a victim of false advertising. But to establish that you'd have to prove they aren't magic, first. The problem would be that if you think beans can be magic, or stock picks can be guaranteed, then things will go wrong. No one can protect you from yourself as well as you can. > Society has always had ways to deal with parasites that hurt people by scamming them. This is an odd and unnecessary thing to say, though. Just like the tarring and feathering.

dehrmann 3y ago

It's interesting how the ethics of this change depending on how you frame it.