4 ms·

There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. The person being scammed doesn’t ever lose their agency and willingly participates. Tha

There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. The person being scammed doesn’t ever lose their agency and willingly participates. That’s very different from a knife attack, where the victim would leave at every moment if possible.

gcanyon 2y ago
Informed consent is missing in both cases.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Scammers target people who can be easily manipulated so that they can mostly remove targets’ agency. The victim doesn’t know that it’s a scam, so why would they run?
dullcrisp 2y ago
The person in the knife fight also doesn’t lose their agency. The choices they made just led to an outcome they didn’t expect.
k8sToGo 2y ago
It's always easy to think that until you will be the one being manipulated and scammed.
llamaimperative 2y ago
This all ultimately boils down to "the attacks that I believe I'm immune to are okay, the attacks that I'm not immune to are not okay." The victim in your knife attack had the opportunity to leave by never going to the grocery store. The fact they couldn't foresee that attack is solely because they lacked the information or cognitive ability to foresee it, just like an 80 IQ gambler with a Draftkings account lacks the information/cognitive ability to foresee the attack on him. So many people walk around with the implicit ethical system that 80 IQers don't deserve to have a decent life in the modern world. That is obviously despicable once it's stated explicitly.
- in-pursuit 2y ago
  No, your argument is basically “all bad things are equivalent to knife attacks.” Look, I’m not saying deception and scamming are “ok”, I’m just saying comparing them to knife attacks is stupid.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    When it comes to suitability of blaming the victim for said crime, they are equivalent.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - spoonfeeder006 2y ago
    True, but I think the main issue is that neither is beneficial to society, genetically or otherwise. The main purpose of the knife attack analogy is to demonstrate that protecting against that involves skills that are useless if we can just eliminate the threat in the first place Many of us experience that knife attacks are not part of life, but perhaps we take for granted the existence of scammers? Granted, being able to protect against one self against a scam may include talents that carry over to other useful aspects of society building, but same with being able to fight off knife attacks And again the point is that, 1: those aren't the only beneficial aspects to society. someone without those talents may be brilliant in other ways, thus evolutionary pressure on that is not helpful. And even if someone isn't brilliant in other ways, we are all still valuable. Just ask a parent who raises a highly disabled kid, they will know this far more deeply than you or I do
Bud 2y ago
[dead]
maximus-decimus 2y ago
> There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. I do not agree with that statement. You're just justifying anti-social behavior.
- in-pursuit 2y ago
  Would you rather be scammed or stabbed? According to you, you should be indifferent. Personally, I’d prefer to be scammed.
  - spoonfeeder006 2y ago
    I'd rather be mildly stabbed rather than scammed into an inescapable human trafficking pipeline

gcanyon 2y ago

Informed consent is missing in both cases.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

Scammers target people who can be easily manipulated so that they can mostly remove targets’ agency. The victim doesn’t know that it’s a scam, so why would they run?

dullcrisp 2y ago

The person in the knife fight also doesn’t lose their agency. The choices they made just led to an outcome they didn’t expect.

k8sToGo 2y ago

It's always easy to think that until you will be the one being manipulated and scammed.

llamaimperative 2y ago

This all ultimately boils down to "the attacks that I believe I'm immune to are okay, the attacks that I'm not immune to are not okay." The victim in your knife attack had the opportunity to leave by never going to the grocery store. The fact they couldn't foresee that attack is solely because they lacked the information or cognitive ability to foresee it, just like an 80 IQ gambler with a Draftkings account lacks the information/cognitive ability to foresee the attack on him. So many people walk around with the implicit ethical system that 80 IQers don't deserve to have a decent life in the modern world. That is obviously despicable once it's stated explicitly.

in-pursuit 2y ago
No, your argument is basically “all bad things are equivalent to knife attacks.” Look, I’m not saying deception and scamming are “ok”, I’m just saying comparing them to knife attacks is stupid.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  When it comes to suitability of blaming the victim for said crime, they are equivalent.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spoonfeeder006 2y ago
  True, but I think the main issue is that neither is beneficial to society, genetically or otherwise. The main purpose of the knife attack analogy is to demonstrate that protecting against that involves skills that are useless if we can just eliminate the threat in the first place Many of us experience that knife attacks are not part of life, but perhaps we take for granted the existence of scammers? Granted, being able to protect against one self against a scam may include talents that carry over to other useful aspects of society building, but same with being able to fight off knife attacks And again the point is that, 1: those aren't the only beneficial aspects to society. someone without those talents may be brilliant in other ways, thus evolutionary pressure on that is not helpful. And even if someone isn't brilliant in other ways, we are all still valuable. Just ask a parent who raises a highly disabled kid, they will know this far more deeply than you or I do

Bud 2y ago

[dead]

maximus-decimus 2y ago

> There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. I do not agree with that statement. You're just justifying anti-social behavior.

in-pursuit 2y ago
Would you rather be scammed or stabbed? According to you, you should be indifferent. Personally, I’d prefer to be scammed.
- spoonfeeder006 2y ago
  I'd rather be mildly stabbed rather than scammed into an inescapable human trafficking pipeline