Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The victim's fault

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 1:57:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You fault a store because it is supposed to be regulated, the internet is unregulated.

You are always at risk when making a transaction on an unregulated market, and also assume all the blame.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:04:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 1:57:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You fault a store because it is supposed to be regulated, the internet is unregulated.

You are always at risk when making a transaction on an unregulated market, and also assume all the blame.

So if I sell something that is completely fake over the internet, the buyer is at fault for falling for it and I am scott free?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:06:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.

What about in cases were the "experts" are in disagreement (some say it is totally good, others say it is totally bad)? Or, in cases where the "expert status" of experts is questioned (usually by other experts who have disagreeing views)?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:08:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 2:04:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:57:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You fault a store because it is supposed to be regulated, the internet is unregulated.

You are always at risk when making a transaction on an unregulated market, and also assume all the blame.

So if I sell something that is completely fake over the internet, the buyer is at fault for falling for it and I am scott free?

That is the case if it is not regulated.

In olden times, snake-oil traders were regulated by the mob that would run them out of town.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:12:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 2:06:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.

What about in cases were the "experts" are in disagreement (some say it is totally good, others say it is totally bad)? Or, in cases where the "expert status" of experts is questioned (usually by other experts who have disagreeing views)?

Then of course nobody is at fault. The buyer has to apply his/her (we need a word that implies both his and her. It's tiring to type his/her all the time) own judgment.

In your example, there could hardly be any doubt to an expert whether it's really diamond or not. If even experts cannot make out the difference between cubic zirconia and diamonds, would you really blame the seller for selling it as diamonds?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Isn't the distinction irrelevant? Both the sellers of the fake diamonds and the fake nigerian prince ought to be prosecuted?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:30:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 2:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Isn't the distinction irrelevant? Both the sellers of the fake diamonds and the fake nigerian prince ought to be prosecuted?

Should advertisers be prosecuted for "exaggerating" the effects of their products? Axe for example?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 2:30:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Isn't the distinction irrelevant? Both the sellers of the fake diamonds and the fake nigerian prince ought to be prosecuted?

Should advertisers be prosecuted for "exaggerating" the effects of their products? Axe for example?

Yea but we know that they are joking! Hmmm... yea... I see.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:00:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 2:12:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:06:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.

What about in cases were the "experts" are in disagreement (some say it is totally good, others say it is totally bad)? Or, in cases where the "expert status" of experts is questioned (usually by other experts who have disagreeing views)?

Then of course nobody is at fault. The buyer has to apply his/her (we need a word that implies both his and her. It's tiring to type his/her all the time) own judgment.

"Their"? "The buyer has to apply their own judgement."


In your example, there could hardly be any doubt to an expert whether it's really diamond or not. If even experts cannot make out the difference between cubic zirconia and diamonds, would you really blame the seller for selling it as diamonds?

In those particular examples, yes. As you start to get to closer middle grounds, like say, work-from-home "schemes."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:01:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 2:30:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:26:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Isn't the distinction irrelevant? Both the sellers of the fake diamonds and the fake nigerian prince ought to be prosecuted?

Should advertisers be prosecuted for "exaggerating" the effects of their products? Axe for example?

Hey, I was going to hit that next. Where is the line between "fraud" and "exaggerating"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:13:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 3:00:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:12:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:06:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.

What about in cases were the "experts" are in disagreement (some say it is totally good, others say it is totally bad)? Or, in cases where the "expert status" of experts is questioned (usually by other experts who have disagreeing views)?

Then of course nobody is at fault. The buyer has to apply his/her (we need a word that implies both his and her. It's tiring to type his/her all the time) own judgment.

"Their"? "The buyer has to apply their own judgement." What's wrong with this statement? "Everybody brought their wives to the party."

Hmm. Buyer is singular, their is plural. Doesn't seem grammatically correct.

In your example, there could hardly be any doubt to an expert whether it's really diamond or not. If even experts cannot make out the difference between cubic zirconia and diamonds, would you really blame the seller for selling it as diamonds?

In those particular examples, yes. As you start to get to closer middle grounds, like say, work-from-home "schemes."

As you start getting to where the expert opinions get fuzzy, or there is no real consensus, it's best to apply common sense and stay away from such schemes. Unless you really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, or one of those.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:15:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 3:13:59 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 3:00:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:12:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:06:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.

What about in cases were the "experts" are in disagreement (some say it is totally good, others say it is totally bad)? Or, in cases where the "expert status" of experts is questioned (usually by other experts who have disagreeing views)?

Then of course nobody is at fault. The buyer has to apply his/her (we need a word that implies both his and her. It's tiring to type his/her all the time) own judgment.

"Their"? "The buyer has to apply their own judgement." : :
Hmm. Buyer is singular, their is plural. Doesn't seem grammatically correct. What's wrong with this statement? "Everybody brought their wives to the party."


In your example, there could hardly be any doubt to an expert whether it's really diamond or not. If even experts cannot make out the difference between cubic zirconia and diamonds, would you really blame the seller for selling it as diamonds?

In those particular examples, yes. As you start to get to closer middle grounds, like say, work-from-home "schemes."

As you start getting to where the expert opinions get fuzzy, or there is no real consensus, it's best to apply common sense and stay away from such schemes. Unless you really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, or one of those.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:24:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's capitalism -> we are competing -> deception is inherent until regulated in some way. The argument that deceptive companies will earn a bad rep (like some ancaps might say to counter) is absolute BS, because if they are decieving you about their product, then they will decieve you about reputation too!

I'm a pretty savvy guy, for the most part, and I don't buy much because I'm not materialistic but I still manage to get decieved on a regular basis. I told my roommate to buy some apple cider the other day, and he came back with "apple cider" which was just apple juice that they conveniently call apple cider. Looks like it's time to regulate the apple companies!

A few months ago I bought a soft drink, brought it home and took a drink and spewed it out all over my kitchen. Apparently, if they are going to use artificial sweetener instead of sugar they only need a 2 millimeter by 5 millimeter near-microscopic rectangle saying "sugar free" on the bottle. I've been burned with artificial sweeteners on other products as well, and besides bubblicious, bubble-yum, and bazooka you can completely forget avoiding it in your chewing gum. Until we start hammering companies down with more regulations, they are going to keep increasing the usage of artificial sweeteners in all sorts of products.
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:31:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 3:15:55 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 3:13:59 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 3:00:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:12:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 2:06:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:53:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

IMO, there's always "some" fault on the victim's side.

It's always mandatory on the part of the "buyer" to make appropriate enquiries about the seller. Now, to save time, this may not always be possible. But if things are to be done without making enquiries, there would hardly be any need for having signed contracts. You may as well take the seller's word.

The difference between the two examples that you have shown, is that in one case, you might be able to do something about the fraud, whereas in the other case, there's hardly anything you can do.

However, there's a case where the buyer is not at fault. This is when all the experts, who are supposed to verify that the product, is in fact genuine, have not done their work properly (bribe, incompetence, etc.). In this case, even if the buyer makes enquiries, he'll only find out that this fake product is genuine and get taken in.

What about in cases were the "experts" are in disagreement (some say it is totally good, others say it is totally bad)? Or, in cases where the "expert status" of experts is questioned (usually by other experts who have disagreeing views)?

Then of course nobody is at fault. The buyer has to apply his/her (we need a word that implies both his and her. It's tiring to type his/her all the time) own judgment.

"Their"? "The buyer has to apply their own judgement." : :
Hmm. Buyer is singular, their is plural. Doesn't seem grammatically correct. What's wrong with this statement? "Everybody brought their wives to the party."

I don't see anything wrong with it, apart from why would everyone bring their wives, rather than the mistresses.

Point #2

http://www.merriam-webster.com...



In your example, there could hardly be any doubt to an expert whether it's really diamond or not. If even experts cannot make out the difference between cubic zirconia and diamonds, would you really blame the seller for selling it as diamonds?

In those particular examples, yes. As you start to get to closer middle grounds, like say, work-from-home "schemes."

As you start getting to where the expert opinions get fuzzy, or there is no real consensus, it's best to apply common sense and stay away from such schemes. Unless you really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, or one of those.

Does "common sense" just apply to social norms? You're expected to know what pretty much what everyone else knows (don't buy candy from windowless vans, even if "candy" is spelled correctly in spraypaint). Does that allow for exception for people that are not from the area, and so do not hold the same common sense? You take a street thug from Brooklyn, a business man from Seattle, and a Redneck from Mississippi, they'll all have different views of "common sense."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 3:46:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 3:31:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Then of course nobody is at fault. The buyer has to apply his/her (we need a word that implies both his and her. It's tiring to type his/her all the time) own judgment.

"Their"? "The buyer has to apply their own judgement." : :
Hmm. Buyer is singular, their is plural. Doesn't seem grammatically correct. What's wrong with this statement? "Everybody brought their wives to the party."

I don't see anything wrong with it, apart from why would everyone bring their wives, rather than the mistresses.

Well, the grammatically (or legally!) correct version would be "Everybody brought his wife to the party"

Point #2

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Right. I wonder why I had the stupid doubt.


In your example, there could hardly be any doubt to an expert whether it's really diamond or not. If even experts cannot make out the difference between cubic zirconia and diamonds, would you really blame the seller for selling it as diamonds?

In those particular examples, yes. As you start to get to closer middle grounds, like say, work-from-home "schemes."

As you start getting to where the expert opinions get fuzzy, or there is no real consensus, it's best to apply common sense and stay away from such schemes. Unless you really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, or one of those.

Does "common sense" just apply to social norms? You're expected to know what pretty much what everyone else knows (don't buy candy from windowless vans, even if "candy" is spelled correctly in spraypaint). Does that allow for exception for people that are not from the area, and so do not hold the same common sense? You take a street thug from Brooklyn, a business man from Seattle, and a Redneck from Mississippi, they'll all have different views of "common sense."

Yes they will. They can each apply their own version of common sense. After some mis-steps, they'll come round to not trusting such schemes. In the meantime, a person who is not from the area, doing something without asking anybody in the area, is not really a clever person.

I'd guess newcomers to the area would be extremely doubtful of any and everything and ask around a hundred times before doing anything.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 4:43:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are you willing to regulate the entire herbal industry that rakes in trillions of dollars on exaggerated claims?

Caveat Emptor baby.... Caveat Emptor

Besides, life without risks is dull, and only helps the illegal drug market.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 4:49:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To be honest, anyone who buys a hunk of rock for a ridiculous amount of money and doesn't plan to do something hardcore with it like cut other really hard rocks is a complete tool.

It's a fvcking rock. A ROCK.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 4:57:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 4:49:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
To be honest, anyone who buys a hunk of rock for a ridiculous amount of money and doesn't plan to do something hardcore with it like cut other really hard rocks is a complete tool.

It's a fvcking rock. A ROCK.

You're missing the point. Let's say it's not a rock but a computer. Suppose to be state-of-art, quad-core, but you get home, open the box, and they snuck a comadore64 in there. Or whatever.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 5:00:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 4:57:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 4:49:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
To be honest, anyone who buys a hunk of rock for a ridiculous amount of money and doesn't plan to do something hardcore with it like cut other really hard rocks is a complete tool.

It's a fvcking rock. A ROCK.

You're missing the point. Let's say it's not a rock but a computer. Suppose to be state-of-art, quad-core, but you get home, open the box, and they snuck a comadore64 in there. Or whatever.

Go to there place and return it.

If they don't accept that, cause a scene.

If all else fails, rob their asses.

If it isn't going to cause damage to nearby property, I'd even advocate burning down their building. Though, they probably would like that, because con-artists of this caliber certainly have fire insurance.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 5:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 5:00:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 8/31/2011 4:57:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 4:49:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
To be honest, anyone who buys a hunk of rock for a ridiculous amount of money and doesn't plan to do something hardcore with it like cut other really hard rocks is a complete tool.

It's a fvcking rock. A ROCK.

You're missing the point. Let's say it's not a rock but a computer. Suppose to be state-of-art, quad-core, but you get home, open the box, and they snuck a comadore64 in there. Or whatever.

Go to there place and return it.

If they don't accept that, cause a scene.

If all else fails, rob their asses.

If it isn't going to cause damage to nearby property, I'd even advocate burning down their building. Though, they probably would like that, because con-artists of this caliber certainly have fire insurance.

I don't suppose that could lead to problems? Like when people think they get ripped off, but didn't?

Like when someone looks at too much porn online, gets a computer virus (bad ones), and calls a computer guy that says "Okay, I'm gonna have to delete some corrupted files that the virus is in."
And the customer says "okay, whatever you need to do."
So the computer gets cleaned, and the customer turns it back on and says, "WTF!? Wheres all the porn that I downloaded from www.trustusporn.com?!"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 5:36:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course it'll lead to problems.

Since when does anything not lead to problems? Even inaction leads to problems.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 5:39:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 5:36:27 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Of course it'll lead to problems.

Since when does anything not lead to problems? Even inaction leads to problems.

People are naturally designed by God to take risks and feel random pleasures.

You try to stifle that and you have a society gone crazy.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 5:40:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't believe it's the victims fault for being scammed by a "Nigerian E-mail". I think it largely depends on how aware you are. For instance, only someone with a good amount of knowledge about diamonds and jewelry would be able to spot a fake diamond. Only someone who's extensively used the internet and has had experiance with spam and scam would be able to see scam e-mails for scams. There just happens to be a lot more people using the internet and e-mail than there are people with an extensive amount of knowledge in diamonds and jewelry.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 7:04:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

I think that it should mostly be left up to the free market, though I am willing to permit some government intervention. The thing is is that there is little difference between regulation and the free market, except for the unnecessary, annoying and burdensome effects of regulation.

Example: Jeweler is discovered to sell fake diamonds.

Free market response: Huge blow to jeweler's sales, jeweler goes out of busines.

Government response: Fines the crap out of the jeweler, puts him in jail. Jeweler goes out of business.

In both cases the fraud is adequately punished.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 7:08:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 7:04:15 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

I think that it should mostly be left up to the free market, though I am willing to permit some government intervention. The thing is is that there is little difference between regulation and the free market, except for the unnecessary, annoying and burdensome effects of regulation.

Example: Jeweler is discovered to sell fake diamonds.

Free market response: Huge blow to jeweler's sales, jeweler goes out of busines.

Let's look at this, shall we.

Jeweler buys $4,000 worth of fake diamonds, and sells them for $230,000, thus making $226,000 profit. People catch on, and he doesn't sell anymore, but he still has his $226,000 stuffed in his pocket to keep.

What is the "adequate" punishment? He has been "stopped" (from that scam, he'll like go somewhere else and repeat), but not "punished."


Government response: Fines the crap out of the jeweler, puts him in jail. Jeweler goes out of business.

In both cases the fraud is adequately punished.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 7:10:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 7:08:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 7:04:15 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

I think that it should mostly be left up to the free market, though I am willing to permit some government intervention. The thing is is that there is little difference between regulation and the free market, except for the unnecessary, annoying and burdensome effects of regulation.

Example: Jeweler is discovered to sell fake diamonds.

Free market response: Huge blow to jeweler's sales, jeweler goes out of busines.

Let's look at this, shall we.

Jeweler buys $4,000 worth of fake diamonds, and sells them for $230,000, thus making $226,000 profit. People catch on, and he doesn't sell anymore, but he still has his $226,000 stuffed in his pocket to keep.

What is the "adequate" punishment? He has been "stopped" (from that scam, he'll like go somewhere else and repeat), but not "punished."

He will have a very hard time making anymore money, though I do see your point. Would you work for/ invest in/ buy from a company ran by Bernard Madoff?


Government response: Fines the crap out of the jeweler, puts him in jail. Jeweler goes out of business.

In both cases the fraud is adequately punished.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 7:15:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/31/2011 7:10:38 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/31/2011 7:08:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/31/2011 7:04:15 PM, seraine wrote:
At 8/31/2011 1:31:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'm going to bring out two extremes with this.

If a store is selling cubic zirconia as diamonds, that would count as fraud, and no one would really fault the victims for being tricked.

However, I think that most of us would agree (though people are free to not agree) that if someone responds to a Nigerian Prince email, and sends them money, that the person is at their own fault.

Why is one form of fraud deemed to be the victim's own fault, and the other not? The only reasoning I can think of is that people "should know better" to certain degrees of fraud. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone is able to visually see the difference between a cubic zirconia and diamond, while it is reasonable to expect everyone to know that the NP is not really gonna send you money (in fact, I don't even think that they are from Nigeria or Niger).

So I was wondering how this plays with different political philosophies. What are everyone's different reasonings? In an individualistic society, it is commonly believed that no one should tell another person how to live, would this not also be the case for telling another person what they "should" know?

I think that it should mostly be left up to the free market, though I am willing to permit some government intervention. The thing is is that there is little difference between regulation and the free market, except for the unnecessary, annoying and burdensome effects of regulation.

Example: Jeweler is discovered to sell fake diamonds.

Free market response: Huge blow to jeweler's sales, jeweler goes out of busines.

Let's look at this, shall we.

Jeweler buys $4,000 worth of fake diamonds, and sells them for $230,000, thus making $226,000 profit. People catch on, and he doesn't sell anymore, but he still has his $226,000 stuffed in his pocket to keep.

What is the "adequate" punishment? He has been "stopped" (from that scam, he'll like go somewhere else and repeat), but not "punished."

He will have a very hard time making anymore money, though I do see your point. Would you work for/ invest in/ buy from a company ran by Bernard Madoff?

No, but if he was allowed to keep every dollar he frauded, I think he would be okay with no one investing in him again.

The biggest problem that I see, is not so much what he did to his customers, but what he does to the entire jewelery market. He risks making all Jewelers appear suspicious, and thus hurting all of their companies.

This is of course, assuming that the impact of his fraud is big enough to make everyone notice, which it has to be if everyone is no longer buying from him.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2011 7:20:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seraine, Free Market Capitalism does not permit blatant fraud. Even Milton Friedman thought that the government ought to set up courts of law to punish companies that deliberately decieve their customers.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.