Who Is to Blame? The scammers or the Scammed?

Dreamer

@Barnardot

Scammers, there is so many scams even someone who skilled at them can't avoid them all. We could also blame the education system and lack of funding for the education system for not better prebunking scam and teaching about cognitive biases and heuristics. Libertarian-ism assumes people have Vulcan logic, and we just don't.  Finally many scams are mass advertised, sending the same scam by email to a massive amount of people.

Barnardot

@Dreamer That’s a grate point you pointed out there. Kids are being taught computer skills and what they need to learn at the same time is how to sift through all the crap to find valid info let alone avoid all the scams.

MayCaesar

Every person is responsible for his own actions. Scammers are responsible for deceiving and misinforming people, offering them deals that are not real - and their victims are responsible for their naivety and weakness.

In my life, I have gotten scammed for money successfully twice (the second time my bank blocked the transaction, saving me from the consequences of my mistake), and scammed in a relationship once (that sucked way harder). In every one of these cases I bear no love for the scammers, but I should have been more prudent and careful. In a sense, I deserve what I got - and got wiser for it. It is harder to trick me into a one-sided relationship with sweet kisses and promises, and harder to pull out a successful financial scam - although certainly possible. I believe that the most vulnerable person is the one who believes themselves invulnerable.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Every person is responsible for his own actions. Scammers are responsible for deceiving and misinforming people, offering them deals that are not real - and their victims are responsible for their naivety and weakness.

In my life, I have gotten scammed for money successfully twice (the second time my bank blocked the transaction, saving me from the consequences of my mistake), and scammed in a relationship once (that sucked way harder). In every one of these cases I bear no love for the scammers, but I should have been more prudent and careful. In a sense, I deserve what I got - and got wiser for it. It is harder to trick me into a one-sided relationship with sweet kisses and promises, and harder to pull out a successful financial scam - although certainly possible. I believe that the most vulnerable person is the one who believes themselves invulnerable.

I do not see the blame as equally on the scammer and the scammed. The bulk of the responsibility falls on the scammer for maliciously seeking out victims and robbing them. Sure, in life we learn life's lessons but we will never become omniscient. Let's apply your logic to rape. If a woman knows there are men who use date rape drugs and still goes out with someone she would like to to get to know, is it her fault if she's drugged and raped? Should she be fined for not avoiding any and all situations that could possibly be rape scenarios? The same way some municipalities went after victims of identity theft for not shredding receipts before they threw them away? I don't think so. The blame falls on the one who meditated on the commission of a crime and then went through with it. I agree with a lot of your expressed opinions @MayCaesar but this one I just can not agree with.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I suppose I am coming from a different place here. I do not really like the concepts of "blaming" people and figuring out whose "fault" something is - that is up to the legal system to decide. What is interesting to me is to consider all the essential factors that led to the scam event happening and see how they can be accounted for in order to prevent the scam. I am not a scammer myself, but I can be (and have been) a victim of a scam, and I certainly want to know what I can do differently to avoid being scammed in the future.

Same applies to a woman going alone to a dangerous neighborhood, or to individuals carelessly throwing around documents containing their personal information. The world is not ideal, there are certain harsh realities that are there no matter how strongly we believe that they should not be there. You do not jump into a river in Australia casually and avoid being eaten by a crocodile by saying, "I am a free citizen! I have the right to swim here!" Criminals, natural predators, climate events, et cetera do not care about anyone's rights.

Notice that I have not said that victims of scams should be prosecuted. I have merely said that victims of scams are responsible for taking reasonable precautions in order to minimize the chance of being scammed. And someone who has been scammed should not just play a victim and say, "Look what happened to me!" He should reflect on his role in success of the scam and learn something from it.

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

so who really is worse than who? Is it the scammers who take the advantage or is it the scammed who are so dum to get sucked in in the first place?

Oh how I love these kinds of arguments. AKA victim mentality hehe. I.E "I am too smart for that," "I never thought it would happend to me!" and so on. 

ZeusAres42

@Barnardot

FTR, your argument contains a mixture of fallacies. They are: 

1. Hasty Generalization: You base your agument on some singe perosnal incident about a movie. 

2. Ad Hominem: You accuse that all those who fall victim to scams are dum without considering any other variables. 

3. False Dilemma: You present a binay choice between those scammed and the scammers without even considering any external factors or shared responsibility. 

4. Anecdotal Fallacy: You try to rely solely on one personal experence to attempt to support your case to support a broader situation. You fail to realize that your single personal experience is not reprepsentive of a much larger populaiton. 

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 let me respect fully address the points that you pointes out.

You base your agument on some singe perosnal incident about a movie. 

May be I should have filed in the gaps there a bit. My friend copied the movie illegally from one of those dodgy movie sites you know like those sites where you buy a $1.45 ring and wonder why you get your credit card scammed. So it was poor quality any way but after that he was always getting nasty porn spam ads on his computer and he had to cancel his credit card to cancel the member ship then he found a hole heap of charges from places he didnt know about. So the moral is. Sure the site was to blame but the point Im pointing out is should my friend take the blame all so for being so greedy and dum to fall for that stuff any way?

You accuse that all those who fall victim to scams are dum without considering any other variables. 

Well thats quiet right because I said that in the OP which is the Topic post like derr. But the thing is that if you are going to fall for some thing so obvious that most people wouldnt even consider going any nearer than the distance they would flick a booger for a micro second then you arent going to be the sharpest tool in the rose garden are you? In fact you would be a tool period.

You present a binay choice between those scammed and the scammers without even considering any external factors or shared responsibility. 

Like derr yes again because it is like the topic and like derr I am not going to list 10 pages long of all the external factor or shared responsibilities. Thats normally the respondey who does that in order to develop the argument and pose examples like derr.

You try to rely solely on one personal experence to attempt to support your case to support a broader situation. You fail to realize that your single personal experience is not reprepsentive of a much larger populaiton. 

Like derr once again. Do you think I should have included another 10 pages of examples of people who got suckered in in the OP?

So like derr wheres your argument because so far I dont need to explain any thing because I havent been challenged on any thing except for the experience that I explained so may be you might want to refute that by saying some thing like

Well Barnardot your friend could of been on drugs at the time when he signed up on the site which is an external factor and a properly authorised and authoritative investigation by an independant agency found that the only person sucked in by that scam was your friend and does not represent a larger population and it showed that no one at all in the larger population has ever been sucked in by a scam.

So up to you to debate. Now dont go to much over board by giving thousands of examples and unbiased studies now will you? 

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;The bulk of the responsibility falls on the scammer for maliciously seeking out victims and robbing them.

Okay then but then you think that if there were no dim wits out there who get sucked in easily then the scammers would not be able to ply there trade. So you could blame dum people for creating the market for scammers to take advantage of in the first place.

Okay sure we have all been sucked in at one time or another but we learn from it and just dont go there again. But I am very aware of many people who are absessive nit wits who never learn and all ways get sucked in and they attract scammers like flies on a freshly laid doodoo. Surely we have to lump a heap of blame on those nits.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I suppose I am coming from a different place here. I do not really like the concepts of "blaming" people and figuring out whose "fault" something is - that is up to the legal system to decide. What is interesting to me is to consider all the essential factors that led to the scam event happening and see how they can be accounted for in order to prevent the scam. I am not a scammer myself, but I can be (and have been) a victim of a scam, and I certainly want to know what I can do differently to avoid being scammed in the future.

Same applies to a woman going alone to a dangerous neighborhood, or to individuals carelessly throwing around documents containing their personal information. The world is not ideal, there are certain harsh realities that are there no matter how strongly we believe that they should not be there. You do not jump into a river in Australia casually and avoid being eaten by a crocodile by saying, "I am a free citizen! I have the right to swim here!" Criminals, natural predators, climate events, et cetera do not care about anyone's rights.

Notice that I have not said that victims of scams should be prosecuted. I have merely said that victims of scams are responsible for taking reasonable precautions in order to minimize the chance of being scammed. And someone who has been scammed should not just play a victim and say, "Look what happened to me!" He should reflect on his role in success of the scam and learn something from it.

The law is how we place the blame, and it must be placed in a civilized society. In my opinion people can paralyze themselves with inaction if they walk around looking to avoid every single potential circumstance that has an once of possible danger surrounding it. How long till we question ourselves over mundane daily activities before we become agoraphobic? No, the victim bears no guilt. It is not the womans fault she gets raped just because she trusted a man she went out with or went to the bad side of town. It's the one who commits the crimes fault. It wasn't your fault you were scammed, it's the scammers fault. There are no guarantees of the future. No matter how much you try to prepare. 

That said I see your point about applying some measures of caution. Especially when you've gone through some experiences. But I think the caution should be done in way to enhance your life, not restrict it. For instance rivers and whether systems do not act with malice. A crocodile will do what they do, period. So yeah, it would be wise to test the waters first, look for evidence crocodiles frequent the spot you're at and so on. Knowing the landscape can help in preventing becoming a victim, that is true. But even if you knew there was a possibility of a crocodile, it doesn't mean "you should have known" it was there. After all, who's to say you haven't gone for a swim several times already? 

We all tend to think about what we could've done differently when something of a significant amount of trauma unfolds in our lives. And that may be healthy and beneficial, as long as it stops there. Unless you're the cause, you have no role in the success of a crime. And by 'cause' I mean the instigator or coconspirators of a crime against you. They have their roles in what they do, not you.  

 

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@Factfinder ;The bulk of the responsibility falls on the scammer for maliciously seeking out victims and robbing them.

Okay then but then you think that if there were no dim wits out there who get sucked in easily then the scammers would not be able to ply there trade. So you could blame dum people for creating the market for scammers to take advantage of in the first place.

Okay sure we have all been sucked in at one time or another but we learn from it and just dont go there again. But I am very aware of many people who are absessive nit wits who never learn and all ways get sucked in and they attract scammers like flies on a freshly laid doodoo. Surely we have to lump a heap of blame on those nits.

That's not logical. There would be no scam if the one who initiates it, didn't. Then the "dim wit" would never know that's the case. Society doesn't deserve to be ripped off simply because it exists. The instigator is the blame. Now it's true some people are far better at adapting and adjusting to the possibility of being taken advantage of and respond better, that I agree with. But the crime is always the perpetrator's fault, not the victims.

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;It is not the womans fault she gets raped just because she trusted a man she went out with or went to the bad side of town.

First of all the first point I would point out is firstly most rapes take place in the home with some one known to the victim and legally if she said no then we have a rape case. That is just a circumstance of her life and those are the acceptable risks she takes and she is therefore not necessarily at fault.

 But lets just be a little bit blunt here so we can illustrate the point and unpack it like the layers of an onion. So you have a real tarty blond chick who has to wear hair spray to stop every thing from going over head and wears a real short mini skirt. Her work friend asks her if she wants to go out to a real rough part of town for some fun at the pool room. Next thing you know some guy takes advantage of her and says like. Let me take you to an art gallery and she says okay. And then he shows her the posters on his bed room wall. 

So you can see where Im going with this. Just like any scam situation there is the scammer but he can only scam if there is some one dum enough to get scammed in the first place and in this case its a case of asking for it.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

The law is how we place the blame, and it must be placed in a civilized society. In my opinion people can paralyze themselves with inaction if they walk around looking to avoid every single potential circumstance that has an once of possible danger surrounding it. How long till we question ourselves over mundane daily activities before we become agoraphobic? No, the victim bears no guilt. It is not the womans fault she gets raped just because she trusted a man she went out with or went to the bad side of town. It's the one who commits the crimes fault. It wasn't your fault you were scammed, it's the scammers fault. There are no guarantees of the future. No matter how much you try to prepare. 

That said I see your point about applying some measures of caution. Especially when you've gone through some experiences. But I think the caution should be done in way to enhance your life, not restrict it. For instance rivers and whether systems do not act with malice. A crocodile will do what they do, period. So yeah, it would be wise to test the waters first, look for evidence crocodiles frequent the spot you're at and so on. Knowing the landscape can help in preventing becoming a victim, that is true. But even if you knew there was a possibility of a crocodile, it doesn't mean "you should have known" it was there. After all, who's to say you haven't gone for a swim several times already? 

We all tend to think about what we could've done differently when something of a significant amount of trauma unfolds in our lives. And that may be healthy and beneficial, as long as it stops there. Unless you're the cause, you have no role in the success of a crime. And by 'cause' I mean the instigator or coconspirators of a crime against you. They have their roles in what they do, not you.  

 

Every individual performs their own calculation and finds their own balance between being cautious and being free to act. Some people are more adventurous and risk-tolerant than others, which comes with upsides and downsides.
As I said, I am not that interested in ascribing "fault" to anyone. I see it as something that happened and that could have been prevented had one of the involved parties acted differently. I can never know if the online transaction I am partaking it is legitimate, but I can perform some basic checks to significantly increase the chance that it is - however, I will not spend 20 hours researching it in order to pay $10 for a bag of socks.

If a woman goes into a bad neighborhood alone and gets raped, obviously the rapists should be prosecuted, and she should not. However, one has to wonder what the woman was thinking going there. It is not "victim blaming" as people like to call it, but just common sense that you do not do things like this lightly. Same with the crocodile. Sure, you do not know if a crocodile is there or not - but if you jump in and it is there, you can blame mother nature all you want, only your circumstances will not change. Your friend, on the other hand, did not jump into the river: he acted in a more risk-averse manner which happened to be a good call. Which is the better call in general? Depends on the individual, I think. I am the kind of person who would jump into the river because of the possibility of a crocodile being there, it gives me a thrill (I am a little insane when it comes to such things). And if I get eaten, I certainly will take full responsibility for it... posthumously. 

I do not think that going about your life casting blame around is very useful. You only have control over your own actions, so it is in your best interest to optimize them so that the chance of achieving your desired outcome is maximized. You can never guarantee success - life is quite chaotic, and that is what makes it so much fun - but you certainly can increase its probability by acknowledging the realities of this world and adjusting your behavior to them. Whoever is to blame, whoever is at fault... if you go to a dangerous suburban area of Santa Fe de Bogota taking pictures with a large camera and wearing a t-shirt saying "Soy gringo" and singing the Venezuelan national anthem, you can predict the outcome. Do not do it.

There is an awesome TED talk on this topic by Jocko Willink: https://youtu.be/ljqra3BcqWM His message strongly resonates with me: "Never blame anyone and always take full responsibility for your life". Does not matter if your predicament is a consequence of your direct actions or something outside of your control: it is up to you to figure out how to move forward, and you better focus on that, than look back and feel helpless over the inability to change the past. If you ended up in a Nazi death camp... well, you better find a way to make the best of it, for what else can you do with the minimal hope of not being perpetually utterly miserable?

It might sound twisted, but on some level I love it when life treats me "unfairly" and throws something nasty at me for no obvious reason. This is when the biggest amount of personal growth happens.

Factfinder

@Barnardot

I got type this out again. Annoying the ai doesn't like a word I was using and kept filtering it out. Odd, I think it suspected I was going tryin to insult you. I wasn't but like I said, it didn't like a word it seems?!?! Anyways it went into the pit of "your post will appear when it's been approved." LOL

Let me be brief. An air head isn't asking for it because she's an air head. She's just slow. Even she still has the right to say 'no'. If she says 'yes' and regrets it later, that's on her. She's not asking to be raped because she went to a bedroom. 

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

The human psyche has too many variables to nail this down on an internet site, that's for sure. I wouldn't ever advocate victimhood as an identity. Just that if you are one, don't beat yourself up over it. Learn, adapt, and move on. One need not let this define them. Accept what happened was a crime against you and move on. And the criminal was at fault.    

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;She's not asking to be raped because she went to a bedroom. 

Of course she is. It isn’t that she accidentally tripped in the door way and ended up in his bedroom. She was dum enough to fall for it even if she didn’t want to have a pounding. Where as a chick with more sents wouldn’t even fall for the art gallery bit let alone go to a sleazy pool room. And from the guy a point of view a blonde with a mini skirt walking in to a back street pool room is not only asking for it but she’s begging for it.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar Consider this then. Looking from the other side a raving rapist with a constant wood would be cruising a round looking for some easy putang. Now strutting down the road is a blonde chick wearing nothing much and high heals. Even though she looks slutty she can’t help it because she has bad dress sents. But the thing is she just doesn’t want it because may be it’s strawberry week. But she should know that wiredos like him are prowling a round . So isn’t she virtually doolie teasing the rapist by default which means she has to take a good deal of the blame for what is a bout to happen.

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@Factfinder ;She's not asking to be raped because she went to a bedroom. 

Of course she is. It isn’t that she accidentally tripped in the door way and ended up in his bedroom. She was dum enough to fall for it even if she didn’t want to have a pounding. Where as a chick with more sents wouldn’t even fall for the art gallery bit let alone go to a sleazy pool room. And from the guy a point of view a blonde with a mini skirt walking in to a back street pool room is not only asking for it but she’s begging for it.

IF you're right then she is a consenting adult. No crime no foul. Still doesn't mean she wants to get raped.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

The human psyche has too many variables to nail this down on an internet site, that's for sure. I wouldn't ever advocate victimhood as an identity. Just that if you are one, don't beat yourself up over it. Learn, adapt, and move on. One need not let this define them. Accept what happened was a crime against you and move on. And the criminal was at fault.    

Something I have come to is that it is never helpful to have a grudge or harbor negative feelings towards someone. Naturally, we are not fully in control of our feelings - but we are in control of how we consciously characterize given individuals. Saying that the criminal is at fault is helpful in court, but I do not think that it is helpful in one's personal life. I am inclined to view it as a collision of my and criminal's interests which played out (temporarily) in favor of the criminal. I try my best to understand and accept (albeit not approve of) the actions of the criminal as just something that happened, without attributing any negative characteristics to it.

I have been seriously mistreated by some people. And every time I was only fully recovered from the mistreatment when I found the strength to forgive the person and truly, fully move on. It was not useful to ask whether they deserved the forgiveness... It was something I needed to do for myself, not for them.

Every friend and romantic partner that has betrayed me, every criminal that has scammed or assaulted me, every bully who made my life in high school a living hell - any one of them I could meet today, shake hands with and have a coffee with (although I would not want them back into my life). People change, people have moments of weakness, people make genuine mistakes... It is not rational to make sweeping judgements of a person based on one inappropriate act that they have undertook. Even someone as heinous as Hitler or Stalin was ultimately run by the same fears and insecurities as any other one of us, their coping mechanisms were just extremely sociopathic. Understanding that we are all related, that no one is fundamentally "better" than anyone else, and that there are absolutely circumstances at which any one of us could do the most vicious things known to humanity - is very freeing. Not having an excuse to hold grudges, to hate anyone, and having a rationale behind letting everyone be as far as your emotions and thoughts are concerned - incredibly empowering.

The best we can do is strive to be the best versions of ourselves, while accepting that we will never be them. And being the best versions of ourselves involves accepting and handling imperfections of this world. If someone on the street points a gun at my date, I will be standing between the gun and the date. I will not say, "Hey, our police department should handle this", and keep walking. I will (try to) do what accords with my values, and one of my values is being the captain who is always the last of the crew to leave the ship. People who I invite somewhere are fully my responsibility and are under my protection, and no one gets them before they go through me. And if it kills me... well, I would rather die a free and happy guy, than live a life of endless excuses and blame-casting.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

I agree with your basic summation. But I never said let the fact that you were a victim dictate your life. Just because there is someone who IS at fault and you know it to be so, then it is so. Acknowledgment of the fact of guilt, of the guilty, does not equate to endless excuses and blame-casting. It's just calling it how it is. Anything beyond that is an internal reaction to the trauma after the fact. It's ok to be happy and not blame yourself for being the victim of a certain incident. If you have people over and you provide a reasonably safe envenomed, no slick floors, gate around the pool, what ever, and something happens you could not or did not foresee, like a mad gunman shows up, that's not under your control. Everything that happens as a direct result of him showing up is on him, period. 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I think that whose fault it is is a highly subjective question. The facts are, two people happened to cross paths somewhere and one took advantage over the other. If either had not been there, the incident would not have happened. If I went to Afghanistan, was captured by Taliban and tortured to death, it would be valid to say that, had Talibs not tortured me to death, I would not have died in Afghanistan - but, by the same token, had I not gone to Afghanistan, I would not have died in Afghanistan regardless of what Talibs would have done. I could have died differently (say, hit by a car on a French highway), but not that way.

The notion of fault is a result of thinking that things are supposed to be a certain way, that there is a "just", "fair" way to live one's life that someone has diverged from. But from the objective standpoint there is no such thing, and absolutely everything that happens in the Universe should happen. That does not mean that humans should ditch the notion of morals, but it is important to understand that morals cannot be forced on the Universe. However immoral rape may be in someone's eyes, incidents of rape are inevitable, and in many ways rapists themselves are a product of biological laws that they have no control over.

Sam Harris offered comparison to being attacked by a crocodile. No one says that the crocodile is committing some sort of offense: it is just being a crocodile. Crocodile's only "fault" is having been born a crocodile. Would then not a scammer be a product of his DNA and circumstances of birth and life?

I will add that, in addition to importance of forgiving others for mistreating, it is doubly important to forgive yourself for mistreating others. Hatred of others pales in comparison in its impracticality to hatred of oneself. When I say that I take full responsibility for everything that happens in my life regardless of its cause, I do not imply that I am being hard on myself. Rather, I imply that it is up to me to make the best of my hand I can. My hand is a product of both my play and random draws. I have a limited control over the latter (due to imperfect knowledge and skill), but full control over the former. Sure, I can play perfectly well and still lose due to having the worst draws imaginable... But that is just life. The rules of the game are what they are, and rather than trying to decide who caused me to hold the hand I do, I would rather just focus on playing the best I can and learning as much as I can in the process.

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;Still doesn't mean she wants to get raped.

This is totally right but the point Im pointing out here which is what the topic is all about is that she has to take a fare portion of the blame for getting done and that she is not the sharpest tool in the rose garden.

And okay since you unrapped that peace of onion. I know there are a lot of loose chicks out there who cry wolf and deside after the event that it was rape and cause a lot of trouble and expents for the authorities. What about the chick for example who comes home and her boy friend finds out that she was doing it with Jammal down the road. To avoid a beeting shes going to say like. Oh it was rape, boo hoo he raped me. Or she might live at home and she ends up getting up the duff and shes going to cry to her parents like. Boo hoo I was raped..You just cant put it past some people can you?

ZeusAres42

@Barnardot

Okay, to overlook your continuous logical flaws and factual ineptness in order to address the actual question, I will say that firstly, the argument that victims are to blame for falling for scams overlooks the nuanced aspects of these fraudulent schemes. Scammers are experts at exploiting cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities, making it challenging for even the most cautious individuals to always detect deceit. Considering scamming similarly to hacking (which can technically be part of it), governments and intelligence agencies, including those part of the Five Eyes, have been hacked and breached countless times, and it's likely this will continue. Furthermore, it is fundamentally unjust to blame victims for actions driven by manipulation and deception. The moral responsibility rests entirely with the scammers, who intentionally seek to exploit others for personal gain.

Additionally, your argument fails to consider the importance of education and awareness in preventing scams. Instead of assigning blame to victims, the focus should be on improving public understanding of scams, strengthening legal protections, and providing resources to help individuals recognize and avoid fraudulent schemes.

Moreover, scam victims come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including those who are educated and intelligent. Scams often target specific emotional vulnerabilities or circumstances, which can affect anyone, regardless of their intelligence or level of awareness. Therefore, suggesting that only "dumb" people fall for scams is a ludicrously absurd claim and fails to recognize the varied and complex nature of these deceptive practices.

Lastly, it is a societal responsibility to protect citizens from scams. This includes implementing robust legal frameworks, educating the public, and supporting victims. By blaming victims, we undermine these efforts and shift focus away from the necessary systemic changes that can more effectively combat scams.

In brief, while personal vigilance is important in avoiding scams, the primary responsibility for these deceptive acts lies with the perpetrators. Victim blaming is not only unfair but also overlooks the broader societal and systemic issues that contribute to the prevalence of scams.

Oh, how I love this naive mentality of "Hey, I'm too smart to get hacked," "I'm too smart to get scammed," etc. Hackers also love this mentality! These are the kind of folks who are actually very easy targets. They think they are too smart and become easily complacent and/or apathetic.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;The notion of fault is a result of thinking that things are supposed to be a certain way,

Well Im starting to see your world view even though that world happens to be Mars. You see weather we like it or not there are appropriate situations when we have to point the finger to determine how to move forward. For example if your guts got stretched over the roof of a Renault on a French Highway. The court has to decide who or what was to blame. If they found out that you were drinking some wine and in your case I bet it was cheap and got drunk and got a massive head ache because the wine was so cheap and drove in to the concrete supports then they would say you were to blame. If you werent drunk with a massive head ache they would have to look at contrbuting factors such as the safety of the Highway and the safety of the car. Which would way into the amount of money that your family would receive.

Now this is real interesting and I think it blows this hole discussion wide open. Just look up the Saylor Lexus crash. man that was a dooley. Toyota got taken to court and had to recall millions of there cars just because a floor mat got jammed under the gas pedal and the car ran off the freeway at full speed killing every one in side. This was a very famous case and there is heaps of stuff on the web about it. Every one was pointing there fingers in all different directions blaming the mental sate of the driver and that the mat was not for that car and even that the driver was highly religious and wanted God to save him. You will even hear the 911 call that a passenger made from the car because they didnt know how to stop the car and the last words herd were Hold on God will save us then shshshhhhh blank. So read about it it is an incredible unbelievable story. But the point Im pointing out is yes your right we dont need to keep blaming especially my partner. She blames me for every thing under the sun even if its her fault. But there are times we we have to find out who or what is to blame so that we can move forward.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I think that whose fault it is is a highly subjective question. The facts are, two people happened to cross paths somewhere and one took advantage over the other. If either had not been there, the incident would not have happened. If I went to Afghanistan, was captured by Taliban and tortured to death, it would be valid to say that, had Talibs not tortured me to death, I would not have died in Afghanistan - but, by the same token, had I not gone to Afghanistan, I would not have died in Afghanistan regardless of what Talibs would have done. I could have died differently (say, hit by a car on a French highway), but not that way.

The notion of fault is a result of thinking that things are supposed to be a certain way, that there is a "just", "fair" way to live one's life that someone has diverged from. But from the objective standpoint there is no such thing, and absolutely everything that happens in the Universe should happen. That does not mean that humans should ditch the notion of morals, but it is important to understand that morals cannot be forced on the Universe. However immoral rape may be in someone's eyes, incidents of rape are inevitable, and in many ways rapists themselves are a product of biological laws that they have no control over.

Sam Harris offered comparison to being attacked by a crocodile. No one says that the crocodile is committing some sort of offense: it is just being a crocodile. Crocodile's only "fault" is having been born a crocodile. Would then not a scammer be a product of his DNA and circumstances of birth and life?

I will add that, in addition to importance of forgiving others for mistreating, it is doubly important to forgive yourself for mistreating others. Hatred of others pales in comparison in its impracticality to hatred of oneself. When I say that I take full responsibility for everything that happens in my life regardless of its cause, I do not imply that I am being hard on myself. Rather, I imply that it is up to me to make the best of my hand I can. My hand is a product of both my play and random draws. I have a limited control over the latter (due to imperfect knowledge and skill), but full control over the former. Sure, I can play perfectly well and still lose due to having the worst draws imaginable... But that is just life. The rules of the game are what they are, and rather than trying to decide who caused me to hold the hand I do, I would rather just focus on playing the best I can and learning as much as I can in the process.

I disagree. We have a whole judicial system created just for finding and placing the blame on the perpetrator. You present a logical fallacy in your argumentation. When two people cross paths nothing has happened yet, both have equal right to be there. No reason to assign fault. Then if "one took advantage over the other"  The one who took advantage is to blame. Things happen in real time. It does no good to subject oneself to a ton of philosophical brain exercises trying to figure out what coulda, shoulda, and woulda either before or after an incident. It is not the victims fault for being on the path. Fault is objective. 

The reality of fault is the result of thinking things could be a certain way where we as a civilized society prioritize concepts of justice. There is nothing logical about asserting a woman can be the blame for her own rape because she chose to go where she has a right to go. And be respected like anyone else. Yet it may be the universes fault the rapist raped her because he doesn't control his urges? You may say he 'can't', that would have to be determined at a later time. But that would not change the fact it was 100% not the womans fault. What good are morals if you're willing to rationalize them away with endless philosophical contemplation?

The difference between crocodiles and people are obvious. Our brains are more complex and that allows us to distinguish between acting with malice or by instinct. On the rare occasions it's determined the human has no sense of morality, it's still not logical to be blaming the victim just for being there. 

There is nothing wrong with forgiveness. Whether it helps you, the perp, or not, I agree forgiving is good when one can genuinely give it. However it doesn't diminish ones guilt for crimes they've committed. And personally, I don't think it's wise forgive just to somehow alleviate feelings of guilt. Whether it comes from the criminal or the victim. Just my opinion.  

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

I disagree. We have a whole judicial system created just for finding and placing the blame on the perpetrator. You present a logical fallacy in your argumentation. When two people cross paths nothing has happened yet, both have equal right to be there. No reason to assign fault. Then if "one took advantage over the other"  The one who took advantage is to blame. Things happen in real time. It does no good to subject oneself to a ton of philosophical brain exercises trying to figure out what coulda, shoulda, and woulda either before or after an incident. It is not the victims fault for being on the path. Fault is objective. 

The reality of fault is the result of thinking things could be a certain way where we as a civilized society prioritize concepts of justice. There is nothing logical about asserting a woman can be the blame for her own rape because she chose to go where she has a right to go. And be respected like anyone else. Yet it may be the universes fault the rapist raped her because he doesn't control his urges? You may say he 'can't', that would have to be determined at a later time. But that would not change the fact it was 100% not the womans fault. What good are morals if you're willing to rationalize them away with endless philosophical contemplation?

The difference between crocodiles and people are obvious. Our brains are more complex and that allows us to distinguish between acting with malice or by instinct. On the rare occasions it's determined the human has no sense of morality, it's still not logical to be blaming the victim just for being there. 

There is nothing wrong with forgiveness. Whether it helps you, the perp, or not, I agree forgiving is good when one can genuinely give it. However it doesn't diminish ones guilt for crimes they've committed. And personally, I don't think it's wise forgive just to somehow alleviate feelings of guilt. Whether it comes from the criminal or the victim. Just my opinion.  

That is exactly my point: that the questions of blame and justice are the domain of the judicial system. They are not very useful in one's personal decision-making. I am not sure I understand how what I said is a fallacy; of what kind is this fallacy, and what would be a way to correct it? Your argument relies on the concept of the "right", but "rights" are demonstrably subjective themselves and do not exist as a part of the physical reality.

You even yourself said that this is something "we as a civilized society prioritize". This is a feature specific to the society, not an inherent part of objective reality. It is perfectly plausible that there are alien civilizations out there far more advanced technologically than ours, yet having very different views on what is just and what is not. There can be an alien civilization that has spread through galaxies in which the whole moral system is based off "might makes right".
Morals are useful in the decision-making process, in questions such as "Who should I interact with and how?" and "Who should I be wary of?". But I do not see how "Who is to blame" is useful for anything. Okay, the rapist is to blame - what implications does it have on how I should live my life?

I understand that human brains are more complex than those of crocodiles, but they can be far less complex than those of some alien species, an AI, or some form of consciousness that we are not familiar with. Ultimately, all brains are simply organic machines following (natural) programming. The concept of "free will" is a useful fiction at best and does not represent how reality works.
This does not imply that people should be be held accountable for their actions; that is not what I am saying at all. My point is that it is better to look at what objectively has happened and how best to respond to it, than to tackle these shaky categories of guilt and blame.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

I disagree. We have a whole judicial system created just for finding and placing the blame on the perpetrator. You present a logical fallacy in your argumentation. When two people cross paths nothing has happened yet, both have equal right to be there. No reason to assign fault. Then if "one took advantage over the other"  The one who took advantage is to blame. Things happen in real time. It does no good to subject oneself to a ton of philosophical brain exercises trying to figure out what coulda, shoulda, and woulda either before or after an incident. It is not the victims fault for being on the path. Fault is objective. 

The reality of fault is the result of thinking things could be a certain way where we as a civilized society prioritize concepts of justice. There is nothing logical about asserting a woman can be the blame for her own rape because she chose to go where she has a right to go. And be respected like anyone else. Yet it may be the universes fault the rapist raped her because he doesn't control his urges? You may say he 'can't', that would have to be determined at a later time. But that would not change the fact it was 100% not the womans fault. What good are morals if you're willing to rationalize them away with endless philosophical contemplation?

The difference between crocodiles and people are obvious. Our brains are more complex and that allows us to distinguish between acting with malice or by instinct. On the rare occasions it's determined the human has no sense of morality, it's still not logical to be blaming the victim just for being there. 

There is nothing wrong with forgiveness. Whether it helps you, the perp, or not, I agree forgiving is good when one can genuinely give it. However it doesn't diminish ones guilt for crimes they've committed. And personally, I don't think it's wise forgive just to somehow alleviate feelings of guilt. Whether it comes from the criminal or the victim. Just my opinion.  

That is exactly my point: that the questions of blame and justice are the domain of the judicial system. They are not very useful in one's personal decision-making. I am not sure I understand how what I said is a fallacy; of what kind is this fallacy, and what would be a way to correct it? Your argument relies on the concept of the "right", but "rights" are demonstrably subjective themselves and do not exist as a part of the physical reality.

You even yourself said that this is something "we as a civilized society prioritize". This is a feature specific to the society, not an inherent part of objective reality. It is perfectly plausible that there are alien civilizations out there far more advanced technologically than ours, yet having very different views on what is just and what is not. There can be an alien civilization that has spread through galaxies in which the whole moral system is based off "might makes right".
Morals are useful in the decision-making process, in questions such as "Who should I interact with and how?" and "Who should I be wary of?". But I do not see how "Who is to blame" is useful for anything. Okay, the rapist is to blame - what implications does it have on how I should live my life?

I understand that human brains are more complex than those of crocodiles, but they can be far less complex than those of some alien species, an AI, or some form of consciousness that we are not familiar with. Ultimately, all brains are simply organic machines following (natural) programming. The concept of "free will" is a useful fiction at best and does not represent how reality works.
This does not imply that people should be be held accountable for their actions; that is not what I am saying at all. My point is that it is better to look at what objectively has happened and how best to respond to it, than to tackle these shaky categories of guilt and blame.

The only decision making of concern is that of the perpetrator. Your whole argument is contingent on how it might not be the guilty persons fault. To the extent your willing to blame the victim for at least 50%. This is so bizarre. Blaming the vic for being somewhere and excusing the perp because of some slightly possible extenuating circumstance IS the fallacy behind your argument. It doesn't have to be an inherent quality from nature. It's how we as humans evolved. We are social creatures therefore we collectively have accepted certain behaviors as moral and certain others immoral. We developed judicial processes aimed at trying to prevent "one taking advantage over the other".  Nature no more dictates these things to us than religion does.

Freewill is a subjective concept. At the same time if I find myself alone with a woman, and she is in my bedroom, and she says she doesn't want sex, I know I can stop myself and will not force her. That's me deciding not to act maliciously. She has no blame just because she came over, wanted to get to know me, make out, study, whatever. If I decided "she deserves it for being here" I'm breaking the laws of civilization. I get what you're saying, if you're alluding to the concept that all of us have no single source that has delivered unto us some inherent moral code. But it's illogical to argue that idea to the extent that you are. Considering we are not the only species that has evolved into some form of social hierarchy within our communicable existence. Ours just happens to be more complex. If nobody is guilty and nobody is innocent because our thinking devolves into considering everyone being equally guilty and innocent and no one can be held accountable for their criminal actions, civilization will deteriorate rapidly.  

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

No, my argument is that it is irrelevant whose "fault" it is when it comes to personal decision-making. From personal perspective, I do not blame anyone, but hold myself 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of the event. I fail to see what is fallacious in stating that, had I not done something or been somewhere, I would not be able to end up in the situation I did. If I had not moved to the US, I would not be able to become a victim of a murderer in North Carolina: that is just a hard fact. Or am I missing something here?
I do not dispute that we are social creatures. But we are also thinking creatures who can go above basic biological conditioning and take a bird's eye view on what happens around us.

In your second paragraph, the "laws of civilization" depend on the time and place we are talking about, plus every individual is free to walk on the edge of those laws and sometimes pass outside of them (which, I would argue, every human being does occasionally). I think that it is great to have a legal system protecting individuals from direct harm coming from other individuals. My claim merely is that it is not enough to just rely on this system to take care of you. Use it as your armor, but even as you are wearing plate armor, exercise common sense and do not stand in front of a cannon about to fire. And there is no minimal size of the cannon below which you are 100% safe.

I think you are arguing against something that I have never said. You still talk about the extent to which blame is to be put on different individuals, while I am not talking about blame at all. I am talking about responsibility and agency. Saying that a scammer is to blame for taking $10,000 away from you still leaves you without $10,000. It is more useful to learn some of the common scammers' strategies and avoid losing $10,000 in the first place. Saying, "Oh, the system of justice will take care of it, so I do not need to learn anything", will not get you far in life.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

No, my argument is that it is irrelevant whose "fault" it is when it comes to personal decision-making. From personal perspective, I do not blame anyone, but hold myself 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of the event. I fail to see what is fallacious in stating that, had I not done something or been somewhere, I would not be able to end up in the situation I did. If I had not moved to the US, I would not be able to become a victim of a murderer in North Carolina: that is just a hard fact. Or am I missing something here?
I do not dispute that we are social creatures. But we are also thinking creatures who can go above basic biological conditioning and take a bird's eye view on what happens around us.

In your second paragraph, the "laws of civilization" depend on the time and place we are talking about, plus every individual is free to walk on the edge of those laws and sometimes pass outside of them (which, I would argue, every human being does occasionally). I think that it is great to have a legal system protecting individuals from direct harm coming from other individuals. My claim merely is that it is not enough to just rely on this system to take care of you. Use it as your armor, but even as you are wearing plate armor, exercise common sense and do not stand in front of a cannon about to fire. And there is no minimal size of the cannon below which you are 100% safe.

I think you are arguing against something that I have never said. You still talk about the extent to which blame is to be put on different individuals, while I am not talking about blame at all. I am talking about responsibility and agency. Saying that a scammer is to blame for taking $10,000 away from you still leaves you without $10,000. It is more useful to learn some of the common scammers' strategies and avoid losing $10,000 in the first place. Saying, "Oh, the system of justice will take care of it, so I do not need to learn anything", will not get you far in life.

I understand your argument. It's an irrational one. Of course 'fault' is irrelevant in personal decision making prior to an event transpiring. Your logical paradox begins after an assault of some kind occurs. You would choose to hold to the aforementioned irrelevancy of fault when reality has just thrust fault into the situation. It's impossible to hold yourself "100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of an event" unless you ARE the perpetrator. If you're a victim or bystander, all that can be done is react in some way in real time. You have no control over other factors that are playing major roles in an incident. Especially where another human is involved making independent choices from your own. One can not claim they 'blame' no one and in the same sentence say "but I hold myself 100% 'responsible'..." That's contradictory and I think you know this.

You're putting much more emphasis on the relatively insignificant fact that you choose to go somewhere when you didn't have to; and way too little emphasis on the other variables which you have no control over. And that's the bottom line, you have no control over them so you have no responsibility on their parts. And it should be noted that in this discussion 'responsibility', 'fault' and 'blame' can be used interchangeably as they point in the same direction after an event takes place. Up until this point I've tried to make you see the false leaps of logic you've been taking to reach this epiphany of yours. That is what I see when I take a birds eye view.

The swimmer who gets attacked by a crocodile would not have if the crocodile didn't attack. The understanding that the croc was just hungry alleviates malice but the croc is still to blame for the attack. There still was the possibility the croc didn't attack and the swimmer never would be the wiser. Then the fact they went swimming has no role thereby has no part in the croc not attacking. Thus the swimmer has no responsibility in the croc behavior and can not bear 100% responsibility for not being attacked or for being attack. The swimmer is not 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of an event'  That is my birds eye view.

AntiRioter

So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

AntiRioter

So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

Barnardot

@AntiRioter ;So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

Well its a premise based on fact. It has been throughly researched and many scientific papers have been released. The VMAT2 gene predisposes the people who have it to be simple minded and to accept things at face value. Another words they were born like that so they have to except the responsibility of most of the blame for getting suckered in in the first place. If it wasnt for naive nits like that then we wouldnt have the scammers because they wont have any one to take advantage of.

Factfinder

Barnardot said:

@AntiRioter ;So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

Well its a premise based on fact. It has been throughly researched and many scientific papers have been released. The VMAT2 gene predisposes the people who have it to be simple minded and to accept things at face value. Another words they were born like that so they have to except the responsibility of most of the blame for getting suckered in in the first place. If it wasnt for naive nits like that then we wouldnt have the scammers because they wont have any one to take advantage of.

That's faulty logic. A few scientific papers aren't sufficient enough to establish a basis of fact. The nits are present whether the scammers are or not. If they didn't scam, then we wouldn't have scammers. 

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

No, my argument is that it is irrelevant whose "fault" it is when it comes to personal decision-making. From personal perspective, I do not blame anyone, but hold myself 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of the event. I fail to see what is fallacious in stating that, had I not done something or been somewhere, I would not be able to end up in the situation I did. If I had not moved to the US, I would not be able to become a victim of a murderer in North Carolina: that is just a hard fact. Or am I missing something here?
I do not dispute that we are social creatures. But we are also thinking creatures who can go above basic biological conditioning and take a bird's eye view on what happens around us.

In your second paragraph, the "laws of civilization" depend on the time and place we are talking about, plus every individual is free to walk on the edge of those laws and sometimes pass outside of them (which, I would argue, every human being does occasionally). I think that it is great to have a legal system protecting individuals from direct harm coming from other individuals. My claim merely is that it is not enough to just rely on this system to take care of you. Use it as your armor, but even as you are wearing plate armor, exercise common sense and do not stand in front of a cannon about to fire. And there is no minimal size of the cannon below which you are 100% safe.

I think you are arguing against something that I have never said. You still talk about the extent to which blame is to be put on different individuals, while I am not talking about blame at all. I am talking about responsibility and agency. Saying that a scammer is to blame for taking $10,000 away from you still leaves you without $10,000. It is more useful to learn some of the common scammers' strategies and avoid losing $10,000 in the first place. Saying, "Oh, the system of justice will take care of it, so I do not need to learn anything", will not get you far in life.

I understand your argument. It's an irrational one. Of course 'fault' is irrelevant in personal decision making prior to an event transpiring. Your logical paradox begins after an assault of some kind occurs. You would choose to hold to the aforementioned irrelevancy of fault when reality has just thrust fault into the situation. It's impossible to hold yourself "100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of an event" unless you ARE the perpetrator. If you're a victim or bystander, all that can be done is react in some way in real time. You have no control over other factors that are playing major roles in an incident. Especially where another human is involved making independent choices from your own. One can not claim they 'blame' no one and in the same sentence say "but I hold myself 100% 'responsible'..." That's contradictory and I think you know this.

You're putting much more emphasis on the relatively insignificant fact that you choose to go somewhere when you didn't have to; and way too little emphasis on the other variables which you have no control over. And that's the bottom line, you have no control over them so you have no responsibility on their parts. And it should be noted that in this discussion 'responsibility', 'fault' and 'blame' can be used interchangeably as they point in the same direction after an event takes place. Up until this point I've tried to make you see the false leaps of logic you've been taking to reach this epiphany of yours. That is what I see when I take a birds eye view.

The swimmer who gets attacked by a crocodile would not have if the crocodile didn't attack. The understanding that the croc was just hungry alleviates malice but the croc is still to blame for the attack. There still was the possibility the croc didn't attack and the swimmer never would be the wiser. Then the fact they went swimming has no role thereby has no part in the croc not attacking. Thus the swimmer has no responsibility in the croc behavior and can not bear 100% responsibility for not being attacked or for being attack. The swimmer is not 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of an event'  That is my birds eye view.

As I said on numerous occasions, I am not talking about "blame" at all, only responsibility, and these are completely different concepts, at least, in my mind.
When I say that I am 100% responsible for everything that happens in my life, I mean that it is up to me and no one else to deal with the consequences of every event affecting my life, and that whatever action I take, the consequences of it (however unforeseeable) are on me. The fact that I have no control over some variables does not at all affect this conclusion.

I think we just use word "responsibility" differently. In my mind, "responsibility" has nothing to do with "fault"/"blame". I am responsible for protecting my date from danger, for example; there is no fault/blame involved here at all. It does not matter if a crazed maniac attacks her, or if a tree log rolls towards her: I have to take action to assure that she comes to no harm before I do regardless of whoever or whatever causes the possibility of harm. Purely human-caused disaster, purely natural disaster, a mix of two - does not matter as far as my target reaction is concerned. Nor does it matter if I had no reasonable way of predict that it could happen. It does not matter if the probability of it happening was 0.000000001%: it happened, and it is up to me to clean the mess and move on now.

Blaming the crocodile for the attack seems to me equivalent to blaming the sky for hitting your house with lightning during a storm in the framework in which I am approaching these situations. Might be emotionally satisfying, but practically is not useful. At the end of the day, you know that if the crocodile is in the river and if you jump in the river, the crocodile may attack you. When it comes purely to your decision-making process - which is all that I am concerned with here - then I am not sure what difference blaming the crocodile makes.
When you build a house, you better not hope for the benevolence of mother nature, but use proper materials to protect it from the elements. When going to African savannah, you better know not to approach a bunch of hippos and exercise caution with other known dangerous elements. And when going to a dangerous neighborhood, you better know how to identify dangerous individuals and leave before it is too late. Saying, "I am not responsible for these dangers", makes no sense to me personally, although I can see how it can for someone else.

ZeusAres42

Barnardot said:

@AntiRioter ;So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

Well its a premise based on fact. It has been throughly researched and many scientific papers have been released. The VMAT2 gene predisposes the people who have it to be simple minded and to accept things at face value. Another words they were born like that so they have to except the responsibility of most of the blame for getting suckered in in the first place. If it wasnt for naive nits like that then we wouldnt have the scammers because they wont have any one to take advantage of.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

And that's still illogical. How can the consequences be "on you" when you had no control to begin with? Yes, everyone deals with consequences, after the fact.

Your argument was that if you decided to take a path (A relatively benign choice) and some one takes advantage of you ; you blame no one because you decided to go. Then you claimed it was your fault, er, 'responsibly' because you went there. You are placing blame by default. On yourself for being there. On the swimmer for swimming. On the girl for visiting a male. In all cases you blame the victim because they were there. That is the only way you can " hold myself 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of the event."  The fact you do not have control should affect conclusions. How can you rely on such conclusions when you purposely leave out major variables of the equation? 

Yes everyone handles trauma in their own way. And if you decide you should not step out of your house for something might happen, then that's your personal choice. Time may or may not tell if you've successfully staved off another incident. But if no one acts against you, we KNOW that stopped an incident. 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

They are precisely on you in the sense that it is up to you to deal with them. Who/what is the cause of them is irrelevant at that point. Ultimately, the cause of everything can be said to be the laws of nature over which no one has control (even the religious people might argue otherwise).

Once again, "responsibility" is not the same as "blame"/"fault". I am not sure why you keep arguing against a point that I have never made. I have never said or implied that "the victim is to blame".

I think this might be one of those conversations where I just cannot get my point through to my opponent, so there is little reason to continue it, with all due respect.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yes, we agree to disagree.

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

Barnardot said:

@AntiRioter ;So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

Well its a premise based on fact. It has been throughly researched and many scientific papers have been released. The VMAT2 gene predisposes the people who have it to be simple minded and to accept things at face value. Another words they were born like that so they have to except the responsibility of most of the blame for getting suckered in in the first place. If it wasnt for naive nits like that then we wouldnt have the scammers because they wont have any one to take advantage of.

That's faulty logic. A few scientific papers aren't sufficient enough to establish a basis of fact. The nits are present whether the scammers are or not. If they didn't scam, then we wouldn't have scammers. 

Yeah, he said pretty much the same thing in another thread claiming that there is some gene that makes some people religious and gene that makes them atheists. Hence troll

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

No, my argument is that it is irrelevant whose "fault" it is when it comes to personal decision-making. From personal perspective, I do not blame anyone, but hold myself 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of the event. I fail to see what is fallacious in stating that, had I not done something or been somewhere, I would not be able to end up in the situation I did. If I had not moved to the US, I would not be able to become a victim of a murderer in North Carolina: that is just a hard fact. Or am I missing something here?
I do not dispute that we are social creatures. But we are also thinking creatures who can go above basic biological conditioning and take a bird's eye view on what happens around us.

In your second paragraph, the "laws of civilization" depend on the time and place we are talking about, plus every individual is free to walk on the edge of those laws and sometimes pass outside of them (which, I would argue, every human being does occasionally). I think that it is great to have a legal system protecting individuals from direct harm coming from other individuals. My claim merely is that it is not enough to just rely on this system to take care of you. Use it as your armor, but even as you are wearing plate armor, exercise common sense and do not stand in front of a cannon about to fire. And there is no minimal size of the cannon below which you are 100% safe.

I think you are arguing against something that I have never said. You still talk about the extent to which blame is to be put on different individuals, while I am not talking about blame at all. I am talking about responsibility and agency. Saying that a scammer is to blame for taking $10,000 away from you still leaves you without $10,000. It is more useful to learn some of the common scammers' strategies and avoid losing $10,000 in the first place. Saying, "Oh, the system of justice will take care of it, so I do not need to learn anything", will not get you far in life.

I understand your argument. It's an irrational one. Of course 'fault' is irrelevant in personal decision making prior to an event transpiring. Your logical paradox begins after an assault of some kind occurs. You would choose to hold to the aforementioned irrelevancy of fault when reality has just thrust fault into the situation. It's impossible to hold yourself "100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of an event" unless you ARE the perpetrator. If you're a victim or bystander, all that can be done is react in some way in real time. You have no control over other factors that are playing major roles in an incident. Especially where another human is involved making independent choices from your own. One can not claim they 'blame' no one and in the same sentence say "but I hold myself 100% 'responsible'..." That's contradictory and I think you know this.

You're putting much more emphasis on the relatively insignificant fact that you choose to go somewhere when you didn't have to; and way too little emphasis on the other variables which you have no control over. And that's the bottom line, you have no control over them so you have no responsibility on their parts. And it should be noted that in this discussion 'responsibility', 'fault' and 'blame' can be used interchangeably as they point in the same direction after an event takes place. Up until this point I've tried to make you see the false leaps of logic you've been taking to reach this epiphany of yours. That is what I see when I take a birds eye view.

The swimmer who gets attacked by a crocodile would not have if the crocodile didn't attack. The understanding that the croc was just hungry alleviates malice but the croc is still to blame for the attack. There still was the possibility the croc didn't attack and the swimmer never would be the wiser. Then the fact they went swimming has no role thereby has no part in the croc not attacking. Thus the swimmer has no responsibility in the croc behavior and can not bear 100% responsibility for not being attacked or for being attack. The swimmer is not 100% responsible for everything that happens, regardless of who or what is the cause of an event'  That is my birds eye view.

As I said on numerous occasions, I am not talking about "blame" at all, only responsibility, and these are completely different concepts, at least, in my mind.
When I say that I am 100% responsible for everything that happens in my life, I mean that it is up to me and no one else to deal with the consequences of every event affecting my life, and that whatever action I take, the consequences of it (however unforeseeable) are on me. The fact that I have no control over some variables does not at all affect this conclusion.

I think we just use word "responsibility" differently. In my mind, "responsibility" has nothing to do with "fault"/"blame". I am responsible for protecting my date from danger, for example; there is no fault/blame involved here at all. It does not matter if a crazed maniac attacks her, or if a tree log rolls towards her: I have to take action to assure that she comes to no harm before I do regardless of whoever or whatever causes the possibility of harm. Purely human-caused disaster, purely natural disaster, a mix of two - does not matter as far as my target reaction is concerned. Nor does it matter if I had no reasonable way of predict that it could happen. It does not matter if the probability of it happening was 0.000000001%: it happened, and it is up to me to clean the mess and move on now.

Blaming the crocodile for the attack seems to me equivalent to blaming the sky for hitting your house with lightning during a storm in the framework in which I am approaching these situations. Might be emotionally satisfying, but practically is not useful. At the end of the day, you know that if the crocodile is in the river and if you jump in the river, the crocodile may attack you. When it comes purely to your decision-making process - which is all that I am concerned with here - then I am not sure what difference blaming the crocodile makes.
When you build a house, you better not hope for the benevolence of mother nature, but use proper materials to protect it from the elements. When going to African savannah, you better know not to approach a bunch of hippos and exercise caution with other known dangerous elements. And when going to a dangerous neighborhood, you better know how to identify dangerous individuals and leave before it is too late. Saying, "I am not responsible for these dangers", makes no sense to me personally, although I can see how it can for someone else.

In all fairness, this might have been a great argument if it weren't for the downplaying of moral agency and free will in human behavior, and the false analogy between a crocodile and a human being.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

In all fairness, this might have been a great argument if it weren't for the downplaying of moral agency and free will in human behavior, and the false analogy between a crocodile and a human being.

Consider the solipsistic outlook that, as far as we know, is unfalsifiable: that the only person with agency and free will is you, and everyone else, for all intents and purposes, is an organic robot who has no true consciousness and blindly follows their programming (albeit very sophisticated). From this perspective, the only difference between a crocodile and a human being (other than you) is complexity of the decision-making (plus the obvious: different physique, etc.): it is quantitative, not qualitative.

This is not an outlook I recommend, but it does offer something that is at the crux of my argument: that in your life only you have real agency, and everything everyone else does may be considered a part of the environment. Becoming upset at others, blaming them for something, to me seems to serve no more purpose than being upset at a rain and blame it for killing your crops (which, I know, humans have done for millennia). A guy cut me off on a highway today; had it been a driverless car that had done the same thing, the impact on my life would be exactly the same. The idea that a guy sitting inside the car should change how I evaluate the situation for the purposes of decision-making makes no sense to me, although I am open to be convinced that it should.

AntiRioter

Factfinder said:

Barnardot said:

@AntiRioter ;So your premise is if you can trick someone it's their fault? How was this even a question? sheesh

Well its a premise based on fact. It has been throughly researched and many scientific papers have been released. The VMAT2 gene predisposes the people who have it to be simple minded and to accept things at face value. Another words they were born like that so they have to except the responsibility of most of the blame for getting suckered in in the first place. If it wasnt for naive nits like that then we wouldnt have the scammers because they wont have any one to take advantage of.

That's faulty logic. A few scientific papers aren't sufficient enough to establish a basis of fact. The nits are present whether the scammers are or not. If they didn't scam, then we wouldn't have scammers. 

No it hasn't . You  cant make a scientific argument for an ethical issue. Please usining the philisopical ethical frameworks justify this. or I'll ask you to justif why you should be allowed to live

Dreamer

There is so many scams. Some are small time crooks but others are robber barons who write the laws. Technically its not stealing if its legal. Yet, any reasonable person knows that casinos are legal stealing. Having the mark rely upon rabbit's foot superstition in the gift shop while using hard science and logic to maximize casino profits.

One way a scam works is simple ego depletion, wear the person down.

Pharmacy benefit managers is another example of legal stealing robber barons. This is why rich people funnel dark money into disinformation think tanks that promote bigotry for both a distraction and social control. Allowing them to rob the middle class and poor blind.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/express-scripts-conspired-overcharge-pharmacies-class-action-says-2023-10-20/

Barnardot

@Dreamer well that’s drawing a long bow about stealing and making it legal. I bet if you won you wouldn’t be saying that. When you go in to a casino it is a mutual under standing between the parties. And you know very well that the odds are all ways in favour of the casino so no body is stealing off any body. If you lose then it’s just tough titties. And any way people have been gambling since before the ark so it’s an acceptable part of life.

Dreamer

@Barnardot

Because humans are completely logical, never believe in superstition, and this is especially true when they drink the free alochol that is served at casinos.

Barnardot

@Dreamer ;Because humans are completely logical, never believe in superstition, and this is especially true when they drink the free alochol that is served at casinos.

Yes I know what you mean there and although I don't agree that they are stealing they do push the envelope as far as they legally can.

I am not a gambler at all and It bores the shite out of me to stand in front of those machines all night. I would rather lie on top of a human machine all night long. But the thing is there are heaps of people who do get off on that sort of amusement and banning them is not what living in a democracy is all about. It is sad that you get a lot of people who get addicted to gambling and lose there money and wreck there families. But we should be looking more at helping these people psychologically since I bet (: that they have other addiction issues also.

Dreamer

@Barnardot

One more note I might add, casinos create the rules, card counting is against the rules and gets you banned. Big business doesn't want consumers using logic. Martin Luther didn't like logic neither.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/38024-reason-is-a-whore-the-greatest-enemy-that-faith-has

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

MayCaesar said:

Every person is responsible for his own actions. Scammers are responsible for deceiving and misinforming people, offering them deals that are not real - and their victims are responsible for their naivety and weakness.

In my life, I have gotten scammed for money successfully twice (the second time my bank blocked the transaction, saving me from the consequences of my mistake), and scammed in a relationship once (that sucked way harder). In every one of these cases I bear no love for the scammers, but I should have been more prudent and careful. In a sense, I deserve what I got - and got wiser for it. It is harder to trick me into a one-sided relationship with sweet kisses and promises, and harder to pull out a successful financial scam - although certainly possible. I believe that the most vulnerable person is the one who believes themselves invulnerable.

I do not see the blame as equally on the scammer and the scammed. The bulk of the responsibility falls on the scammer for maliciously seeking out victims and robbing them. Sure, in life we learn life's lessons but we will never become omniscient. Let's apply your logic to rape. If a woman knows there are men who use date rape drugs and still goes out with someone she would like to to get to know, is it her fault if she's drugged and raped? Should she be fined for not avoiding any and all situations that could possibly be rape scenarios? The same way some municipalities went after victims of identity theft for not shredding receipts before they threw them away? I don't think so. The blame falls on the one who meditated on the commission of a crime and then went through with it. I agree with a lot of your expressed opinions @MayCaesar but this one I just can not agree with.

First, @MayCaesar, I am wo proud of you for essentially quoting the Bible:

For we are each responsible for our own conduct. - Galatians 6:5 NLT

(Sorry about that @Dreamer, I know its a double whammy for you - a Bible verse and a message about personal responsibility.  It's probably like a vampire being stabbed in the heart with a wooden cross dipped in garlic flavored holy water.)

@FactFinder - I have been the victim of identify theft twice.  My card information was being run at the same time in LA that I was making a purchase in DC.  So they caught it before any damage was done.  And then it happened again just 2 weeks later  with a different card- but was caught again.  I think a guy at Union Station got my card information with a remote reader on the steps to the metro as I walked by.  (So beware @MaxCaesar it could happen to you too)

While we are responsible for our own conduct, we are not responsible for the malicious conduct done to us by others.  Anybody can be a victim.  You don't need to be at fault for it to happen.  Someone could steal your card information when you make a purchase, or when you buy a meal.  There are breaches of data every day - Amazon, Facebook, and yes the Federal Government have all had people's personal information stolen.