Scenario 2 is not a scam. Someone said he would double the money you send him and instead he just send back your money. How the hell is this a scam?
It's a scam because the scammer got use of someone else's money without paying the fee he agreed to pay for that use. Scenario 6
Account A is owned jointly by a husband/wife team that promises to deliver 100 Bitcoin over time, 5 Bitcoin per year to Account B. The husband and wife separate, and the husband decides he's not going to honor the deal, but he'll let the wife own the account. He takes his 50 Bitcoin and walks. Does Account A deserve a scammer tag now that it is owned by the wife? (What if it is revealed the husband/wife was actually made up and it was run by one account?)
You can't sell an obligation. If you could, I'd sell my $20,000 of credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer. The details might depend on whether the husband wife team has some kind of independent existence that can own the obligation and can become the sole property of the wife. But otherwise, they remain jointly responsible. |
|
|
|
It looks like he got investors to buy all of his bad Pirate debt. And somehow, he's already paid them "profits" from an unspecified source. It's getting harder to see Patrick as a victim and easier to see him as a con artist. |
|
|
|
Let me set a hypothetical for you, Joel: If I choose as my daily defense weapon a nuclear bomb, is it my responsibility for all the death and destruction caused when I use it, or does the responsibility fall to the punk mugger that I was trying to kill? The responsibility falls on you because choosing to transport a nuclear bomb requires you to take extreme measures to ensure you don't place others at unreasonable risk. At a minimum, you would need controls to prevent a stressful situation, such as being mugged, from causing you to deploy the bomb in error. When the potential harm is so extremely great, the realm of possible accidental scenarios you are expected to foresee is much greater. This is why we require people to put fences around swimming pools and guards around nuclear reactors. if you load explosive rounds into a handcannon as your daily defense carry, yes, you're responsible for killing anyone you shoot with it. You are always responsible for everything you do. However, choosing to carry a gun with explosive rounds is well within your rights. It does not good to say "you have the right to do X, but if someone else's actions result in your doing X causing harm, you are responsible". This is functionally equivalent to "you have no right to do X". Say I publish a cartoon mocking the prophet and it causes other people to attack an embassy and kill an ambassador, am I responsible? If so, doesn't that effectively mean that I have no right to publish such a cartoon? |
|
|
|
Under those circumstances, I could indeed have done no better. But a good number of those circumstances were under my direct control. My choice of an elephant gun as my daily carry. My choice of explosive rounds as a defensive load. My choice of carrying a weapon I am not expert in. My choice of using that weapon to defend those kids. It would not be my fault that the hostage had died. It would still be my doing, and thus, my responsibility. Again, I utterly reject the notion that a person is responsible for the unforeseeable consequences of actions he had every right to take. If you choose to go to 7-11 to get a Slurpee and as a result of having to wait for you to pass, a car full of kids misses a traffic light and happens to be in the path of a drunk driver, you bear *no* responsibility for accident. None whatsoever. I utterly reject "but for" causation as a moral theory. Yes, had you not gone to 7-11, there would have bee no accident. But that is *not* a moral test. A much more likely situation is that the weapon is loaded with frangible rounds, a much more sensible defensive load. Of course, this still precludes shooting through the hostage, since frangible rounds have been known to break up from hitting much lighter cover. So it behooves you to know how to shoot well enough to shoot around cover. Or not get involved in hostage situations. You can load your weapon with whatever rounds you like. If you want to load explosive rounds for target practice and that happens to be all you have when a need for defense comes up, so be it. Unless you have chosen to take on some defensive obligation, you have no obligation to be ready for effective defense. The person who chooses to place you in that situation by choosing to use force must take moral responsibility for the world as he finds it. These are the things you have to think about before you strap on a weapon. It's not just a show-piece. It's not a toy. It's a very powerful tool. You need to know how, and even more importantly, when, to use that tool, and you need to accept - and expect - the consequences of that use. No. If you want to strap on a gun with explosive rounds, even if that's horrible for self-defense, you have the absolute right to do that. If that means you aren't prepared for optimal self-defense, then so be it. You have no obligation to attune your actions so that you can more effectively defend others. You can do what you want so long as you choose not to use force. And when you do need to pull your gun, the person who forced you to do that rolled the dice by doing so. All anyone has any right to expect from you is that you do your best, and so long as you do, the fallout is all on their tab. |
|
|
|
|
Just keep repeating: Bitcoins were stolen. Why? Because they have value. It's the same reason people steal dollars. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with dollars.
|
|
|
|
The choice is clear, I take the shot. But since it was my decision to bring my biggest pistol with me today, and my choice to load it with explosive rounds, and my choice not to train enough to hit a head-sized target at that distance, and my finger that pulled the trigger, yes it most certainly is my responsibility that the hostage died. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "responsibility". I think it's silly to argue that you are in any sense "responsible" for the unforseeable consequences of actions you had every right to take. Now, the mitigating circumstances - the bus-load of kids, the terrorist holding them hostage, etc - will reduce the liability, but ultimately I pulled the trigger, and it's my responsibility. Since pulling the trigger was the best posisble act under the circumstances, it would be a credit, not a responsibility. You could not conceivably have done better. Why is that not enough? The family will understand, the "law," whether an arbiter or the state, will understand, and certainly everyone will agree I did the right thing. Exactly. But that doesn't completely relieve me of responsibility. Guilt, yes. Not responsibility. If by responsibility, you mean the credit for doing the best possible thing, then I agree. If you mean something else, I don't. Own your actions. All of them. Indeed. |
|
|
|
The first mistake is the belief that our transportation will continue to depend on roads.
You mean there's a better way than covering our country with the remains of deceased dinosaurs? |
|
|
|
there is just no fundamental answer to this kind of question inside absolute ethics that, in all possible cases, accords with everybodies sense of "just" or "the right thing do to". I agree, but that doesn't matter. forget the notion of "the right thing" and do what you consider best. if you can't stop yourself, bath in self-pity or self-righteousness according to the rules of your chosen ethic afterwards. but please do it silently. The problem is that other people will also judge you and if they find you initiated force, they will hold you responsible. Although I do believe it's unreasonable to expect perfection out of people operating under unusual conditions caused by the coercive actions of others. If I point a gun at your head, it is not reasonable for others to hold your response to a standard of perfection on pain of legal liability. And if you are less than perfect, that is largely my fault for pointing the gun at you, not your for responding the best you could. And I agree with you this is not utilitarianism. That the best one can do is pick the possible action that maximizes the good and minimizes the bad is independent of how you determine what is good and what is bad. Utilitarianism is about how you measure whether and to what extent something is good. |
|
|
|
That addresses a different hypothetical (where you don't know if shooting will kill the hostage or not). I asked you to address my hypothetical and you refused. I'm not sure what you want me to do. I don't understand your position and you refused my attempt to clarify it. In my hypothetical (you are nearly certain that shooting will kill both the madman and the hostage and that if you don't shoot, the hostage will live but 100 children will die), should you shoot through the hostage? And if so, are you liable to the hostage's family? Although I think you and I may agree that you should and you are not liable, the madman is. I think it's Myrkul I disagree with. I believe his position is that if you shoot and kill the hostage, you are legally and morally responsible for that death. |
|
|
|
We can't understand why you have such absolute certainty in your world that there is no way to kill a hostage-taker without killing their hostage, when it's already been explained that it is highly unlikely under any circumstance and specifically why. Okay, I give up. I could try to construct a more realistic hypothetical that asks the same question, maybe where you have a button you can push that blows them both up or something, but there doesn't seem to be any point. I'll prefer to try to understand people who are willing to make at least as much effort to help me understand them as I'm willing to make to try to understand them. |
|
|
|
We reject your fantasy-world hypothetical and substitute our own from reality.
I can neither agree with your position nor disagree with it if I don't understand it, and I don't understand it. If you can find some other way to explain it to me such that I understand it, please do. |
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty much this. If you have to shoot through the hostage, their vitals aren't likely lined up. If you're going to shoot the hostage anyway, you can also shoot them in the leg. That removes the hostage from the equation, while limiting the damage they suffer, and reducing the chances of killing them to stop the hostage taker. The box: Think outside it. I would really like to hear your answer to the hypothetical rather than your answer to some alternate hypothetical. In the hypothetical, shooting through the hostage is nearly certain to kill both the hostage and the madman. |
|
|
|
Just seems strange no one in this thread seems to be complaining about not getting there money back... the only ones complaining are the ones who weren't involved ?? Because they still hope to get their money back and believe that such complaints will reduce their chances. For one thing, those who owe money can pretty much walk away without consequences. Also, the more people who complain that they're not getting their money back, the more other people who will apply pressure for early withdrawals, reducing the chances that those who are already waiting will actually get money back. It makes perfect sense that victims, so long as they still hope to get some money back, won't complain. The last thing they want to do is make the line they're on longer. but with 1 or 2 other lenders, people are complaining they have not received anything back and the lenders don't seem to be saying anything... and all you people don't seem to worried about that. Those complaints serve the same purpose, so what else do you think needs to be done? It's obvious there's a problem if people are saying they haven't gotten their money back yet. |
|
|
|
Here is where Joel and I disagree. (I suspect this is why he supports a minarchist state.) You've still done evil, and need to recompense for that, but it's less than the evil that would be done had you done nothing, so it's worth it.
I'll give you a hypothetical: You are very poor but carry a gun. A madman is holding an innocent woman hostage. He also has his hand on a button that will blow up a school full of kids. You are essentially 100% certain he will push the button, the bomb will work, and at least 100 kids will be killed. You are nearly certain you can shoot him and kill him before he pushes the button, but you have to shoot him through the hostage, which you are nearly certain will kill her. What should you do? So what is the right thing to do in the "shoot through the hostage" case? Do nothing and allow the evil madman to blow up the school full of kids? Shoot the woman and be financially and criminally responsible for her death? My position is that you should shoot through the hostage. This is the choice that minimizes coercion against innocent people. The death of the innocent woman is an evil, but it the madman's evil. You performed the good of reducing his evil -- reducing evil is good. And I'm not really quite sure it's correct to say I support a minarchist state. I think we should keep shrinking the state so long as it seems sensible to do so and continues to provide benefits. I am not certain where we will wind up stopping. But unless I can convince you to come over to my way of thinking, I presume you'd believe that the only moral thing to do is to completely eliminate all government services and functions immediately -- this second if possible -- regardless of how much chaos, damage, and loss of innocent lives results. |
|
|
|
If patrick is not a scammer than he was.. not very smart to not see this coming. Exactly, just like everyone who invested with Pirate. In fairness to Patrick, his issue was a bit more subtle -- not realizing that he had much more Pirate exposure than he thought. Though lots of people were telling him exactly that. |
|
|
|
However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view. The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt. No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others. A bomber is approaching overhead. We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression. Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city. Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others? If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative. I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals. You are confusing an evil with who is responsible for that evil. If you are an evil aggressor, and in fighting you my best option is to shoot an innocent person, then I'll do that, and that is an evil. But it is *your* evil, not *my* evil. My force, even if aimed at an innocent, is still retaliation against your aggression. There is no evil in choosing the option that minimizes evil. The classic hypothetical is the "shoot through the hostage" example: If an evil madman has a finger on a button that will blow up a school full of children, you may certainly shoot him through a hostage. And the murder of the innocent hostage is a terrible evil. But it's not *your* evil. You have no superior option and your optimum response can never be an evil on your part. What you've done is you've done the good of reducing the madman's evil from causing the death of a school full of children to causing the death of one hostage. |
|
|
|
It should apply to everyone who convinced other people to invest money in Pirate and insisted that all the people calling it a Ponzi were trolls.
I don't like the idea calling people scammers for expressing an opinion and making an argument, no matter how "obviously wrong" it is. If "everyone knew it was obviously a scam", then they shouldn't have done any harm. The community as a whole failed and I hope the community as a whole will learn a lesson. I don't see punishment or blamethrowing as being particularly productive. |
|
|
|
Here's my question re: external threats
Who would negotiate with the foreign power? Negotiate what? There are definitely answer, but they are all going to be fact intensive. Without a government, there would presumably be no restrictions on immigration. There would be no restrictions against those immigrants importing weapons. So, foreign troops entering the country is not inherently a hostile act. There are always going to be racist nutcases claiming that every visitor is an invader, so people would get used to ignoring them. With a misinformation and propaganda campaign, a genuine invading force could conceal their purpose for some time. I think you are reasoning based on a notion of "immigration" that doesn't make sense in this context. A government could give an ultimatum to a foreign power, that would lead to either the removal of the troops or a formal declaration of war. In an anarchist society, how do you distinguish between defending your freedom and committing terroristic acts against foreign tourists? You would distinguish by looking at whether the use of force was offensive or defensive. The idea definitely intrigues me, and if someone can explain how an anarchist society achieves some kind of unity of purpose, I would love to hear it. They do it whatever way they think best. I don't think anyone could predict what that way would actually be, and it might depend critically on what organizations serve what purposes and have what interests. If all grocery stores and restaurants in the world were government owned and operated, could you predict what a free market food system would look like? At best, you could guess. |
|
|
|
The thing is, Patrick is no longer accepting deposits, and is still paying off his debts.
Why would a scammer ever do that? Wouldn't he just cut and run at this point?
I heard Pirate paid a couple of small accounts back. Not only that, in Las Vegas witnesses said that he passed a cat without kicking it. I don't think Patrick's a scammer, but I can still recognize a bad argument when I see one. |
|
|
|
As it would be so easy to make the community whole and restore intelligent humanity, if there wouldn´t ship brainless submarines right beneath the guys on the boats. We have a new Zyk. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
