SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Philosopher who wrote (68563)11/26/2002 9:33:45 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
"I can agree that responsibilty can be based either on informed choice or on action where there was no realistic expectation that the person should have known.

OK me too, we have a starting point. on the informed deceitful actor and not on a person where there was no realistic expectation to have knowledge of the deceit.

"if the dupe is NOT informed AND didn't irresponsibly close his eyes to what was going on around him,..."

ooops. I sort of agree but am uncomfortable using the word "irresponsibly." Since we are trying to determine where responsibility lies in a transaction involving deceit, the word irresponsibility is kind of a redundant Duh.

I prefer to say that if the person made an informed choice to avoid reasonable expectations then he has responsibility for the outcome.

"...the UPS guy is innocent... Definitely.

"But back to the very origins of this discussion, there is no equivalent situation on SI. Everybody on SI should be taking some care, should be wary. There are no true dupes on SI. Anybody here who gets duped is at least partly responsible for being duped."

That was the origins of this? hmmm...no wander you and X have taken a defensive posture on it. I wasn't thinking of it that way. I agree that there are varying degrees of dupiness on SI and that especially on the Boxing Rings people have some responsibility for caution. I will never agree that the responsibility of a deceiver and a trusting dupe are equal. The deceiver, in fact, is usually proud of his accomplishments to the degree that he can own responsibility for the outcome (as in most interactions where deceit is employed). Some times it is two way, some times not.

Kholt coined the term "reverse smoke blowing" which would put the responsibility for deceit on the person complaining about an action, event, or consequence.

Smoke blowing and reverse smoke blowing are both common on this thread.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News