Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (68551)	11/26/2002 7:19:06 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"responsible for being woefully naive" I see that as a different application of "responsible." Its like seeing a cute blue eyed girl and saying she is responsible for being so cute. If it is a natural beauty, she is not responsible for it, she just is blue eyed. It is true, that with experience, you may become less gullible, but naive just is. Responsibility in my view comes with informed choices. "And surely from the cashier's response he must have realized that something was wrong,.. Well no. In my hypothetical example, he had no knowledge until the transaction was completed. That was the point. He was uninformed about the nature of the transaction. "And if the "blind" guy got away, the note passer is, IMO, responsible for repaying the money taken to the bank, since he was, even if not intentionally, responsible for the loss and he knew or should have known better." I disagree. He was simply a resource used by the thief. He was useful in completing the transaction but had no conscious knowledge of a theft taking place. In fact he was attempting to be helpful in the completion of an honest transaction. Other people were useful as well: the guard who did not pick up on the scam, the guy who built the teller station, the teller who knowingly handed over the money. Why make a guy who had absolutely no clue that a crime was being committed, pay. He was as much of a victim of the scam as anyone else. I don't believe a judge would make him pay unless he didn't believe that he was uninformed (we already agreed proof is another issue). We don't blame people for being blue eyed, retarded from birth, blind, deaf, why would you hold someone responsible who was too naive to see that they were being duped by a con? If the con promised to marry the dupe for helping him, I would agree that he accepted responsibility, even if the con was lieing and took the money and ran. Different case all together. Bottom line: It all hinges on informed choices.