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: one_less who wrote (68560)	11/26/2002 8:47:46 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

As far as the hit and run goes, I don't see how you have any responsibility for the harm cause to a third party by theives who are driving your car without your permission. Philosophically, you may be right. Legally, you're dead wrong. Maybe not criminally, but definitely civilly. The point was IF the dupe is NOT informed, then they do NOT have responsibility for the choices offered by an INFORMED deceiver. But my point, and you seem to agree, is that the test "if the dupe is NOT informed" isn't sufficient. It should be "if the dupe is NOT informed AND didn't irresponsibly close his eyes to what was going on around him,..." That's the difference. What level of stuff should have opened his eyes I don't know. But you can't set up that scenario and pretend that the teller would have acted like this was a perfectly normal bank transaction, double counting the cash as she turned it over to him. That's simply not reasonable. So if he remained a dupe, it was by gross irresponsibility. Either you agree that responsibility involves informed choices or not. That is the only point of this portion of the discussion. We can move on from there if you agree to that. 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 know. For a better example, if I tie everybody in an office up, tape them to their chairs, then put a bomb in the room and on the way out wire it so that when the door opens it sets off the bomb, but there is no way for a person opening the door to have any idea it's wired to a bomb. So the UPS guy comes along, opens the door, and kaboom. In that case, I agree the UPS guy is innocent, both legally and philosophically. He is a legitimate dupe. 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.