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 (68573)	11/26/2002 9:54:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yes in this case there is reponsibility for both. In one of the original examples I said the charming person was getting the needy person to drink way to much with the premise that it would cause the charming person to like the needy person way more. In that situation the drink pusher was deceiving the needy person. The drink pusher was hoping to get some excitement by watching someone he had helped to get drunk, lose judgement and become destructive. The deceitful drink pusher carries responsibility for any harm done as a consequence. At the same time the pushie knows about drunkenness and assumed the risks. The pushie can blame the pusher for deceiving him and contributing by holding the carrot out there. The pusher can remind the pushie that they knew the risks they were taken. Neither can ethically wash their hands of responsibility for the event. The other situation where the drinks were double or triple loaded is almost entirely the responsibility of the pusher.