Split from Radio show thread: Ethics of the Chad Bait

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:32 pm

So do you hold to the theory that a thousand guilty should be spared to protect one innocent? Just curious.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

The difference between vigilantism and what I'm doing is that a vigilante takes action to carry out a punishment that he or she sees fit, despite the law taking action.

If someone steals next to me in the store, and I somehow deceive them and send them on a safari to punish them, I am a vigilante because I tried to institute my own justice, rather than let the laws that are in place handle it.

If I call the police, who do not show up, so choose to do a song and dance to occupy the thief or pretend to drop some money on the ground outside of the store to have him switch targets for his theft, I am not a vigilante. This distraction is scambaiting. We simply move the "dropped money" further and further away.

I am letting the laws that are in place take care of what they can. I am not doing anything despite them. I am simply distracting a criminal from his original target.

You can call yourself a vigilante if you want, but I am not one.

Edit: spelling mistake

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:36 pm

^^

Quote:

choose to do a song and dance to occupy the thief

Now there's something I'd pay to see. Laughing

Scambaiting renegade on the fringes of internet society.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:47 pm

Ima Baeder wrote:

We simply move the "dropped money" further and further away.

That is so well put.

Quote:

choose to do a song and dance to occupy the thief

Quote:

drop some money on the ground

What kind of dance is this? And where is this money falling from?

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:48 pm

I am not calling myself a vigilante by any means, I consider myself a concerned and socially responsible citizen who is doing what he can to try to save someone from the same fate he went through.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

@Rodus and Jojo: Laughing

Jojo, I used or in between those two phrases, not and. Wink

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Ima: I'm not a lawyer or anything close to it. But if you applied your logic and used deception on a person like that in the US/UK and were caught at it, you could likely face prosecution or at a minimum, a civil lawsuit that you would lose. The justice system would frown upon it, and you would have a devil of a time trying to convince them that you need to do their job for them. The fact that a lad instigates the dialog only makes the issue murky at best, from a legal standpoint.

While you're not executing a punishment, per se, like hanging or imprisonment, you are executing a deception that if executed upon anyone but a lad would be considered unethical or criminal. In that sense, the deception is a de facto punishment.

It's vigilantism, and I'm okay with it, and calling it for what it is. It just seems silly to me to be in denial about it.

To anyone else:
Now, for the love of God... I'm not saying vigilantism is wrong in certain circumstances. I'm not saying lads don't deserve it, they DO! So please don't cut and paste all the evils that lads do, I really don't need convincing. Very Happy

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:03 pm

Ralph Wiggum wrote:

In the U.S., bodies such as the A.C.L.U. and other corrupt law firms have used their talents to castrate law enforcement and the judicial system, favoring the criminal, all in the name of their paycheck. It has gone way past "fair trial" and "due process".

You are right on, Ralph. IMHO "due process" has been improperly elevated from being the "means" to rather also being the "end". But only justice itself, IMO should be high and lofty enough to be the "end".

"Due process" is the best means but is now diminishing as the available means.

BTW Ralph, I like your statement about your location.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Vigilantism is disregarding the existing laws, taking law into your own hands and instituting your own justice. I am not a vigilante and will appreciate you keeping the label to yourself. Wink

Regarding your scenario where I would be prosecuted, I'm quite sure the thief would be prosectued first, therefore I would take no action to have to distract him.

I'm really done debating this point. As I said before, you are more than welcome to call yourself a vigilante.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:06 pm

Quote:

if executed upon anyone but a lad would be considered unethical or criminal.

Yes, but we don't (except slightly but he doesn't count).
If Ima was to do a dance routine to distract a criminal untill the old bill turned up then I'm pretty sure she wouldn't get into trouble.
We tell lies to criminals and fair enough you are ok with lads suffering (and good for you!) but I still don't buy the vigilante line, I'd look crap in a leather vest and bandanna for starters.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

...and you're more than welcome to continue in denial. Very Happy

So, we agree to disagree.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:09 pm

^^I'm not sure I get your point, in regards to the examples Ima gave. Let's try another non-419 example.

Let's say you are 100% certain that the person who just rang your door bell has been working the neighborhood to collect money for a false charity. You call the police, but they tell you they can't do anything about it because the person has diplomatic immunity (or some other unsatisfying answer). So you decide to keep them busy by talking to them for a few hours about all the work you did for the peace corps some years ago (all lies, of course). During the conversation, you work in that you are involved with several philanthropic groups and you can probably get an audience, but it will require that a number of forms get filled out, and they may need to make a trip to see the head of the organization in Paraguay.

Would that make you a vigilante?

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:10 pm

@Tuco-

Why thank you. I think it's appropriate. Wink

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:11 pm

The amusing thing is that people should think you are obliged to treat criminals in accordance with some ethical framework that is designed with the sole purpose of keeping the scammer safe from harm or misfortune.

Presumably, for hypothetical purposes only, those who feel we are doing something wrong would feel more sympathy towards our work if we scammed them for money, which is, of course, forbidden.

If not, then I would ask why not.

If you don't see what's coming, I advise you not to answer. Very Happy

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Quote:

...and you're more than welcome to continue in denial.

So, we agree to disagree.

The difference is that you insist upon putting the label on me, while I simply disagree with your assessment.

Luckey: Good illustration.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Luckey,

Applying this definition supplied by Ima earlier:

Quote:

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient.

...I would say "yes". I think others are just afraid of the label because of the negative connotations surrounding it based on historic incidents and books we had to read in high school like The Oxbow Incident, spaghetti western movies, etc. But taken literally, it doesn't have to be negative. Vigilantes can be heroic or misguided, depending on the context, the quality of the person, and circumstances they operate in.

Ima: I think we just disagree about what the label means. I still think it applies, you don't. ...moving on.

I really do enjoy discussions like this, but it's hard when people pile on and get angry or take things personally. I'm really just trying to spur some honest intellectual debate. If that counts as trolling, then I guess I'm guilty.

EDIT: Forgot "the"

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:37 pm

I think the debatable portion of that definition is "form of justice". I would see it more as a form of distraction, or perhaps prevention (preventing others from being scammed). Sure, the scammer may suffer in the process, and many may see that suffering as just, but for people like Ima and me, since that isn't our primary motive, we can claim immunity from being branded "vigilantes" or "sadists", IMO.

Edit:

Quote:

I'm really just trying to spur some honest intellectual debate. If that counts as trolling, then I guess I'm guilty.

I think this discussion has been quite civil. If you want to troll here, you're going to have to work a little harder than that. Wink

Honest intellectual debates are welcome here. Forgive us if some of us are weary from having them too regularly.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:38 pm

Sorry about it seeming like piling on, but if you went to a rice-growing forum populated with rice farmers and started to bring up how it strips the land of nutrients, I'm sure that a few of the farmers might take the same side against you. Wink

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

@ Luckey

Okay fair enough. I still believe that deceiving someone is a form of punishment. Leading scammers around the world is a punitive "form of justice", IMHO.

@ Ralph

Again, its fine for people to disagree and leave it at that. There's really no need to argue until one side surrenders or treat them as stupid unless they agree with the concensus. Not saying you did that to me, but some members are really quick to fly off the handle sometimes and read into things way too much.

I'm curious why everyone is anxious to avoid the vigilante label... is being a vigilante an inherently bad thing in your minds? Or are you all just upset by the "inaccuracy" of it?

Edit: @ Jojo

Do you embrace or deny the "label" of vigilante? Very Happy

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

capricio wrote:

Leading scammers around the world is a punitive "form of justice", IMHO.

Others would call it a "holiday", IMHO Laughing

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:03 pm

@capricio, you aren't a journo are you? You seem very determined to get people to commit to your labelling one way or another.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:08 pm

capricio wrote:

@ Luckey

Okay fair enough. I still believe that deceiving someone is a form of punishment.

My parents lied to me about the tooth fairy. What were they punishing me for? Wink

Quote:

Leading scammers around the world is a punitive "form of justice", IMHO.

I don't disagree with that for any imaginable case. For example, sending a lad to Scam Patroller's neighborhood was simply cruel and unusual punishment: no two ways about it! I do think your statement is an oversimplification though.

Quote:

There's really no need to argue until one side surrenders or treat them as stupid unless they agree with the concensus. Not saying you did that to me, but some members are really quick to fly off the handle sometimes and read into things way too much.

I think your taking this a little too personally. Lots of people here feel strongly about what they do here, and have been at it for quite a while. I can assure you this thread is not the first time motives and ethics have been considered by any of us. It's kind of like how the bus driver gets quickly irritated with you if you don't give him exact change, even if it's your first time on the bus.

Quote:

I'm curious why everyone is anxious to avoid the vigilante label... is being a vigilante an inherently bad thing in your minds? Or are you all just upset by the "inaccuracy" of it?

I'll speak for myself. I really think it would be grandiose for me to describe myself that way, based on my anti-scam activities. I do resent the "hard-nose maverick" imagery it tends to conjure. I also don't think it's accurate.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

@ Rodus

Nope, just a bored network engineer. Very Happy

I just find it ironic that I find the whole theme of this place to be the "V-word", yet it is almost never mentioned. Also some members seem determined to avoid it like the plague. As I've said earlier, I personally think vigilantism is fine under the right circumstances and applied with some ethics. But others seem to find the term outright offensive and completely inapplicable for what goes on here. ...kind of an interesting point of debate, for me anyways.

Edit: @ Luckey

Yes I can understand people get bored or annoyed with these threads, but unlike the bus driver's passengers, they are easy to ignore or just move on to something more interesting. If people don't like them, they don't have to get involved, especially if they feel like they are repeating themselves. But inevitably, they feel like some misinformation has to be challenged, so they feel obligated to enter the discussion upset, right off the bat.

Baiting Guru Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 5727

Maybe, it's just me, but this is getting rather silly.

The word "vigilante" is described by merriam-webster as follows:

Quote:

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Under that definition I guess many of us could qualify as vigilante's. But the definition really doesn't matter. The word "ignorant" is describe as:

Quote:

lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

However, through the years the word "ignorant" has taken on a great meaning. To call someone "ignorant" is to insult them, and the word itself simply means lacking knowledge in a certain area. There are lots of things I am ignorant about.

The same twisted meaning applies to the word "vigilante." If you want to stick to the basic definition, well, I guess we could be considered vigilantes. However the image of a vigilante is one of of a crowd in the old west stealing a man from jail and stringing him up in the middle of the night with no trial. That's not what we are at all.

Games of semantics are being played here, and I'm not sure I understand why. We do what we do. You can call it "throatwarblermangrove" and it ain't gonna change what it is. I really don't see the purpose of slapping a label on it.

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:21 pm

Scammers steal money I don't - Scammers lie - I lie

The difference is I don't steal and I lie better than them.

They should find a job.

It's a verbal quadratic equation

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

Split from Radio show thread: Ethics of the Chad Bait	View next topic View previous topic