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: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:19 pm

This sums up the basis of your argument in general

Quote:

they involve potential

I give in - I agree, potentially anything could happen. The flap of a butterfly's wings in South America causes all the ills of the world and only my death can prevent me causing anyone harm.

Potentially I could cause a Lad's death by paying him by WU when he crosses the road to collect it.

Potentially I could be blamed for not paying him, as that denies him the standard of living to which he aspires, undoubtedly better than my own.

'Potentially' is not a legal argument, it's what's left at the bottom of the bucket when you've used up all else.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

It's a waste of time arguing with someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about and argues just for the sake of arguing.

Great, another "you're stupid because you don't agree with us" line.

Slightly, your whole line of reasoning using the "it must be fine legally because I can't get caught or proscuted" is weak at several levels, so I chose to just start ignoring it, because you didn't seem to understand the jist of my argument. In that sense, you were wasting my time, and beating the same drum over an over. Sometimes, in the course of debate, it's better just to move on and agree to disagree. Disagreeing doesn't make the other side stupid or unreasonably obstinate.

I'm curious what Eight has to say if he chooses to answer my questions. As an attorney, I will certainly take his opinion with considerable weight.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:58 pm

capricio wrote:

Great, another "you're stupid because you don't agree with us" line.

No. My line is "you're stupid because you can't accept logic".

And please don't try to falsely condense my argument. I may have stated that we can't be prosecuted but I've told you time and time again that we do not break the law. The latter way over-rides any other consideration.

Yet still you harp on that what we do is illegal at times and I see nothing whatsoever coming back from you that proves it.

I'll ask you again: Give examples of where we break the law.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:02 pm

capricio wrote:

I'm curious what Eight has to say if he chooses to answer my questions. As an attorney, I will certainly take his opinion with considerable weight.

Like you did last time I presented it? Laughing

("He" is a "she", btw, but no offence taken.)

Yes, an illegal act can occur without an arrest. That does not make someone guilty of it. The gap between those two concepts is jurisprudentially interesting but irrelevant here if baiting is not illegal. As a matter of both law and justice, "innocent" and "presumed innocent" are precisely the same, otherwise there is no point having the presumption at all. If I am never arrested or prosecuted or convicted, I am innocent, not presumed, or "it can't be proved", just wholly and completely innocent.

I said I don't send lads into dangerous situations but if I did, I'd be doing nothing illegal, so I have already answered the question. I do nothing illegal by baiting. You may choose not to believe that, but if you don't, I question why you have bothered to hypothesise about what a lawyer/judge/court would say. You are not a lawyer, and I am, but you are still "not buying the whole 'nothing illegal happens here' line." That's not a sensible discussion or even a challenging argument, it's just two opposing views at a stand off. Hardly entertaining for participants or spectators, and not very edifying. Smile

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:02 pm

I don't buy the coercion argument.

"coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical or moral force. ."

I can't think of a baiting tactic that does that. Even in your example of sending a lad to break into another lad's home, how is bypassing the lad's free will accomplished? If someone tells me I should commit a crime, shouldn't I be responsible for my own actions? If someone told me to jump off a bridge, and I do it, are they guilty of murder? If I jumped because I believed there was a trunk box full of money at the bottom of the river, isn't that just Darwinism?

I guess, if I really think about it, we do commit some crimes. We routinely forge documents, and enter into contracts that we don't intend to live up to. But then again, the lads always manage to violate the terms of the agreement, so there too, they are the guilty parties. Very Happy

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:14 pm

luckey wrote:

I guess, if I really think about it, we do commit some crimes. We routinely forge documents, and enter into contracts that we don't intend to live up to.

Et tu, Luckey? Sad

You can't commit a crime merely by entering into an agreement or making a fake document, you need to have some kind of mental element, intention or motive to go with it. It's called mens rea. An act (the actus reus) is only illegal when done with the necessary mens rea for the offence, usually dishonesty for fakes, forgeries and assorted lies. In my jursidiction, I very much doubt that the baiters have what is required to meet the legal definition of dishonesty.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:17 pm

^^UGHH! I wish you'd posted sooner. I just called the local precinct to turn myself in. Guess it'll be a shoot-out now. Sad

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:21 pm

I really don't see what the fuss is all about. The capricio (Not sure if that's the name, and too lazy to look) dude can sleep peacefully knowing that Adamu didn't die. He's safely at home, and still trying to scam. All is splendid in the world.

Sorry though, capriwhatever, we're still going to stop him from succeeding. Sad

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:33 pm

I am curious what capricko would say if confronted by someone scammed by Adamu after his safari to Chad. Like, why is it not ethical to see to it that these scammers are prevented from scamming for the rest of their lives?

Had Adamu been arrested and subjected to muslim judicial law, and had a hand or two removed for being the thief he is, I can't say I would lose too much sleep over it.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:40 pm

^^ Well after Caprico's last post, I PMed Jojobean and told him that he is criminal scum. After a bit of crying I believe he's gone on the run and is heading to Brazil.

Do I get a pith helmet for that?

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:43 pm

@ LadAssassin: I think that's the irony of this debate. On the rare occasions that scammers are brought to justice by the proper authorities, their fates are probably far worse than any "punishment" a baiter could orchestrate.

Interestingly, achieving an arrest is the ultimate baiting accomplishment.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:03 pm

I expect that any mugu reading this thread would be amused by the "hand wringing" that has been expressed here.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Its disappointing that raising questions can earn me such a lack of respect and personal attacks from certain members. Confused

I feel like you guys are misinterpreting some of my arguments as condemnation or judgement. In that sense, I have probably failed to present my arguments effectively. Damn, though... if some of you guys can't handle being in a debate without resorting to personal attacks and name calling, don't participate. Some people actually enjoy like purely "academic debates". If you don't, or can't separate application from theory, just move along, it's not hard to do.

But for those that answered honestly and intelligently, I appreciate your candor. I'll concede the whole legality issue is purely academic (just like the term Vigilante), because as Slightly has stated (over, and over, and over) that in all likelihood nobody will ever face prosecution.

Still, as e6ffdyr0 stated, sometimes it's okay to rationalize within ourselves that it's fine to break some laws, if you believe that laws broken are misguided or unjust. You just need to make that determination for yourself. I really don't see anything done here as morally wrong, but certainly I feel like it does delve into a legal grey area.

I still feel like Eight dodged me a little bit regarding my questions ( wasn't ignoring you!). Smile

Was the lad that got assauted in his home "out of the blue" led by his own greed to be beaten or killed? Nobody led him into that situation, a baiter led an unrelated lad TO him. He was sitting at home, going about his own separate (albeit nefarious) business. For me at least, there's a difference. If you say the law would treat it the same as leading a lad around with greed, then I'll believe you, but I don't feel you specifically addressed it. Admittedly, it doesn't happen very often here.

Professor, sorry you misinterpretted "academic arguments" for lad hugging. I actually like your work. Laughing

LA, I really couldn't give a rat's ass if Adamu dies in a fire.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:13 pm

The simple fact is this:

We didn't SEND anyone into a war zone. We simply placed fake money in an area that HAPPENED TO BE in a war zone. Not our fault the shitbags chased it.

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

capricio wrote:

I really don't see anything done here as morally wrong

Care to share your moral paradigm?

Edit: I should clarify. I am curious as to what moral standard you are holding us up to. (ie: Christian, Muslim, Secular Humanist, Atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Republican, Democrat, Boy Scout, ACLU...) Whatever the standard is, I am glad we made the cut.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Capricio: It isn't raising questions that is causing you to be met with less than favorable responses. It is the fact that you ask the questions, and then argue with the answers without backing your argument up with facts.

Eight has answered you very definitively, yet you still reject her response. That is your choice, but to continually push for a different response seems more that you are trying to get us all to "admit" that you're right, rather than having respect for our own points of view and simply disagreeing.
You stated that agreeing to disagree is the best route for some of this, yet it took me quite a while to get you to that point yesterday regarding vigilantism. Your earlier argument was that I was in denial. Do you understand the difference?

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:29 pm

I can only speak in detail about my own work but twice I sent Shorty round to scammers' houses, but I didn't tell him to 'off' anyone, nor did I ask anyone to do the same to him.

At the first house he was arrested and had to pay a bribe to get free and at the second house a pal of his got arrested. He could have been bitten by a dog, fallen down a hole or had his head blown off, who's to know ? I did not say 'pick up a gun and shoot the first person you see' primarily because that is hardly likely to work.

Baiters only ask scammers to do things they are likely to do. Murder, pillage and suicide are usually outside the realms of achievable possibilities. Don't you see that ?

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Pastor,

Legality and morality often overlap, but are not always necessarily one and the same. e6ffdyr0 made the point quite well. But if you want to break laws, you should still be prepared for consequences. In this case, there is little fear of consequences. The core arguments are:

a) whether laws are actually broken here or not, and
b) whether it even matters since it's virtually impossible to get prosecuted anyways.

I've broken many laws, as I'm sure you probably do every time you go 10mph over the speed limit. Doesn't make you a bad person but some people resent the idea of being labeled a "lawbreaker" or "vigilante", even if the label technically applies. Some people probably would not participate on the site if they felt they were breaking any laws, even "little white laws". I'm not calling baiters bad people or labeling them as evil criminals, or "as bad as the lads". But some people read what they want to see so they can get angry, whatever....

I'm unconvinced a few "little white laws" aren't being broken and believe some people just want to humm louder and plug their ears. Others disagree with me, that's cool. Leave it at that.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Ima Baeder wrote:

Your earlier argument was that I was in denial. Do you understand the difference?

Your earlier argument was that I was trying to condemn you with a label, not argue the suitability of the word. Do you understand the difference? You took it as something personal, and it wasn't presented that way.

Edit: Grammar

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

Thanks for the reply. I am asking a specific question, what moral standard are you are holding us up to. Since we "passed" it, in your eyes, I am curious as to what the standards are.

I made an edit while you posted, I gave some examples of different groups of people, that hold different moral standards, to choose from.

The "legal vs. illegal" horse has been beaten into the ground. I want to focus on the moral issue you brought up.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Capricio: That was not my argument, but perhaps your interpretation of it. It wasn't personal. I disagree per the definition of the word.

I am done debating you as I hold to my previous assessment that your need to be right outweighs your acknowledgement/understanding of the logical argument of others.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:54 pm

Two things I've heard a lot:

Insanity is the practice of doing the same thing over and over again with the hope each time that the results will be different.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (Apologies for the politically incorrect gender usage, but PC language wouldn't scan properly.)

Repeating the same arguments over and over again isn't going to change anyone's opinions. You can't change anyone's mind - the only person who can do that is the person whose mind it is. So drilling in with the same arguments over and over again is not going to make anyone change their opinions - it's only going to annoy them. Very Happy

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 12 Jun 2007 Posts: 95

Gomer,

Do I have a problem with how you run your baits? NO

Do I think you technically bend a laws here and there? YES

Do I think you'll get punished for breaking any laws? NO

Do I want you to stop? NO

I should probably just sneak back into the site with a fresh ID, everyone probably hates me on this one by now. Laughing

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:00 pm

Caprico.

Now that Jojo has arrived in Brazil, there's the chance that he may wander into a rough area and end up being raped or murdered.

As you were the one who coerced him into going there, I think it only right that you should hand yourself in to the police.

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

capricio wrote:

I should probably just sneak back into the site with a fresh ID

Don't bother, when you joined a small RFID chip was sent through the internet, and injected at the base of your skull, for permanent identification. It may be illegal, but it is damn effective.

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