Debate Super Safari and Ebola HERE

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.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Quote:

but still if the the risk is real, no matter how small then I think it is irresponsible.

That's a bit harsh and one of the main reasons that I detest ethics debates of this type.

People are passing moral judgments based on a scenario that is completely "what-if" and is, in my opinion, so reliant on a string of certain events as to be improbable.

If people want to get into ethics debates they should at least be based on something tangible and not some hypothetical situation. Debate the pictures in the Trophy Room, or the morality of lying to liars, not something like this, or AIDS from tattoo needles, or the possibility that a lad will be struck by falling space rock if he is sent on safari out to the vast wilderness during a meteor shower.

Carry on.

Wannabe Baiter Joined: 11 May 2006 Posts: 97

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

I hope your karma payments are up to date.

There is a hospital in Memphis, TN called St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, that is full of kids with every type of cancer imaginable. Were they behind in their karma payments?

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:11 pm

Is it just me, or are some people here taking this whole thing waaaaaaaaaay too seriously?

Jesus! Get a grip.

If that lad goes anywhere at all, there is no way in heaven or hell that he is gong to contract Ebola or anything else, except maybe Aids, but he'll only get that if he decides to go to a whore house to get his rocks off while on the road, not because of something a scambaiter tells him to do. No way.

Just because somebody on the internet (NOTA BENE: "INTERNET" - the place where people say stupid things 24/7) says "hey, I hope he gets Ebola," that doesn't mean that it is a bonafide intention of the safari, much less worthy of a whole thread.

Contrary to popular (n00b) belief, the lads are not puppets on our strings who react directly and positively to every whim and wish of a scambaiter.

We've had n00bs who said "tell him to go wait for you on the divider of an eight lane highway, maybe he'll get run over." Does anybody really take that seriously? I certainly hope not. Is it what we all want? I doubt it.

This is the internet, folks, the internet. Get used to it.

Btw (just in case), no, you cannot get your lad arrested at the airport and the lads will not come kill you if they find out your IP.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:44 pm

How would it be if he went away on safari and his internet cafe was hit by a bus because it in turn had been struck by a meteor?

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:08 pm

SumYunGai wrote:

Seriously, no, I don't think anyone on this forum would actually applaud a lad contracting ebola, or AIDS for that matter (which may be even more insidious; without the drugs to combat it, you die a very painful death from rare forms of pneumonia, while with the drugs, you're on a regimented lifestyle until the day you die, which is still going to be far sooner than otherwise).

Hmmmm, well it would depend on what lad we were talking about. I was able to find a victim before she paid. She was a single mother with cancer and took on a check cashing scam because she was unable to work outside the house. THAT particular lad I would have no problem if my bait got him AIDS or ebola. I would only have concern that third parties might be involved.
Edit: I really don't want to start a n00bs fight in the middle of this, but I really can't resist this one little bit. Please bait these guys for 3-4 years. Learn how to earn their confindence and make them think you're a lad or an oga. Get some of their scams from them (they love to brag, it's not all that hard.) Warn a few people that have lost upwards of 10k or is my cancer victim. Then come back here and tell me how you feel.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:21 pm

If the lad doesn't contract Ebola, I'll be able to tell everyone that I knew the scambaiter who was nearly responsible for causing the extinction of mankind by sending a lad on safari. What a story! I'll bet I can write a book and go on a talk-show tour.

If he does catch Ebola, well... I won't have time to write a book and go on my talk-show tour, but it will still be a great story to tell for a week or two. Wink

sometimes I just can't help myself

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:46 am

Re: "Karma Payments" - Most would argue that if indeed karma exists, it is using baiters to exert redemption upon scammers.

Re: "Even if the risk is small blah blah blah" - Tell your lad to go home, wrap himself in cotton wool and only eat through an IV drip. Honestly, what tripe, everytime he gets on a plane, a bus, a car, a boat you have put him at a greater risk than if he were sitting in a cafe. However, everytime he's not sitting in a cafe courtesy of you, you have lowered the risk that someone out there might lose their home, their business, their family and perhaps their wife (Edit: that should read life Whoops! Razz

).

If you're going to weigh up the risk/benefit ratio I think you're looking at the wrong side of the coin.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 140

Do the lads deserve death? No. No one deserves death.

But if a lad dies of ebola through his own fault, at our prodding, how many people are going to shed a tear or feel really bad about it?

You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I'm not a Christian, but even the Bible says so.

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

Interesting.

I see I must cancel my attempt to organize a safari to Papu New Guninea in the hopes that the Lads may contract kuru . . . I figure if people can get Lads to get tattoos, convincing them to eat brains should not be too far off. . . .

As above ethical debates often do not solve anything when they get into bizarre hypotheticals: what IF the Lad has a young daughter who needs a dialysis machine and the final payment on the iron-lung . . . and what IF he will give all of the money from the scam to stamp out Country Western music, is it THEN ethical to . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah?

Or more succinctly [He does not know the meaning of that word.--Ed.], what if the Lad gets hit by a car on the way to WU?

WhatEVER happens to a Lad happens because he chose to commit a crime. Period. Full stop. "Johnny? Tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes!!" "A year's supply of Turtle Wax! The 419 Home Game! Rice-a-Roni!" Anyone who feels sympathy for these criminals needs to spend a bit more time reading about their crimes.

However, that does not mean someone cannot object to an element of a bait. There seems to be a very simple rule: Do NOT do what you are not comfortable with. Not everyone is comfortable with, say, a Lad being tattooed--Neat! Do not do it.

One "hard-fast rule" which is a good one is the prohibition encouraging illegal activity that can put the Board at risk--not to mention the baiter: cash baiting, hacking, sending vira, et cetera.

Nevertheless, perhaps a separate section for ethics debates would be fruitful if posters wish to debate them? In my opinion, you commit a crime, you own the consequences, no matter how ridiculous they may be.

There are a great deal of tragedies in life, and we should mourn them. However, as with johnnyringo's point, I will mourn the tragedies that happen every single day at a children's cancer hospital before I mourn any tragedy that happens to a Lad.

--J.D.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:48 am

I think there are some misconceptions here about Kitum Cave and what is in there. To the best of my knowledge (and I am willing to be proven wrong) Ebola has never been found in the Kitum cave. One person has contracted the Marburg virus, which although a member of the same family of filviruses is not quite as lethal (30% or fatality rate). The cave has been searched for a resevoir for the virus and none has been found.

The ebola virus also has different fatality rates depending on the strain - the Ebola Zaire virus for example has a fatality rate of 90% or so, whereas the Ebola Sudan virus has a fatality rate of 50%. The Ebola Reston virus, which is the one that turned up in Washington DC has an (apparent) 0% mortality rate amongs humans despite decimanting monkeys. 5 people caught the Ebola Reston virus and they all survived.

Someone also mentioned Nurse Mayinga in the same breath as the Kitum Cave. Whilst it is true that she was the index case for an outbreak of Ebola, this actually happened in Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo and to the best of my knowledge she had never been to the Kitum cave.

I am not going to get into the ethics of this whole thing, but I just thought I would give my opinion on the risks, which I think would be fairly low.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:53 am

Quote:

I don't care about lads. I hate lads. They disgust me. I loathe them and no death or disease is too painful or degrading for them.

Stop beating about the bush and express an opinion, dammit! Laughing

Master Baiter Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 142

TSnerd wrote:

Quote:

but still if the the risk is real, no matter how small then I think it is irresponsible.

That's a bit harsh and one of the main reasons that I detest ethics debates of this type.

.

Why is it harsh? This is only a debate after all and nothing more.

That is just my opinion, and I still believe that IF there is a REAL risk of encouraging an ebola outbreak then it is very naughty.

As it happens I think its a great safari and enjoy reading it , I dont believe for one moment that the lad will catch ebola and I dont give a monkeys arse if he gets hit by a meteor.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

If this is the case, then why state that the baiters are irresponsible?

Or were you just going for effect?

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:33 am

While I enjoy the odd ethics debate, I think this one is far too hypothetical for us to get too much in a song and dance about. As people above has said, we never force a lad to do anything, only encourage them. They're the ones who decide every day whether to continue their pursuit of money they're basically stealing or not.

If the lad in question did some research, went "OMG that's the cave where Ebola began" and decided not to go because of that, then that's fine, he's made that choice. He always has the opportunity to say "ah screw it" and head back home. Yet in not making that choice to go home, it's his bidding that makes him end up in this situation, his greed, his knowledge that the money he think he's getting from you is always based on lies originally on his behalf. He knows that he's screwing you over (well... trying to), and every step he takes is with that knowledge.

I guess my point is that nobody puts a gun to a lad's head and makes him do anything. Everything they choose to do happens because their greed overwhelms their common sense.

Master Baiter Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 142

TSnerd wrote:

If this is the case, then why state that the baiters are irresponsible?

Or were you just going for effect?

Right, to put this in very broad terms.

To decieve someone into the position of possibility causing an ebola pandemic is irresponsible, or am I wrong? would it all be a good laugh and we could put pictures of mass graves in the trophy room.

No I wasn't going for effect, far from it in fact !

Now before you all go flaming me, I am airing my opinion from the point of view that there is actually ebola in the cave and that would represent there being an actual risk
As this has never been proved then the baiters running this thread are not being irresponsible because as far as they are aware there is no risk.

edit: I just looked back and I didnt call any baiters irresponsible, I just said, If the risk is real then its irresponsible.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Sadly, yes you are. You use terms like 'ebola pandemic' and 'mass graves in the trophy room'. You are going for drama to make your point, which is just silly.

edit to add:

Quote:

I just looked back and I didnt call any baiters irresponsible, I just said, If the risk is real then its irresponsible.

Parse away.

Master Baiter Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 142

TSnerd wrote:

. You are going for drama to make your point, which is just silly.

I used a number of words in conjunction with one another to illustrate the point I was trying to make. How silly of me.

And as for drama, well this site is based upon drama with this forum being the stage.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the point of scam baiting was to waste scammers time and resources.
To do this we all use made up stories and ficticious characters, we act out a drama so to speak, therefor we are all using drama to make our point.
So I guess you think we're all silly now.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Quote:

To do this we all use made up stories and ficticious characters, we act out a drama so to speak, therefor we are all using drama to make our point.

I'll agree with that, yes.

You are intentionally ignoring the point, however. :shrug: that's ok, many do.

You said:

Quote:

O'k thats all worst case scenario stuff, but still if the the risk is real, no matter how small then I think it is irresponsible.

Then you followed up with:

Quote:

As it happens I think its a great safari and enjoy reading it , I dont believe for one moment that the lad will catch ebola and I dont give a monkeys arse if he gets hit by a meteor.

Which really are conflicting thoughts. Then, lastly, you said:

Quote:

How silly of me.

Which is drama-queenish in and of itself. Either agree with me or don't, but please don't make out like you're being picked upon.

Master Baiter Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Posts: 142

LMAO, I never mentioned I was being picked on, sorry if I came across like that.

OK I "DO" enjoy this particular bait and give full credit to the OP's for their great work.
I didn't mean to sound contradictory My Ebola point of view is that of "if there is a real risk" but seeing as there isn't as far as I can tell (I've done the internet research) I really dont give a monkeys, I hope this has cleared things up for you.

The bit where I said "how silly of me" well that was just plain old sarcasm Smile

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Fair enough, and you can have the last word.

Thank you, and I enjoyed that exchange. Very Happy

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:07 pm

Oops I wandered in here by accident - but since I'm here I'll just mention a point I always make, but put it differently. It helps me to clarify my own view on where to draw the line.

If my employer pays me a salary and I use that money to buy tools and weapons to commit a heinous crime, my employer is not reponsible for my actions. In a similar fashion, if a baiter makes a scammer spend more time in the cyber cafe and thus he increases his criminal activity in other areas to fund it, that's not the baiter's fault. The scammer is a criminal and that's what he does. If you disagree, then the solution is surely to pay him, not bait him, which is clearly insane.

In my opinion you have to be able to differentiate whether or not your baiting is directly causing your scammer to harm third parties. A baiter does not adopt a scammer and become responsible for all his actions once he is being baited. If I'm happy about that, then I care not a fig what happens to the scammer or his associates - up to and including death, and I consider myself to be quite a sympathetic person.

Now I'll go read the bait. It must be good to have its own ethics thread Very Happy

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:22 pm

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

Kitum cave has been extensively searched for ebola. None has been found. There was never anything more than the most flimsy of circumstancial evidence pointing at the cave. The lad will not catch ebola.

There is only one case that is associated with Kitum cave. There have been many outbreaks. Nobody is suggesting that a lad should not travel on the Kinshasa Highway for fear of catching ebola, but far more outbreaks have happened there.

The ebola case associated with Kitum traveled to hospital by air while vomitting blood. Nobody on the plane caught it. Nobody in the hospital waiting room caught it. He coughed blood in a doctor's face, and he caught it. It is not "highly contagious"; it requires only simple barrier nursing techiques.

There have been multiple outbreaks of ebola, most of which you have not heard about: http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/ebola_haemorrhagic_fever/en/
They have caused relatively few fatalities in recent years. It is highly unlikely to cause a global pandemic.

Now if a baiter was to get a lad to drink a daily glass of chicken blood in a H5N1 hot spot, I might get worried.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:53 pm

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

There is no cure and it is horrifically contagious. To all intents and purposes, it has an almost 100% mortality rate. You liquify inside and you bleed from every orifice but you dont die immediately. For aproximately 24 - 36 hours you are contagious.

Apparently not. The Ebola Reston subtype has killed nobody, according to WHO. Other types have - anything between 50 & 90% mortality rates. It spreads in families where there is contact with bodily fluids as relatives care for a sick person or in hospitals only where autoclaves and barrier nursing are not a routine feature. It sounds highly unlikely to spread to others merely by virtue of an infected person's presence. The military apparently had to spice up the cocktail to test it as a possible bio-weapon because it's hard to transmit without that kind of contact. And there seems to be a lot of doubt as to whether the symptoms described in various works of fiction are what actually happens. Wiki quotes an epidemiologist as saying; "At the end of the disease the patient does not look, from the outside, as horrible as you can read in some books. They are not melting. They are not full of blood. They're in shock, muscular shock. They are not unconscious, but you would say 'obtunded', dull, quiet, very tired. Very few were hemorrhaging. Hemorrhage is not the main symptom. Less than half of the patients had some kind of hemorrhage. But the ones that had bled, died."

Not that this makes much of a difference to the ethical question. Either a baiter has a moral objection to leading their lad into as much danger as he will invariably lead his victims, or they don't. Their call. If it is not patently illegal, Eater is not going to ban discussion of it.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:09 pm

I realised that without having the technical details. It's common sense really. I can't imagine some 'death zone' ebola source being open to daytrippers, but having a Lad up to his knees in bat crap is sufficient. From the TV nature programmes I have watched, he should be overcome by fumes quite quickly and disappear under the accumulating dung. Very Happy

Debate Super Safari and Ebola HERE	View next topic View previous topic