In the news today

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

In the news today

Post by Jebus » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:16 am

This is a thread where anything can be discussed as long as it is in the news today.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:17 am

Why did Trump bang Stormy Daniels if he thinks she looks like a horse?
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:02 pm

Jebus wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:17 am
Why did Trump bang Stormy Daniels if he thinks she looks like a horse?
You don't look a whore horse in the mouth!
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:19 pm

A couple teamed up with a homeless man to defraud people on go-fund me. Turns out, the entire story of the homeless man helping the poor woman by giving her his last 20 bucks was staged. People donated over 450K to help the poor homeless heroin addict, only to find out the entire story was fake, and the money is already blown.

I'm neither surprised, nor mad at them. I mean, they did lie, but people gave their money willingly to an admitted heroin addict and two strangers, so I don't feel to bad for those who were "bamboozled". All three are facing jail time.

I abhor liars, and I'm not the type to give money to people with a "sob" story, but I can't begrudge someone for trying to make a buck. If you are foolish enough to give money to this addict, why should you be refunded your money, and the addict (and accomplices) punished for something you willingly gave? If we are going to jail them, shouldn't we have a task force to investigate and prosecute every person begging for change who swears "I just need money for food?"

I'm all for publicly shaming them, but I think jail is a step to far.

Thoughts?
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:19 pm

PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:19 pm
I'm neither surprised, nor mad at them. I mean, they did lie, but people gave their money willingly to an admitted heroin addict and two strangers, so I don't feel to bad for those who were "bamboozled". All three are facing jail time.
Their actions are in violation of the law (theft by deception) and GoFundMe's policies. It's not surprising that the state is seeking legal action. Any legal repercussions are likely due to both the nature and severity of the deception (we can't have people running around swindling folks of $450K).
GoFundMe wrote: The following actions are examples of expressly forbidden fraudulent activity:
  • Breaking the law
    Lying or being misleading about your identity as a campaign organizer or your relationship to the beneficiary of the funds
    Posting misleading statements in the campaign description
    Not delivering funds to the stated beneficiary
    Not using funds for their stated purpose
Sure, the victim willingly gave the defendants their property, however, their property was given under false pretenses that may have ultimately affected the donors' decision to contribute. In addition, their actions are morally indefensible; preying on the compassion of donors and therefore discouraging the victims from donating to effective charities in the future.
PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:19 pm
If you are foolish enough to give money to this addict, why should you be refunded your money, and the addict (and accomplices) punished for something you willingly gave?
Let's assume that a seller logs onto ebay and lists an expensive gaming console at a bargain price, and an unsuspecting buyer sees the listing and makes the purchase, only to learn at a later date that the seller never had a gaming console to sell. Should the money be reutrned to the buyer (even if the money was given willingly)? Why or why not?

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:30 pm

Lay Vegan wrote:
Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:19 pm
PsYcHo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:19 pm
If you are foolish enough to give money to this addict, why should you be refunded your money, and the addict (and accomplices) punished for something you willingly gave?
Let's assume that a seller logs onto ebay and lists an expensive gaming console at a bargain price, and an unsuspecting buyer sees the listing and makes the purchase, only to learn at a later date that the seller never had a gaming console to sell. Should the money be reutrned to the buyer (even if the money was given willingly)? Why or why not?
I see your point here, but there is a slight difference.

In my example, the people gave money without expecting anything in return except a warm fuzzy feeling in their hearts. If the lie had not been exposed, all the donors would have gone about their lives exactly as before. If we are for punishing people who lie about what they are doing with the money you give them, 90% of pan-handlers and 99% of politicians should be brought up on charges.

In your example, the money was given on the condition that a product was to be exchanged. The money was not given freely, it was being traded.

Your point about them violating terms of service does make it interesting though, since they (the scammers) caused financial harm to the go-fund me people who are now required to give back the money obtained under false pretenses.

Hmmm. I may have to side with you on this one, strictly because of their use of Go-fund me. (dammit :evil: )
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Full Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:44 pm

PsYcHo wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:30 pm
I see your point here, but there is a slight difference.

In my example, the people gave money without expecting anything in return except a warm fuzzy feeling in their hearts. If the lie had not been exposed, all the donors would have gone about their lives exactly as before. If we are for punishing people who lie about what they are doing with the money you give them, 90% of pan-handlers and 99% of politicians should be brought up on charges.

In your example, the money was given on the condition that a product was to be exchanged. The money was not given freely, it was being traded.
Transactions can occur whenever there is any exchange of items of value (info, goods, services etc.) and money. Indeed, the nature of the transaction varied in either situation. But does that “warm fuzzy feeling” that some expect to recieve in exchange of money make charitable donations any less of a financial transaction? Are there other abstract “items of value” that people seek in exchange of money (public recognition, gratitude, respect, That Warm Fuzzy Feeling)?

In either transaction, the truth is being distorted (or completely withheld) to rob someone of property that would otherwise not belong to them. The culprits deliberately prevented donors from gaining information that would have affected their judgment about their contribution to that campaign.

In my scenario, did the seller not neglect to mention that he never had a gaming console to sell? Would this information not have affected the buyer’s decision to complete the transaction? Similarly, would the information that the “homeless man” story was completely fabricated not have affected the donors’ willingness to give charitably?
PsYcHo wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:30 pm
In my example, the people gave money without expecting anything in return except a warm fuzzy feeling in their hearts. If the lie had not been exposed, all the donors would have gone about their lives exactly as before.

Who’s to say that the donors wouldn’t continue living their lives nonchalantly once the lie is discovered? It would be incredibly myopic/nearsighted to assume otherwise, since the lie was discovered, resulting in increased cynicism toward charitable giving, which may result in a smaller base of funds & support toward effective charities, which results in less good being done.

The longevity (and severity) of the lie is precisely what makes the deception so unethical and worthy of criminal charges.
PsYcHo wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:30 pm
Your point about them violating terms of service does make it interesting though, since they (the scammers) caused financial harm to the go-fund me people who are now required to give back the money obtained under false pretenses.
It’s likely due to this GoFundMe policy violation that the judge hasn’t already thrown out the charges. There’s a reason that not many people are successfully convicted of theft by deception...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests