In the news today
Posted: 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.
Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://philosophicalvegan.com/
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).
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.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
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.Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:19 pmLet'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?
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)?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.
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.
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...