Topic: ANALOGY - Let me see who says what - OPEN challenge mods and THEYMOS welcome - page 2. (Read 604 times)

---

The above is a picture of theymos I took after he saw this thread.

---

The analogy is not blackmail, nor am I aware of anyone doing this. There are certainly ratings given out for questionable reasons and certain people often have transgressions overlooked, but nothing like this.

The closest I can think of to this is people calling out lauda for stealing funds in escrow for an ICO gone bad and him giving negative trust for calling out his extortion attempt. In these cases, no one else piled on.

The analogy as presented IMO is pretty simple.

Alice has been wronged/victimized her property was physically removed from her persons. She was present for this theft, and was able to confront the perpetrator. She then outlined her course of action to involve the authorities, if the property isn't returned to her. I do not see that as a threat, more of an undeserved olive branch. Bob at the moment has wronged the individual and has a decision to make. The police are not involved in this analogy, only mentioned as a possible future so I don't know why they are being discussed.

Considering this is an Analogy let's not treat it like a blind study. What is this really about maybe a link to what I'm guessing is a Reputation or Scam accusations thread.


This part clearly shows you are here discussing something else, by bringing red trust and peoples reasons for it into the discussion. You also have already made your mind up on what you expect to see. This is weird because we are only supposed to discuss the analogy, you just wrote it but are positive you know how people will react. Now you've seen my opinion on your analogy, but that is only in the context of what you have presented. There are varying degrees to which the situation could change, and then the labels or views of the participants may also change.

For example - Did Alice take the phone from someone Bob knows? that could change things.

I’m quite stoned, tried to read the OP diligently but it’s confusing me. Will try again tomorrow

Justifications for allowing victims of crime to take matters into their own hands should take the form of a legal or philosophical argument, rather than a simple statement that "this is stupid". F-. See me after class.

I said no such thing, but don't let that stop you.

The point is to see how perceived justice is served out by people here.

Correct. Yes because Alice is saying she will tell the police if she does not get her phone returned then yes this is OF COURSE acceptable. Also there is no way to go further and say at any point BOB is the victim and needs some reward.

@shoeshine

what nonsense are you slobbering on about? keep to THIS analogy.  Not some stupid nonsense you thought up via your mass of misfiring junk.

This scenario was pointing on having red tagged by DT members and trying to act as innocent.

Bob grabbed the phone and told Alice that he will keep it. If Alice is an innocent, she would have said "please return it, that's my phone" but no. She lied because she knew Bob before the incident and it seems like bob won't do it to her if he is committing a robbery. Bob has a reason why he grabbed the phone and kept it. Alice acted like an innocent with loopholes and she did something to bob. In order for Bob to return it, blackmail is the best option for Alice to do.

I'm sure this scenario was related to those people received tagged and I don't know if they applied to blackmailed DT members.

This is the problem you see. I advocate free speech for everyone. You just insist on free speech for you and your pals and self moderate and local rule me into silence. After trying to to sshh me up with red trust and bans. Forget this for now we can have a different thread about that. You can open a thread for free speech else where.

So here we get to it.

This is the problem, to me BOB is not a victim AT ALL. This is stupid there is no point in this analogy where we can say BOB is a victim.

On top of this. You take it further in that you want to punish ONLY Alice and REWARD BOB.

Your reasoning and yoggs and tmans and laudas is corrupt and you should not be near the DT system at all.

Suchmoon is trying to derail. There is no end in sight to the net negative shit that spews all over this board. She only wants to derail this thread because she knows where it is headed.

Now explain why BOB is at any point a victim that needs a reward whilst Alice is in the wrong and deserving of punishment.


@FH - this does sound like one solution but then DT will say ALICE is a murderer so certainly untrustworthy.

Let's collect some donations for Alice to take an Uber. Then she only needs to worry about a potentially murderous driver.

Okay, look, do not start worrying if the analogy is a correct representation of another scenario. This is not important for this thread.

The DT's were commenting on the analogy only. Take it as a hypothetical example if you like.

The police are fully aware it was/is Alices phone and that bob took it away. The central point is

is alice allowed to say to bob she will tell the police if he does not give her phone back?? or is that not allowed.

DT's are claiming that Alice is blackmailing BOB when she tell him if he does not return her phone then she will report him to the police.

this is what you should all be focusing on. This is their reasoning on this example.
 
Let us call it a hypothetical example if that makes it easier to comment on. There is nothing to SOLVE  really. Take it at face value there are no sub layers to unravel. Alice had not previously stolen the phone from bobs dead uncle who she shot with a bazooka who was a gang member but was later revealed to be on the pay roll of the nsa working under a rogue commander who happened to be a double agent too . This does not need to get complicated. Take it at face value.

 

If Alice would have pulled out her Desert Eagle and shot Bob in the face when he grabs her phone we won't have to worry about blackmail, calling the police or Bob stealing cell phones again!

Bob is a victim, not the victim. Alice is a victim of Bob's robbery and Bob is a victim of Alice's blackmail. It is, after all, possible for criminals to themselves be victims of crime; didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? I already explained why this is the case, despite your attempt to delete my post in your self-moderated thread. (Whatever happened to that FREE SPEECH stuff you keep going on about?)

well view it that she said that then if that helps

I will report YOU or I will report YOUR actions ie the theft does not really matter for this.

Welcome to wonderland.


@foxpup

 Meanwhile Start a thread with all the stupid things I have said so that I can demonstrate they are all true and not stupid at all. Not here though make your own thread.

So you didn't have these problems earlier on foxpup. You just said that Alice was a blackmailer and therefore untrustworthy?

Why now all the speculation on the universal set of behaviours  that cell phone thieves are bound to because you say so ? this is not at all important. Or are you now changing your tune? is alice now not a blackmailer and untrustworthy?

What happened -- happened. That is the analogy.  You are not here to say it is unlikely to happen in that way. You are meant to stick to your original statement that Alice is a blackmailer and untrustworthy. Or are you now saying that is not what you would say if asked to comment this scenario?  Analogies need not be what you would consider realistic they only need to mirror the principles of another scenario.

So you are changing your mind now or not? alice the blackmailer and bob the victim yes or no?

Of all the stupid things you've said, this is somewhat less stupid than average, but not by much. It is a stupid analogy because nobody behaves like this in real life. Outside of Monty Python sketches, no robbery victim is going to hold a conversation with their assailant, and no robber is going to stick around long enough to listen to what their victim has to say about the matter. Nor would a robber be dissuaded by a threat to call the police, since they generally assume that their victims will call the police anyway. Even if they were, they're not likely to complain to the police that their crime was thwarted by an evil extortionist since that would mean confessing to their own crime as well.

Nothing about this scenario makes sense, though you do get some points for being able to articulate it somewhat coherently. Overall, I rate your post C+. Keep trying!

Sorry, I was trying to understand on where is the Analogy there?

Who is this theft? Doesn't make sense. If BOB is the theft, Alice should have said: "I will report you to the police/cops". Or is this a riddle? Is she in wonderland?

EDIT1:
It does matter. If you want to bring vis-à-vis argument on the table for whatever purpose it may serve, everything matters (unless my university law subject professors taught me wrong).

Anyway, I will just move on to another topic.

See you around, cryptohunter.

EDIT2:
Exactly.

That's what I'm pointing out to CH's this theft. It could be someone else is involved, which resulted in his analogy.

Local rules - no qwk since as he says the truth does not interest him and red trust for innocent people is good because it just creates added awareness of the dangers out there. No sock puppets with less than 150 activity.
DISCUSS ONLY THE ANALOGY HERE nothing else.


So here is the analogy


Alice is on the bus and suddenly BOB (alice has never seen him before) turns up and grabs Alice's cell phone and claims he is keeping it and it is now his own personal cell phone. Alice then says to BOB give my phone back BOB or else I will go to the cops and report this theft. (report bob to the police for taking her phone away by force ...extra clarity needed for some people apparently)

MANY DT members now claim this is how they view that analogy and how each character should be viewed and treated.


Alice = black mailer and untrustworthy

Bob = victim and trustworthy

Police should reward BOB  and punish Alice.


They stick to this fucked up reasoning to justify giving red trust.  

I want to hear it from each person so I can establish I am dealing with people that are completely corrupt and will say anything to protect proven scumbags here.

Let's see what kind of justice our systems of control are dishing out. I mean it is like poor old Alice "just fell down the rabbit hole straight to hell" haha