Topic: ANALOGY - Let me see who says what - OPEN challenge mods and THEYMOS welcome (Read 605 times)

Well, let me know when you do, because I'm starting to get bored of you just repeating the same nonsense and misrepresenting everything I say.

LOL foxpoop you simply do not seem to realise that you are completely foolish pushing this further.

Referring to the original analogy there is NO WAY that the police would consider Alices actions as blackmail that would ever result into her being charged or even being mentioned as blackmail.

You are clearly talking nonsense like you always do.

You are now stating the reason Alice would not be charged for blackmail is because BOB can not report the issue without being dropping himself in it.

Please stop embarrassing yourself further.

Just imagine if you can, try and visualise it. You are on a bus and you notice some guy walk up to a girl and grab her phone off her, she screams give it back or I will report you to the police.  

----- first thing you think is ...... this is going to result in a blackmail charge against her?? does anyone outside of meta board even consider that warped version of future events?

Please just seek some reprogramming if that is what you really believe. No wonder you slather out merits for you pals nothing burger word salad puke.

Now you are saying Alice will NOT be charged with blackmail because BOB won't report it  else he will be incriminating himself. haha

How about later on the bus driver reports the incident and makes a  full statement.

.........and then the policeman said........" we're looking for a girl in connection with an attempted blackmail, the victim is male wearing a hoodie and carrying 1 possibly even 2 cell phones " hahahahahahah  

........and then the policeman said " if the victim is watching this on his new cell phone and requires any kind of counselling or support please call 911metaboardpolice ask for agent foxpoop .  hahahaha

tell me more foxy it's brilliant. I can't get enough of you lately. Do you have your own youtube channel ? these gags are classics.

Imagine your dedication (to everything else other than finding my stupid posts obviously) if you did give a fuck...haha


Someone grabs Alices phone and she shouted to the thief " give it back or I'm calling the cops"

.....and then agent fox poop said....... wait for it everyone.......


hhahahahhahahhahahahhahahah - you can not buy this stuff folks. This is master comedic genius at work. I love it.


@Steamtyme

Let's say we just disagree slightly then on the trust/feedback system.


As for seeing things for other peoples point of view. This is fine but as you say social norms are usually useful in extreme cases. There was local outrage once I remember when a burglar consumed some expired produce from some persons home he was ripping off and got terrible food poisoning to the point he nearly died. He then attempted to bring some kind of legal case against them for leaving that there in the fridge whilst they were on their vacation. lol ...

Nothing at all has changed for me since the start of the thread. Alice is the clear victim. Bob is clearly the perp. There is no case for a blackmail charge and BOB is clearly untrustworthy . Sorry there is no 2 victims here for me.

Actually foxpoop does demonstrate by his prior actions that he believes Alice deserves punishment and that BOB deserves to be rewarded. However that will not be revealed at this point since we are still on the analogy not the situation with important similarities. But exclude this for now since it will come later on.

I mean I do love hearing the other persons point of view, especially  when it is so hilarious different and interesting, but of course we need to be sensible some times. We don't want a small subset of food poisoned burglars victims or blackmailed cell phone thieves  using the trust system to enforce their strange and wonderful social norms on the entire board.

No person is entertaining this stupidity except for you. The law specifically permits the use of violence to defend oneself against violent crimes, but it takes a dim view of other actions taken against criminals, including blackmail, which fall under the category of "taking the law into your own hands". This is not a difficult concept for normal people to understand.

---

That's because I actually said Alice wouldn't be charged, if only because the Bob can't call the cops on her without being arrested himself, and also because it's downright silly to suggest that Alice would even make such a deal with her assailant in the middle of a robbery in the first place. In the real world, this sort of situation is more likely to result from Alice advertising a "no questions asked" reward for the anonymous return of her stolen property, which is in fact illegal as it directly incentivises future thefts. But that probably doesn't fit with whatever nonsensical point cryptohunter is trying to make, hence these increasingly ridiculous "analogies".

Nice in the first part we can see why she may be categorized that way. In reality though, not just foxpup, but anyone can make a judgement on Alice's actions and label her according to their views. This goes for a Mod as well. I wouldn't be worried, there's promise here. A minimum 3 people can see something valid in that claim, just by reviewing these quotes. Discussion around only the Analogy as presented has brought that out, in a claim that in the beginning seemed much more controversial.


Here we disagree only on maybe the semantics. I don't believe in having 2 systems, I do believe in using neutral feedback in place of negative for a lot of things would make the system healthier and less contentious. It would need to be displayed the same as negative and positive,  with a "total of trusted feedback received" in the trust score of a profile to make them visible and just as relevant. It would have no effect on the calculated score, but would still show that there is a noted feedback left. 1 system with all the inputs, visible for people to check.

---

None of this is really relevant to the confines of the Analogy.

The rapist part is a stretch to make relevant here. You're right about a rapist having their own view of the situation. That's where social norms come into play as to whether or not those views are acceptable. The base example also calls in a "defence of property rights" a cell phone versus "self defense". Again social norms and a justice system will decide what's appropriate and where to draw the lines.

I'm not going to bother getting into that discussion any further, like I said it's not relevant.

The portion in blue though is really counterproductive compared to where you started - nearly spelling the name correct - and seeing a different point of view. I also went back and didn't see anywhere that Foxpup said Alice would be "charged", just that he labelled her as such. A bias can make us read further into something than is there.

The last parts, is dragging in merit allocation. Not relevant to what we are discussing.

Let me just touch on the last part first.

At no point did Alice say that she would not still inform the police of the incident regardless of whether he gave it back. At which point fox pup can call her a scammer, con artist, untrustworthy and sneaky.

There is always going to be the other persons view. Like the rapist who views the person putting up a struggle as an assault on him and his right to satiate his basic human desires. I mean those fighting back and getting all scratchy, noisy and over excited are not as bad as those that run off altogether I guess but still both should be ashamed of themselves. Wait until they try to report it to the cops because he taped their overreaction and cruelty ....they are fucked either way.

Please don't be ridiculous. No person would entertain this stupidity outside of meta board.

I must remember NOT to say to those drunk fools vandalizing my expensive automobile " stop smashing my car up or else I'm calling the cops" next thing I'll be in jail on blackmailing charges. HAHA fuck you guys crack me up. What victims those vandals would be ahaha

......and then they said "you then proceeded to  blackmail to stop them smashing your car,?? these tit 4 tat tactics are okay you say?? hands behind your back sir, up against the wall please, legs apart , " hahaha

I mean I don't think any police force in the entire world except perhaps the meta board police would even consider Alice as a blackmailer, extortionist it would not even be mentioned. It is quite farcical that foxpoop is trying to say she would be charged with blackmail or extortion or that it makes her untrustworthy. This just serves to demonstrate what kind of imbeciles that we have to endure here the fact the admin makes them merit sources and DT is perhaps worse.

I mean how can people with such broken minds be expected to differentiate between a net negative post and a net positive post. The entire thing is ludicrous.

More worrying is that a mod would ascribe to the idea that Alice is a blackmailer and that Bob is A victim too. He is apparently not THE victim, they are both A victim of each others actions. Haha I love meta board. Once you find it you never look at the world though the same eyes again.

Back to the other thing....

I think a TRUST system is valid for trading here and for financial dealings. So yes you could have a trust score that relies on feedback strictly for SCAMMING and STRONGLY likely to scam. Then just have a link called other feedback where you can read if people have just mentioned an observable event that a DT wanted to forget about in their post history.

 

I can see why perhaps you were confused I used the wrong punctuation. It was meant to be a simple question with a fairly simple straightforward answer. Highlighted in blue.

I was at no point trying to state we should be running parallel Account feedback systems. You're right having multiple systems would render any scores pointless, and would not serve the purpose of providing insight into what to expect from a member.

The final part of your quote is where you actually sort of understood me. I am wondering if that's all the concern is the wording (as it's been stated it's not financial). That's why I ask would you feel differently if the wording next to negative changed from

"Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."
to
"Negative - You deem this persons actions untrustworthy"  

This wouldn't change the fact that the " leaver of feedback" can write anything they want in the actual feedback. It also wouldn't change the fact that some people are never going to fully agree about what is untrustworthy and what isn't. This is where you are going to see people leave/say whatever they want/believe, that's a system everyone can participate in. It's also one that can be changed slowly if we try to discuss, not argue or try to win. Rational simply explained arguments for or against certain behaviors can help shape peoples actions.


This is an example of trying to see things from another perspective. That's what I've done, and is done within the original confines of this Analogy

By creating a "tit" for "tat" scenario, Alice can be said to be blackmailing Bob. There is the perceived agreement if you return my property, I will not notify the police. Do something for me and I'll remove the negative consequence of your actions from the table. Now would Alice be punished, charged or sentenced for this - No at least not in my country. Should the police become involved their advice would be to always notify them and file a report even if you've recovered the property.

Rightly so, Alice may not realize that by letting Bob off scott free, she is only setting the predator on a path to the next victim, who may not be so lucky.

I'm not, but you don't need to be a lawyer to know what actions can be considered crimes, any more than you need to be a doctor to know how to bandage a wound. Those are just things that every functional person in society should know for their own benefit.

What about Bob? He's a criminal too, and nobody's disputing that outside of your own warped imagination.

hahaha stop it with the short posts. I want the long funny ones. You know those are 20 merit from each pal at least. Come on hilarious where are you ffs??  being a bit stingy tonight are you not?? get those merits on foxy's last post that was one of his best yet. Far more funny than even the first pile of shit.

Tell me about the 2 wrongs again. I like that bit. hahahaha. Don't rush it, go into it all in depth , build me up slowly my ribs are killing me. Can you do it like a role play ...more descriptive like.

Sort of like this... (scene 3  alice arrives at the police station to give statement)...

Then the policeman said to Alice " So he didn't snatch the phone and dive through the moving buses window straight away you say?? (he raises one eyebrow with slight doubt creeping in...sounds like a tall tail ...thieves don't hang around long usually he thought to himself) ...  you didn't actually say the words ' I will tell the police if you don't give me back my phone... did you Alice?? I mean you know 2 wrongs don't make a right ...right??, These blackmailing tendencies have you been experiencing those for quite some time now or just when on the bus??

sort of like that.

Actually start on the bus when Bob appears. I want to hear how it all plays out in your mind make it realistic and I want to see foxy justice served up in all of its glory. hahaha

you're not a lawyer are you by any chance?


@r1s2g3

Is that another vote for alice sent to devils island immediately I hear?

What about BOB? ....have you seen that one?

Wake up CH , wake up. No need to dream in Alice and Bob world.
Stop thinking about analogy and hypothetical examples.
Stop thinking about Merits and DT, they all remain in this forum. I do not understand why you create so long post with hypothetical situations?
You will be able to better use your talent if you stop thinking that forum is in problem and you have to rectify it.

I'm not your mother. It's not my job to explain the "two wrongs don't make a right" concept in ways a small child can understand.

So let us pick out the important points from your bunch of garbled words, speculations, guess work, false accusations and excuses.

1. you can NOT demonstrate any stupid posts that I have made  because......excuses. (you can't find any)

You don't want to find them because you don't give two fucks.. but you do give enough fucks  to come to many of my threads and make your word salad meaningless observably foolish comments and rather long replies. What ?? that sounds a bit crazy to me. Nobody would reason like this, nobody can make sense of that.... haha  Don't put this in an analogy ffs that sounds so stupid and nobody would believe it  .........and then after doing all that  he said "I can't find those stupid posts because I don't give 2 fucks"..............hahhahahha

No sane person can fall for this kind of idiotic nonsense fox pop farts out (well hilarious can obviously) .......and then after reading this he gave foxy another 10 merits . lololololololol

and then they said there was no political meriting allowed.................ahahahahahhahahahhaha

2. sorry but your speculation and guess work regarding the analogy does NOT invalidate the analogy. Your speculation and claims to know the minds of ALL cell phone thieves on the planet is as stupid as the rest of your 19 merit net negative trash post. (Not as stupid as your obvious lame excuses above though)

If i wish to say in my analogy that BOB took alices phone and did not immediately jump from the bus that is up to me. If I wish to say that Alice said to bob that she will tell the cops if he did not give it back (even though she suspected he may consider she would do that anyway) then I can. You can't come along and say this is a stupid analogy because people who are 100% rational may do things differently . Perhaps a phone thief is prone to the odd crazy impulse. It is my analogy and if there are important and crucial similarities to my paired example then that is not a stupid analogy.

I mean it is a hell of a lot more believable that someone will take the time to write all of these long replies in my threads but does not care one bit about backing up anything he says in them because it is not important enough for him to just pick one from the thousands of observably stupid posts I have made that should take about 5 seconds. hahaha

Only greater fools would consider it anything but the unraveling of a demented mind in public.

Try not to over complicate it for yourself this is why you are having a problem where a small child would simply say

Bad Bob - Poor Alice (victim)  

Tell me again about how bob is A victim here who needs a reward and is to be trusted  and Alice is a blackmailer who deserves punishment and now untrustworthy. I like hearing you spout ludicrous nonsense. That is suchmoon like madness.  This shit only gets any traction in meta anywhere else it is met with anything ranging from laughter to uncomfortable embarrassed looks to outright terror and disbelief. haha meta board. Come on guys is this one big rick roll?

Where did either of us ever say that?

Your stupid posts can be viewed here. I'm afraid I have neither the inclination nor the time to go through all of them and explain why each one is stupid and how they compare to all your other stupid posts. I may be a vixen*, but even I'm limited in how many fucks I can give.

*At least I think I still am. Your pronouns are slipping.

I already explained that, in the part where I said "It is a stupid analogy because..."

The purpose of an analogy is to present a familiar scenario for the purpose of explaining a less familiar concept. But your analogy and the behaviour of the people in it are completely unfamiliar, at least to a sane individual such as myself. It is not entirely clear to me what concept is supposed to be explained by this analogy involving crazy people not behaving as sane humans.

Which part is the difficult part for you? I can help explain it perhaps.

Break it down at which point in the OP do you get stumped?

Is Alice the blackmailer and untrustworthy requiring punishment?

Or

Is bob the victim and deserving of trust/reward??

If you don't understand this stoned you're certainly not going to understand it with all your faculties present.

@hilarious and co. ONLY to reply to this.

this is specifically for you and your 10 merit politically motivated award to foxpoops observably moronic and net negative shit post.


Let me break this down for your consumption.

1. Fox pup starts off with saying "Of all the stupid things you've said, this is somewhat less stupid than average, but not by much."

I ask him to bring these stupid posts and debate with me how they are stupid  . I  fail to see how an analogy can be called stupid without actually knowing the "similarities" to the mirrored scenario that I am referring to. I mean an analogy can be ANY situation or example that has similarities to another.

I mean for you to be in agreement then you yourself must be able to produce all of this STUPID, incorrect, false material that I generally post . Can you produce it please??  I mean surely you don't merit things that are false and therefore net negative do you? I will debate with you ANY thread that I have started here in meta.


2. Foxpup assumes that an analogy must for some unknown reason depend upon and be bound by (her) universally acknowledged behaviours/psychology  of cell phones thieves. He then makes some broad "no person would do this " " no thief would do that"  assumptions that are of course  impossible to substantiate, and of course supplies no stats to suggest that any of his claims are anything other than bogus.  He misses the point that I could give an analogy involving a purple cat dog that resides on mars if I wanted to. Only a fool like fox pup believes that invalidates it as a analogy without knowing the similarities to its paired example.

3. SHe says the example makes no sense to her . That is THE POINT sometimes when you are pairing examples or scenarios for similarities if one example or scenario goes against that accepted and familiar experiences in your life and makes NO SENSE (to you).... then of course the analogy must also go against what you would consider to be general or sensible /normal behaviour.

Even stating that it is stupid without knowing the other scenario or experience the analogy is analogous to is completely stupid in itself. How would you make an analogy seem all sensible and reasonable if the paired experience was completely unreasonable and verging on ludicrous??

You see meriting net negative stupid crap like this demonstrates you have no clue how to give out merit. Unless you are going to debate with me and prove me wrong. Let me wait and see.  Mods should be entirely objective and also distance themselves from all observable wrong doing.

Now let's hear YOU and only YOU explain why you thought fox pups observably STUPID post full of moronic assumptions and invalid claim of my apparent stupidity and stupid posts is worthy of 10 merits.

Next I will be asking you many more questions so don't just vanish. Keep checking back. I have plenty of questions for you and many of the choices that are observably taking place.

Everytime I ask you something you seem to run off and hide up. Why? just come and debate with me after all I'm apparently completely stupid as you claim to believe and you will be able to humiliate me into submission in no time at all.

Or just keep hiding away and slathering merit on net negative trash and faux rebuttals from sub human vile vermin like fox poop and suchmoron.

Come and debate ...let's do it.


@Steamtyme

So I am not clear on what you are saying here.

Red trust is for scammers and those STRONGLY likely to scam. There is no point having a "score" that means something different to every person on the board. It renders the score pointless.

This is not about signature campaigns for me. I say they should all be banned outright for everyone except mods to supplement their income. I mean ask hilarious and co he definitely wants to retain his sigs so that's fair enough.

Just call any other "feedback" .... well ....why don't we call that feedback for everything other than proven scams and STRONGLY likely to scam incidents.  That don't result in a " warning warning this person is a scammer" glowing red symbol on your account. People can read about how you are evil and an extortionist/ blackmailer/ scammer you are for advising people to review other peoples feedback  LOL

Sorry I guess I was just confused by the sticking to only the analogy for this thread. That's why I requested to see behind the curtain so I could look it over there. Seeing as that's over with.

I'm actually having a tough time with the trust lists and the system for a few reasons. It's hard to find people I agree 100% with in the feedbacks they have left. When I originally set mine it had to do with users I'd interacted with and their overall demeanor in my time here. I'm going to have to pour more time and effort into it myself to achieve what I want from my list. It will however still include the Default trust, as I enjoy a large sample of opinions at my disposal when making decisions. That includes going beyond that and reading untrusted feedback.

So I guess in short, I am okay with them dolling out feedback because that's what it is. I don't have to agree with all of it, and they don't have to listen to my opinions on why Neutral should be used. It is not "justice" in any sense, no one is being directly punished or made whole by these actions. The only thing going on is people are being given the opportunity for insight on an account through someone else's eyes, if they blindly follow that so be it. One thing I have been doing, and that includes following foxpup link was trying to see why people feel a certain way. You know what it can be helpful if for no other reason than to see the other side of the discussion, which helps move forward.

What is the greater concern here though? Is it the fact hat people feel they are labelled as a scammer, because I've read many times you are affluent and not in need of Satoshi's. If so would all the problems go away if theymos changed the trust page to state  "This person has been deemed untrustworthy by the leaver of feedbacks". It wouldn't change anything for the users who can no longer participate in a Signature Campaign, as that's bad for advertising. Let's not forget in no way does anyone's feedback affect their ability to participate on this forum.

You are wrong and I will demonstrate clearly why there are red tags given for instances very similar to this.

Look at that snitch skank suchmoon trying to derail and make this a joke.

Sadly this is not going to work.

---

I have made my mind up because it is 100% obvious to most reasonable and rational persons that the outcome is that actually

Bob is the bad guy he has done something observably "wrong". he is the untrustworthy one. He deserves the punishment.

Alice is the victim and has done nothing wrong and deserves NO punishment at all.

I mean the mere fact foxpoop and that other imbecile yogg are saying in this analogy that ALICE is a blackmailer untrustworthy and deserves punishment and BOB is the victim and is deserving of trust. is fucking insane and demonstrates clearly they do not have the judgement suitable for DT.

It really is that simple. Forget what the analogy even represents just imagine this is a real scenario and people are telling you ALICE is a blackmailer and bob is the victim.
You want these fucking clowns dishing out justice here?

Forget what the analogy represents that is their honest assessment of that scenario.

To the other turds here like suchmoon trying to obscure and derail this important point that we have people with this kind of judgement on DT ...you are just making it more apparent that you are net negative trash.

LATER we can get to what the analogy represents there is no point speculating on it right now.

Instead of calling the cops Alice should break out a big phat joint.  Since Bob is amenable by conversing with Alice they can both sit down and smoke the joint.  They will both forget about the phone, no cops, no blackmail,no cell phone just peace and love!

I mean that or the desert eagle thing, both are good!

There was no phone or theft, possibly no bus either. Bob says: "Alice, you smell like old socks and you're quite dumb too." Alice says: "I'm gonna start making shit up about you, Bob, and won't stop until you take back what you said." Carol: "Blackmail." Bob: "Blackmail."

You forgot the Busdriver !!!!!!

The Cops never will know this Case because the Busdriver manage it self with both of them !

The Happy End :  Alice gets his phone back , Bob walk for the rest of his Life and got banned to driving on the Bus , and the Cops are just a Name in this Story !   

LOL

---

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