legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1012
Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.
I think we will need to agree to disagree on this point. I think the moral responsibility rests on the person who makes the claim, not the person who believes it.
They're not mutually exclusive. And I don't think anyone believes that you can't hold someone responsible for believing a false claim and acting on it.
I want to hold them responsible too.
They were responsible for the decision they made, but why should you hold them responsible? Surely the loss of their coins is bad enough. And surely this thread is about holding Harnett to account?
What?! If the loss of their coins is just compensation for the harm their mistake did, then Patrick wouldn't owe anyone anything and this thread would have no point. The point of this thread is to resolve the claim that Patrick owes his investors money.
I do not excuse anyone who believed that Patrick's business model was sound and risked people's money on that basis.
I don't excuse anyone who risked other people's money either. They should also be held to account. Scammer tags applied, etc.
But what of those who risked their own money? Do they really need to be pilloried for making a stupid decision?
Yes, they do, because their stupid decision harmed others.
Surely the man who lead them down that road should be the one blamed for what happened. The road lead to disaster, and they should both have foreseen that, but Harnett was the one walking ahead, saying "Follow me, follow me."
The idea that Patrick was the leader and his investors mere followers is just comical. That's simply not how it happened.
You say you have no wish to absolve Harnett of responsibility, but when you say that both parties in this transaction are equally culpable for the loss of coins, then you paint the whole thing with a brush of moral ambiguity. When you say to the gentleman who has had his coins stolen "More fool you for believing him!" then you automatically absolve Harnett of at least some responsibility.
No, not true at all. If I ever suggested that, it was unintentional.
In my mind there is a victim and a culprit here. People lost a lot of coins so that Harnett could gamble with their money. I think that what he did was wrong and it was his responsibility to make sure he could do what he said he could before he claimed it. That's an issue of personal ethics and my moral compass, and as I said it's maybe something that we will have to disagree on.
Ahh, so you do wish to excuse those who are equally culpable. That's too bad. Because Patricks and Hashkings and Pirates will always come along and if we don't hold the other people accountable for making precisely the same mistake with precisely the same consequences, we'll repeat this fiasco again and again.
But don't say that I'm trying to excuse people. I'm trying to hold *more* people accountable than you are.
