Topic: The psychology of a con man - Zhou (Read 6582 times)

http://www.echinacities.com/expat-corner/illogical-or-tactical-lies-in-chinese-culture.html

Says it all 

Yes, otherwise you end up with this sort of thing : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/putting-your-money-where-pirates-mouth-is-91661

It consists of half a page that's on topic. the following 25 and a half pages have nothing to do with the OP, and consist of bets, insults, thinly veiled threats, and some slander. All fun stuff, but nothing to do with the OP. I think you should do what CBH suggests if you don't want this to degenerate similarly, what with all the degenerates posting here.

I'm leaning strongly towards "trolling".

I'm just ahead of the game.  In a few years there won't be any libertarians around here once they realize what Bitcoin is really meant to accomplish.  Of course, a few years later they will come back when they realize the great things socialism and communism have to offer once paired with a superior currency.

Good luck with that.


You know, I'm having a real hard time telling if you're trolling. All of your posts seem to demonstrate that you are precisely the kind of person who would not like Bitcoin at all... Either that or you don't understand it in the slightest.

I think you would fit in better at http://www.freicoin.org.

Really? How can i do that?

Sorry

Is Zhuo Tong a Crooked little bastard?: Discuss

Wow. Talk about a hijacked thread. Wish I could moderate my own thread.
If posting here, please reread the original OP and stay on topic and ignore all the sock puppets.

Here's another nugget:

Actively hacking other sites and steeling money if possible but then boasts of giving it back.

From the article in the OP:


So, it can be more that just money that drives a pathological liar.

I am not ignoring the side effects of charity.  They are the side effects of giving someone a fish.  This is about rescuing them from starvation and teaching them to fish. 

Rarity, I think you are ignoring the side effects of charity. The only way to "stave off starvation" in the mean time also entails destroying the success of any up-and-coming agricultural or comestible industry.

While there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, this may not always be the case, and it is not desirable for poor nations to be reliant on the charity of others. It is much better if they can produce their own food, or at least be self-sufficient.

And yes, people will starve. Humans have been starving since humans existed. This is (or at least was) a fact of life, and it is necessary to push food production technology to a point where starvation is no longer a problem.

This is a fairly straightforward issue of incentive. If there is an incentive to create the facilities required to avoid starvation (the incentive being starvation), those facilities will be created. If there is no incentive (because the food is being shipped in from charitable wealthy nations), the facilities will not be created, and those people will be at starvation risk forever.

You are also reducing the idea down to the strawman situation of "Rich people being rich vs poor people eating food". Those two things are not in opposition in any way, and temporarily feeding people with the money of the rich will not make the poor any better off in the long run. (By the way, the amount of money that all of the world's rich people have saved up is not very large compared to the world's GDP. That is to say that using up all that money will not actually do very much.)

You place too much importance on people not dying of starvation right now, and not enough importance on the future.

The only problem with this theory is that everyone would have to have been in on it. If Bitcoinica had obligations that exceeded its assets, there would have been nothing for Zhou to sell to the consultancy. So every person involved in Bitcoinica before and after ownership transferred would have to have been in on the scam.

Which is why you both invest in the community and stave off starvation at the same time.  Even so, there is enough food in the world to feed everybody already produced, distribute it and you might have some problems down the line if you don't invest in the community right but otherwise people starve.  It's not worth protecting some yacht for a rich guy to let people die.

This thread appears to have been heavily derailed, but in response to the last few posts, think about this:



Offering free food to nascent developing nations means that the local farmers have no business. No one is buying their food (what little they have) because they can just eat UN rice or whatever for free.

Because there is no money in making or selling food, no one does it.

The infrastructure and supply chains required for food production are never developed.

There is no way to make or get food locally.

The cycle of starvation and dependence continues.

We give them food when we need to, and wealth to invest in their own communities so we don't need to anymore.  It's hard to do that when the top 10% accounts for 85% of the wealth.  There is plenty to go around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

The starving children around the world sympathies with your utopian free market ideals, I'm sure, but I'm more concerned with the practical matter of making sure they have food.  If it means a rich man has to have a little less luxury, that's fine by me.


Absolutely.  We would already have punishments so severe if we had the tracking ability BitCoin provides for us with cash.  That ability protects the innocent so you can be sure they aren't accused of a financial crime they did not commit.


Bitcoin is the magic that changes all this and makes real leftist government possible.  It's the best thing that has ever happened to socialists, even if they don't realize it yet.  There are non anonymous political donations or obfuscated lobbying ties or blackmail when all this is public and recorded.  Those are the tools the 1% uses to dominate politics.

My case is tight as it is, thank you.  He started posting again 10 minutes after I wrote this. 

He's definitely still fighting, so this point isn't helping your case. Check his post history.

Innocent people will fight and fight and fight to defend their name.   That's why the police ask you the same questions over and over - they know that if you are guilty, you will eventually give up and admit it.   There is psychology behind this, but I was unable to Google the correct term to find it - maybe someone else will have more luck?

Now let's look at Zhou - he made up his big story and when no one (save for an ignorant few) believed it, he quickly stopped posting.  Didn't try to defend himself at all.

Does anyone know his real name yet?

Rarity doesn't seem to have a problem with that...


Not just punished but severely punished.   

And no doubt it wouldn't be just those who failed to obey all the proper laws and regulations who would
suffer, as hir views on psychology seem to suggest.  Anyone deemed to be abnormal ( the government
being the sole arbiter no doubt ) would perhaps be considered to be possessed by demons and simply
exterminated...  no need for things like psychology and psychologists.

Charity you are talking about centralized control. You are talking about the total and complete opposite of what bitcoin is all about. You are trolling whether you know it or not. This is not a forum that will take kindly to your collectivist ideals. You are advocating for the initiation violent of force. Setting a max limit on someones income just like setting a minimum wage, requires a third party to enforce their opinion with the threat of violence. I appreciate what you are trying to achieve (a more fair and equitable world). Free market thinkers like myself and probably many others on this forum have found that the best way to achieve more fair and equitable interactions between people is to allow them enter into voluntary agreements with one another for mutual benifit. Without a third party imposing, by threat of force their views, regulations, rules, etc. Party A does business with party B and everyone else minds their own business. If party A earns 10,000,000 BTC per year then she is obviously creating amazing value for others.
TL;DR interfering with the free market = initiating violent force