I traded a Carcass Jack today and did not get scammed

"

censored_by_support wrote:

It's like blaming a date rape victim for not paying full attention to their beverages when they go to the pub, or maybe that is already a thing.

Just when I thought I couldn't read anything dumber on the internet, you totally prove me wrong.

"

Gulch wrote:

Just when I thought I couldn't read anything dumber on the internet, you totally prove me wrong.

And proven wrong yet again I guess

"

CaptClueless wrote:

Except it's nothing like that. You're not forced to confirm if your beverage is drug-free

"

censored_by_support wrote:

"

Gulch wrote:

Just when I thought I couldn't read anything dumber on the internet, you totally prove me wrong.

And proven wrong yet again I guess

"

CaptClueless wrote:

Except it's nothing like that. You're not forced to confirm if your beverage is drug-free

Uhm no, he was showing you how your argument is a bad analogy.

Peace,

-Boem-

I wonder how many bad analogies we can get on this topic. [Removed by Support]

I see 3 people saying the exact same thing without explaining why. Feel free to answer the actual post if you disagree. Then again, people like Boem have been busy asking me to "argue" with them over PM's from my main account as some kind "argument" so I don't expect much from these people to be honest.

Here you go if you unintentionally missed it:

"

Xavathos wrote:

"

censored_by_support wrote:

"

CaptClueless wrote:

Except it's nothing like that. You're not forced to confirm if your beverage is drug-free

So lets force them. Problem solved?

Imagine if this actually happened to you and you're reading the post of some guy on the forum of a video game you play that is comparing your absolute nightmare to a scamming an item.

All I can say is, I sincerely hope you're overestimating the scam.

We are talking about victim blaming here and my example is to see/show how far it goes. There has to be a line somewhere that crosses the "nothing needs improvement, you are just stupid" argument. The question is only where this line is drawn. I think it's pretty early but when someone says that my example is not usable because no one is FORCING you to watch your drink, I've already proved my point that it can even go higher.

No system is perfect, yet people use this as some sort of excuse that nothing could use improvements. If bright minds like these ruled the real world we could just as well use cash that resembled monopoly money with as little security as possible.

While talking about money there was a quantity of counterfeit money in circulation when I grew up. They looked really good but their texture was very different from the real thing. What people then realized was that they could exploit this by laundering it at stores where the cashier had dirty hands. Long story short, most of the counterfeit money ended up in flower stores all around town for some mysterious reason.

Now you could play the victim blaming card here because the cashiers should have been more cautious and it's all their fault or you could put two and two together and realize that the visual security maybe isn't the best.

Your switching the argument around.

So either you don't comprehend the fallacy in your "bar drink potential rape" example compared to the trading system or you do and your acting in bad-faith.

In your example, the victim is helpless and powerless and the act is forced on them by deception and mallicious intend.

They have no final say in the outcome.

In our current trading system a scammer also utilizes mallicious intend but the victim is not powerless.

They have the final say in the outcome.

Telling people "to pay attention" is to say they need to excercise the power the trading system affords them instead of ignore it and trade based on false assumptions.(that all people are good natured and that never will you meet a douchebag on a game over the internet)

It's a dumb analogy, nothing more.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

It's a dumb analogy, nothing more.

Just trying to be clear here. So it's NOT 100% the victims fault if someone slips a drug into her drink (even if she did not pay full attention to her drink)? But it IS 100% of the victims fault if she falls for a bait and switch scam?

"

censored_by_support wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

It's a dumb analogy, nothing more.

Just trying to be clear here. So it's NOT 100% the victims fault if someone slips a drug into her drink (even if she did not pay full attention to her drink)? But it IS 100% of the victims fault if she falls for a bait and switch scam?

Is there a piece of paper ontop of the drink that says "this drink has been drugged, do you wish to continue yes/no?"

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

censored_by_support wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

It's a dumb analogy, nothing more.

Just trying to be clear here. So it's NOT 100% the victims fault if someone slips a drug into her drink (even if she did not pay full attention to her drink)? But it IS 100% of the victims fault if she falls for a bait and switch scam?

Is there a piece of paper ontop of the drink that says "this drink has been drugged, do you wish to continue yes/no?"

Peace,

-Boem-

No, because that would actually represent an improvement in the system. Something that you are so desperately against. There is no drug detection in play here. There is only a led on glass which lights up for two seconds when someone touches the glass and nothing else. So again, it's 100% her fault if she got drugged?

"

censored_by_support wrote:

No, because that would actually represent an improvement in the system. Something that you are so desperately against. There is no drug detection in play here. There is only a led on glass which lights up for two seconds when someone touches the glass and nothing else. So again, it's 100% her fault if she got drugged?

But in this case there is something telling you what's up. In this scenario there's a piece of paper on the glass saying it's drugged, but she just throws it aside without looking at it.