Man Pays 20 Million Dollars for Protection from Opus Dei!

[Tanner]

squibbles, it's not really fun to discuss things with you if you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You should leave the dogma for the fundamentalists and try to consider each point of view.

[squibbles]

squibbles, it's not really fun to discuss things with you if you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You should leave the dogma for the fundamentalists and try to consider each point of view.

I'm only repeating myself because so far every counterpoint has been totally abstracted from my comments. I thought my point was phrased quite clearly, but apparently not if all the retorts are that...wrong.

We're talking about someone offerring a service that is greatly outside their field, and yet for some reason the alternative scenarios are someone qualified telling you something, and someone telling you something even more rediculous. How in christ's name would McDonalds even have access to the third party meat? Any rational person's thought process would make them realise that would not occur.

I'm not even discussing my point at this stage, really. Just pointing out how inherantly flawed the alternatives are.

Don't get me wrong, I'll absolutely consider valid alternative points of view, but the key word there is valid, and in my opinion, those have not yet been presented.

[SlappyMcGee]

squibbles, it's not really fun to discuss things with you if you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. You should leave the dogma for the fundamentalists and try to consider each point of view.

I'm only repeating myself because so far every counterpoint has been totally abstracted from my comments. I thought my point was phrased quite clearly, but apparently not if all the retorts are that...wrong.

We're talking about someone offerring a service that is greatly outside their field, and yet for some reason the alternative scenarios are someone qualified telling you something, and someone telling you something even more rediculous. How in christ's name would McDonalds even have access to the third party meat? Any rational person's thought process would make them realise that would not occur.

I'm not even discussing my point at this stage, really. Just pointing out how inherantly flawed the alternatives are.

Don't get me wrong, I'll absolutely consider valid alternative points of view, but the key word there is valid, and in my opinion, those have not yet been presented.

McDonalds having access to third party meat? How do you think cigarette companies manage to survive and even avoid brand new warning ads in Canada? Money talks.

Like, the entire hinge of your argument is ridiculous. He should know more about how Opus Dei could not run virus spreading hard drives. This guy is a composer. He probably does not know anything about computers or Opus Dei, and most of all, he is not a cynical jaded asshole (like all of us.)

[scythe]

harged large sums over time for alleged protection. Although the difference is fairly minor, it's not quite as extreme as you make it out to be. Also, since he is the heir to an oil tycoon, it's likely where much of his fortune came from. Thus, he needn't have been experienced in the world of commerce to obtain it.

I mean, if a particle physicist started explaining some new danger that gravitons posed to my well-being, I'd be much more inclined to buy into a graviton protection plan than if the same information came from a door-to-door salesman. In general, people tend to trust that specialists (or supposed specialists) know far more about their field of (supposed) expertise than they do, and thus are more inclined to believe otherwise far-fetched stories. It's just more difficult to see in this case because most of the people who frequent these forums are relatively young, computer-savvy people.

The thing is, it was an IT person. Giving protection not from viruses, but from a controvercial sect of christianity (which has never actually been linked to any kind of criminal activity, as far as I know).

Would you act the same were it a fry cook telling you of this danger posed by gravitons? Because that's what this is tantamount to.

If you found a rat's head in your hamburger that you purchased at the grocer, and you went to the head food scientist of your town, not knowing much about food yourself, to find out why and how this could happen, and he told you that it was a conspiracy by the McDonalds corporation to discourage the purchase of non-McDonalds beef, and that the only place to find fresh beef was through this (presumably) respectable food scientist, wouldn't you buy some fresh beef?

I would go to McDonald's. Clearly they have their shit in order.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I was right about to ask on what charges he was found guilty, but then I decided to do a last-second Wikipedia search for "fraud" and found that it fits this case exactly.
But now I'm even more curious: why is fraud illegal? After all, the money is handed over willingly and there is often enough no contract to have breached... the only "crime" is lying, which is no crime at all. If I conned someone out of any appreciable sum of money, I would be more afraid of hit men than the government.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

But now I'm even more curious: why is fraud illegal? After all, the money is handed over willingly and there is often enough no contract to have breached... the only "crime" is lying, which is no crime at all.

In what universe is fraud not deservingly a crime? Elaborate.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

But now I'm even more curious: why is fraud illegal? After all, the money is handed over willingly and there is often enough no contract to have breached... the only "crime" is lying, which is no crime at all.

In what universe is fraud not deservingly a crime? Elaborate.

the money is handed over willingly and there is often enough no contract to have breached... the only "crime" is lying, which is no crime at all.

I mean, I understand about false advertising and breach of contract and all, but if I'm able to persuade someone to give me their money, that's just good salesmanship.

[Mute Monk]

One could almost make the same argument for paedophiles who convince minors to meet and have sex with them. There was no broken contract, just "good salesmanship" by the perpetrator.

"Oh, guys, I just saw a shooting star!"
"HOLY SHIT IT'S THE FUCKING RUSSIANS SHOOTING NUKES AND SHIT FUUUUUUUUUUCK!"
"Oh yeah, you must be right. Because that is the only logical conclusion that one could come to. Please, take my money to keep me safe from the Russians."

This might be a valid argument if the second person worked for NORAD.

We're talking about someone offerring a service that is greatly outside their field, and yet for some reason the alternative scenarios are someone qualified telling you something, and someone telling you something even more rediculous. How in christ's name would McDonalds even have access to the third party meat? Any rational person's thought process would make them realise that would not occur.

You're making it sound like computer viruses had nothing to do with this at all. Computers and things computer-related are the core of this news story.

At the risk of repeating myself (and others), this looks vastly different from our perspective. We are a group of people well-versed in the world of computers (for the most part). He has little to no experience with the world of computers and the viral infections of such. How was Mr. Davidson to know that protection from Opus Dei was far outside the realm of Mr. Bedi's services?

[Tanner]

But now I'm even more curious: why is fraud illegal? After all, the money is handed over willingly and there is often enough no contract to have breached... the only "crime" is lying, which is no crime at all.

In what universe is fraud not deservingly a crime? Elaborate.

the money is handed over willingly and there is often enough no contract to have breached... the only "crime" is lying, which is no crime at all.

I mean, I understand about false advertising and breach of contract and all, but if I'm able to persuade someone to give me their money, that's just good salesmanship.

No it's not. Persuading someone to give you their money without resorting to false pretenses is good salesmanship. Otherwise it's fraud.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

One could almost make the same argument for paedophiles who convince minors to meet and have sex with them. There was no broken contract, just "good salesmanship" by the perpetrator.

Minors are not legally allowed to consent to sex, whereas there is no age requirement to give one's property to another person.

At the risk of repeating myself (and others), this looks vastly different from our perspective. We are a group of people well-versed in the world of computers (for the most part). He has little to no experience with the world of computers and the viral infections of such. How was Mr. Davidson to know that protection from Opus Dei was far outside the realm of Mr. Bedi's services?

Let's say I'm an aristocrat from Ancient Rome who anachronistically speaks fluent English and just stepped out of a time machine into the present day. Let's say I am stupefied by modern architecture and have stopped leaving my home because I'm afraid the cars will eat me. Obviously, I am very out of touch with modern technology.
If there's a shopkeep's assistant who is paid to sit on his ass all day and deal with the general populace, I know he must be very low on the social ladder because he has none of the comforts of other rich, powerful, or otherwise influential people I see. If he tells me that my life is in danger, it would be reasonable to conclude my business with him and seek out authorities or private protection, but it would certainly not be reasonable to ask the lowly shopkeep's assistant for protection from an international conspiracy. At the very least, if I'm spending more than $100,000, I better see armed bodyguards following me at all times, status reports on how my money's being spent, etc.; I better see evidence that my money is at work fighting the threat. Even though I have zero understanding of the nature of the threat and have to rely on others to protect me from it, it would be utterly idiotic for me to just give a stranger money and take his word that the problem is being worked on.

No it's not. Persuading someone to give you their money without resorting to false pretenses is good salesmanship. Otherwise it's fraud.

So fraud should be illegal because, despite the fact that there are no other laws being broken, it's fraud?
It's gettin' circular all up in this bitch.

[Tanner]

No it's not. Persuading someone to give you their money without resorting to false pretenses is good salesmanship. Otherwise it's fraud.

So fraud should be illegal because, despite the fact that there are no other laws being broken, it's fraud?
It's gettin' circular all up in this bitch.

...

Really? Should murder be legal because the only law being broken is the law against murder? I've either completely misunderstood you here or you just upped the crazy in this thread by a few levels.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

No it's not. Persuading someone to give you their money without resorting to false pretenses is good salesmanship. Otherwise it's fraud.

So fraud should be illegal because, despite the fact that there are no other laws being broken, it's fraud?
It's gettin' circular all up in this bitch.

...

Really? Should murder be legal because the only law being broken is the law against murder? I've either completely misunderstood you here or you just upped the crazy in this thread by a few levels.

Ooh, you're right. Let me qualify it a bit better, then:
For the most part (but as it exclusively should be), laws are in place to protect our rights, which is to say that it is illegal to violate another's rights. Murder, for example, is illegal because it violates another's right to life (specifically, while the victim still has a right to life, which I'd argue he has less a claim to if he's endangering other lives, blah blah blah). It is similarly illegal to stifle free expression which doesn't violate others' rights, take another's property without his consent except where that property is vital to another deserving person's rights, etc.
In other words, murder isn't illegal for the sake of murder being illegal; rather, it is illegal because it's a violation of another's rights. But the only immoral component of fraud is lying, which does not violate any rights. Therefore fraud doesn't appear to have any justification in being illegal other than to protect morons and impede socio-economic natural selection.

EDIT: Again, this only applies when the property "stolen" is given voluntarily by the victim of fraud, and does not apply when there is a breach of contract or something similar. I couldn't actually tell you why I believe a breach of contract ought to be illegal, though, because I haven't spent enough time considering that, so admittedly my position on this is somewhat half-baked.

[SlappyMcGee]

EDIT: Again, this only applies when the property "stolen" is given voluntarily by the victim of fraud, and does not apply when there is a breach of contract or something similar. I couldn't actually tell you why I believe a breach of contract ought to be illegal, though, because I haven't spent enough time considering that, so admittedly my position on this is somewhat half-baked.

I think the difference is that you are making a connection with Fraud and Lying. Fraud is it`s own animal. The disenfranchisement of another human being for profit is a little different as it pertains to lying. It`s more like false advertising; we ascribe certain attributes to companies and legal entities that make them follow a stricter moral code.

They essentially entered a verbal contract which went like ì`ll give you 20 mil over the next few years presuming you provide me with a certain service, and Company B did not fullfil their part of the contract.

[Tanner]

I've been reading a lot of Jack Handy lately, after a few drinks. And I think this quote from the aforementioned accurate represents Suki's stance: "Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they believe me?"

But I'd like to include another quote, just to provide some context of the source. "Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff."

Jack Handy, ladies and gents.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I think the difference is that you are making a connection with Fraud and Lying. Fraud is it`s own animal. The disenfranchisement of another human being for profit is a little different as it pertains to lying. It`s more like false advertising; we ascribe certain attributes to companies and legal entities that make them follow a stricter moral code.

But people do similar things all the time with lower stakes, and no one could reasonably believe it should be illegal. If I make friends with people I have no interest in actually being friends with so that I can meet other people through them and drink their beer, isn't that also shamelessly using them?
What makes fraud more illegal? The higher stakes?

They essentially entered a verbal contract which went like ì`ll give you 20 mil over the next few years presuming you provide me with a certain service, and Company B did not fullfil their part of the contract.

If I were to start an elephant wrangling service and offered to keep elephants out of people's yards for a monthly fee, secure in the knowledge that doing so would take zero effort on my part, would it be illegal for me to take my customers' money?
What if I were to give people e-meter scans for thetans and sell them non-functional devices for getting rid of them? Is that illegal?
How about if I insinuate that there's a place of fiery torment that an omniscient being will send them to if they don't put their spare change on a metal plate that I pass around? Is that extortion? Is that fraud?

[SlappyMcGee]

They essentially entered a verbal contract which went like ì`ll give you 20 mil over the next few years presuming you provide me with a certain service, and Company B did not fullfil their part of the contract.

If I were to start an elephant wrangling service and offered to keep elephants out of people's yards for a monthly fee, secure in the knowledge that doing so would take zero effort on my part, would it be illegal for me to take my customers' money?
What if I were to give people e-meter scans for thetans and sell them non-functional devices for getting rid of them? Is that illegal?
How about if I insinuate that there's a place of fiery torment that an omniscient being will send them to if they don't put their spare change on a metal plate that I pass around? Is that extortion? Is that fraud?

Yes!

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

They essentially entered a verbal contract which went like ì`ll give you 20 mil over the next few years presuming you provide me with a certain service, and Company B did not fullfil their part of the contract.

If I were to start an elephant wrangling service and offered to keep elephants out of people's yards for a monthly fee, secure in the knowledge that doing so would take zero effort on my part, would it be illegal for me to take my customers' money?
What if I were to give people e-meter scans for thetans and sell them non-functional devices for getting rid of them? Is that illegal?
How about if I insinuate that there's a place of fiery torment that an omniscient being will send them to if they don't put their spare change on a metal plate that I pass around? Is that extortion? Is that fraud?

Yes!

Should we outlaw religion, then?

[Tanner]

If I were to start an elephant wrangling service and offered to keep elephants out of people's yards for a monthly fee, secure in the knowledge that doing so would take zero effort on my part, would it be illegal for me to take my customers' money?
What if I were to give people e-meter scans for thetans and sell them non-functional devices for getting rid of them? Is that illegal?
How about if I insinuate that there's a place of fiery torment that an omniscient being will send them to if they don't put their spare change on a metal plate that I pass around? Is that extortion? Is that fraud?

Yes!

Should we outlaw religion, then?

Typically, where church funds go is a matter of public record. The one I was raised in used to print an overview each week of funds received YTD, projections and where the money was being spent. I get your point but it's different in that churchgoers do (or at least can), in my experience, know where their money is going with full certainty unless, of course, the church is committing fraud.

[SlappyMcGee]

Should we outlaw religion, then?

We should outlaw fraudulent behaviour within religion. Are you honestly defending Scientology?

[smartalco]

How about if I insinuate that there's a place of fiery torment that an omniscient being will send them to if they don't put their spare change on a metal plate that I pass around? Is that extortion? Is that fraud?

If this is your experience in a church, you are probably a few hundred years old, or have picked a church run by assholes.

[Tanner]

How about if I insinuate that there's a place of fiery torment that an omniscient being will send them to if they don't put their spare change on a metal plate that I pass around? Is that extortion? Is that fraud?

If this is your experience in a church, you are probably a few hundred years old, or have picked a church run by assholes.

You continuously hold personal experience in these matters as more important than church doctrine, smartalco. It's quite silly.

[smartalco]

Please cite church doctrine that says not donating sends you to hell.

[Tanner]

Please cite church doctrine that says not donating sends you to hell.

Leviticus 27:30
Numbers 18:21
Malachi 3:10

Especially the last one which says that, if you tithe fully, God will "open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing". It follows, then, that the opposite would also be true.

[smartalco]

Really? That says you have to donate to the church or you go to hell? All I'm taking out of that last one is that giving to the lord (giving to the lord != giving to the church) gets you to heaven. One method of doing such that is explicitly stated is to donate to the church, which will then go around and actually use your money to help the community. Other methods include donating to charities, volunteering at your community assistance center, or running around passing out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to the hungry.

Also, taking 'if a then b' and assuming 'if not a then not b' is a giant logical fallacy.

[Tanner]

Really? That says you have to donate to the church or you go to hell? All I'm taking out of that last one is that giving to the lord (giving to the lord != giving to the church) gets you to heaven. One method of doing such that is explicitly stated is to donate to the church, which will then go around and actually use your money to help the community. Other methods include donating to charities, volunteering at your community assistance center, or running around passing out peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to the hungry.

Also, taking 'if a then b' and assuming 'if not a then not b' is a giant logical fallacy.

I'm, of course, not suggesting that the sentiments expressed in these verses or that if don't tithe you'll go to hell reflect my own views because, as you seem to be painfully aware, that shit is bananas. I'm simply trying to convey to you the thought process that some churches undergo that bring them to the conclusion under scrutiny. The fact that something is a logical fallacy has never stopped something from being incorporated into church doctrine in the past. Quite the contrary.