Man Pays 20 Million Dollars for Protection from Opus Dei!

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Should we outlaw religion, then?

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

I'm not saying what they do is ethical or sensible, just that it isn't illegal.

[smartalco]

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.

Of course I realize some churches express some absolutely bat-shit insane views (westboro baptist comes to mind), but in this particular instance, to state that church doctrine requires donations to the church or you are damned (or that it is even the dominant view) is ridiculous.

[Tanner]

The key word in Suki's original post being "insinuate".

[SlappyMcGee]

Should we outlaw religion, then?

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

I'm not saying what they do is ethical or sensible, just that it isn't illegal.

...Except in countries like Germany, where they said HEY FUCK OFF SCIENTOLOGY YOU SPY ON US AND YOU'RE DICKS!

If this guy had given twenty million dollars to a religion he was a member of that promised to protect him from Opus Dei, it probably would have been legal too. That's why all of the Freedoms of blank are so sketchy in the constitution.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

If this guy had given twenty million dollars to a religion he was a member of that promised to protect him from Opus Dei, it probably would have been legal too. That's why all of the Freedoms of blank are so sketchy in the constitution.

This is essentially what I'm saying -- it amounts to the same kind of bullshit, of large sums of money exchanged for imaginary services, but it's only illegal if we call it religion. He's deluded to think that his paying $20 million would do anything about Opus Dei, just as he would be deluded to think that $20 million will help him purge his body thetans; he's being lied to either way. I'm just asking for a bit of consistency.

[scythe]

Hell, look at homeopathic medicine. That shit's totally legal.

I'm tempted to agree with Suki on this one. We can agree that the actions undertaken by Scientology, the homeopathic-medicine-retailers, and this computer-repair guy are despicable, but I don't think they should necessarily be illegal.

[Mute Monk]

Question: why shouldn't "despicable" actions be illegal? Why should we condemn people ethically for doing something, and in the same breath legally condone it?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Question: why shouldn't "despicable" actions be illegal? Why should we condemn people ethically for doing something, and in the same breath legally condone it?

Y'know, that's actually a fantastic question.
My intuition tells me that laws are in place to punish the violation of our most essential freedoms and that social repercussions are in place to punish other immoral actions, but now that you mention it, the latter really isn't enough, is it?
The reason we don't punish behaving like an asshole couldn't be that handling all that grey area is overly complicated, because we already deal with that horrifying complexity in our existing legal system.

But as it is, it is not illegal for me to lie, to taunt someone about a dead relative, to scream racist epithets in the street, or to mock disabled people, and you're right, in some part it seems like we ought to enforce more serious consequences than hoping disapproval from society would keep someone from doing these things.

[Kablizzy]

And this is why I'm an Authoritarian!

[squibbles]

Question: why shouldn't "despicable" actions be illegal? Why should we condemn people ethically for doing something, and in the same breath legally condone it?

Y'know, that's actually a fantastic question.
My intuition tells me that laws are in place to punish the violation of our most essential freedoms and that social repercussions are in place to punish other immoral actions, but now that you mention it, the latter really isn't enough, is it?
The reason we don't punish behaving like an asshole couldn't be that handling all that grey area is overly complicated, because we already deal with that horrifying complexity in our existing legal system.

But as it is, it is not illegal for me to lie, to taunt someone about a dead relative, to scream racist epithets in the street, or to mock disabled people, and you're right, in some part it seems like we ought to enforce more serious consequences than hoping disapproval from society would keep someone from doing these things.

But I can guarentee that if that was trialed, there would be an upcry about the removal of civil liberties such as freedom of expression.

[Kablizzy]

The phrase "Fuck expression" springs to mind, but then I also come to the realization that it's completely hypocritical.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

But I can guarentee that if that was trialed, there would be an upcry about the removal of civil liberties such as freedom of expression.

But what would it really limit, besides utterly pointless uses of free expression? Honest criticism wouldn't apply, and neither would any other well-intentioned expression. All we'd lose is "you're a fucking idiot" and "I hate niggers", and I don't think anyone'd miss that. How are we in any way better off allowing behavior that is meant purely to hurt or offend?

[SlappyMcGee]

But I can guarentee that if that was trialed, there would be an upcry about the removal of civil liberties such as freedom of expression.

But what would it really limit, besides utterly pointless uses of free expression? Honest criticism wouldn't apply, and neither would any other well-intentioned expression. All we'd lose is "you're a fucking idiot" and "I hate niggers", and I don't think anyone'd miss that. How are we in any way better off allowing behavior that is meant purely to hurt or offend?

The niggers would miss that. What would they complain about?

[squibbles]

But I can guarentee that if that was trialed, there would be an upcry about the removal of civil liberties such as freedom of expression.

But what would it really limit, besides utterly pointless uses of free expression? Honest criticism wouldn't apply, and neither would any other well-intentioned expression. All we'd lose is "you're a fucking idiot" and "I hate niggers", and I don't think anyone'd miss that. How are we in any way better off allowing behavior that is meant purely to hurt or offend?

oh no, don't get me wrong here, I absolutely agree with you, and think that society could greatly benefit from such a change. I was just pointing out that the general public have a tendancy to be short sighted, impractical and at times, downright stupid. So much to the point where I would be surprised if such a change did occur.

[Tanner]

I find it so strange the same people who were arguing that this guy got what he deserved are now saying that we should limit or eliminate some portions of the first amendment. I can't see where you guys are coming from here.

[squibbles]

I find it so strange the same people who were arguing that this guy got what he deserved are now saying that we should limit or eliminate some portions of the first amendment. I can't see where you guys are coming from here.

It's because we recognise that what was done to him was wrong, but accept that by current legal definitions it is absurd to claim that it is illegal.

Furthermore, we realise that this is retarded.

[SlappyMcGee]

I find it so strange the same people who were arguing that this guy got what he deserved are now saying that we should limit or eliminate some portions of the first amendment. I can't see where you guys are coming from here.

It's because we recognise that what was done to him was wrong, but accept that by current legal definitions it is absurd to claim that it is illegal.

Furthermore, we realise that this is retarded.

By current legal definitions, what was done here was perfectly illegal. Grand Larceny is very clearly known and defined.

The problem you have is that this form of social injustice is covered by law whereas other parts are not. This is basically the same as having really strict laws that prevent sniper towers on your lawn, obstructing your neighbors sun, versus having no law with regards to gigantic black monoliths.

It's silly to me that two pages ago you claimed that it was stupid that the law needed to baby people that much, and then we were like "people don't know computers, he was grifted out of his money" and now you're like "Well we can all agree there should be more laws! Less civil liberties, is what! The hypocrisy of protecting this man from fraud while allowing people say "I HATE NIGGERS" is overbearing! Down with amendments!"

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I find it so strange the same people who were arguing that this guy got what he deserved are now saying that we should limit or eliminate some portions of the first amendment. I can't see where you guys are coming from here.

God forbid we develop our opinions after we've stated them.

By current legal definitions, what was done here was perfectly illegal. Grand Larceny is very clearly known and defined.

I hope you meant that as a non sequitur, because grand larceny does not apply to confidence tricks.
According to the United States Penal Code, larceny is the "tresspasory taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another" (emphasis added and definition slightly abridged). Trespassing against a person is performed through "threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, [or] maiming". When the money is given willingly for a (in this case imaginary) service, it is not larceny.
As previously mentioned, the fact that spiritual services are regularly sold without litigation following is evidence that selling imaginary services is not illegal.

It's silly to me that two pages ago you claimed that it was stupid that the law needed to baby people that much, and then we were like "people don't know computers, he was grifted out of his money" and now you're like "Well we can all agree there should be more laws! Less civil liberties, is what! The hypocrisy of protecting this man from fraud while allowing people say "I HATE NIGGERS" is overbearing! Down with amendments!"

I think a restatement of squibbles last post addresses this adequately:

It's because we recognise that what was done to him was wrong, but accept that by current legal definitions it is absurd to claim that it is illegal.

Furthermore, we realise that this is retarded.

Two other issues to throw in here...

1. It would be incredibly difficult to prove a violation of a "don't be a dick" law.
2. The fact that people can be dicks introduces a certain amount of distrust and apprehension of strangers. In a culture without that element, there would be more implicit trust of strangers, which would be of great benefit to particularly clever con artists.

[noops]

It's been a while since Suki completely threw out any of my moral standards. Though to be fair, I have been flirting with this idea.


But I have a question: As has been stated before, the act of grifting is simply lying. Meaning that you are betraying the trust of another party, meaning that, presumably, a verbal contract is broken. Which, while not as binding as a written one, is still, I think, binding. Or maybe it's not.


Forgive me if I am somewhat incpherent; it's 1:30AM, and... yeah.

"Oh. he's in the middle of putting things together and organizing himself."

[SlappyMcGee]

Forgive me if I'm being incpherent, but gok`flk;alk`slkdfl;flskllala

[noops]

f u

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

As has been stated before, the act of grifting is simply lying. Meaning that you are betraying the trust of another party, meaning that, presumably, a verbal contract is broken. Which, while not as binding as a written one, is still, I think, binding. Or maybe it's not.

I suppose, but there are still many ways around this. The existence of a verbal contract would not usually be provable, and without an explicit statement and record of the contract, the parties involved could develop different ideas about what they're agreeing to. And in the case of the Opus Dei salesman, he could say his part of that verbal contract was to do whatever was necessary to keep the retard out of Opus Dei's reach (which happened to be nothing). It could even have been an official written contract if it was worded correctly.

[noops]

As has been stated before, the act of grifting is simply lying. Meaning that you are betraying the trust of another party, meaning that, presumably, a verbal contract is broken. Which, while not as binding as a written one, is still, I think, binding. Or maybe it's not.

I suppose, but there are still many ways around this. The existence of a verbal contract would not usually be provable, and without an explicit statement and record of the contract, the parties involved could develop different ideas about what they're agreeing to. And in the case of the Opus Dei salesman, he could say his part of that verbal contract was to do whatever was necessary to keep the retard out of Opus Dei's reach (which happened to be nothing). It could even have been an official written contract if it was worded correctly.

Goddamn you. You should be his lawyer.