Text 33390, 119 rader
Skriven 2009-06-16 01:14:52 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 33389 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Saberi vs Blom
======================
Hello Ross,

On Monday June 15 2009 16:23, you wrote to me:

 MV>> You brought up the ethics of the accused. That gives me every
 MV>> right to bring up the ethics of his accusers.

 RC> Irrelevant, the decision to act was Bloms alone..

It is very relevant as Blom's decision was influenced - I would even say
triggered - by the unethical acts of the US law enforcement. Unethical acts
that preceded Blom's decision.

 RC>>> Dont blame our legal system for Mr Blom,

 MV>> I DO blame the ethics of your system. By my ethical standards,
 MV>> Blom was the victim of a dirty trick.

 RC> Blom was a victim of his own libido, as sick as it was.

It is not sick to have a properly functioning libido. Not having one is a
medical disorder. Another word for "sick".

 MV>> If I make a wrong choice because someone deliberately gives me
 MV>> false or misleading information, I have good reasons to blame
 MV>> that someone.

 RC> Not when you know in your heart of hearts that one possible choice you
 RC> could make is illegal.

How on earth am I to know that? If someone I have reason to trust, offers me a
choice, how on earth am I going to know it is illegal? This theory of
"ignorance of the law is no excuse" is fine in theory, but in practise it is
impossible to know all the laws of one's own country, let alone for every
country one visits. Normally this is not a big problem, most people stay close
enough to the law to not get into trouble, but it fails when someone is
deliberately trying  to make you break the law. That is probably why it is
considered unethical and illegal here. It is just too damned easy to make
someone break the law.

 RC> We arent talking about you being given information in a money making
 RC> deal, only to later be found out as a scam... Your argument holds
 RC> water here for you made a good faith choice to do something you
 RC> thought was legal.

Now why in this case is it enough to "think it was legal" and why was that not
in the case of Blom?

 RC> Blom choice was to try to do something illegal,

No, he did not deliberately *choose* to do something illegal. He did not get
himself a list of things known to be illegal in the USA and then pick something
from that list. No, he choose to do something that he later found out to be
illegal. Big difference.

 RC> his ethics are fair game here, in the example I used for you above,
 RC> only your gullibility could possibly come into question.

Legally, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Morally it makes a big difference.

 RC> When one gets scammed, they are the victims, the choices they made in
 RC> getting scammed werent necessarily efforts to do anything illegal.

When one is tricked into doing something illegal one is a victim also.

 RC> Blom made an effort to try to have sex with a minor. He bought the
 RC> plane ticket, altered his travel plans etc..

You still ignore the fact that it was not his own initiative that brought him
to Chicago. Had the cop not invited him, nothing would have happened.

 RC> *HE* chose to take those footsteps that led to possible illegality.

On invitation by the cop posing as a 14yo.

 RC> Which is not the same thing as being duped into investing money or
 RC> providing credit card number etc.

In my morality it is just as unethical to trick people into violating the law
by posing as a 14 yo willing to have sex, as to trick them into parting with
their money.

 MV>> In this part of the world it is unethical to exploit someone's
 MV>> ignorance or instincts. In this part of the world it is unethical
 MV>> to influence someone to make a choice that will get him in
 MV>> trouble. In this part of the world it is unethical to offer sex
 MV>> when you have no intention of delevering. In this part of the
 MV>> world it is unethical to encourage someone to commit a crime. All
 MV>> of that happened to Menno Blom.

 RC> Yes but in your part of the world, your country has the losest set of
 RC> morals possible.

Only in your mind. Should I mention people who claim waterboarding isn't
torture? Should I mention people who think it is all right to shoot a burglar
in the back when he leaves their house? Should I mention people who think it is
all right te let people have a loan that they know can never be paid back?
Should I mention people that think it is ok to accept that 50 out of 300
million people can not afford proper medical care? I saw the footage of people
spending the night in their cars waiting in line for the one day a year free
medical care that they otherwise would not get. I was appalled.

Sorry Ross, but your country does not score very well on the moral's scale
here...

 RC> Tell me something, would you seek sex with a 14yo girl?

No, I would not seek it. And if offered without seeking, I would decline. Not
because I consider it unethical, but because I am old and wise enough to know
that what looks too good to be true most likely is too good to be true.

A woman under 30 showing willingness to have sex with me wants something else.
My money, my car, my house, information, or whatever. Something that I would
not voluntarily give her.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)