On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
> already happened. 

Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of 
guns in the US.  "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is 
involved.

Slightly different when it comes to someone being swindled out of money.

> Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
> that believe magic actually works. 

Well, PT Barnum *was* right - there's a sucker born every minute.  The 
question is this:  How far does the law have to go in protecting people 
from themselves?

One could extend that question to indicate varying degrees, too - 
protecting people from being swindled out of their life savings (or from 
something that would actually kill them) is one degree.  Swindling 
someone out of $20 for a fake "reading" that's entertainment (even if not 
perceived as such by the recipient)?  That's a long ways down the scale 
of things to be overly concerned about.

> Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
> gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal. 

Depends on whether you're talking about criminal liability (ie, the 
"beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of liability) or civil liability.  Don't 
forget that OJ was found criminally not guilty in the deaths he was 
charged with, but he was found to be liable in civil court.  (Maybe not 
the best example).  Different standards of proof for different 
circumstances is my point.

> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."

That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.

BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message