[bumby]

This will be my last reply because I've already responded to all those claims multiple times.

I think the gist is we fundamentally disagree about this point:

>"I would argue that reducing extortion is good, and outweighs the risk of the traffic victims being abused."

So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth? Okay, I guess, but I find it hard to believe. As long as you value money over physical safety, we probably will disagree. (I suspect it has more to do with psychological distance than really feeling that way. If, instead of some abstract person in a third world country, it was a loved family member at risk, would it change your response?) So, in that context, along with rehashing the points I've already addressed, your responses come across as either someone who makes sport of arguing for its own sake, or you're just incapable of accepting information when it's provided.

E.g., >but you haven't actually suggested a third solution to the problem.

In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"

>what the hell does that even mean?

I deliberately left it vague because it's up to you to decide what level of effort is reasonable given your value system. On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it. Even simply marking the call as spam is more reasonable IMO than actively increasing the risk of physical violence on someone being trafficked because it's of no consequence to you. There's plenty of wiggle room for each individual to figure out what works for them. Again, at the very least, I would argue they have a duty to not make things worse. Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree. There are many situations in life when doing nothing is the better option.

>what you're suggesting is borderline-ludacris, short-sighted

The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction. In the short-term, it makes them feel good because of our innate bias toward a sense of justice, but once you get past that bubble it's worse overall (my claim, which you obvious disagree with, but haven't really explained why). There is a certain arrogance in it which effectively says, "I am so very very smart, I will outwit this scammer for the lolz" while being oblivious to the larger consequences. My entire point is that people need to be aware of the larger consequences and it's pretty clear the subject of TFA is not.

>if taken to its logical extreme.

This is exactly what people with dichotomous thinking do. By not recognizing any grey, you are constraining yourself to only two extreme choices.

I've explained why it does more harm. I've explained why it confuses what the real problem is. I've offered better options, both at the individual and nation-state level. There are some potentially reasonable philosophical reasons to disagree with those points, but you just bypass them like you never read them to begin with.

[lupusreal]

A scammer comes up to you and says "give me your wallet or my boss will knock out all my teeth." Do you give him your wallet, or tell him to fuck himself? It's your wallet so that's on you, but what you're suggesting throughout this discussion is that other people have a moral responsibility to reduce the harm suffered by the scammers. That's fucked up.

[bumby]

I'm suggesting that's the way grown-ups should act in a society, within limits. The main point that seems to get lost is that, globally, I'm saying the upside of this tactic is far outweighed by the downside. There's a weird abstraction that this discussion displays related to psychological distance that minimizes that downside. And, putting aside moral arguments because they can be debated forever, there is a legal concept related to proximate cause that somebody has a duty to avoid those actions if it is foreseeable that they would cause an injury. So while not legally applicable in a case that crosses borders, it is certainly an acceptable concept.

E.g., if you are on the phone negotiating with a kidnapper and I snatch the phone, tell the kidnapper to go fuck themselves and hangup, I'm probably liable for injuries to the victim.

[tombert]

> So if you were given a choice between handing me over your wallet, or me knocking out all your teeth (literally the example in the link I provided in another comment), you'd choose me knocking out your teeth?

It's not analogous. Of course I'd hand my wallet over. The better analogy is asking if I would hand my wallet over to protect some stranger's teeth from being knocked out, and that's a "it depends" situation. I don't want to be extorted. It's not about the money.

I mean, there's a reason that DHS typically does not negotiate with terrorists; they don't want to create a system that incentivizes people to try and extort money out of them.

> In the post above this, I literally said ignoring the call is preferential to either "scamming the scammer"

That is not a solution. If we "ignore the scammer" like you suggested, they will be beaten in the same way because they are not extracting money. I already explained that and you decided it wasn't a point worth responding to. This is why I said you didn't actually provide a solution. You didn't really "explain" why it was preferential, you just asserted multiple times making vague allusions to the idea that somehow the scambaiters wasting time is going to lead to more violence than people ignoring the call.

> On one end you can simply try to lift the veil of ignorance and recognize the complexities of the issue and on the other extreme, you could go to Cambodia to actively work against it.

That just sounds like even more vigilantism, and puts yourself in serious risk. The only thing that would make any sense is to get the authorities involved.

> The irony is that my point is that "scamming the scammer" is short-sighted because they do not take into consideration anything past the immediate interaction.

The "larger consequences" of what the extortionists do are beyond the scambaiters control.

What you suggested instead is to just lightly fund this extortionist operation, enough to keep them going so that they don't beat the trafficking victims as much, until the "systemic" solution comes out.

> Apparently, you think losing money is worse than being physically harmed. I disagree.

People commit suicide because of these scams. People have their entire lives ruined, and they will continue to have their lives ruined. It's not just money; they have their identities stolen, they're blackmailed, they're made destitute. The scambaiters wasting time isn't going to save the world, but it might prevent just one person from having their life ruined, that's a good thing, and it's better to not fund terrorists just because they threaten to hurt more people.

That is why I said what you were suggesting was ridiculous.