Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PPP
.
You should try and be more thoughtful in your responses instead of just trying to be rude since it ends up killing threads that other people could find valuable.
|
</>
You are the one, generally, who starts the "ad hominem" attacks, of telling people they are foolish, crazy, wacky etc., and mocking them, rather than providing any sort of substantial support for your own point of view.
Your are the only one who thinks your PPPontification is valuable, when all you seem to be able to do is tell people how wrong they were in the first place to have anything to do with US gambling.
And, now, you are telling them to just be honest, open, and transparent about what they are doing/did, and not take any steps to mitigate the damages/consequences they might suffer...or they could make things worse for themselves.
Your comment below is exactly the point. People are trying to discuss what they should do now, and all you can harp on is that you should not do anything against the law in the first place.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PPP
.
And just to beat the dead horse:
"your best strategy is to cover your own ass too, or you are going to get screwed"
No, the best strategy to avoid a screwing is not to pretend to not break the law, but rather to not break the law.
|
This is exactly what I mean. The Prisoner's Dilemma - in Game Theory - relates to the Optimal Strategy - ONCE you are already a suspect in a crime.
And, the optimal strategy, is to keep your mouth shut, and not provide any evidence against yourself, or against anybody else. In other words, you do not confess, you do not incriminate yourself, and you do not cooperate with the Legal Authorities - at all. Even when they tell you that you are obstructing justice and committing additonal crimes by not providing information or covering up, or conspiring.
The law in this country (USA) recognizes that, and that is why you are theoretically entitled to call a lawyer (unless you've been accused of terrorism) and the first thing the lawyer will tell you is to "dummy up."
Lawyers cannot tell you to lie...but they will often hypothetically discuss the implications and ramifications of selective degrees of "full disclosure."
And, if you are going to lie, or cover up, they just do not want to know about it. That is why they try to neutrally focus on providing you with the best legal representation - rather than worrying about whether you are guilty or innocent.
If everybody just keeps their mouth shut, it works out much better *for the accused* in the long run. (Of course, that is a big "if".) Hence, the "fifth amendment" which guarantees you the right to not have to incriminate yourself.
(Granted, the Prisoner's Dilemma incorporates the issue of whether or not to incriminate anybody else - in addition to yourself - but the principle generalizes to other situations, as well).
The irony of it all, is that they give the Nobel Prize to the guy that helped figure out this piece of wisdom mathematically.
But minorities, people in the ghettos, and people on the street figured that out long ago. The laws are biased, and the legal system is not set up to optimally protect the interests of anybody other than those who have power...no matter what it says, or what they tell you in Sunday School.
Thus, the legal system routinely abuses people in the name of maintaining law and order, and it routinely uses arbitrary discretion in deciding who it wants to screw with.
Even the US Government understands that if it truly wishes to get anything done - and preserve itself - it has to step outside the law sometimes....
Hence, the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance US illegal activities under the table, and Guantanamo Base and the torture of prisoners in countries where the US laws do not have to be followed.
Uhhh...maybe you never heard of Martha Stewart????
Martha's got street cred. She had the brains/guts (and legal advice) to keep her mouth shut, and deny, deny, deny. In the end, all they could get her for was lying to an investigator.
I wonder what would have happened, how many lives/careers would have been destroyed, if she had not kept her mouth shut? Where would the trail have led?
Of course, your advice to her would be not to make things worse for herself by lying and covering up what she did (both illegal acts).
Uhhh...Bill Clinton? Well, he should not have committed a crime by lying to a Jury about whether he had sex with "that woman" or abused his power to get his rocks off with an employee.
According to you, he should not have risked making things worse for himself by committing further offenses in a cover-up.
I wonder how things would have ended up if he had come clean? (pun intended; he blew on the blue dress, and convicted himself through his own emissions).
You really sound like Lord Baden Powell, telling the Boy Scouts to keep themselves pure.
If it were a perfect world, with perfect justice systems, and perfect people, I'd have no problem with your sophomoric insistence that honesty is the best policy, and one should always comply to the utmost with the caring constraints of the "Justice System" - because it is in all of our best interests to assist in the administration of justice.
But, for the majority of people in this world, that is just a lot of PPPropaganda, and a naive uncritical belief in a system of justice which regularly betrays itself as being not just a "Just" system, but a tool to protect those with power and influence.
I think it is useful for you to remind people of the potential consequences and ramifications of their actions, by pointing out how their behavior could be perceived and reacted to by the authorities.
What I have a problem with is the moralistic and condescending tone you adopt in doing that, and your hesitance to move beyond it.
And, of course, I have never in my life been accused of anything like that myself.
(Oh, and, PS: It is the sad reality/dilemma of the Prisoner's Dilemma that people in the ghettos and urban jungles end up being victimized and held hostage by the criminals and deviants who benefit most from the code of silence).
Linear Mode
