regarding predation

Ted wrote,

So, Bill, there is nothing at all unethical about what such a minister does?

I didn't say there was nothing unethical about it. Is your point that he is a predator, because what he does is unethical? If so, then it's a non-sequitur. One can be unethical without being a predator.

It is obvious, although I don't know why you don't state it, that you are simply defining predation as only that which is criminal. Fine.

I'm defining it as coercive or fraudulent (which amounts to the same thing).

Do you deny that there is a concept applicable to those who take the money of others, knowing that they do not provide them with a real value in return?

I'd call them "unethical" but not necessarily predatory. For the action to be predatory, the victim must at the very least be misled. If there is no force or misrepresentation, then he's not a victim of predation.

For example, suppose that I'm selling cigarettes, and that a smoker I know who has been diagnosed with heart disease offers to buy several cartons from me. I know that in selling him the cigarettes, I'm not providing him with a rational value, because he shouldn't be smoking. Am I preying on him? I would say, no, because he's aware of what he's doing when he buys the cigarettes. There's no force or fraud here. Of course, you could make an argument that what I'm doing is unethical, because I'm "enabling" him.

Perhaps I should tell him, "Fred, I refuse to sell you these cigarettes, because all you're doing is ruining your health, and I refuse to be a part of it." Perhaps, but it still remains true that in selling him the cigarettes, I am not preying on him. He is fully aware of what he is buying. There is no fraud or misrepresentation here.

The same holds true for the minister who doesn't believe in what he's preaching. As long as he uses the money he receives from his followers for the purpose they intended -- to preach the gospel -- they are not being defrauded, and accordingly, there is no predation.

If you do not call these predators, what do you call them?

Unethical.

Also, if all predators are necessarily criminal, then how do you differentiate predators from criminals, or do you simply use the terms as synonyms?

I would define a "predator" as someone who plunders others for his own gain or profit. By that definition, every predator is a criminal. Is every criminal a predator? Not unless every rights-violation is a form of plunder for the perpetrator's own gain or profit, and I don't think that's true. If I assault someone in a rage, because I don't like his looks, you wouldn't say that I've "plundered him for my own gain or profit." But you would say that I've violated his rights. So I'd say every predator is a criminal, but not every criminal is a predator.

- Bill

Post 81

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 10:33am

"So long as our opponent understands what is the thing of which we are talking, it does not matter to the argument whether the word is or is not the one he would have chosen." - Chesterton

Okay, Bill, so again, almost all of the difference between us is mere words. You grant my distinction, you just prefer a different set of sounds to signify the thing that lays behind them. So stipulate the case of the unbelieving minister who tells the little old lady that unless she turns over her life savings, god is going to call her home. He is deceiving her. You said that you would call a person like this unethical. But unethical is not enough. It doesn't diffentiate between him and the drug addict who harms himself. So what do you call these unethical people who (sorry) "prey" on the weaknesses of others without commiting outright crimes?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/22, 11:23am)

Post 82

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 2:04pm

Okay, Bill, so again, almost all of the difference between us is mere words. You grant my distinction, you just prefer a different set of sounds to signify the thing that lays behind them. So stipulate the case of the unbelieving minister who tells the little old lady that unless she turns over her life savings, god is going to call her home. He is deceiving her. You said that you would call a person like this unethical. But unethical is not enough. It doesn't diffentiate between him and the drug addict who harms himself. So what do you call these unethical people who (sorry) "prey" on the weaknesses of others without commiting outright crimes?

Now you've made your argument more specific, which I appreciate. What makes this example interesting is that it looks like a case of fraud. The minister is telling the little old lady something that he knows isn't true in order to convince her to give him her money. The problem with it is that the same facts that are available to him are also available to her. What he is telling her doesn't depend on any specialized information.

If I tell you that your house is haunted in order to get you to sell it to me, because I know that you're afraid of ghosts, am I preying on you? And does it matter whether or not I believe in ghosts, or am merely telling you this to acquire your property? You seem to think it does.

Suppose that I really believe your house is haunted, but am fascinated by ghosts and want to live there. Would you say that my action still constitutes predation? Probably not. But then how does it become predation if I don't believe it? The consequences to you, the seller, are the same in either case. You lose your house because of your irrational belief in ghosts.

By the same token, the little old lady loses her money because of her irrational believe in mysticism, regardless of whether the minister believes that God will "call her home" or not. Whose fault is that? I'd say it's the little old lady's.

- Bill

Post 83

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 2:27pm

Bill,

You asked, "If I tell you that your house is haunted in order to get you to sell it to me, because I know that you're afraid of ghosts, am I preying on you?"

Yes, that would be preying on the person, specifically, preying upon their fears. But it would not be a violation of their rights. I can't see the basis for overturning the established usage for the words predator and prey and confining them to individual rights. It diminishes them and the language - to what purpose?

Lion's don't violate the individual rights of the gazelle because animals don't have those rights. But lions are none the less predators and gazelle are prey.

Post 84

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 4:21pm

Bill, please just stipulate the facts, and tell me what you would call the concept. Each time I bring up the notion of a person who avoids outright crime, but manages to take a real objective value from someone, such as currency, and returns them nothing of real value, you give me examples or adjectives in return. I don't want an example, or a genus. I am stipulating the definition, and what you to respond with the name of the concept that that definition defines.

I am not interested in the fact that the dupe has to be an idiot. This is stipulated. I don't care whether it's tobacco or ghost removal, or fart amelioration.

What I care about, is is there not a concept of the person who lives by taking values but not returning real value, and what do word do you use to designate that concept? The sound symbol I myself would have used is predator. I am not wedded to those eight letters. But I am wedded to the concept. And the concept is not simply "unethical" nor is it really fraud - since the person I would call a predator may actually provide exactly what he says he offers - he may indeed pray for your salvation or sell bottles of pure, healthful hydrogen hydroxide at $19.95/oz. He may indeed depend upon the idiocy of his dupes.

What name do you give to the concept that subsumes this class of person?

Post 85

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 5:42pm

You can call him a quack or a charlatan, deceiver, dissembler, hypocrite, trickster, rogue, etc. There is at least one meaning for each of these that doesn't imply theft. Maybe "parasite."
I know these are not new words to you. Maybe the concept you are looking for doesn't exist, because you aren't willing to accept that a person's actions, when they fall short of fraud and theft, aren't worse than the connotations of the selection above. I have searched my thesaurus, and haven't come up with anything other than terms that fit with the ones I listed above.

Post 86

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 6:00pm

Or maybe because predator fits exactly, and you have made a minor mistake in equating criminal, and predator, but aren't big enough of a man to admit it, Mindy. I await Bill's response, he seems less interested in pissing contests than you.

Post 87

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 6:04pm

I really don't get you, Ted. Look the damn words up.

Post 88

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 9:17pm

Ted:

What I care about, is is there not a concept of the person who lives by taking values but not returning real value, and what do word do you use to designate that concept? The sound symbol I myself would have used is predator.

Ted I would agree, they are predators. The only reason why (in the example you provide) the parishioner gives his money to the priest for fear of eternal damnation should he not is entirely dependent upon his ignorance. The Priest is not returning any value to the parishioner. Taking something of value while returning none in exchange is outright theft. There can be no possibility of consent if deception was used. There was a similar discussion here about returning a camera to a store after using it for one event and with no intent of ever keeping it.

Mindy:

You can call him a quack or a charlatan, deceiver, dissembler, hypocrite, trickster, rogue, etc. There is at least one meaning for each of these that doesn't imply theft......Look the damn words up.

A Charlatan or a quack is someone who professes to have knowledge that he really doesn't have. When any kind of monetary exchange is made with a charlatan, as part of that contract if you claim to give or use privileged knowledge in an agreed upon service you actually don't have meets the definition of fraud.

Fraud: 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

pred�a�tor (prěd'ə-tər, -t�r')
n.

One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.

So a charlatan by definition of being a charlatan, defrauds others and thereby victimizes them for their own gain and is therefore a predator.

So maybe Mindy you should read the damned definitions.

Post 89

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 7:17am

If you had read the whole thread, John, you would have seen that I did read the definitions, and posted them here. And if you had comprehended my next-to-last post, you would see I said that each of those words had at least one meaning that didn't involve theft.
The logic of this is that those terms, or some of them, may sometimes involve theft, but do not always involve theft.
As to your own definition, look up "victim, "plunder," and "destroy," and you'll see that they all involve personal harm or theft. Jeez.
I spent at least an hour with the thesaurus and dictionary trying to find the word that would satisfy Ted, et. al., as to their situation with expressing their disgust with money-grubbing priests. My bad.

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 1/23, 5:06pm)

Post 90

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 9:59am

It was bad enuf that I would find myself in substantial agreement with Steve and Ted, but JA?!?!

Wait a cotton-pickin minute there, Phil !

Care to elaborate on what basis you find that strange? I'm curious, and have my self interests at stake.

jt

Post 91

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 10:38am

Jay,

JA = John Armaos.

Phil knows that John can�t stand him, thus his discomfort with finding himself in agreement with John about something.

Post 92

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 10:46am

I wrote, "If I tell you that your house is haunted in order to get you to sell it to me, because I know that you're afraid of ghosts, am I preying on you?"

Steve replied,

Yes, that would be preying on the person, specifically, preying upon their fears. But it would not be a violation of their rights. I can't see the basis for overturning the established usage for the words predator and prey and confining them to individual rights. It diminishes them and the language - to what purpose?

If I tell you about the dangers of fires, floods or earthquakes in order to sell you homeowner's insurance, am I preying on your fears? If not, then why am I preying on them if I tell you that your house is haunted in order to get you to sell it to me? Is it that the dangers of fires, floods or earthquakes are real, but that ghosts are unreal? What if I believe in ghosts? Am I still a predator? Or am I only a predator if I don't believe in them, but say that I do?

Ted would say that I'm a predator in either case, because I'm gaining a value from you without giving you any real value in return. So the parish priest who passes around the collection plate is a predator, because he is taking money from people without giving them any "real" value in return. Do you think that every parish priest is a predator?

Lion's don't violate the individual rights of the gazelle because animals don't have those rights. But lions are none the less predators and gazelle are prey.

True, but why do we call the lions "predators"? We call them "predators" because they engage in conduct which, if done by a human being against another human being, would be a violation of rights. The question we've been discussing is, under what circumstances is it legitimate to call a human being a predator? I'd say it's legitimate only if the human being violates another person's rights, for if he does not, then he is dealing with others only through mutual consent; and if the other person consents to an action or an offer, then he is not a victim of predation.

- Bill

Post 93

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 4:01pm

Bill, I asked you to stipulate the facts, and tell me what word you would use to name the concept. You bizarrely (and perversely, given my explicit request that you not do so) provide yet another counter example which does nothing to show that there are no instances that fit my definition:

"Ted would say that I'm a predator in either case, because I'm gaining a value from you without giving you any real value in return. So the parish priest who passes around the collection plate is a predator, because he is taking money from people without giving them any "real" value in return. Do you think that every parish priest is a predator?"

So, I repeat my last post, and ask you to answer it directly, with the questions this time in bold:

"Bill, please just stipulate the facts, and tell me what you would call the concept. Each time I bring up the notion of a person who avoids outright crime, but manages to take a real objective value from someone, such as currency, and returns them nothing of real value, you give me examples or adjectives in return. I don't want a [counter] example, or a genus. I am stipulating the definition, and want you to respond with the name of the concept that that definition defines.

I am not interested in the fact that the dupe has to be an idiot. This is stipulated. I don't care whether it's tobacco or ghost removal, or fart amelioration.

What I care about, is is there not a concept of the person who lives by taking values but not returning real value, and what do word do you use to designate that concept? The sound symbol I myself would have used is predator. I am not wedded to those eight letters. But I am wedded to the concept. And the concept is not simply "unethical" nor is it really fraud - since the person I would call a predator may actually provide exactly what he says he offers - he may indeed pray for your salvation or sell bottles of pure, healthful hydrogen hydroxide at $19.95/oz. He may indeed depend upon the idiocy of his dupes.

What name do you give to the concept that subsumes this class of person? "

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/24, 5:25am)

Post 94

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 4:37pm

Just saw an add in a catalog, for "St. Joseph Home Seller's Kit."
It says, "Invoke the good graces of St. Joseph to help sell your home! Some say that burying a statue of St, Joseph on property to be sold dates back to medieval times, but the practice became widely popular in the U.S. in the 20th century--even realtors joined in. Our kit has everything you need to do it right: A St. Joseph statue, instruction card, prayer card, and interesting background information about the origin of this practice. Resin. 8" tall. Cost is $12.95
Should we notify the authorities?

Post 95

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 5:36pm

What I care about, is is there not a concept of the person who lives by taking values but not returning real value, and what do word do you use to designate that concept?
...........

Leech.........

Post 96

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 9:45pm

Ted,

Why it is my responsibility to provide a word designating the idea that you've expressed, just because you demand that I do? The idea is clear enough by itself. My only point was that "predator" is the wrong word. Suppose you were to use the word "murderer" to designate the idea. Would you demand that I either provide an alternative word or accept the one that you provided? I hope not, for it is enough for me to point out your misuse of the word. I don't have to provide an alternative.

- Bill

Post 97

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 9:52pm

A parasite is also a form of predator.

Doesn't fraud qualify as predation? Aren't con men of all stripes predators? I guess I'm not understanding the problem here. Increasing rather than decreasing Entropy is always easier...
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 1/23, 10:02pm)

Post 98

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 10:08pm

Absolutely, Mindy! It's time we reined in those dastardly "predators." What right do they have to be "preying" on those helpless Christians anyway?!? Instead of "preying" on them, they should be "praying" for them!

By the way, what word do you think I should use to describe people who pray for others? There's got to be word, right? But darn if I can think of it. Well, that just means I'll have to coin one. I know, I'll call them "praidators." ;-)

- Bill

Post 99

Saturday, January 24, 2009 - 10:15am