Did I Do Wrong Here?

[David Sklansky]

Someone I know mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets.

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves. And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted.

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone I know (Brandi) mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers (hookers) are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets (rolling the Johns).

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves (less likelihood of the Johns going to Police). And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted (wouldn't have to explain it to their wives like they would if they had to cancel their cards).

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut (other than I was abetting a crime by passing on advice about how to do it better).

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[chezlaw]

Its good advice in general. All thieves should give their victims the viable option of writing it off to experience.

Even better would be to not take all the money if there's some chance the victim might not be sure his been robbed.

chez

[JOEL_]

wrong forum

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone I know mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets.

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves. And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted.

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut.

[/ QUOTE ]

My advice would be not to associate with somebody who is friends with a bunch of thieves (assuming this person is not a thief him/herself).

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut (other than I was abetting a crime by passing on advice about how to do it better).

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you're saying we should be encouraging criminals to be more violent and to commit more crimes because that'd get them busted more easily.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone I know (Brandi) mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers (hookers) are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets (rolling the Johns).

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves (less likelihood of the Johns going to Police). And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted (wouldn't have to explain it to their wives like they would if they had to cancel their cards).

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut (other than I was abetting a crime by passing on advice about how to do it better).

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't Brandi. And would you say the same thing if the thieves were murdering their victims and I convinced them to only rob them?

[Genz]

The question is impossible to answer, because "not turning them in" was struck out from the beginning as an option which makes the whole thing irrealistic. It's usually the only option, esp. when crimes like that are becoming a habit and pretty organized.
When you convince them to commit a lesser crime, you will still be punished in most jurisdictions (at least in mine) for strengthening their will in commiting/"approving of" that lesser crime instead of trying to keep them from commiting any crime at all.

If you kept your mouth shut, you are often only punishable for not turning them in, which - in my jurisdiction - requires some severity of the crime commited (i.e. the murder, robbery, abductoin etc., but maybe even this kind of organized, joint thievery).

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is impossible to answer, because "not turning them in" was struck out from the beginning as an option which makes the whole thing irrealistic. It's usually the only option, esp. when crimes like that are becoming a habit and pretty organized.
When you convince them to commit a lesser crime, you will still be punished in most jurisdictions (at least in mine) for strengthening their will in commiting/"approving of" that lesser crime instead of trying to keep them from commiting any crime at all

If you kept your mouth shut, you are often only punishable for not turning them in, which - in my jurisdiction - requires some severity of the crime commited (i.e. the murder, robbery, abductoin etc., but maybe even this kind of organized, joint thievery).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ridiculous. Even if those laws are on the books. Do you really think that if a citizen heard an acquaintance talk about friends who were murdering and robbing and the citizen suggested robbing but not murdering, they would be even arrested for that? And since it is second hand information and they don't even know who the supposed criminals are, they certainly wouldn't be arrested for doing nothing at all.

[Genz]

No. It's not ridiculous at all. And it's not just in the books also.

1) Don't move away from your original example and only focus on the exaggerated variation of murder/robbery etc. That's a red herring that will be disregarded.

2) Even if we look at your exaggerated variation for a bit: If you know that some acquaintance's acquaintances are murdering/robbing, how can you not turn them in? How can you not at least TRY tipping off the police? No matter who they are? Don't be selfish. Think about the victims. That's actually a reason, why not disclosing information like that to the police is punishable under a lot of jurisdictions. Unless you are married to the person, or in a similar close relationship, there is no reason for protection your inclination not to disclose such information to the authorities.

3) If you know that your acquaintance will tell the criminals what you said and it has the effect that they'll say "OK, let's just keep it to XY then and let's not YZ anyone", your involvement is of a different nature than if you had tried to make them not commiting any crime at all. So if the crime is not severe enough to make it necessary to turn them in immediately, you have only two alternatives: don't say anything and don't get involved or get them to not commiting any crime at all. Getting them to commiting a LESSER crime makes you responsible for a criminal act because you imply that commiting that lesser criminal act is - in a way- ok. That's the consequence if you think you can't turn someone in. If you try to convince them not to commit any crime and they don't listen to you, it's not your problem anymore (unless the crime is so sever that you have to turn them in). If you want to ameliorate things for the victim, you have to either try harder in convincing the friends or well, turn them in. It's as easy as that.

4) You obviously have no idea to what lengths people go to defend themselves. So if these friends are arrested, they will definitely say something to the effect of "Well, David Sklansky didn't want us to murder/steal credit cards, but he said just robbing them/taking their cash wasn't that bad in comparison". And you really think, police won't be coming knocking on your door?

[FNG]

If you're interested in giving good theiving advice, just stealing some cash is probably best. OTOH, if you're interested in being an reasonable, ethical human being, how about advising your friend to stop hanging out with [censored] thieves, for christ's sake? How the [censored] does this not occur to you to be the default course of aciton here in the first place?

[Dmadmonks]

Every single time I think my opinion of Sklansky couldn't get any lower something like this occurs. Stick to gambling numbers, old man, your moral and ethical calculating faculties seem to be substandard.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone I know mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets.

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves. And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted.

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've taught them how to steal less obtrusively, which has a small but positive chance of extending their carreer, thereby increasing the number of people from whom they steal.

[Deorum]

Here's a possible argument: By not taking the wallet, the thieves potentially leave fingerprints on it. Therefore, the probability of their being caught through fingerprinting (and this takes into account the % of times that there is no positive ID through the fingerprinting, as well as the times that the victims do not choose to have their wallet fingerprinted for whatever reason) must be lower than the probability of their being caught by having posession of the wallet until they are able to dispose of it properly (this includes the increased likelyhood of a victim investigating the theft further due to having the wallet stolen rather than just the money). I do not know which probability is higher. But it could be either one.

A second, somewhat related argument: If leaving the wallets results in the theft being more efficient (ie. same return with less risk), by teaching them this you are aiding them in becoming more proficient criminals, as well as teaching them to think of crime in terms of cost-benefit (or risk-reward). Not only does this make these people less likely to ever be caught, but it increases the number of crimes they are likely to commit before they are caught.

Generally speaking, the more proficient a person is at something, and the better the understanding that person has of the subject, the more interested in it they will be. By teaching criminals how to commit their crime more efficiently and with less risk, the more interested in crime these people will become. The more interested they become, the more likely they will be to persue other crimes in general, applying their newfound knowledge to those crimes. They will also seek new knowledge after having been introduced to a logical system through which they understand crime. Somebody who would have stopped at stealing wallets may move on to grander projects, projects that when they were stealing with little understanding of criminal logic may have seemed too overwhelming or out of their means, but which now may appear as possible due to their new ability to assess crime.

They may ignore your suggestion. They may take it and think nothing more of it. But you are potentially giving them a dangerous weapon with which to pursue crime more efficiently and on a greater scale.

[betgo]

Sklansky, are you trying to totally ruin your reputation? I think you should seriously consider not associating with this ho. This OP also does serious further damage to Brandi's reputation, as most people assume it is Brandi. You really shouldn't post something like this which seems to confirm people's suspicions about Brandi.

Maybe your problem is that you are too cheap to spend money on young women, as indicated in your other thread. Perhaps you could meet someone after your money who is not an outright ho and thief.

If you are going to associate with sleazy hoes, you might be better off doing it in a less public way.

You write intellectually about poker and gambling, which may indicate an amorality. But the moral level of this OP is extremely questionable.

[Prodigy54321]

take everything out of your wallet
go chill with these pretty women
profit

if they are not already making use of these peoples' IDs, credit cards, etc...you may have just turned a light bulb on in thier heads...the victims may just be better off losing this stuff than actually having it used for identity theft, etc.

I suppose we'd have to estimate the chances of each of the possible outcomes of your little suggestion.

my gut tells me that your suggestion was fine.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky, are you trying to totally ruin your reputation? I think you should seriously consider not associating with this ho. This OP also does serious further damage to Brandi's reputation, as most people assume it is Brandi. You really shouldn't post something like this which seems to confirm people's suspicions about Brandi.

Maybe your problem is that you are too cheap to spend money on young women, as indicated in your other thread. Perhaps you could meet someone after your money who is not an outright ho and thief.

If you are going to associate with sleazy hoes, you might be better off doing it in a less public way.

You write intellectually about poker and gambling, which may indicate an amorality. But the moral level of this OP is extremely questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of many people who have never known of a criminal that they didn't turn in (even just considering doing things that we think are wrong, not just breaking stupid laws)...and here wa are talking about DS simply associating with a person who has done so...not even the criminals themselves..

I certainly have a mancrush on Sklansky /images/graemlins/heart.gif, but I don't assume he is some superhuman crime fighter....he's just some guy who happens to be wicked smart and probably a better person that most people by my moral standards...but doing something like investigating further and turning these women in is extreme, even if we do consider DS to hold to a very high moral standard.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone I know (Brandi) mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers (hookers) are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets (rolling the Johns).

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves (less likelihood of the Johns going to Police). And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted (wouldn't have to explain it to their wives like they would if they had to cancel their cards).

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut (other than I was abetting a crime by passing on advice about how to do it better).

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't Brandi. And would you say the same thing if the thieves were murdering their victims and I convinced them to only rob them?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the thieves were murdering their victims I am pretty sure that the correct action would be to inform the police of what is going on and give up all the information you have. This would surely rocket them into a good position for an investigation. Not saying anything while knowing that serial killers are running around in LV hotels would be pretty bad.

Either way, you are helping criminals commit a crime. That is immoral and possibly illegal (I am no lawyer). Your information has, in your opinion (and that's all that matters here), decreased the chance that they are caught and prosecuted. I don't know why I'm telling you this, because I am sure you are already aware of it.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky, are you trying to totally ruin your reputation? I think you should seriously consider not associating with this ho. This OP also does serious further damage to Brandi's reputation, as most people assume it is Brandi. You really shouldn't post something like this which seems to confirm people's suspicions about Brandi.

Maybe your problem is that you are too cheap to spend money on young women, as indicated in your other thread. Perhaps you could meet someone after your money who is not an outright ho and thief.

If you are going to associate with sleazy hoes, you might be better off doing it in a less public way.

You write intellectually about poker and gambling, which may indicate an amorality. But the moral level of this OP is extremely questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of many people who have never known of a criminal that they didn't turn in (even just considering doing things that we think are wrong, not just breaking stupid laws)...and here wa are talking about DS simply associating with a person who has done so...not even the criminals themselves..

I certainly have a mancrush on Sklansky /images/graemlins/heart.gif, but I don't assume he is some superhuman crime fighter....he's just some guy who happens to be wicked smart and probably a better person that most people by my moral standards...but doing something like investigating further and turning these women in is extreme, even if we do consider DS to hold to a very high moral standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say he should investigate this or turn the criminals in. If a friend of mine asked the question in OP, I certainly wouldn't think of turning anyone in, but I would be concerned about her character, and question whether I should be associating with her. I don't know if I would give an intellectual answer to the question and post it on the Internet.

[doucy]

nothing wrong with the suggestion.

taking just the cash instead of the entire wallet will not significantly decrease the chances of getting caught.

[Tom Ames]

[ QUOTE ]
Every single time I think my opinion of Sklansky couldn't get any lower something like this occurs. Stick to gambling numbers, old man, your moral and ethical calculating faculties seem to be substandard.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

David said that turning the perps in is not an option.

Doesn't one consider what laternative one has and try to do what will rsult in the least damage being done? I assume in the way David framed the problem, the choice is between doing nothing and making the evil lesser. Why is not making the evil lesser commendable?

[dogmeat]

Did I Do Wrong Here?

No, David. You did what I would expect from a 50+ year old man who is taking advice from people who have friends like this.

The next time I am in Vegas and decide to pick-up a couple skanky ho's, I will be so appreciative of the fact that you didn't do anything to stop them from stealing my money - but did convince them to not take my wallet.

You should be so proud! What a wonderful person you are, and others should follow your example.

(I hope this does not hurt your chances of winning that Nobel Prize )


"Morals, they're not for everyone!"

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
David said that turning the perps in is not an option.

Doesn't one consider what laternative one has and try to do what will rsult in the least damage being done? I assume in the way David framed the problem, the choice is between doing nothing and making the evil lesser. Why is not making the evil lesser commendable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andyfox,

My argument was that by making the infraction slightly less worse to the victim, the number of total infractions would increase before they were caught, as would the probability of greater infractions performed by the criminals occuring in the future.

[iplayscared]

lol

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David said that turning the perps in is not an option.

Doesn't one consider what laternative one has and try to do what will rsult in the least damage being done? I assume in the way David framed the problem, the choice is between doing nothing and making the evil lesser. Why is not making the evil lesser commendable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Andyfox,

My argument was that by making the infraction slightly less worse to the victim, the number of total infractions would increase before they were caught, as would the probability of greater infractions performed by the criminals occuring in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, the girl in question was not in any way Brandi, or associated with Brandi.

Second of all, I am going under the assumption that for most Vegas tourists, their wallets stolen is a MUCH bigger deal than their cash. And I wasn't talking about the fact that their wives will now find out. That's idiotic.

Thirdly, I am surprised no one answered the question with reference to what my motive was for giving the advice. And I can tell you honestly that it was more due to my empathy for people having to replace the stuff in their wallets than any desire to help the girls. Add that to the fact there was absolutely no way I could prevent the crime and we have a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned. Except for esoteric arguments. Don't you people realize this whole thing came down to me saying something like "Tell your friends to let the poor guys at least keep their wallets."

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, the girl in question was not in any way Brandi, or associated with Brandi.


[/ QUOTE ]
How many girls like this are you hanging around with?

[David Sklansky]

Nine.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, I am surprised no one answered the question with reference to what my motive was for giving the advice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of us did, just seemed too obvious to say it explicitely. To be clearer - its good advise to thieves to just take the cash (and possibly not all of it) in a way that its not good advice for vicious rapist to kill their victim.

chez

[David Sklansky]

When you and Andy Fox take my side on an issue like this, that's good enough for me.

[CardSharpCook]

It is pretty hard to live in a morally pure environment. You can't avoid all difficult moral/ethical decisions. If you live a life worth living, you WILL run into people asking you to help you choose btwn two morally dubious decisions. To blithely respond, "well, you shouldn't steal in the first place," is righteuosly moronic. Given the context of actually living in the real world, I'd say DS did pretty good. Comments like "Every single time I think my opinion of Sklansky couldn't get any lower something like this occurs," say more about your idolization of DS than anything. Guess what? DS is a real person encountering real life situations just like you. And just like you, he will make decisions that he'll later question and revisit. If he answered one of these dilemmas incorrectly (in your view) that is no reason to condemn him. Help him understand the error of his ways and suggest another course of action that might have been more morally sound.

[CardSharpCook]

my own reaction to this situation is that while your intentions were good, it'll probably have a long term negative effect on society. Why? As another poster pointed out, you're teaching these young girls how to commit softer crimes and thereby get away with it for a lot longer. The chances that these Johns will file a police report is substantially reduced if they are only missing their cash. Indeed, the need to cancel credit cards and possibly reverse the charges on their credit cards will require the victims to report the crime. Waking up to an empty wallet these idiots will rightly conclude that there is nothing they can do.

As simplistic as it sounds, I actually think the best course of action here was to show moral outrage at these crimes. "That's HORRIBLE!!!! Do you have any idea how violated these johns feel?!!?? Do your friends even THINK about what they are doing to these guys??? Just because they are willing to sleep with 2 girls who randomly approach them doesn't mean they are worthy of all ill that befalls them!!"

Or whatever. Point is, instead of making them better criminals, remind them of their disconnection with society and invite them to return to the community known as the human race.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
my own reaction to this situation is that while your intentions were good, it'll probably have a long term negative effect on society. Why? As another poster pointed out, you're teaching these young girls how to commit softer crimes and thereby get away with it for a lot longer. The chances that these Johns will file a police report is substantially reduced if they are only missing their cash. Indeed, the need to cancel credit cards and possibly reverse the charges on their credit cards will require the victims to report the crime. Waking up to an empty wallet these idiots will rightly conclude that there is nothing they can do.

As simplistic as it sounds, I actually think the best course of action here was to show moral outrage at these crimes. "That's HORRIBLE!!!! Do you have any idea how violated these johns feel?!!?? Do your friends even THINK about what they are doing to these guys??? Just because they are willing to sleep with 2 girls who randomly approach them doesn't mean they are worthy of all ill that befalls them!!"

Or whatever. Point is, instead of making them better criminals, remind them of their disconnection with society and invite them to return to the community known as the human race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you forget that I don't even know who these girls are?

[CardSharpCook]

no not at all, but the idea is that the one you are talking to doesn't really know how to deal her friends who are stealing so your responsibility is to give her "society's" reaction. Also, you obviously know her better than me, but your friend may be at some risk herself. That is, she may see her friends doing these things and be tempted to do something similar herself. She may not fully understand that stealing is a really bad thing. She's young, impressionable and her peers are engaging in criminal activities. I'd argue it is your responsibility to reassure your friend's notions of what is right/wrong - to support her comdemnation of her friends. I'm sure my advice isn't even applicable. You've told us very little about your friend or her relationship to her friends. In general though, I'd think it would be good advice to remind a friend who's other friends are doing dubious things how society views those activities. Young people at these ages need to be reminded of what is "normal" before they accept the activities of their friends as "normal." In some part of your reaction you NEED to say something like, "OMG that is horrible!" or "be careful with these girls, they are doing dangerous things which can result in physical violence towards them or eventual incarceration." YOUR primary duty isn't to the Johns or the random girls, but to your young, impressionable friend.

[PairTheBoard]

So let's assume David starts a 3+3 website where he gives advice to criminals. In all cases he advises them to stop commiting crimes but tells them that if they won't stop then they should commit lesser crimes. Criminals post details on all sorts of crimes they are commiting and David analyzes for them how they can maximize their criminal utiility in ways that lesson the crimes they commit. The 3+3 website generates tremendous theoretical discussion for maximizing criminal utility with lesser crimes. Organized Crime figures post on 3+3 finding ways to improve their operations while commiting lesser crimes. Drug Cartels find ways to improve their smuggling and distribution networks, while commiting lesser crimes. David comes to be known as the "Brain" for all global criminal enterprises.

David becomes a frequent guest on talk shows and the college speaking circuit where he talks about all the good 3+3 is doing in getting criminals to commit lesser crimes. He explains the difference between correlation and causation when presented statistics for the explosion in criminal activity around the world since 3+3 has been in operation. When more statistical arguments are pressed on him he dismisses them saying he is not concerned with such high falootin egg head theories. He says his way works and people who can't see it are just morons.

He puts talk show hosts on tilt and drives audiences into such frenzies that they can't get enough of him. The tabloids love him. Paparazzi follow him everywhere like locusts. He has his pick of the most beautiful starlets in hollywood. He becomes the richest man on the planet. He starts buying entire counties. He is especially fond of his Brazil. Unfortunately, he never finds the time to write the perfect Algebra Book. Meanwhile the world descends into a chaos of crime, all of it lesser of course.

PairTheBoard

[CardSharpCook]

What I was getting at in the first post is that by showing your own moral outrage at their crimes, you might have some effect on your friend, who will then somehow relate that to her friends. Her ideas about what is right/wrong will be reenforced and she'll have an easier time telling her friends that what they are doing is dangerous/wrong.

[Arnold_O]

hookers are scum of the earth and should be shot. except for the really hot, sophisticated ones. but even these usually turn out to be nothing more than trash

giving money to hookers for sex so they can continue on with their drug addiction is almost as bad as the low life burglars who burglarize houses for drug money

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was getting at in the first post is that by showing your own moral outrage at their crimes, you might have some effect on your friend, who will then somehow relate that to her friends. Her ideas about what is right/wrong will be reenforced and she'll have an easier time telling her friends that what they are doing is dangerous/wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are living in a dreamworld. Or at least not in Las Vegas.

[ruken]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's assume David starts a 3+3 website where he gives advice to criminals. In all cases he advises them to stop commiting crimes but tells them that if they won't stop then they should commit lesser crimes. Criminals post details on all sorts of crimes they are commiting and David analyzes for them how they can maximize their criminal utiility in ways that lesson the crimes they commit. The 3+3 website generates tremendous theoretical discussion for maximizing criminal utility with lesser crimes. Organized Crime figures post on 3+3 finding ways to improve their operations while commiting lesser crimes. Drug Cartels find ways to improve their smuggling and distribution networks, while commiting lesser crimes. David comes to be known as the "Brain" for all global criminal enterprises.

David becomes a frequent guest on talk shows and the college speaking circuit where he talks about all the good 3+3 is doing in getting criminals to commit lesser crimes. He explains the difference between correlation and causation when presented statistics for the explosion in criminal activity around the world since 3+3 has been in operation. When more statistical arguments are pressed on him he dismisses them saying he is not concerned with such high falootin egg head theories. He says his way works and people who can't see it are just morons.

He puts talk show hosts on tilt and drives audiences into such frenzies that they can't get enough of him. The tabloids love him. Paparazzi follow him everywhere like locusts. He has his pick of the most beautiful starlets in hollywood. He becomes the richest man on the planet. He starts buying entire counties. He is especially fond of his Brazil. Unfortunately, he never finds the time to write the perfect Algebra Book. Meanwhile the world descends into a chaos of crime, all of it lesser of course.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all pretty much exactly happening with the Brandi tutoring situation as it is.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I was getting at in the first post is that by showing your own moral outrage at their crimes, you might have some effect on your friend, who will then somehow relate that to her friends. Her ideas about what is right/wrong will be reenforced and she'll have an easier time telling her friends that what they are doing is dangerous/wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are living in a dreamworld. Or at least not in Las Vegas.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why would you choose to attack me instead of addressing my post? This response is akin to those idiots who say, "3bet pf, fold the turn." Ok, that's wonderful, but why?

You seem to believe that whatever you say to this girl, she will report some measure of it back to her friends. Why not have that be a re-emphasis of the danger/wrongness of their actions instead of encouraging their growth as criminals. But screw you, and go back to your own morally depraved "real" world where your actions have no effect on others.

[fraac]

You don't understand the question. "Assuming turning them in was not an option". Also assume that influencing them for the better was not an option. The ONLY options are saying nothing or making them kinder, gentler thieves. LOGIC then leads us to conclude that SKLANSKY IS A GOOD GUY. It's important that we understand this.

[betgo]

I wouldn't associate with criminals. If I did I wouldn't associate with people involved with stuff like seducing and robbing guys. If I did, I wouldn't advise them on how to commit their crimes. If I did, I wouldn't post about it on the Internet.

[KipBond]

You should also suggest that they leave the victims a few bucks for a cab.

[SonofDjugashvili]

I think this thread finally answers the question of how Brandi turned $1K into $200K...

[duggie53]

A similar incident happened to a friend of mine. Two girls invited him back to their room where they started making out, and then invited him to join in. Afterwards he noticed his wallet was missing. He warned me about it because he's now had six wallets taken.

[SonofDjugashvili]

[ QUOTE ]
A similar incident happened to a friend of mine. Two girls invited him back to their room where they started making out, and then invited him to join in. Afterwards he noticed his wallet was missing. He warned me about it because he's now had six wallets taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poorly played. When this starts to happen, you go to the safe and swap the wallet for the cam. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone I know mentions in passing that two pretty young female friends of hers are enticing guys into Las Vegas hotel rooms and in some non violent way, (that was not described to me in detail,) stealing their wallets.

I asked if they were making use of the credit cards and IDs. She said she didn't think so. I said that if they weren't, they should just steal the money. Since the men would usually be much less upset if they had to deal with only stolen money then a stolen wallet, that might be advantageous to the thieves. And it would certainly be appreciated by the victims if this practice was adopted.

Assuming turning them in was not an option, let's hear the ironclad logical reasons why I should have kept my mouth shut.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

assuming:

1) this is a dear friend of yours that

2) cannot stop hanging out with these thieves for some reason or other

3) turning them in is impossible for some reason

then yes, convincing the thieves to conduct their thievery in a less manevolant way is the higher ground.

but i'd look into #2 and #3 above first.

Barron

[duggie53]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A similar incident happened to a friend of mine. Two girls invited him back to their room where they started making out, and then invited him to join in. Afterwards he noticed his wallet was missing. He warned me about it because he's now had six wallets taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poorly played. When this starts to happen, you go to the safe and swap the wallet for the cam. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Good advice for next time.