This is getting more ridiculous by the day. Where the fuck does your stupid little poor man's anecdote figure into this?
The point is that reasoning is not like a bus. You can't choose your stop and get off. You have to keep going.
Did Patrick express doubt as to his ability to repay and MP assured Patrick that Patrick will be able to repay just fine?
No. In fact, Patrick expressed an erroneous lack of doubt. That is a mistake Patrick made and for which he should be held accountable. But other people who made the same mistake and jointly caused the same losses should also be held accountable.
Damages caused to someone by lending them money? Was it like, poisonous or something? Are you off your meds or somesuch?
You can recast any complex argument to make it seem invalid by showing its conclusion can't follow from just one of its premises. The damage was caused by the particular way money was loaned. The money wasn't poisonous, but the usurious loan was. It forced a business model that both parties should have known could not have worked. The collapse is jointly the fault of a mistake made by both parties -- both parties making the same mistake.
Other than that, you are trying to paint as "irresponsible lender" a lender who is in fact the paragon of responsibility in BTC lending. Again: at the time PatrickHarnett got 500 btc at 1% the market rate was 7%.
The market was horrifically broken. Measuring the sensibility of this loan against that market is silly. It's time to look at these things objectively now. There was no realistic way this loan could have made sense for either party, and both parties should have realized that.
Irresponsible forum posting, especially when it purposefully and repeatedly misrepresents fiction as fact and idiocy as sense is quickly becoming the top and only contribution you're making to this community, such as it is. Not much of a problem, but just in case you care.
You're much better at insulting people than you are at responding to the arguments they make.
Did the loan harm Patrick? Was the loan based on a mistake on the part of both parties?