Quote from: nullius on January 02, 2020, 01:11:52 AM

Quote from: eddie13 on January 02, 2020, 12:00:00 AM

You came back for cryptohunter?

No; check post history.

Quote from: eddie13 on January 02, 2020, 12:00:00 AM

I think plagiarizers, scammers, and many types of criminals should be shamed too, but you know, it seems that about half the world out there are apologists for criminals and blame it on poverty, just about every time a black guy gets shot by the cops..

Moreover, shame has been turned on its head: If you shame bad people, you will be shamed. I observed that “cryptohunter” did this to The Pharmacist. You yourself should prepare to be shamed for what I just quoted, not despite, but because of it being a simple, lucid observation about the world in which we live.

The trick only works, because the people who should have the moral high ground are ipso facto those who are capable of feeling ashamed. The ones shaming them are shameless, and highly manipulative. You did not actually say anything wrong; but if you are sneered at and jeered at with unlimited hostility in a way that plays on your emotions, guilts you for being unsympathetic, slaps you with meaningless labels, impugns your motivations in a hundred ways, etc., then it could get to you. Conveniently, the shameless will not feel ashamed of doing this to you.

Compare what “cryptohunter” did in the linked thread: He portrayed a bingo game that ridiculed plagiarists’ flimsy excuses as if it were some sort of cruel injustice against poor, desperate people who are just so... so... needy. Objectively, it is just the brand of dangerous stupidity that may persuade people who don’t think it through. Subjectively, in my case, this peculiarly outraged me because I have experience with being poor. As in, “imperiled for my short-term physical survival due to a decidedly painful lack of food and shelter” level poor. Poor enough to be able to attest the maddening effects of chronic hunger (and resulting long-term detriment to the body). I did not scam people, or spew plagiarized posts on the Bitcoin Forum. “cryptohunter” implies that if I had, others should have been somehow sympathetic; and that offends me by degrading my dignity. Surely, in today’s society, in the Year 2020, I am entitled to me-centred outrage based on being personally offended!

Quote from: eddie13 on January 02, 2020, 12:00:00 AM

I'm glad you distrust these people.. I do too to an extent.. Poor judgement.. But I don't think I'd hand out negative ratings to every user who has ever blamed crime on poverty, or I bet you could go to the P&S section and gather a sizable list..

True enough. But, (a) “cryptohunter” did not merely blame crime on poverty. He went beyond that in ways that showed a high tolerance for dishonesty, even a sympathy for it, per what I stated above. (b) One must start somewhere; otherwise, nothing will ever change.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 02, 2020, 12:00:14 AM

Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition?

I expounded on this. Was it TL;DR for you?

Quote from: nullius on January 01, 2020, 10:29:38 PM

By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 02, 2020, 12:00:14 AM

I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here...

Stop trying to prove that Lauda is Craig Wright. It is defamatory.
[/quote