On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Fool <[email protected]> wrote: > One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect > they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some > time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship > cases. I think even it was you that said it.
I'd say that judgements on scam cases do tend to be biased against the scamsters, and from time to time I've thought that unfortunate. On the other hand, I've also looked back at interpretations that had seemed almost certain to me while I was building huge constructs of planned scam actions with them as foundations, and realized that really, from a neutral, reasonable perspective, they were pretty unlikely, if not ridiculous - and observed what I thought to be that tunnel vision in others. I do not claim that you are necessarily affected by this, as certainly the same can apply to other participants in an argument, such as myself (or of course it's not black and white, so we are certainly both affected to some degree) but in general it tends to make judgements look more spiteful then they are. And, perhaps more importantly, this is a democratic nomic (whether formally or informally). If nobody likes your scam out of spite, it's their prerogative to continue playing unreasonably.
