cross-posted from: https://reddthat.com/post/56223456
George Hendricks, a 69-year-old from Leesburg, a suburb of Orlando, told ClickOrlando he lost $45,000 after a scammer targeted him with a deepfake video of Musk. Deepfakes are digitally-altered videos often used to impersonate notable public figures.
Now, Hendricks tells the outlet that his wife “wants to get a divorce” over the scam.
You might be surprised about this, but as people age, so do their brains. They do not function as well and sometimes develop serious issues. Stop assuming everyone has the same resources to work with. Protect the vulnerable from bad actors.
And yet we let them vote and run the country.
We can’t even agree to revalidate their driving ability because that would be disrespectful.
They don’t get to have it both ways.
Stupid young people are allowed to vote too. And for good reason. Tying ability to vote to a check of capability is easily, and historically broadly, abused
Stupid people of all ages are allowed to vote. We’re specifically talking about diminished mental capacity.
That’s exactly what he’s saying. How do you test for “diminished capacity” we’ve had arbitrary tests like that in the USA before. It didn’t go well for certain “types” of people. It’s a very slippery slope. That’s why it’s a right for for all citizens, even if they are dumber than a potato. Creating an arbitrary age limitation introduces a new landmine no politician in their right mind wants to step on.
And is stupidity not within that category?
No, stupidity is the absence of something that was never there.
Even a stupid person can experience cognitive decline.
As of the time of this reply, 3 people have downvoted you. I cannot fathom reading your message and thinking “Well this guy is clearly wrong! Everybody should be judged equally!”
How they came to the conclusion to downvote you, I’ll never know.
It’s quick, it’s easy and it’s free, just like pouring river water into your socks!
Why would I pour river water into my socks?
Because it’s quick, it’s easy, and it’s free!
It’s not that quick, the nearest river is about a 25 minute walk from me, I wouldn’t call that convenient. Also it’s raining , so I can’t go now or I’ll get wet.
Lol
Try toilet water. it’s quick, it’s easy and it’s free.
You could possibly DoorDash some river water to your home. (I don’t know how DoorDash works.)
But then it won’t be free. Hm. Foiled by capitalism!
Millions of Facebook users fought off COVID with apple cider vinegar and onion slices in their sleeping socks.
also HORSE/CATTLE PASTE TOO.
I haven’t down voted them but I was strongly inclined to do so.
It’s an argumentative comment that adds nothing to the conversation. Of course we should protect vulnerable people, but we actually already do do that. At some point someone has to take responsibility for their own susceptibility to manipulation, such as recognise you can no longer make sound financial decisions and give power of attorney to someone else. Otherwise it is their fault they’re getting manipulated.
Just because of victim is over the age of 40 doesn’t mean that they’re mentally infeebled. This attitude ignores the underlying issue which is that quite a lot of people are just quite stupid.
I only downvoted them because I got the idea from your comment.
No solid substantiation: just unsupported assertions.
We do protect the vulnerable from bad actors, when anybody tries to make large transfers of money the banks are required to check the validity of the transaction but ultimately if the individual insists what’s the bank supposed to do. It’s their money.
There is only so much that it is possible to do, and beyond a certain point you have to accept that scams are either going to happen or just take people’s ability to control of their own money away from them, neither are particularly good options.
You make a great point - not all of us have the same capacities and there need to be protections in place to prevent people falling for scams - but I just don’t know where the line is between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Like, for society to function, we all need to assume some amount of collective responsibility to protect others but that can’t be at 100%. People need to take some amount of personal responsibility for their actions, otherwise we slide towards a society with no learning and no repercussions which is a recipe for disaster and collapse.
It’s a tenuous relationship, and extremely context-dependent, so I don’t think that there is an objective and quantitative answer to the question. Would make an interesting philosophical/ethical debate though.