221–230 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I equate the downvotes as "disliking" this argument, however I still think my question is valid: What exactly was Jonathan setting out to learn (other than that the world is full of untrustworthy people.)
Why don't you ask him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not forgetting, of course, that it was all an elaborate (or not) marketing campaign by somebody connected to Starbucks.
It wasn't. Jonathan denied it, Starbucks denied it. The "proof" was flimsy at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but if you say "here is my bike, anyone can use it for whatever they want. Really, whatever. Go nuts." and then having someone say "I know, I'll send this bike to kids in Africa who don't have a bike!" doesn't count as theft.
We’re speaking to different arguments. Your point appears to be that Jonathan setting up the experiment and the people paying into the experiment did so with the understanding that other people could do whatever they wanted with the money, and the OP has done whatever he wanted with the money. My point was simply that given any situation, the fact that we expect something to happen doesn’t automatically excuse any of…
Please don't get me wrong. I love the spirit in which this experiment was conceived. At the same time, it's a shame that such an obvious miscalculation scuttled the whole thing so soon. It isn't easy to keep a good thing going.
So essentially you're proud of stealing huge amounts of money from a fund set up by people for a specific purpose, and then you channel this money to suit your own needs while claiming moral superiority ? You know, even if the money you stole for "the little children OMG think of the children" really reaches the intended recipients, which it probably won't if this is a typical 3rd world development fund, you still be…
Jonathan said it was a social experiment. This, and people's reaction to it, is part of that.
Guess Sam couldn't handle the heat. He cutoff commenting on his G+ thread. Hmmm, could he finally be realizing that he messed up and actually did wire fraud and stole money?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcq2LXSAn_U
The service received a cease and desist letter from the government...
http://www.iraqidinarmoney.com/dinar-profits/
Sam Odio seems to exhibit the traits of a sociopath,defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.
Why YC supports people like this is beyond me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To those who want to slam on those "slamming" on Sam Odio's (reprehensible) moral code: You're seriously arguing that that we should re-evaluate our outlook by slinging around childish insults?
Could you please cite the childish insult?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The social experiment revealed that there are in fact people miserable enough in this world to senselessly steal from such a good will fund. In fact, so miserable that they see fit to even brag about it and pretend to themselves their actions were noble. The experiment revealed that the name of one such miserable person is Sam Odio.
You're equivocating. If it is a social experiment, then it is not a good will fund. It cannot be both. Social experiments (like, say, Chain World: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/15/the-cult-of-minec... ) are morally neutral; good will funds have an expectation of moral imperative by those involved. It's the difference between, say, a PvP and PvE server—both allow you to play a game, but what in one is called…
You people are really starting to stretch, what is really going on here? Do you hate coffee? Starbucks? People who drink at starbucks? People with money? People who aim to show that most people are basically good? What is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"People (yourself included) are acting like this was a "miserable" and "disgusting" thing to do." I am not acting like it is, I am saying that it is. And yes, I know that I am doing that... since I am doing it. Regardless of wither or not it was within the bounds of the experiment it was an asshat thing to do.
How is this worse than someone who buys coffee with the card, and never contributes any money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jonathan said it was a social experiment. This, and people's reaction to it, is part of that.
Communism, Nazism and any other 'isms are all considered social experiments. I am not comparing your actions to those, but you cannot hide behind a statement like that.
Familiarize yourself.