Hacker News Reader

Comment by cel1ne | Hacker News Reader

> ... trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers.

> Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme.

Are you really trying to frame some extortionists/scammers as honest and some as dishonest? How about they all are criminals, extorting money as they do from random people, they don't care about?

View on HN

Some scammers can be honest. You might say "Transfer X amount of money to me. If you don't, you can never get your data back". Saying and acting on that doesn't make you dishonest, it makes you an asshole.

That depends on your definition. Googling brings up "dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief"

Thus I think a scammer can be called dishonest.

A trivial application of the principle of charity makes it obvious that the meaning here intended is 'truthful'. Splitting semantic hairs rather than discussing substance benefits no one.

Substantial discussion without accurate semantics is impossible, whereas splitting semantic hairs is substantial discussion in its own right. And the hairsplitting accuracy is necessary because the literal question of good and evil is hardly insignificant.

It is not insignificant but it is not the point of this discussion. The word honest was being used in a restricted context. One might argue that trustworthy might be a better word in this context but the meaning was clear nonetheless.

>The word honest was being used in a restricted context

That seems to be the problem, then. Call it a restricting context and we are back to the matters of good and evil.

Do you really not understand the point that is being made here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com