There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack. The person being scammed doesn’t ever lose their agency and willingly participates. That’s very different from a knife attack, where the victim would leave at every moment if possible.

Informed consent is missing in both cases.

The person in the knife fight also doesn’t lose their agency. The choices they made just led to an outcome they didn’t expect.

This all ultimately boils down to "the attacks that I believe I'm immune to are okay, the attacks that I'm not immune to are not okay."

The victim in your knife attack had the opportunity to leave by never going to the grocery store. The fact they couldn't foresee that attack is solely because they lacked the information or cognitive ability to foresee it, just like an 80 IQ gambler with a Draftkings account lacks the information/cognitive ability to foresee the attack on him.

So many people walk around with the implicit ethical system that 80 IQers don't deserve to have a decent life in the modern world. That is obviously despicable once it's stated explicitly.

No, your argument is basically “all bad things are equivalent to knife attacks.” Look, I’m not saying deception and scamming are “ok”, I’m just saying comparing them to knife attacks is stupid.

True, but I think the main issue is that neither is beneficial to society, genetically or otherwise. The main purpose of the knife attack analogy is to demonstrate that protecting against that involves skills that are useless if we can just eliminate the threat in the first place

Many of us experience that knife attacks are not part of life, but perhaps we take for granted the existence of scammers?

Granted, being able to protect against one self against a scam may include talents that carry over to other useful aspects of society building, but same with being able to fight off knife attacks

And again the point is that, 1: those aren't the only beneficial aspects to society. someone without those talents may be brilliant in other ways, thus evolutionary pressure on that is not helpful. And even if someone isn't brilliant in other ways, we are all still valuable. Just ask a parent who raises a highly disabled kid, they will know this far more deeply than you or I do

When it comes to suitability of blaming the victim for said crime, they are equivalent.

> There’s obviously a huge difference between a scam and a violent attack.

I do not agree with that statement. You're just justifying anti-social behavior.

Would you rather be scammed or stabbed? According to you, you should be indifferent. Personally, I’d prefer to be scammed.

I'd rather be mildly stabbed rather than scammed into an inescapable human trafficking pipeline

It's always easy to think that until you will be the one being manipulated and scammed.

Scammers target people who can be easily manipulated so that they can mostly remove targets’ agency. The victim doesn’t know that it’s a scam, so why would they run?

You're missing a key word: informed consent. Both are lacking that.

The gap between consent and informed consent is narrow.

The gap between consent and threat of violence may as well be the grand canyon.

Interesting. For me, while I don’t love the idea of being forced into something I don’t want, psychologically I understand that my choice is being taken away. In the case of deception or fraud, I would feel complicit and stupid, and that would stick with me and burn a long time.

I’m thinking about how people who are raped by force often feel ashamed, but also that people who are defrauded out of their money are also often too ashamed to come forward.

Of course neither should be the case, but I don’t think there’s that much difference between the two, at least for me.