Saturday, July 4, 2015

Bad Argument: The Evil Twin Did it

When confronted with the news that their pet scheme may be a scam, victims of a scam react in various ways to deal with their cognitive dissonance, when two sets of facts collide as they can't both be true.

Some recoil in horror, realize they've been scammed, and quickly attempt to withdraw their money (which are usually stonewalled, leading to further desperation.)

Some are doubtful but vowed to stop taking their upline's word and do some honest research on their own

Some recoil and hide, denying that any "negativity" exists, and you should shut up because they don't want to hear about how they are wrong.

Some react with indignation and attempt to defend their scheme, but when they are armed with little more than PR material and fallacies like "I got paid so it's not a scam (to me)" they rarely have much success convincing anyone but themselves.

Some goes for "special pleading", i.e. come up with reasons why their scheme is the exception, not the rule, i.e. it fits all the definitions of a scam, but it's not a scam

Some go for a "no true Scotsman" gambit, claiming that the company itself is fine. It's only a few "rogue reps" that ruined things for everybody else.

Though recently, in span of a week or two, I saw a new variation on "no true Scotsman"... which I will call...

"The Evil Twin Did It!"  aka "They stole our name!"

A certain defender of Emgoldex, upon being confronted with indictments against Emgoldex's US leaders, responded by claiming "they stole our name"
It is clear that this is another company violating the copyright protection of EMGOLDEX. That’s why it became fraud.
You see they have an INC in their company name. This four people are not the owners of the real EMGOLDEX. 
In other words, "that's not the 'real' Emgoldex! (It's just a few rogue reps!)"  Which makes it a variation of "no true Scotsman", but it's interesting that he claimed "copyright violation", essentially claiming that the local reps "stole the Emgoldex name", thus making it a variant.

It is rather amusing to see a a scam defender claimed that someone stole a scam's name, as usually, it is a scam that stole somebody else's name, like Ripple Labs vs. Rippln . It's only even MORE hilarious when Emgoldex changed its name to Global Intergold only a few days later. Guess their name ain't worth much!

Then I noticed someone ELSE claimed to have their name stolen too. A scam called USFIA. Why do I say it's a scam? Because they appear to be a continuation of a scam that deceived thousands in China around 2014, and was chased out of multiple provinces and escaped to Thailand. Chinese cops went all the way to Thailand to arrest two perps in October 2014 and got them back to China to stand trial.

So it is rather amusing that there's an announcement on USFIA's website that claimed "we never authorized our name to be used", bilingual too, so I've added a notation or two, and the date the message was allegedly published.

Now you're probably wondering I brought this up, as it's pretty obvious that this is BEFORE the crackdown in China, right?

Not so fast. For one, Wayback Machine (from Internet Archive) shows no such page in 2014, and 2015. (click to see the whole thing at once)

Hardly conclusive, as maybe nobody added that page. However, given that the rest of the news pages were added to the archive, the lack of archive of this particular page suggests that this page was backdated. Certainly there's no corroborating sign that such an announcement was made except here, as it's found nowhere else.

So it's very likely this is another "they stole our name" bad argument, and now they've been prosecuted as a scam, they're doing the Mission Impossible thing... "We will disavow any and all of your actions."  Of course, it in no way proves that the parent is not a scam.

It is even more interesting that John Wuo, 3-times Arcadia mayor and current city councilman, also used the same "I've been used!" excuse, when confronted.

In conclusion, if you want to use this excuse, don't. It makes no sense. It's just a theory that you have no proof other than your BELIEF that the parent company is not involved. And if you find the explanation used on you, be VERY skeptical, as it indicates that the speaker may be in a state of denial.

No comments:

Post a Comment