Elamdri said:
What? I honestly do not understand why this world hates gullible people and loves conmen so much.
Ok I'll take this one... follow my logic here.
1) Conmen prey on the gullible.
2) Conmen would therefore not exist without gullible people. (As a lot of people in this thread have pointed out, it's not JUST a case of one person stealing from another - it's the other handing over his money for a product that clearly doesn't exist. The conman isn't the only active party here.)
3) The reverse, however, is NOT true: a lot of gullible people go happily through their entire lives without actually being conned. This creates a (most likely true) perception that there are a lot more gullible people than con-artists out there.
3) It's human nature to take "sides" in a conflict. It's also a quirk of human nature that we generally root for the underdog before a fight, but the winner after it. If you look at the conflict between a con-artist and his victim, the con-artist comes out ahead in both spots.
5) You can also look at it in the sense of karmic-flaw-retribution, with "gullibility" being the flaw and the con-artist being the instrument of retribution.
6) Finally, con-artists give us an excuse to indulge our sense of schadenfreude - taking pleasure in the suffering of others. As long as it's not us being conned, we can look at the conman and his victim and say: "Ha ha ha, that person must've been so stupid to fall for that!"
Now personally I agree with you: we know almost nothing about the victim OR the conman in this case, other than the victim was conned by the conman and is angry about it; "judging" the victim for what little we DO know seems to be a pretty unsavoury exercise. I'm not excusing it, but I understand it.