Scalping is discouraged on this forum, and so shouldn't all pro scalping posts also b

[devilof76]

It should NOT have been abandoned in the dark ages. The implication of the golden rule is ethical. In order for one to want to be treated a certain way, one must first live, and be healthy, and have well being. Thus, the idea of wanting anything other than that when you understand the golden rule is a logical fallacy. How is social morality for insects, or for insects only?
I am a man. I don't want to be a monster. I don't want to be a pariah, like scalpers are, whether it's concert tickets or limited edition collectibles.

It should have, because it hasn't done a damn bit of good in the centuries since (centuries through which it has been held up as the epitome of morality by damn near everyone).

Social morality is for insects because insects are communal. Humans stop being communal when they realize they can think. Since thinking is not a social behavior, society is an atrocious standard for determining what an individual should or should not do, and historically, atrocity is what follows on the heels of all social moralities.

If you need a clue as to how individual morality can be applied to social reality, I would recommend "live and let live". But social morality is notorious for trampling that notion, and it's why social moralists inspire passionate hostility in those they attempt to mold according to their self-righteous, utopian visions.

 

[Commtech]

Hilarious, ain't it?

Hey Robo: Have you noticed that your average number of posts since you joined in 2005 is 1,000 a year?

 

[Blackthornone]

Your definition isn't based on logic. It is based on a loosely connected series of presumptions, none of which apply universally. You presume that, since you perceive things a certain way, all others must therefore share your perspective, and that is a fundamental flaw in any attempt to present a logical argument.

Which definition is that? right and wrong? If everyone was to scalp a certain item, then everyone would have to pay scalper prices for their every item that became available, and that would make an already expensive hobby even more expensive for everyone. That is applying it universally. It would be absurd and serve no constructive purpose for everyone to scalp collectibles, which would be what universalizing would mean.

 

[creecher]

I like your new sig, Batty.

Yeah, I like it too, but you need to make it bigger. Why? Because you're allowed.

 

[Jen]

I like Batty's sig too.

 

[devilof76]

By the way, I do think that the ethics and laws about justice in the Middle Ages were a lot more sincere than they are today. Today, things are so watered down, and so permissive, that it is difficult to view many of today's laws or social conventions as having sincere interests in right and wrong, or ethics. To a large degree, it is a system that allows people to get away with as much as they can, without fear of retribution. Part of me longs for the days of chivalry as far as ethics are concerned.

Talk about getting it straight from the horse's mouth. Yeah, the Middle Ages were the high watermark for human ethics. Charyu tree in every yard.

 

[Blackthornone]

It should have, because it hasn't done a damn bit of good in the centuries since (centuries through which it has been held up as the epitome of morality by damn near everyone).

And social morality is for insects because insects are communal. Humans stop being communal when they realize they can think. Since thinking is not a social behavior, society is an atrocious standard for determining what an individual should or should not do, and historically, atrocity is what follows on the heels of all social moralities.

If you need a clue as to how individual morality can be applied to social reality, I would recommend "live and let live". But social morality is notorious for trampling that notion, and it's why social moralists inspire passionate hostility in those they attempt to mold according to their self-righteous, utopian visions.

The golden rule may be regarded as the highest standard of ethics by most people, but that doesn't mean that most people actually practice it. Most people believe in Jesus Christ in the United States, but they don't try to emulate his character. They just admire him. Therefore, they don't REALLY believe in what he said. If you don't actually practice a belief, you don't really believe in it. Similarly, most people know it is best to be fit, but do they do what it takes to be fit? Do they exercise and eat healthy? No.

Scalping violates live and let live, because live and let live implies not being involved with the affairs of others, or putting yourself in the position to have undue or any influence on the lives or the affairs of others. I think what you mean is do whatever you feel like doing, and everything and everyone else be damned. Alternatively, you could be saying Laissez-faire, which isn't exactly the same thing.

 

[Blackthornone]

You're imposing your ideas of right and wrong on the rest of us as though your ideas are somehow applicable to everyone. If they invented the phrase to indicate anything, they invented it to indicate that.

So are you saying that you would PREFER to pay more for a collectible by buying from a scalper? That is what you are implying. If you don't want to or would prefer not to pay scalper prices, then you are admitting that there is wrongness in scalping. You cannot say that scalping is 100% acceptable unless you view it as a positive, all of the time, for you to pay their prices.

 

[Blackthornone]

Talk about getting it straight from the horse's mouth. Yeah, the Middle Ages were the high watermark for human ethics. Charyu tree in every yard.

I should have said, in many instances the Middle ages ethics were better. Yes, I misspoke.

 

[RoboDad]

Which definition is that? right and wrong? If everyone was to scalp a certain item, then everyone would have to pay scalper prices for their every item that became available, and that would make an already expensive hobby even more expensive for everyone. That is applying it universally. It would be absurd and serve no constructive purpose for everyone to scalp collectibles, which would be what universalizing would mean.

OK, let's just take your premise that everyone (except scalpers themselves) hates scalpers and what they do. I don't hate them. In fact, on more than one occasion, I've been grateful to them. Why, you may ask? Simple. They were there to order something when I wasn't, either because I was unaware of the availability of a product, or because the product was sold out well before I was interested enough to take notice.

For example, during Spooktacular '08, the extremely limited Frankenstein vs the Wolf Man SSE diorama went up for order in the middle of the night, while I was sleeping. If only "true collectors" had ordered it, it still would have sold out long before I awoke in the morning. But in that case, I would not own one today. Fortunately for me, a "scalper" bought one, and I was able to buy it from him on eBay. I have no ill will toward him for what he did.

Now, as far as your "universalizing" argument, it is really rather absurd, and has nothing at all to do with my earlier comment. Even as a straw man, that was a poor example.

 

[devilof76]

No, I don't pay scalper's prices. Who would?

But for those who do, then all the more power to them. I don't expect anyone to live by my values. I have too great appreciation for that thing. Now what was that thing? I forget the word. Oh, right. Liberty.

Scalping does not violate any such principle as live and let live because you have zero claim on any object until you buy it. The contrary would place insane demands on the producer of the object, each of which would be a violation of their personal sovereignty. They have no obligation to their consumers other than to sell what they are being paid for; a practice which roughly resembles the golden rule except that it refuses to demand sacrifices from those it deals with. They expect to gain, just as the buyer does. If they expected the buyer to take a loss when they sold their product, they would have no buyers, and there is where the golden rule falls flat on its face.

And as for people who admire Jesus but fail to live up to his impossible example, they are still holding his morality in high regard, and expecting it from others. They attempt to live according to the precepts, regardless of their own fallibilty. To say that people only believe in an idea is missing the point. So long as they believe in it, they will hold all which fails to live up to it in lesser regard. They will consider themselves as less, whether they consciously acknowledge their failure or not. No one can have it both ways.

 

[RoboDad]

So are you saying that you would PREFER to pay more for a collectible by buying from a scalper? That is what you are implying.

Actually, he implied no such thing. You merely inferred it.

If you don't want to or would prefer not to pay scalper prices, then you are admitting that there is wrongness in scalping.

This is what is known as a non sequitur. Your conclusion does not logically follow the premise of the preceding statement.

 

[Blackthornone]

Actually, he implied no such thing. You merely inferred it.


This is what is known as a non sequitur. Your conclusion does not logically follow the premise of the preceding statement.

No, if scalping is not wrong, then that means that there must be nothing wrong with it. If you really agree with something, than you must support it. Since scalping involves inequity, and if inequity in a transaction is wrong, which I think it is, than scalping must be wrong.

 

[devilof76]

OK, let's just take your premise that everyone (except scalpers themselves) hates scalpers and what they do. I don't hate them. In fact, on more than one occasion, I've been grateful to them. Why, you may ask? Simple. They were there to order something when I wasn't, either because I was unaware of the availability of a product, or because the product was sold out well before I was interested enough to take notice.

For example, during Spooktacular '08, the extremely limited Frankenstein vs the Wolf Man SSE diorama went up for order in the middle of the night, while I was sleeping. If only "true collectors" had ordered it, it still would have sold out long before I awoke in the morning. But in that case, I would not own one today. Fortunately for me, a "scalper" bought one, and I was able to buy it from him on eBay. I have no ill will toward him for what he did.

Perfect example of the invaluable service scalpers/flippers offer, for which they deserve gratitude.

 

[devilof76]

No, if scalping is not wrong, then that means that there must be nothing wrong with it. If you really agree with something, than you must support it. Since scalping involves inequity, and if inequity in a transaction is wrong, which I think it is, than scalping must be wrong.

Scalping isn't wrong. Deal with it.

 

[RoboDad]

No, if scalping is not wrong, then that means that there must be nothing wrong with it. If you really agree with something, than you must support it. Since scalping involves inequity, and if inequity in a transaction is wrong, which I think it is, than scalping must be wrong.

No. You still miss the point. Your conclusion, "you are admitting there is wrongness in scalping" was based on the premise "you don't want to or would prefer not to pay scalper prices". In order for that to be logically correct, any substitution must also fit. I don't want to, and would prefer not to eat cauliflower. Does that infer that there must be some "wrongness" about cauliflower? No. Therefore, your argument is illogical.

 

[Blackthornone]

No, I don't pay scalper's prices. Who would?

But for those who do, then all the more power to them. I don't expect anyone to live by my values. I have too great appreciation for that thing. Now what was that thing? I forget the word. Oh, right. Liberty.

Scalping does not violate any such principle as live and let live because you have zero claim on any object until you buy it. The contrary would place insane demands on the producer of the object, each of which would be a violation of their personal sovereignty. They have no obligation to their consumers other than to sell what they are being paid for; a practice which roughly resembles the golden rule except that it refuses to demand sacrifices from those it deals with. They expect to gain, just as the buyer does. If they expected the buyer to take a loss when they sold their product, they would have no buyers, and there is where the golden rule falls flat on its face.

And as for people who admire Jesus but fail to live up to his impossible example, they are still holding his morality in high regard, and expecting it from others. They attempt to live according to the precepts, regardless of their own fallibilty. To say that people only believe in an idea is missing the point. So long as they believe in it, they will hold all which fails to live up to it in lesser regard. They will consider themselves as less, whether they consciously acknowledge their failure or not. No one can have it both ways.

Scalping violates live and let live, because the greater implication of live and let live is not to put yourself in a position where you would have power over anyone else for any reason. To really follow live and let live, you can never take advantage of anyone for any reason in any way, or cause a situation in which there would be any inequity between yourself and another person, if there is any interaction between the two of you. That is the deeper implication of "Live and Let Live". You can't just do whatever, and then apply live and let live after the fact, and say, ok, NOW I will try to live my life by this rule.
When you look at the deeper logical implications of following live and let live, they are far more reaching than it would superficially seem to be. The way to test and determine the real impact of any philosophy is to take it to the extreme, and not just look at it from the middle. Anything can be defended from the middle.

Buyers will still buy even if they are expected to take a loss. The golden rule never falls on it's face, because it demands an even exchange, with no inequity, or real profit.

The miracles that Jesus performed may have been impossible for some people, but his code of conduct is possible for everyone. Just look at Dr. Albert Schweitzer. He had no miraculous powers.

 

[creecher]

Scalping is only considered wrong by the IRS because aren't getting their share. They'll plug this loophole in time. They have your financial details by hooking up with the banks, so all they have to do is hook up to ebay and paypal for a start.

 

[Blackthornone]

No. You still miss the point. Your conclusion, "you are admitting there is wrongness in scalping" was based on the premise "you don't want to or would prefer not to pay scalper prices". In order for that to be logically correct, any substitution must also fit. I don't want to, and would prefer not to eat cauliflower. Does that infer that there must be some "wrongness" about cauliflower? No. Therefore, your argument is illogical.

Actually, it would imply that either there is something wrong with cauliflower, or something wrong about cauliflower for you at that moment, because maybe you are full, or your mouth is full, or you are too ill to eat, or whatever, or that there is something wrong with you for not wanting that cauliflower. Not wanting something ALWAYS indicates wrongness in some way.

 

[RoboDad]

The miracles that Jesus performed may have been impossible for some people, but his code of conduct is possible for everyone. Just look at Dr. Albert Schweitzer. He had no miraculous powers.

I'm sorry, but you just crossed a major line for me. Your implication that it is somehow immoral to resell a product for more than it cost you to buy is utterly ridiculous (I'm fairly confident that every business owner on the planet would disagree with you on that one). But then to try to use the example of the Savior to prove your weak argument is, in my view, morally repugnant.